Why Be Moral?

[Immanuel Can]

IC, you are going to believe what you believe, and I understand why.

I'm not sure how you do.

How could you know why I did something...unless you were generalizing your experience to me, which may or may not be a good way to go? One thing for sure; it's probably not a one-for-one match, and maybe not anything very close.

That being said, I'm interested in your own experience, even if it's not quite the same.

As I studied and became aware of the contradictions in Christianity, and in what the Bible taught, I had to work harder and harder to defend my views, until I was finally honest with myself, that what I was doing was not reasoning, but rationalizing to make, "sense," of Bible teaching, because it was what I wanted to believe.

That's an interesting experience.

I have to say that it was not mine. I rather went the other way...from skepticism to faith.

Were your beliefs received from someone else? It seems so, as I read below...

All of apologetics is not an attempt to discover the truth, but an attempt to defend what one has decided is going to be true, no matter what.

I wouldn't say so.

That's what you could say about the worst kind of apologetics...whether for belief or for another position like agnosticism or Atheism. It's always possible for people to amass selective evidences, and to ignore the greater mass of data. All ideological interest groups do that, at their worst.

But I wouldn't say that's what apologetics at their best are. Rather, at best, they are a way of offering ways of removing rational impediments to taking faith seriously. Apologetics do not change minds all by themselves, of course; but they have their utility, in that when somebody has become "blocked" by some misunderstanding or some critique, they can sometimes "unjam" the problem, and permit reason to proceed. And when they do that, they have their uses.

So I was more than willing to hear, and the more carefully I listened the more I became aware of the dissonance of the song, deceptively appealing like the Siren's song, but all, unfortunately, a lie.

I'm interested. Whose "song" were you hearing? Who was singing?

It was different, in my case. The first "song" for which I really "had ears" was that of the agnostics and secularists, and some of the angry Atheists of great repute. But you listen to them long enough, and you begin to hear how bitter and hostile they are, and how empty, contrived and self-serving are all their prescriptions. Me, I grew weary of their dusty and implausible attempts to interpret things like evil and suffering, against which, to me, it looked like they had no defence at all; but that they were involved in a sort of bad-apologetics operation, with the aim of avoiding the fundamental problems altogether. Like Job, I could call out, "Miserable comforters are ye all!"

Perhaps the agnostic writer Thomas Hardy was right, when he penned, "...if way to the better there be / It exacts a full look at the worst." That means recognizing the problem of evil, of failure, of pain, of loss and of death for exactly what it is -- a problem for which all these cynical cacklers have not even the start of an answer. And maybe it's only when you get that serious that one is ready to start a dialogue with God. Up to that point, one is more or less content to go on as if life will always get better, dreams will still be fulfilled, and death will never come. But that sort of unseriousness seems to me to be the opposite of real critical reflection.

As you see, I am not making an argument here. I know better than to try to convince you. You've made your decision and it would be wrong for me to attempt to change it.

Wrong? Of course it wouldn't be wrong. If you know a truth, it would be an act of respect and kindness to share it. To know a truth and yet to withhold it would be rather unkind.

[RCSaunders]

IC, you are going to believe what you believe, and I understand why.

I'm not sure how you do.

How could you know why I did something...unless you were generalizing your experience to me, which may or may not be a good way to go? One thing for sure; it's probably not a one-for-one match, and maybe not anything very close.

I understand what you've told me, so, unless you lied to me, that's how I know.

Unless you are claiming some kind of devine revelation not available to all human beings, why would understanding why you believe what you do, just as you've explained it, not be understandable?

As I studied and became aware of the contradictions in Christianity, and in what the Bible taught, I had to work harder and harder to defend my views, until I was finally honest with myself, that what I was doing was not reasoning, but rationalizing to make, "sense," of Bible teaching, because it was what I wanted to believe.

That's an interesting experience.

Were your beliefs received from someone else? It seems so, as I read below...

I was brought up in a nominal Christian family who attended a rather formal but doctrinally liberal Congregational church. It was my own observation of the contradictory nature of claiming to believe in God and the Bible and not living as though one actually did that stimulated me to find out what the Bible actually taught. Beginning with reading the Bible, finding good commentators and theologians in the library, and assuming that the Bible was true was how I came to my beliefs, and I have always acted on what I believed. I was convinced I was a sinner and needed a, "new birth," confessed my sins and embraced Jesus as my Savior claiming the verse, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." And confess I did. I memorized a few hundred Bible verses, became a soul-winner, went to a Bible school, was licensed to preach, wrote sermons from every book of the Bible, had an ardent prayer life, etc. etc. etc. At one time I could sing from memory most of the old hymns, and most of the newer evangelical hymns, and understood the doctrinal significance of them all, (such as why, "Joy to the World," is not a Christmas carol).

