So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
That “Genghis Khan” argument could be used for literally any moral code, from Dawkins’ near-violent atheism to Mother Teresa’s sincere Catholicism. It’s one of the basics of good fiction, and of reality as well – no one ever considers himself a villain. Everyone will claim that whatever they do is justified – and the worse it is, the more likely it is that the justification will involve the “greater good”.
In short, Tim, the comparison is utterly meaningless, and getting angry over it has no point. Your opposite number in this conversation needs to work a bit on the ol’ rhetoric, though…
It is necessary to distinguish between science and morality. Let’s take the example of killing someone. Suppose person A is considering killing person B. All science can tell you about it is to describe the related phenomenon that generally occur when a person is killed. These can be biological phenomena, chemical, social, historical, psychological etc. These generalizations are scientific laws. However, science cannot tell us why thou shall not kill.
So why not to kill?
A religious person will say that he does not kill because it is forbidden by God (or laws ascribed to god).
A humanist will say that he doesn’t kill because he ascribes value to human life.
An egotist, because he fears harm to himself.
And so on.
In each case the person is doing something similar to that of the scientist, he makes an observation that killing is against god’s law, or will result in harm to himself etc. But when you ask each of them, why should you follow god’s laws, why ascribe value to human life, why does it matter if you yourself are harmed? There is no way to answer that question. This is beyond scientific observation, it is a moral choice. Evolution and antropology may tell us that humans have a tendancy to attribute value to the authority of god, or to other humans, or to their own well being. The sympathy I feel to the suffering of another may very well be the result of evolution. Yet, still I have a choice to ignore that sympathy. I have no choice about obeying the laws of physics.
“How do you get everyone to define “harm” in the same way?”
Supposedly the argument between those who support the war in Iraq and those who oppose it is that the first consider the war to be beneficial, and the other think it is harmful. However the argument is not about the definition of harm, or whether harm is something good or bad. The argument then is not about moral choice, it is about observation and prediction — is the war harmful or beneficial? Will it be harmful or beneficial in the future? etc. Many but not all moral arguments are not about defining harm.
However, in the case of abortion defining harm is difficult, both because of the problem of definning life, and because of references to harm to the soul.
The case of racism is also difficult, because racists don’t consider harm to inferior races to be bad.
But even in these cases the sides of the argument tend to refer to similar concepts of harm, so that a moral argument is not futile.
Micha
Or…
3) It is a logical comparison showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass. I.E. the moral basis is the same in either case; it is subjective and therefore it can’t be universal. Anyone’s inner compass must be as valid as anyone else’s. You refer to a “moral duty” and the disconnect is where does that moral duty come from. If it comes from within, then it is subjective; my within doesn’t match your within, so who’s is valid and who’s is not? By taking offense, you’re saying your way is right and how dare I disagree? I should live up to your morals and not be offensive. My morals say I wasn’t offensive.
IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone’s behavior can be held up to that code for validity. Genghis Kahn’s falls short. So does mine.
Science is a process; Logic is a process. I understand the difference. Both can be examined for inconsistancies, though, and emotion is a great way to cloud the issue. Taking offense because a question is raised is your right, but it’s hardly helpful.
Micha discusses consequences, which is helpful in determining universal application, if you can get everyone to agree to terms, or they must be encoded into law. The Law is an outside construct imposing a lawful code. She is also right in saying most of us come to a moral agreement of sorts by various means; God, Humanism, Centrism. The gray areas tend to get greyer, though. Urg, I’m too tired to make sense….
Time out: everyone grab a relaxing beverage of their choice and chug it. Repeat as necessary.
Happy Chrismahanakwanzaka everyone. Or just enjoy your day off next week… whatever floats your boat…
Why am I thinking of the school play from the first South Park holiday show? (Happy, Happy, Happy… Everybody’s Happy)
No time off for me – just recently landed a job as a night auditor/front desk clerk at the local Hilton, and as the junior guy on shift, I get those nights. (Besides, the current night auditor just got out of the Navy, and hasn’t been back to see his mother in NC for three years, so…)
Robbnn, this is clearly pointless. I don’t think either one of us is paying the slightest bit of attention to the other. (I will say, though, that “where does that moral duty come from?” is not a disconnect. It’s a question. Please use words correctly.)
Have a good holiday.
