Imperefct God

[Immanuel Can]

The acquiring of what you call a conscience has been dealt with by several theories of children's age related moral development.

Oh. You mean Piaget and Kohlberg, et all. They've been discredited long ago, actually...and one of the first significant critiques undermining the idea of pure "moral developmentalism" came from Kolhberg's own feminist follower, Carol Gilligan, who pointed out that moral development isn't universal at all, and (she thought) was gendered, to boot.

In point of fact, moral developmentalism is simply question-begging. It never addresses why the supposed "stages" of moral development are rightly considered "moral" at all. Both its proudest boast and greatest weakness is that it is devoid of substantive content.

Adult men and women have been brutalised so that they no longer have consciences appropriate to adults.

That can happen. But the fact that they had consciences in the first place, consciences that could be "brutalized," shows this is an induced abberation, not a natural state.

...the Christening ceremony welcomes the baby into the cultural fold of the church,

There is zero warrant for any "christening" of babies in Biblical text. It's 100% a pseudo-religious invention.

[Belinda]

The acquiring of what you call a conscience has been dealt with by several theories of children's age related moral development.

Oh. You mean Piaget and Kohlberg, et all. They've been discredited long ago, actually...and one of the first significant critiques undermining the idea of pure "moral developmentalism" came from Kolhberg's own feminist follower, Carol Gilligan, who pointed out that moral development isn't universal at all, and (she thought) was gendered, to boot.

In point of fact, moral developmentalism is simply question-begging. It never addresses why the supposed "stages" of moral development are rightly considered "moral" at all. Both its proudest boast and greatest weakness is that it is devoid of substantive content.

Adult men and women have been brutalised so that they no longer have consciences appropriate to adults.

That can happen. But the fact that they had consciences in the first place, consciences that could be "brutalized," shows this is an induced abberation, not a natural state.

...the Christening ceremony welcomes the baby into the cultural fold of the church,

There is zero warrant for any "christening" of babies in Biblical text. It's 100% a pseudo-religious invention.

Moral development is moral in the sense of how we grow to relate to the other as separate beings from ourselves. You might like to look up I and thou by Martin Buber.

Christening is a religious ritual in some main Christian churches or sects. All religious rituals are created by men. Some church people prefer to call christenings "welcomings". These are lovely ceremonies that parents, godparents, and others in the congregation enjoy. Are you a Puritan spoil sport?

[Immanuel Can]

Moral development is moral in the sense of how we grow to relate to the other as separate beings from ourselves.

But Kohlberg and crew never did anything to justify their version of "how to relate". They just assumed (Gilligan said, incorrectly) that everybody "ought" to go through the same stages they projected. There's no reason they provided to show that's right. And even if we don't call them on that fault, Kohlberg himself admitted that the vast majority of the population would never exceed stage 2! So just how good is this "moral development" scheme?

Not good at all, in fact. Just speculative. And a form with no justified content.

You might like to look up I and thou by Martin Buber.

Done. It's a good book, and I quite enjoy it. It's on my shelf right now. But I'm not sure what you think it does for your argument.

Christening is a religious ritual in some main Christian churches or sects.

Yes, it is. But it's a false, human-created ritual performed by the very "traditionalists" you deplore -- one that, in truth, has nothing to do with the Bible or Christ. It's just made-up.

You may like such things if you wish, of course; I won't "spoil" your "sport." You may dip your babies in chocolate and candy sprinkles, if it makes you happy. But do let's give over the nonsense about this sort of invented ritual being "Christian." It's nothing of the kind.

[Greatest I am]

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil while maintaining that God is perfect. They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will, uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.
However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God. Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both. But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

Problem with accepting imperfect God is, that then anyone can become God, pretend or claim that they are God. If you say how can you prove that? And they will say, I am imperfect, but have been accepted as God.

It is the competition and search that is important.

That was the case from the Egyptians right on up.

That was what all the Divine Councils were created for.

The seeking of a God.

That is the great election at end times that Jesus spoke of.

You have me curious.