All of apologetics is not an attempt to discover the truth, but an attempt to defend what one has decided is going to be true, no matter what.

I wouldn't say so.

That's what you could say about the worst kind of apologetics...whether for belief or for another position like agnosticism or Atheism. It's always possible for people to amass selective evidences, and to ignore the greater mass of data. All ideological interest groups do that, at their worst.

But I wouldn't say that's what apologetics at their best are. Rather, at best, they are a way of offering ways of removing rational impediments to taking faith seriously. Apologetics do not change minds all by themselves, of course; but they have their utility, in that when somebody has become "blocked" by some misunderstanding or some critique, they can sometimes "unjam" the problem, and permit reason to proceed. And when they do that, they have their uses.

I have no idea if that is ever true, but I have never discovered a case when it is. One thing I learned long ago is that sure knowledge does not require programs to promote it, and apologetics to defend it. There are no organizations promoting or literature defending the teachings of mechanics, electronics, chemistry, geography, and basic astronomy. Truth does not need to be promoted. It may have to be taught but once one knows how an internal combustion engine works or how to solve a quadratic equation it doesn't have to be promoted and proved over and over. As far as I'm concerned anything that requires apologetics is automatically doubtful.

So I was more than willing to hear, and the more carefully I listened the more I became aware of the dissonance of the song, deceptively appealing like the Siren's song, but all, unfortunately, a lie.

I'm interested. Whose "song" were you hearing? Who was singing?

Since it was the Bible (I was an absolute believer in Sola Scripture) I guess you would say it was God. But it wasn't.

As you see, I am not making an argument here. I know better than to try to convince you. You've made your decision and it would be wrong for me to attempt to change it.

Wrong? Of course it wouldn't be wrong. If you know a truth, it would be an act of respect and kindness to share it. To know a truth and yet to withhold it would be rather unkind.

If you don't know the difference between leading the horse to water, and whipping it into drinking, perhaps. The problem with your view is what you mean amounts to interference in someone else's life. If you are interested in what I know and want me to explain it, of course I'd gladly do that, just as I would probably help you change a tire if you were my neighbor, we were on good terms, and you wanted my help. In neither case would I force it on you, because that would be wrong. You are not here to save your neighbor or the world, and if you think you are, it would be thoughtful of you to ask your neighbor and the world if they were really interested in your saving them.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless you are claiming some kind of devine revelation not available to all human beings, why would understanding why you believe what you do, just as you've explained it, not be understandable?

Well, it isn't like your experience, as I said earlier. So if you thought it was...I don't know where you're getting that from.

I was brought up in a nominal Christian family who attended a rather formal but doctrinally liberal Congregational church.

Got it. I see.

My home was quite different from that. So that much isn't the same. Likewise, my start in Christianity wasn't formal. And whether or not it was "liberal" would depend on the meaning associated with that word.

It was my own observation of the contradictory nature of claiming to believe in God and the Bible and not living as though one actually did that stimulated me to find out what the Bible actually taught.

Sorry...just to pause here...can I ask, "Who was "not living as though one actually did?" Was it someone you knew? Or is that an impolite question?

I memorized a few hundred Bible verses, became a soul-winner, went to a Bible school, was licensed to preach, wrote sermons from every book of the Bible, had an ardent prayer life, etc. etc. etc. At one time I could sing from memory most of the old hymns, and most of the newer evangelical hymns, and understood the doctrinal significance of them all.

Well, I wonder what you were then believing. Certainly, it would seem, you were zealous for something. But zeal isn't necessarily a great indicator. I understand the ancient Pharisees were very accomplished. One couldn't become one without having memorized Torah...all five books. And zealous, they certainly were in all their personal practices and activities...really "holy warriors". But Christ Himself thought little of all that, obviously.

All of apologetics is not an attempt to discover the truth, but an attempt to defend what one has decided is going to be true, no matter what.

I wouldn't say so.

That's what you could say about the worst kind of apologetics...whether for belief or for another position like agnosticism or Atheism. It's always possible for people to amass selective evidences, and to ignore the greater mass of data. All ideological interest groups do that, at their worst.