TWL
>Or…
>3) It is a logical comparison showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass. I.E. the moral basis is the same in either case; it is subjective and therefore it can’t be universal. Anyone’s inner compass must be as valid as anyone else’s. You refer to a “moral duty” and the disconnect is where does that moral duty come from. If it comes from within, then it is subjective; my within doesn’t match your within, so who’s is valid and who’s is not? By taking offense, you’re saying your way is right and how dare I disagree? I should live up to your morals and not be offensive. My morals say I wasn’t offensive.
>IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone’s behavior can be held up to that code for validity. Genghis Kahn’s falls short. So does mine.
Not sure I agree with a Christian moral code kacing subjectivity. Wasn’t it Robinson who recently said that we should kill a leader in order to save money. He certainly appeared to believes what he was saying, yet several other prominent Christians denounced his words and he eventually caved to the pressure and said he spoke out of line. Abortion clinic bombings, justified war theory, voting for a pro-life candidate, obstaining from alcohol, etc. These are just a few examples that my not-yet-awake brain is coming up with. Subjectivity exists not only wihin those who believe in God, but within any religious sect that has more than 1 person.
Fred
But … okay, fine, one last time.
Where does the moral duty I mentioned come from?
I think I answered this before, at least in part — but it comes from a recognition of our shared humanity and our shared world. Given how interconnected things pretty much always turn out to be upon further examination, you should always assume that harm you cause is going to rebound back on you at some point and in some way.
There. Is that an answer that is more what you had in mind?
And since you’re now trying to argue that you’ve only been following logical consequences … a logical flaw exists in your justification for using the Genghis Khan comparison, kiddo. You’re now saying that it’s showing the subjectivity of an inner moral compass — but you drew the comparison before you even waited for my answer about where said moral code came from. Either you’re clairvoyant and knew what my answer was going to be in advance, or you’re … well, let’s leave it at “mistaken” when you describe your motives after the fact.
Y’know, it wouldn’t have been hard for you to apologize. A simple “I have not been meaning to cause offense, but I can see how my phrasing could upset you, and I apologize for any offense I might have inadvertently caused” would have worked wonders here. Instead you’ve been accusing me of taking offense in order to avoid any actual discussion. How exactly does that fit in with your moral code? Does said code read something like “don’t worry about causing offense, because You Are Right”?
Now I really am done with this.
TWL
No your not, Tim. :p
he eventually caved to the pressure and said he spoke out of line.
Actually, he just gave a mealy-mouthed excuse that he was misquoted – by the video cameras in his own TV studio.
Robertson is an example of the kind of people who believe that they are so righteous that anything they say or do is justified because it’s for the “greater good.” I sincerely doubt his moral code comes from God. It comes from his own ego.
You can find people with this kind of mentality in any kind of belief system, both religious and nonreligious.
Den, that was my point. Subjectivity, rationalization and personal interpretation enters into every religious organization and its participants that I’ve ever encountered or read about.
Fred
Tim,
Actually, yes, that answers it.
Your use of the words “it comes from within me” IS subjective. Left at that, anyone can justify their actions, so the Kahn reference wasn’t clairvoyant. I stand by that is was a logical comparison, but I am sorry you were offended (and I apologize for not believing you were truly offended.)
Scrolling back up to find where you had addressed this before, I saw a post I hadn’t seen before where we must have posted at the same time (the one where said we’re all on the same cliff). So my bad; I wasn’t “not listening,” I missed one. The word “disconnect” came from that question and applying it to what I understood of your worldview. A “moral duty” sounds like a platonic form – something that pre-exists “out there” and not “in here” hence the disconnect in my mind.
Robertson, Fred Phelps, and such simply prove my point. You know and I know they fall short of a godly moral standard. I fall short of it constantly. The moral standard I try to adhere to is far more difficult than one I would invent. With an objective moral standard, you’ve got a yard stick. We have the same problem as the Humanist philosophy in that we may not agree on terms, but ultimately you’ve got accountability and at the end of it all, judgment (by God).
Are your moral codes easy to measure up to?
“I sincerely doubt his moral code comes from God. It comes from his own ego.”
But the problem is, Robertson doesn’t see it that way. This is the danger of large-scale organized religion. On the plus side, the amount of money it can generate from the donations (we can discuss later whether it’s a tithe or not) of the congregation, pooled together, can be used for a lot of constructive purposes.