What does "accepted by god" mean, and how do you know you have even been accepted or acknowledged by a being higher than yourself?

Why were you rejected?

That is a hard questions that I face when I give my claim of apotheosis and salvation by the Gnostic Christians Jesus.

Regards
DL

[Belinda]

Moral development is moral in the sense of how we grow to relate to the other as separate beings from ourselves.

But Kohlberg and crew never did anything to justify their version of "how to relate". They just assumed (Gilligan said, incorrectly) that everybody "ought" to go through the same stages they projected. There's no reason they provided to show that's right. And even if we don't call them on that fault, Kohlberg himself admitted that the vast majority of the population would never exceed stage 2! So just how good is this "moral development" scheme?

Not good at all, in fact. Just speculative. And a form with no justified content.

You might like to look up I and thou by Martin Buber.

Done. It's a good book, and I quite enjoy it. It's on my shelf right now. But I'm not sure what you think it does for your argument.

Christening is a religious ritual in some main Christian churches or sects.

Yes, it is. But it's a false, human-created ritual performed by the very "traditionalists" you deplore -- one that, in truth, has nothing to do with the Bible or Christ. It's just made-up.

You may like such things if you wish, of course; I won't "spoil" your "sport." You may dip your babies in chocolate and candy sprinkles, if it makes you happy. But do let's give over the nonsense about this sort of invented ritual being "Christian." It's nothing of the kind.

I and Thou.
The growing and thriving baby learns that he is separate from others and by that knowledge that they are 'thou'. Many of us recognise the obstreperous fun that some toddlers enjoy in defying other people. Gradually the growing child learns that he has duties and responsibilities towards 'thou' .

You may like such things if you wish, of course; I won't "spoil" your "sport." You may dip your babies in chocolate and candy sprinkles, if it makes you happy. But do let's give over the nonsense about this sort of invented ritual being "Christian." It's nothing of the kind.

Vanity rules you ! You think your version of Xianity is the only version or the only worthy version of Xianity. It is rude to belittle any innocent feelings and pleasures people have about ceremonials , religious or not .

I do not deplore all traditionalists. I deplore anybody who insists he is certain he knows best.

[Belinda]

Moral development is moral in the sense of how we grow to relate to the other as separate beings from ourselves.

But Kohlberg and crew never did anything to justify their version of "how to relate". They just assumed (Gilligan said, incorrectly) that everybody "ought" to go through the same stages they projected. There's no reason they provided to show that's right. And even if we don't call them on that fault, Kohlberg himself admitted that the vast majority of the population would never exceed stage 2! So just how good is this "moral development" scheme?

Not good at all, in fact. Just speculative. And a form with no justified content.

You might like to look up I and thou by Martin Buber.

Done. It's a good book, and I quite enjoy it. It's on my shelf right now. But I'm not sure what you think it does for your argument.

Christening is a religious ritual in some main Christian churches or sects.

Yes, it is. But it's a false, human-created ritual performed by the very "traditionalists" you deplore -- one that, in truth, has nothing to do with the Bible or Christ. It's just made-up.

You may like such things if you wish, of course; I won't "spoil" your "sport." You may dip your babies in chocolate and candy sprinkles, if it makes you happy. But do let's give over the nonsense about this sort of invented ritual being "Christian." It's nothing of the kind.

I and Thou.
The growing and thriving baby learns that he is separate from others and by that knowledge that they are 'thou'. Many of us recognise the obstreperous fun that some toddlers enjoy in defying other people. Gradually the growing child learns that he has duties and responsibilities towards 'thou' .We also know how very young children regard inanimate objects as 'thou' and have to learn they are not 'thou'.

You may like such things if you wish, of course; I won't "spoil" your "sport." You may dip your babies in chocolate and candy sprinkles, if it makes you happy. But do let's give over the nonsense about this sort of invented ritual being "Christian." It's nothing of the kind.

Vanity rules you ! You think your version of Xianity is the only version or the only worthy version of Xianity. It is rude to belittle any innocent feelings and pleasures people have about ceremonials , religious or not .