But I wouldn't say that's what apologetics at their best are. Rather, at best, they are a way of offering ways of removing rational impediments to taking faith seriously. Apologetics do not change minds all by themselves, of course; but they have their utility, in that when somebody has become "blocked" by some misunderstanding or some critique, they can sometimes "unjam" the problem, and permit reason to proceed. And when they do that, they have their uses.

I have no idea if that is ever true, but I have never discovered a case when it is.

You could, perhaps, have experience with a different kind of "apologetics."

One thing I learned long ago is that sure knowledge does not require programs to promote it, and apologetics to defend it. There are no organizations promoting or literature defending the teachings of mechanics, electronics, chemistry, geography, and basic astronomy. Truth does not need to be promoted. It may have to be taught but once one knows how an internal combustion engine works or how to solve a quadratic equation it doesn't have to be promoted and proved over and over. As far as I'm concerned anything that requires apologetics is automatically doubtful.

Oh, I think that's pretty clearly historically untrue.

Almost no new discovery in these fields was ever gratefully embraced by the establishment, and it took a certain mass of advocates before these innovations (or paradigm shifts, if you prefer) were made. There were papers...there were lectures...there were demonstrations...there was controversy...there were debates...sometimes, there was even animosity...and finally, when these innovations were accepted, it only came after a lot of resistance and conflict.

I would say that not only do we have all kinds of science advocacy groups, but they have tremendous support from the school system as well. In fact, we are all "apologized" instructed into these disciplines to some extent, these days. And if you add media promotion, you'd have to say that the "apologetics" for these disciplines goes way beyond anything any religious organization has ever conceived of doing.

I'm not saying that's all bad. I'm saying it's not obvious to me that these lack advocacy or an "apologetic."

So I was more than willing to hear, and the more carefully I listened the more I became aware of the dissonance of the song, deceptively appealing like the Siren's song, but all, unfortunately, a lie.

I'm interested. Whose "song" were you hearing? Who was singing?

Since it was the Bible (I was an absolute believer in Sola Scripture) I guess you would say it was God. But it wasn't.

What was it, then? Was it an external voice? Or was it something you were feeling yourself?

Wrong? Of course it wouldn't be wrong. If you know a truth, it would be an act of respect and kindness to share it. To know a truth and yet to withhold it would be rather unkind.

If you don't know the difference between leading the horse to water, and whipping it into drinking, perhaps. [/quote]
I have hitherto been unaware of any whip. That seems a singularly strange metaphor.

The problem with your view is what you mean amounts to interference in someone else's life. If you are interested in what I know and want me to explain it, of course I'd gladly do that, just as I would probably help you change a tire if you were my neighbor, we were on good terms, and you wanted my help. In neither case would I force it on you, because that would be wrong. You are not here to save your neighbor or the world, and if you think you are, it would be thoughtful of you to ask your neighbor and the world if they were really interested in your saving them.

I'm always curious when I hear someone speak, as you do, of "forcing" something on people. "Force" isn't even possible by email. Neither is "interference," for that matter. I think they must be ways of trying to say something else.

But there's something not quite right about the protest. If your house were on fire and you were overcome by the smoke and unconscious inside, I imagine you'd expect me to do a good deal more than simply knock on your door, and leave if you didn't answer. There are certainly times when urgency supersedes other concerns. It depends on what one thinks is at stake, no?

[RCSaunders]

Well, I wonder what you were then believing.

Don't worry about it. I believed the same thing you have said you do. I assume you aren't lying, but it doesn't matter. I thought you would understand, but I was mistaken.

[Nick_A]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:06 am
I don't think the presents any difficulty at all, actually. Think of the word "mind." How many different phenomena are covered under that word? There's thinking, reasoning, feeling, imagining, inventing, remembering, projecting, designing, dreaming....and on, and on, and on. Why should it surprise anyone, since we know so many activities are done in the "heart" of man, that "heart" is a complex concept in Scripture?
Oh, I agree. There is the same confusion and lack of discrimination in philosophy as there is in the Bible.

No, no...I did not say this. You're misrepresenting my words there, RC...or else misunderstanding them. I will not judge which.

What I said is that when an idea is profound it is also multifaceted. A concept like "mind" is not "confused" by the many mental processes associated with it; rather, it is fully fleshed out only when we take into account that it can involve all or any of these processes at a given time. Moreover, when we move from the broad term "mind" to something more specific, like "consciousness" or "reason" or "creativity," we are eliminating ambiguity. And then we can drill down further, and speak of things like "self-awareness," which is also part of the "mind," but is more narrow yet.