But when the folks at the top, directing all that power that comes from loyalty and devotion, believe that they can open themselves up to God, receive his instruction, or have God act through them, you enter a dangerous place where anything can be (and has been) justified as doing the will of God.
Put another way, when you say you’re just riding in the boat, and God’s steering, you step away from personal responsibility, and the only thing keeping you from trodding all over everyone else’s rights is a continuing sense that God wants you to restrain yourself. Once that restraint is gone, any outward appearance of morals vanishes. But to you, the person thinking you’re doing God’s will, you remain the most moral of people, because your morals are “whatever God tells me to do.”
The movie Frailty is an excellent example. And a good, creepy movie, to boot. It shows what can happen when one’s perception of reality is so skewed by religion. The film certainly opens up the possibility (spoilers for those that haven’t seen it here) that the family is touched by God in a very real way, and that the killing they do is indeed working on God’s behalf. But to the rest of the world, they just look like every other psychotic serial killer.
So, is one (religious/societal moral code or internal belief system) better than the other? That depends on your viewpoint…to the person getting killed at the hand of a Christian Crusader, no, the religious moral code kinda sucks. To the person getting killed by the serial killer that thinks it’s ok to kill homeless people, well, that internal moral code sucks as well.
The thing is, Robbnn seems to be looking for a way to validate the moral codes we all have. Simply put, there isn’t. There’s no objective measuring stick to put everyone’s set of morals against. Society’s laws attempt to codify some of the more common ones, but even those are not all communually accepted.
We all start out as selfishly oriented individuals, only concerned with our own needs and wants. Anyone with a newborn can tell you that. It’s only as we grow older that we learn that sometimes our own desires have to take a back seat to other things. Whatever moral code you have, it comes from your family, your friends, religion in some cases, education (as Tim’s description seems to be one based on a heightened understanding of the interelation of all things to all other things), and personal experiences. Given that, to expect that there would be some universal, base set of morals seems rather foolish to me.
Robbnn said “IF God exists, and IF he has issued a moral code, THEN anyone’s behavior can be held up to that code for validity.” Which is true, but it contains the same problems any discussion of a moral code: what is God’s code? People have been debating the finer points of the Bible for centuries. The best, and some of the not-so best, minds have attempted to discern the single, true message of that book. So even IF God did put a message about Life, the Universe and Everything in the Bible, we’ve not been able to agree what that is in over 2000 years.
Your use of the words “it comes from within me” IS subjective. Left at that, anyone can justify their actions, so the Kahn reference wasn’t clairvoyant.
Timestamps are wonderful things.
You asked me where said moral code came from at 1:14 yesterday afternoon.
I answered you at 1:27 (with the “within me” part).
You made the Genghis Khan reference at 1:14, before my answer had appeared. Thus, you made the reference at the same time as you asked the question. That makes it extraordinarily difficult to claim that the reference is in response to my answer.
I leave it to better philosophers than I as to what this all means in the larger scope of your own moral code.
TWL
Bobb, you are absolutely right, religion has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. So has nationalism and ethnic pride.
The reason why I’m not a believer in large-scale organized religion is the very reason you mention: Sooner or later, it becomes more about money and power then about morality. I personally believe that one’s spiritual path should be a personal thing and not subject to the external dogmas demands of people who are more interested in their own self-egrandisement then in helping people.
Okay, you’re right. I was wrong. I thought I was responding to one thing and misrepresented what I was actually responding to. I went back and checked and found that I’d included my justification in the comment:
“The rest of what you said can be attributed to… (okay, I won’t say that name because it ends converstations, how about…) Gangis Kahn. He was trying to make the world a better place for his loved ones.”
No clairvoyance, no saying “you ARE Kahn”, not even saying “you are like Kahn” just “Kahn could say the same thing”. Honestly, Tim, this wouldn’t offend me. I am SORRY you took offense to this. If I knew you in person, probably why you took such offense would make sense to me, but it was never my intent to offend.
Bobb, yes, anyone who is not under accountability can be whacked out. We are sinners all. I believe there is a standard that we are all answerable to, though. I am interested in the question of globalization, which seems to be a liberal desire, yet when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, globalization isn’t remotely possible. Bush seems to be taking the first steps of globalization by trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, which can work because capitalism turns selfishness somewhat to good ends. I doubt globalization will work in our lifetimes (well, not in mine, anyway, I’m older than most of you, I think).