I do not deplore all traditionalists. I deplore anybody who insists he is certain he knows best.

[Dontaskme]

I deplore anybody who insists he is certain he knows best.

It's perfectly fine to know what's best for thee thyself...but to know what's best for others is down right deplorable.

Nature by it's very nature is Impromptu in every moment.

[Immanuel Can]

Gradually the growing child learns that he has duties and responsibilities towards 'thou' .

Well, you can teach a child to believe anything, true or false as it may be. So this thing he "learns": how do we show him, when he reaches the age of reason, that he must continue to believe in it?

You see, that's the real problem, B. It's not that we can't fool peoople (at least some of them) into thinking that they have duties to "thous" around them; it's that unless we know for sure that it's true they have those duties legitimately, all we're doing is propagandizing them into duties that maybe they don't have at all.

In other words, we're just deceivers, then.

You think your version of Xianity is the only version or the only worthy version of Xianity.

That is not what I have been saying. What I have been saying is that Christ's "version of Christianity" is the only one that counts.

And it is.

If that "version" should differ on a point from mine, then it is I who am wrong. I am happy to live and die by the standard I advocate for others; Christ is right, and everybody else is wrong...and I don't exempt myself from that at all. I have as much need as anyone else to be conformed to that standard.

It's not my own. It's His.

It is rude to belittle any innocent feelings and pleasures people have about ceremonials , religious or not .

Well, is it right to deliver people to delusions and lies, especially those that concern God? Is it right to invent false rituals that make people think they're appeasing God when, in point of fact, they're performing an empty gesture? Is that an act of kindness?

I suggest that delivering people from such delusions is an act of singular kindness, whether they imagine it's "rude" or not.

[Belinda]

Gradually the growing child learns that he has duties and responsibilities towards 'thou' .

Well, you can teach a child to believe anything, true or false as it may be. So this thing he "learns": how do we show him, when he reaches the age of reason, that he must continue to believe in it?

You see, that's the real problem, B. It's not that we can't fool peoople (at least some of them) into thinking that they have duties to "thous" around them; it's that unless we know for sure that it's true they have those duties legitimately, all we're doing is propagandizing them into duties that maybe they don't have at all.

In other words, we're just deceivers, then.

You think your version of Xianity is the only version or the only worthy version of Xianity.

That is not what I have been saying. What I have been saying is that Christ's "version of Christianity" is the only one that counts.

And it is.

If that "version" should differ on a point from mine, then it is I who am wrong. I am happy to live and die by the standard I advocate for others; Christ is right, and everybody else is wrong...and I don't exempt myself from that at all. I have as much need as anyone else to be conformed to that standard.

It's not my own. It's His.

It is rude to belittle any innocent feelings and pleasures people have about ceremonials , religious or not .

Well, is it right to deliver people to delusions and lies, especially those that concern God? Is it right to invent false rituals that make people think they're appeasing God when, in point of fact, they're performing an empty gesture? Is that an act of kindness?

I suggest that delivering people from such delusions is an act of singular kindness, whether they imagine it's "rude" or not.

The growing child learns the mores of his society. Mores are part of his native culture. The most advanced learner , and not everyone attains this stage of moral development, is the man who takes upon himself the responsibility for his own moral decisions.This may mean that he decides to believe in a traditional religious package of myth, morality, and rituals, or not, however whatever he believes is his own responsibility not God's or other people's.
In a deterministic world of nature such a man is caused to be able to rise to the fullest moral conscience. So be it and we can nevertheless praise his attainment and aspire to do likewise and help others to develop into the best they can be.

As for rituals, these are not "delusions and lies" except when magical thinking makes people believe they can coerce God or the gods by means of rituals. It is true that some church goers are superstitious like they believe if they do such and such they will coerce God to benefit them and I really do not know what their pastor can do to disabuse them of this obsession. Rituals that aim to bind people spiritually together are generally beneficent in mainstream Xian churches.

[Immanuel Can]

The growing child learns the mores of his society. Mores are part of his native culture.

Trivial, of course.