We can eliminate ambiguity But what we decide upon is just an expression of an intellectual ability. However it is through the heart that we can experience quality within intellectual expressions. The quality of the human heart reveals the quality of an emotion.

John 21

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

There are different words in the Greek to indicate the quality of love but English translations just use the word love as an intellectual idea making it impossible to understand what Jesus is saying.

Intellectual concepts invite secular definitions of quality since they can be measured. We have no means to measure the quality the heart reveals and are ignorant of how they differ in quality. Attempts to experience or feel their reality are not well received as history has revealed

[Immanuel Can]

I believed the same thing you have said you do.

Well, if there's some ambiguity around the word "heart," there's a lot more around the word "Christian." It's used as a descriptor of a very wide range of things...some of which, is justified, and some (like "Christian society" or "Christian West,") is not so justified. So I trust you'll forgive my need for clarification. No insult was intended.

I thought you would understand,

Perhaps I do. But absent such clarification, I couldn't be certain.

[Immanuel Can]

There are different words in the Greek to indicate the quality of love but English translations just use the word love as an intellectual idea making it impossible to understand what Jesus is saying.

Not at all, Nick. We are very fortunate: in the modern West, and especially since the internet, we all have free access to excellent concordances that are numerically keyed to extensive definitions of each of those words. No confusion about the actual referent in each case need remain.

It's actually quite far from "impossible." I wouldn't say it's even slightly "problematic" anymore.

[Nick_A]

There are different words in the Greek to indicate the quality of love but English translations just use the word love as an intellectual idea making it impossible to understand what Jesus is saying.

Not at all, Nick. We are very fortunate: in the modern West, and especially since the internet, we all have free access to excellent concordances that are numerically keyed to extensive definitions of each of those words. No confusion about the actual referent in each case need remain.

It's actually quite far from "impossible." I wouldn't say it's even slightly "problematic" anymore.

Here is the translation with the Greek words included

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me — agape love — more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you — phileo love–.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me — agape love — ?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you — phileo love –.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me — phileo love –?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me? — phileo love –” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you — phileo love –.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. (John 21.15–17)

Jesus was referring to conscious love (agape) while Peter only understood phileo or personal love. Even now pastors argue about what this means. But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality. Yet the Bible demands a reader look elsewhere. Why? The bottom line is appreciating the depth of the Bible and the human potential for emotional quality requires something more than the usual

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I did not say, "repeat the claim you've already done it." That, I have seen many, many times from you so far. It has added nothing to your case.

I have repeated that many times.
My arguments are in an "open book" in those threads I had referred and you have gone through them many times.

I see.

So your answer is, "No, I don't have evidence or philosophical reasoning I promised; but I hope to misdirect you into the vague reaches of things I've said before, in the hopes that I can keep evading the question."

Gottit.

You could have written much less than you did, and simply answered the question. But this much is clear: I know what's going on, you know what's going on, and anybody else who's been tracking does too...so what's left to say?

Not much, I'm thinking.

I have extracted some of the main points here;

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?p=448503#p448503

What about this?

The Theistic Morality Model is Pseudo- & Bastardized Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28896

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was referring to conscious love (agape) while Peter only understood phileo or personal love.

"Brotherly love," you mean.

But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality.

Not at all.

For Christians, if love has an "emotion," then the "emotion" part is a byproduct, a mere "icing on the cake"...if it comes, great...if not, it's of no consequence to the question of one's duty to "agape." That's one of the distinctives of agape...it can be commanded.

As Kierkegaard said, we must remember that "Love your neighbour as yourself" is a command. It's not "feel love for your neighbour;" as nice as that might be; it's "do that which is actively in his highest interest," whether you feel it or not.

Other kinds of love, which require feelings, fall deceptively short of agape. It's too easy for them to come to be about the feelings instead of the command...or worse, to become the feeling of loving the feeling you have in the presence of another -- in other words, no more than a kind of hidden self-love, an enjoyment of being "in love" or "a good friend" with someone else, of being a certain kind of person yourself in their presence. And when that feeling is frustrated or fades, the love is over...that person seems no longer your brother (phileo) or your beloved (eros) because they have violated your feeling obtained in loving them.

Such love cannot be commanded, because it depends on feeling. But agape can be commanded, even in regard to enemies: "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.." (Mt. 5:43). If "love your enemy" waits upon the feelings, it will wait a long time. But one can always be actively devoted to the good of one who hates you.