Anyway, Tim, thank you for sticking with it so long. I’m sorry it couldn’t have been a smoother ride. It has been instructive and I appreciate your persistance.
Happy Holiday’s, all. Or, just Happy-Happy for those to which that applies.
Is it Festivus time yet?
To all those travelling this weekend and next, safe journies, and return here so we can all engage in more philosphical/religious/political debate.
oh, and talk about PAD’s comics, too.
Tim,
“and Jerome’s pet parakeet probably corrected him in private e-mail”
How did you know I have a pet parakeet?!?! You really do have a gift:)
Seriously, though, I would like to wish you and everyone a Happy Holiday Season. Just enjoy it. Life is too short not to enjoy as many moments as you can.
On that, I think we all can agree.
“No clairvoyance, no saying “you ARE Kahn”, not even saying “you are like Kahn” just “Kahn could say the same thing”.”
I can’t resist:
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHN!!!
Happy/Merry Whatever, everybody.
…but like a bad marksman, you keep. missing. the target…
I love that movie. 🙂
Ouch. I apologize to one and all for this becoming an “evolution” debate. (I will leave any pun about this discussion “evolving” in better hands than mine.)
That said, it has been educational to read the posts. Your posts have amply illustrated the differences we have in worldviews. Which is a good discussion to have.
Iowa Jim
I just goes to show you something deficiant in my moral makeup that the only part that really got me excited was when someone mentioned the movie “Frailty”.
(VERY underrated, btw).
Well, I made it to PA. No snow this time, a rare thing indeed. My New York relatives, liberal Democrats all, are ready to tar and feather the transit union ( Do ANY of the dues go toward paying someone who understands public relations) but they managed to send me my presents, including (yeah I peeked, can you PROVE that our Lord wasn’t born on the 21st? Can you? Huh? Then shaddup.) a book on how to do really gory makeup effects. Life.Is. Good.
How did you know I have a pet parakeet?!?!
That … would be telling. 🙂
Congrats to Bill on making it to PA intact. Tomorrow’s our turn — we’re driving down to DC to spend Christmas with Lisa’s family. (A serious mix both politically and religiously, so interesting conversations are bound to be had.) A 4-6 hour drive with a 1-year-old; wish us luck.
And Bill, if you feel like giving the title of that effects book (once it’s “officially” yours), I’ve got a friend back in California who’d probably adore it.
Echoed thanks to PAD for giving us all this forum to vent spleens and other assorted internal organs, and a happy (belated) solstice to all!
TWL
Tim
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087830178X/qid=1135289248/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7363211-7093661?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
It’s called Special Effects Make-Up by Janus Vinther
Very very nice.
If your friend is interested in some low budget ideas for horror movies have him get in touch with me. We’ve managed to come up with some particularly nasty and effective stuff on a zero budget. I’m convinced that there isn’t much you can’t do with cotton, gelatin and food coloring.
I may end up having to make a website that shares some of this stuff. Most of my ideas have been outgrowths of stuff I found on the web and I’d like to give some back.
First of all, Micha or Micah or Michah is the name of a man. It is a hebrew biblical name of a small prophet. I am an Israeli living in Jerusalem.
The make a moral choice based on the inner belief that it is the right thing to do is equally as subjective as making a moral choice based on the inner belief that this choice is right according to God’s moral code.
This would be true even if God’s moral code was easily available and understood by us all in the same way without ambiguities. In fact how do we even know that God’s moral code is a good moral code?
The fact that what we do have are many ancient texts full of contradictions and ambiguities and even more interpretations, makes things even more difficult.
Nor is there any objective system of accountability that can help us assess what is moraly right to do, the way that experiments can tell us that our scientific hypotheses are correct. Robynn may believe that Ghengis Khan is toasting in hëll. But we have no objective verification. During his lifetime no sign was given to indicate with certainty that he was acting moraly wrong, but thte only justification we have is our belief that killing a lot of people is wrong.
“I am interested in the question of globalization, which seems to be a liberal desire, yet when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, globalization isn’t remotely possible. Bush seems to be taking the first steps of globalization by trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, which can work because capitalism turns selfishness somewhat to good ends. I doubt globalization will work in our lifetimes (well, not in mine, anyway, I’m older than most of you, I think).”