Yes, the young boy in Afghanistan learns the "mores" of his society. Perhaps he learns that infidels must have their throats slit. He learns that women should be beaten and ''real men' rape. He learns that the developed world is "The Great Satan." He learns that he will get many vigins in paradise if he marches into a minefield or blows himself up at Kandahar Airport.

But what makes any of that "moral"? Or what greater code shows that it is not?

The most advanced learner , and not everyone attains this stage of moral development, is the man who takes upon himself the responsibility for his own moral decisions.

That is, perhaps, the opinion of somebody who has lived all her life in a liberal democracy. It is not the opinion, and historically, has rarely been the opinion, of most of the world. In many societies...like China or the Middle East or traditional African tribalism or even the old Soviet Union...the values and goals of the collective are considered vastly more important than any expression of autonomy of the individual. And individualists are considered evil.

So you, and Kohlberg, would have to show that autonomy is the highest value. It's widely denied that it is.

In a deterministic world of nature such a man is caused to be able to rise to the fullest moral conscience.

Seriously? No, you don't understand Determinism, if you think that. In Determinism "moral conscience" is just an epiphenomenon. it's not real, and doesn't account for anything that happens in the real world.

...help others to develop into the best they can be....

The best Jihadi, you mean? Because unless you show otherwise, that's what "best" might include; especially if that's the local culture.

Well, if I take your cultural relativism seriously (which I don't, and clearly you don't either), you don't know what "best" means. You have no idea, and no way of finding out that's not culturally limited.

How do you really expect to imposes your view of the "best" on the people in Afghanistan, without even being able to tell them why your "best" is actually "best"? Why should they believe you? You have no explanation of why you are right and they, wrong.

As for rituals...

Human rituals?

Useless, in matters of truth. If we humans invent a ceremony, or a drama, or performance, what does reality care? What makes that so great?

These are fun games for immature people, perhaps, but of no real value.

[Zarathustra]

You have me curious.

What does "accepted by god" mean, and how do you know you have even been accepted or acknowledged by a being higher than yourself?

Why were you rejected?

That is a hard questions that I face when I give my claim of apotheosis and salvation by the Gnostic Christians Jesus.

Regards
DL

I didn't mean accepted by God, or being higher than me.

I meant from the previous posts saying - "Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?"

If some bloke came and wanted to be a God, then someone has to accept him as a God or reject, not necessarily me or some other higher being.
Nothing to do with me at all.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But what makes any of that "moral"? Or what greater code shows that it is not?

Sure it is frightening that there is no Authority that authorises which culture is morally best. The best authority we have at this present time is the United Nations.

I myself believe Xianity is better than Islam or communism, but I am in no way an authority. My own life does not give a definitive performance of Xianity. If you are honest, IC, you will say the same of yourself.

[RCSaunders]

The best authority we have at this present time is the United Nations.

Then there is no hope and the world is doomed to perpetual war and oppression, which is exactly what an ignorant and superstitious race deserves. Reality will have justice.

[Belinda]

The best authority we have at this present time is the United Nations.

Then there is no hope and the world is doomed to perpetual war and oppression, which is exactly what an ignorant and superstitious race deserves. Reality will have justice.

Yes, but it does not help man or beast to give up on learning from experience. John Brown's body lies a-mouldring in the grave but his soul goes marching on.

[RCSaunders]

The best authority we have at this present time is the United Nations.

Then there is no hope and the world is doomed to perpetual war and oppression, which is exactly what an ignorant and superstitious race deserves. Reality will have justice.

Yes, but it does not help man or beast to give up on learning from experience. John Brown's body lies a-mouldring in the grave but his soul goes marching on.

That's exactly the point, Belinda. Mankind refuses to learn and goes on embracing the same old superstitions and ideologies that promise an existence he would like, because he despises reality, because reality is too ruthless and demanding. The necessity to do the hard work of learning what reality is and the necessity of being totally responsible for his own life frightens him and he settles for any lie that promises him success, happiness, forgiveness that he does not have to earn by his own effort but will be provided by God, or the government, or the right kind of social organization.