The problem is, what's your incentive for doing so? The incentive is love for God. That's why that's primary. If you don't love God, you cannot love your enemy. Moreover, your other "loves" become of only the lesser types that depend on circumstances or on the character of the object. And these cannot be commanded.

[RCSaunders]

But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality. Yet the Bible demands a reader look elsewhere. Why? The bottom line is appreciating the depth of the Bible and the human potential for emotional quality requires something more than the usual.

Before I comment on this I want to be sure you really mean what that says. I've taken it out of the context in which you said it, so you may only mean this in some limited way.

So, do you mean, "Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality," as a fundamental? Is the acquisition of some kind of feeling really an objective?

[Immanuel Can]

I have extracted some of the main points here;

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?p=448503#p448503

This has already been seen and refuted, not merely by me, though that's true enough, but by others as well.

Inexplicably, you just recirculate it, as if no question as to its value had been raised. And you do so in total defiance of both logic and the "empirical evidence" that your UN Slavery agreement is an utter failure.

So there isn't any more to say. When no coherent reasoning and no empirical evidence is allowed to count for anything, there is no possibility of progress.

[Nick_A]

But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality. Yet the Bible demands a reader look elsewhere. Why? The bottom line is appreciating the depth of the Bible and the human potential for emotional quality requires something more than the usual.

Before I comment on this I want to be sure you really mean what that says. I've taken it out of the context in which you said it, so you may only mean this in some limited way.

So, do you mean, "Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality," as a fundamental? Is the acquisition of some kind of feeling really an objective?

Yes. Christ came into the world to teach what is essential to transcend the human condition and become "normal". We usually concern ourselves with relationships of intellectual quality decided by the world. Awakening in contrast is an emotional experience of objective value which connects the world to higher consciousness. The world functions in spiritual darkness and Jesus brought the light into the world enabling us to emotionally "feel" quality and how it relates to objective vertical quality of human meaning and purpose.

The danger is that this potential is abused and awakening becomes associated with all sorts of imagination denying and perverting its value. But for those with the need and ability to look rather than interpret, Christianity through our emotions serves an essential human need to feel what we are.

[Immanuel Can]

But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality. Yet the Bible demands a reader look elsewhere. Why? The bottom line is appreciating the depth of the Bible and the human potential for emotional quality requires something more than the usual.

Before I comment on this I want to be sure you really mean what that says. I've taken it out of the context in which you said it, so you may only mean this in some limited way.

So, do you mean, "Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality," as a fundamental? Is the acquisition of some kind of feeling really an objective?

Yes. Christ came into the world to teach what is essential to transcend the human condition and become "normal". We usually concern ourselves with relationships of intellectual quality decided by the world. Awakening in contrast is an emotional experience of objective value which connects the world to higher consciousness. The world functions in spiritual darkness and Jesus brought the light into the world enabling us to emotionally "feel" quality and how it relates to objective vertical quality of human meaning and purpose.

The danger is that this potential is abused and awakening becomes associated with all sorts of imagination denying and perverting its value. But for those with the need and ability to look rather than interpret, Christianity through our emotions serves an essential human need to feel what we are.

Please note: I DID NOT say the thing ascribed to me above. It was you, Nick.

Please correct the attribution.

[Nick_A]

Before I comment on this I want to be sure you really mean what that says. I've taken it out of the context in which you said it, so you may only mean this in some limited way.

So, do you mean, "Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality," as a fundamental? Is the acquisition of some kind of feeling really an objective?

Yes. Christ came into the world to teach what is essential to transcend the human condition and become "normal". We usually concern ourselves with relationships of intellectual quality decided by the world. Awakening in contrast is an emotional experience of objective value which connects the world to higher consciousness. The world functions in spiritual darkness and Jesus brought the light into the world enabling us to emotionally "feel" quality and how it relates to objective vertical quality of human meaning and purpose.

The danger is that this potential is abused and awakening becomes associated with all sorts of imagination denying and perverting its value. But for those with the need and ability to look rather than interpret, Christianity through our emotions serves an essential human need to feel what we are.

Please note: I DID NOT say the thing ascribed to me above. It was you, Nick.

Please correct the attribution.

I just copied that section from RCs post I see he edited it once so maybe just corrected an error. I just can't see the sense in me adding anything to his post But I had no intention in associating you with those ideas. I was just responding to RCs legitimate question as to the role of emotional quality in Jesus mission on earth. Nothing intentional. maybe the Devil has a sense of humor. Who knows, but you had nothing to do with it.