I don’t exactly understand, nor am I sure your understanding of the terms are correct. The term globalization refers to the economic processes thay connect the economies of the world. It could be said that attempts to hold all the countries accountable to the same legal standards with organs such as the UN, international law, international courts of law etc, came from liberal circles. However there are some obvious problems, mainly that the system is politicized. It is interesting that many Neo-Cons were former liberals. Also note, capitalism and democracy are two seperate things.”
Why is everyone picking on Ghengis Khan? Yeah, a lot of people died during his wars of conquest but that doesn’t make him any worse than Alexander. By many accounts he was a fairly enlightened conqueror.
Ok, ok, I know, Yarnek, the big rock alien from Star Trek’s THE SAVAGE CURATIN included him in the Rogues Gallery of Evil but why should we accept the opinion of an alien that, frankly, looks like Marmaduke just took a dump on the carpet?
“Robynn may believe that Ghengis Khan is toasting in hëll. But we have no objective verification.”
This reminds me of an idea I read in C. S. Lewis’ “A Grief Observed” where he was discussing the question of why God allowed suffering. He said that one possible explanation was a kind of “Extreme Calvinism” and that we were so far removed from God that what he saw as good we would see as evil, and vice versa. So compassion, generosity and so on would be bad, whilst hatred would be good.
While I don’t subscibe to that idea, I do believe that God is so far above our understanding that religion is little more than a guideline. While (as a Christian) I belive that the big J.C. is “the way the truth and the life” I also can’t believe in a God who would allow a murderer to go to Heaven after a conversion, but send Mahatma Ghandi to hëll.
Bill, also, let us not forget that Yarnek only had what he could pull from the Enterprise crew’s minds to work with, which is why his version of Khaless was fairly despicable, not to mention flat-foreheaded.
Besides, when one believes in reincarnation, it generally removes Hëll from the equation altogether. So, ol’ Ghengis would probably be wandering around still, working off karmic debts and moving ever closer to ultimate enlightenment.
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, if that’s the case, shouldn’t the world be becoming an ever better place? If people are all trying to work off their previous karmic debts how do we end up with a Hitler or Mao–is it possible that they are the reincarnation of someone even WORSE?
Not a beiever in reincarnation though it has a tremendous amount of appeal–it would certainly help explain why certain historical events are so appealing to me while others illicit a shrug. (My big problem with reincarnationis that people who follow it always manage to trace their lineage back to Charlamane or Joan of Arc or some of the other major figures of history. Since the vast vast vast majority of people are not the major figures of history, that seems pretty unlikely. How come nobody ever undergoes hypnotic regression and ends up discovering that they are the reincarnation of the guy who cleaned Charlamane’s stables or some French peasent who said “Hey look, there goes Joan of Arc?”)
is it possible that they are the reincarnation of someone even WORSE?
I suppose that’s possible.
I mean, until the last couple of hundred years, you really couldn’t go genocidal on the human race as a whole – most of the worst people of hundreds or thousands of years past had their own little corner of the globe to ruin, instead of the entire world. 🙂
That’s more of a modern thing, due to modern methods of warfare and other wonderful creations of the human mind (such as gassing chambers).
I don’t believe in karma, but Re-incarnation is one of those fun things. If reincarnation is real, what purpose does it actually serve?
What, if any, memories, tendencies, personality traits, etc carry over between lives? How long is the gap between the end of one’s life and the new beginning in a reincarnated form, and what happens in that interim? Are they somehow aware that they’ve had past lives, and compare notes on them, before being sent to a fresh start with no recollection of the past lives?
Is the declining animal population the result of the increasing human population? Are there a finite number of “souls/spirits/consciouses” on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?
All fun and exciting questions…
I’m no expert, but don’t some religions teach that there are “old souls” and “young souls”? As some of the older souls achieve nirvanna, they move on to the next plain of existence while the young souls continue on in this one? Certainly, with a world population at about 6.5 billion, there are a lot more souls on Earth then have ever been here before. Maybe the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world represent the young souls that haven’t “learned” yet and are still accruing massive karmic.
Although, I have to admit that the idea of Hitler being continuously reborn until he learns not to commit genocide is a pretty chilling one.
Especially, if you believe in eveil, who says a reincarnated Hitler is trying to to “better” in terms of being a good human, rather than “better” in terms of more evil, violent and destructive?
Are there a finite number of “souls/spirits/consciouses” on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?
This is all starting to sound extremely Minbari to me. Who else here (apart from Peter, of course, since he wrote the thing) is thinking of the Delenn/Garibaldi conversation in “Soul Mates”?
TWL
I had an idea once for a seriel killer who was convinced that he was actually ridding the world of the “soulless”; that once we reached the point where there were more people living on Earth than had ever lived before, an increasingly larger proportion of those born were without souls. And he was taking them out. Never really figured out what to do with it, I was just trying to come up with lots of seriel killers for a great idea I had about a seriel killer convention…you know how this ends, right?
(And the worse part is that Gaimen’s story was about 300 times better than ANYTHING I ever would have done, so I’m left with nothing to bìŧçh about. It’s one thing when some piece of crap Sci Fi channel dud comes out with the same idea you had and you can smugly think “Oh well, they should have come to me!” but when they actually do it and it’s better than your wildest dreams…THAT hurts!)
Bladstar–I wondered about some of what you say too–what’s the point of coming back when so much of what makes me me are factors that would not apply in this new life?
Hey Bill,
That kinda ties into the “why” are you coming back thing.
Maybe the whole point is all the past life stuff is “buried” and subconsious, part of the whole nature vs. nuture argument about what shapes a person.
Fun stuff if you don’t want to fall asleep and give your self insomnia 🙂
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that proponents of reincarnation are just like those of any other spiritual belief in that you’ll find as many beliefs as people, and the wingnuts are always going to be the ones shouting for attention the loudest. Five people claim to be Joan of Arc, odds are all five are nutbars and the REAL reincarnation of Joan either doesn’t know it, or knows it and is content to sit back and laugh at the loonies.
Now, for myself at least, my beliefs in reincarnation are built, firstly, on personal experience. (This is where people either want to know more or decide I’m one of the wingnuts) Secondly is my belief in God as an infinitely patient parental figure. We are his (or her or it’s or their) children, and I don’t believe a loving parent would condemn a child to ETERNAL hëll. Now, I’m fairly certain there’s some sort of hëll for those whose lives are particularly atrocious (Hitler) but one that is as bad and lasts as long as is appropriate before said soul being sent back to continue it’s journey.
I’m not sure if souls pick where they get born next, or if the higher power picks, or if it’s some combination of the two, but I know that we tend to come back into contact with people we’ve known before, either because we simply like being around them, or we have unresolved issues to take care of.
Lastly, at least for now since I should probably actually try to get some work done, much of the belief in karma and reincarnation is based on belief that there’s no such thing as a truly evil soul. Honestly, that’s one that I struggle with, being relatively new to search for truth outside of what I was raised with.
But then, only those on the other side know for sure, and they aren’t telling…
-Rex Hondo-
Whoops, one thing I wanted to address, but forgot. Why people generally don’t remember things like “Gee, there goes Joan of Arc,” is the same reason most people couldn’t tell you what they had for dinner this evening last year. It’s just not particularly memorable, and what’s more in a more spiritual sense, there isn’t any particular lesson to be learned from it.
Just like pretty much anybody can tell you where they were on 9/11, the things that stick out for people with (real) past life experiences are things like particularly violent and/or unpleasant deaths.
There’s also a certain amount of faith involved that we remember those things that we are meant to remember when it is the right time to do so.
-Rex Hondo-
Geez, I wander off for a few days and y’all forget to stop posting.
Micha: I think Richard Dawkins himself has spent much time arguing against religious thought I’m not 100% sure if his arguments are the result of an ideological animosity towards religion, or just that he feels the need to defend evolution against creationist attempts to undermine it by presenting divine creation as a legitimate scientific theory.
That isn’t an either/or proposition. For one thing, if he fears that creationists are trying to undermine science, he might form a genuine animosity for them and their cause. Think of it as a scientific Red Scare. Dawkins is also on record (in The Blind Watchmaker) saying that before Darwin it was virtually impossible to be an atheist. Of atheism before Darwin, he further wrote, “I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” I’m not sure what exactly to make of that comment, but it does appear to be safe to say that a belief in evolution is part of Dawkins’s world view as well as his professional opinion. It would be a little weird if he didn’t form an emotional attachment to a tenet so fundamental.
Den: But nevermind the fact that, if thats the case, this also existed under Bush Sr, as well as Reagan, who I feel was far more likely to use this abuse of power than Clinton & Carter.
And your basis for this is… oh, right, they’re Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.
And for what it’s worth, the people who are bringing up the “why didn’t you complain about X under Clinton?” aren’t saying that X is okay now, so much as they’re calling the complainants hypocrites who are strategically outraged. With regard to this incident, it seems to me that, “We didn’t know about it until last week,” would be a pretty good defense to that accusation, but only a moron would think that the only hypocrites in politics are Bush apologists.
Bill: We have some lawyer types here. It isn’t unusual for a president to assert executive privalge or powers and then have them later determined to be invalid. If Bush argues that his Attorney general and other legal scholars determined that precedent and the war powers act allowed him to do this, how likely is it that he would be impeached?
Near zero. For one thing, the White House, House and Senate are controlled by the same party. The only way for Bush to be impeached would be if he had done something completely nuts, like using the NSA to wiretap political enemies, which is an allegation I’ve only seen on this blog, and then only in the postings of one person. So, as a practical matter, it ain’t happening. But the answer would be the same if the Democrats were running Congress, for two reasons. One is that the President couched this in terms of a foreign policy operation– note that the wiretapping was on communications that had one endpoint overseas. The President’s authority over international relations is essentially untrammelled. Given that the Government has previously had an assassination department at the CIA and nobody got impeached, it’s hard to claim that this is the abuse of power that someone should be impeached over. The second issue is that the Federal government is actually designed for branches to push the envelope of their authority, and promptly be shot down by the other branches when they overreach. (Q.v. Federalist #51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”) Simple overreaching isn’t going to prompt an impeachment, particularly if the President has cover from his legal counsel. Abuse of power isn’t sufficient; he’d have to abuse his power for personal gain (e.g. Watergate) to generate that level of opposition.
TWL: You have no better answer if I were to ask you the same question, since I don’t accept “from God” as a meaningful answer.
Two things:
1) Whether you accept the answer isn’t important. God either exists or not independent of your approval. If he exists, that implies certain things about the nature of the universe that don’t require anyone’s consent. Either way:
2) Whether God exists or not isn’t determinative. A person’s belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief. I suspect your counterargument is that it’s still from “within himself” in some sense, but I think there’s a fundamental distinction between “it comes from within myself because of a philosophy I’ve devised for myself” and “it comes from within myself because I hold certain assumptions about how the universe is constructed.” Fear of what happens after death is an effective deterrent even if that fear will never, in fact, be realized.
3) Get over the Genghis Khan refrence already. It was a reductio ad absurdam comment to begin with, aimed at moral relativism generally, not at you. (Since you don’t actually seem to be a moral relativist, none of this debate makes much sense to me. Let’s all gang up to bash Jean-Paul Sartre instead.)
Grownups don’t need a morality that’s imposed from without.
Maybe you don’t. Maybe I don’t. But if people didn’t need to be forced to behave, I wouldn’t have a job. People are oversized chimpanzees, and sometimes they/we act like it. Okay, Sartre did have one thing right: hëll really is other people.
Merry Christmas!
OK, that was three things rather than two things.
And your basis for this is… oh, right, they’re Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.
And it’s comments like this that lead me to believe you’re an áššhølë.
But hey, even though I’ve called for not only Bush’s head over this, but the heads of any one of those worthless morons in Congress who knew about this, that means jack šhìŧ to you, right?
Oh, and in case you didn’t get it…
For all those who feel like defending The Scum that is Bush, here’s something for you to take note of:
Bush is the idiot that got caught red-handed over his latest little power trip.
Not Clinton. Or Daddy, or Reagan, or Carter.
Bush.
Maybe some of you will remember that the next time you plan on blaming Clinton for the problems that Bush created.
1) Whether you accept the answer isn’t important.
Actually it is. If someone wasn’t accepting my answer as to the source of my moral code, I think it’s relevant to point out that their answer will be equally unsatisfactory to my “side” (not that there should be sides in this, but you get the idea).
A person’s belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief.
Fair enough.
I trust that you also saw some of my other posts, where I did give more of an answer than “from within”. I’d prefer to think that the part you’re responding to here isn’t what you think is the whole of my answer.
TWL
Me (responding to Den): And your basis for this is… oh, right, they’re Democrats and therefore morally superior. Gotcha.
Ries: And it’s comments like this that lead me to believe you’re an áššhølë.
Understandable. I think that people who proclaim the supremacy of Democrats are áššhølëš too. But I was being sarcastic.
Look, Den made a random ad hominem attack on Bush1 and Reagan, saying that they’d be more likely to abuse power than Carter and Clinton, with no further supporting argument. I can only assume that he meant that because of their party affiliation. Don’t get huffy with me because a third person made a sloppy argument and I called him on it.
TWL: If someone wasn’t accepting my answer as to the source of my moral code, I think it’s relevant to point out that their answer will be equally unsatisfactory to my “side” (not that there should be sides in this, but you get the idea).
I see what you’re doing, which is really what I’m getting at. I don’t think the other poster had the “authority” (for lack of a better term) to deny the validity of your statement. By turning the tables, all you’re really doing is duplicating that fallacy. I don’t think that either of you gets to define the terms of the debate by simply refusing to accept the other’s premise.
I trust that you also saw some of my other posts, where I did give more of an answer than “from within”. I’d prefer to think that the part you’re responding to here isn’t what you think is the whole of my answer.
No, I was responding to that particular strand of argument.
Are there a finite number of “souls/spirits/consciouses” on earth? For another being to be born, does one have to die?
This is all starting to sound extremely Minbari to me. Who else here (apart from Peter, of course, since he wrote the thing) is thinking of the Delenn/Garibaldi conversation in “Soul Mates”?
Actually, it’s putting me in mind of George Carlin, on the album On the Road…
“There used to be six people, right? I mean, I avoid two, because it’s controversial, but most people are willing to say, ‘Yeah, at one time, there were six people.’ So, six people, six souls. Six people die, six new people – still six souls. Now you’ve got billions of people, all claiming to have souls! Someone’s printing up souls!! And it lowers their value, you know…”
At least we have lots of good news coming out here at the end of the year–The IMF has decided that Iraq is stable enough to lend them $685 million dollars; the UMass Dartmouth student who claimed he was harassed by Homeland Security agents after checking out Mao’s Little Red Book has admitted that it was a hoax (how anyone believed this is beyond me); a huge chache of dodo bones has been found; it turns out the Koreans aren’t as far ahead of us in stem cell research as some thought they were; and best of all, research shows that playing a Didgeridoo might cure sleep apnea. I’ve been looking for an excuse.
Look, Den made a random ad hominem attack on Bush1 and Reagan, saying that they’d be more likely to abuse power than Carter and Clinton, with no further supporting argument.
Did Den say that? I didn’t notice.
I, too, said it seemed more likely that Reagan would abuse his power in such a fashion.
Carter was too timid.
Bush Sr, based on how the Gulf War went, seemed more than willing to play by the rules (see: not taking out Saddam when we had the chance).
Reagan already proved that rules don’t matter thanks to the “Must Win” attitude of the Cold War, and the Iran-Contra stuff.
If Clinton was impeached over a bløwjøb, just imagine what would’ve happened had he done something like this.
And if you want to go back a little further, is it any surprise to see such abuses of power in the Bush Administration when Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Nixon?
And if you want to go back a little further, is it any surprise to see such abuses of power in the Bush Administration when Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Nixon?
The scary part is, this implies that Nixon may have been his administration’s force for moderation…
Now, as I recall from HS history (which is admittedly a bit foggy, being over a decade ago) Nixon, pre-Watergate, was actually one of the better presidents of the latter part of the 20th century. The main reson he’s so vilified is that HE GOT CAUGHT. Historically, people have always assumed a certain amount of corruption by their leaders, and haven’t really cared all that much. But, we DO hope that they’re competent enough to not get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. People can generally forgive a bit of corruption in a leader, but incompetence is unforgiveable. (At least, apparently, until the last decade or so)
-Rex Hondo-
Nixon did some good things–re-establishing relations with China being the main one. But his total abuse of power, over and above Watergate, made him unfit for office. The enemies list, using the power of the Federal government to harass his opponents, these are the reasons he deserved his fate.