IS and OUGHT

[Belinda]

Shouldn't you guys take this to the religion sub? It's got fuck all to do with anything else now.

The main function of all religions is conservation and often administration of the society's moral code, i.e . oughts. So discussion of religious authority is relevant to Is and Ought

[Immanuel Can]

I understand and accept your explanation of why Trinitarianism is right and necessary for a proper theology. (Let's leave the Holy Ghost for another occasion!) I appreciate your explanation from Hinduism.

You're welcome, B.

I wish you understood the much more interesting meaning of 'myth' as a narrative that people regard as important in their lives.

Oh, dear oh dear oh dear oh dear...

I'm sorry, B. But knowing what I know and who I am, that line can't be anything but funny. It just can't.

Anyway, it's immaterial what somebody "regards as important." What IS important is what matters. And lies that seem important to somnolent people are not dignified by the warmth people feel when they recite them. They're still just lies.

...you don't even mention natural evil...

I didn't need to yet. You hadn't asked.

Are you asking?

As for Atonement, it's unacceptable that a unique event, the torture and death one man however good that man be, is enough to wipe out all natural and moral evil.

Well, it's acceptable to God. But to you...well, you're going to have to decide that.

But before you do, decide who's more likely to be right.

You refer to God as Father.

Two reasons: because He is my Father, ultimately and by salvation...and secondly, that's what His Word calls Him.

What have you got for the other side?

[Belinda]

I understand and accept your explanation of why Trinitarianism is right and necessary for a proper theology. (Let's leave the Holy Ghost for another occasion!) I appreciate your explanation from Hinduism.

You're welcome, B.

I wish you understood the much more interesting meaning of 'myth' as a narrative that people regard as important in their lives.

Oh, dear oh dear oh dear oh dear...

I'm sorry, B. But knowing what I know and who I am, that line can't be anything but funny. It just can't.

Anyway, it's immaterial what somebody "regards as important." What IS important is what matters. And lies that seem important to somnolent people are not dignified by the warmth people feel when they recite them. They're still just lies.

...you don't even mention natural evil...

I didn't need to yet. You hadn't asked.

Are you asking?

As for Atonement, it's unacceptable that a unique event, the torture and death one man however good that man be, is enough to wipe out all natural and moral evil.

Well, it's acceptable to God. But to you...well, you're going to have to decide that.

But before you do, decide who's more likely to be right.

You refer to God as Father.

Two reasons: because He is my Father, ultimately and by salvation...and secondly, that's what His Word calls Him.

What have you got for the other side?

Britannica:

Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue.

God is more likely to be right in fact God is certain to be right as being right is the nature of God.

But The Bible is not God it's a book about God. You have no reasonable justification for accepting The Bible as your authority. At least you seem not to accept any priesthood as your authority! Your religious devotion is your right as you live in a free country. However we are here to do philosophy not religious devotions. If there were a Father God then He who gave us Free Will ,so it's said, would be jolly glad we are reasoning for ourselves as individuals and not worshipping some holy book ,or some cult figure ,or some secular ideology.

[FlashDangerpants]

Shouldn't you guys take this to the religion sub? It's got fuck all to do with anything else now.

The main function of all religions is conservation and often administration of the society's moral code, i.e . oughts. So discussion of religious authority is relevant to Is and Ought

You and Mannie are annoying religious obsessives who convert everything into conversations about your boring God nonsense.

[Belinda]

Shouldn't you guys take this to the religion sub? It's got fuck all to do with anything else now.

The main function of all religions is conservation and often administration of the society's moral code, i.e . oughts. So discussion of religious authority is relevant to Is and Ought

You and Mannie are annoying religious obsessives who convert everything into conversations about your boring God nonsense.

That is very annoying for you Flash.

[Immanuel Can]

Britannica:

Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue.

Did you just quote Britannica on me, on the assumption I didn't know about this?

God is more likely to be right in fact God is certain to be right as being right is the nature of God.

Right you are.

So whether or not something meets your expectations...where does that likely rate on the scale of things, if it already meets His approval?

But The Bible is not God it's a book about God.

Of course. But the more important question is, "Is it the Word of God"?

Jesus Christ thought it was. He said that it would be easier for heaven and earth themselves to pass away, rather than for one word of that book to turn out to be untrue. (Luke 16:17) That's pretty strong language, I think we can agree.

You have no reasonable justification for accepting The Bible as your authority.

Well, other than that Christ did, and that the apostles all did, and that the Christian community has for over 2,000 years, and the Jews longer than that. And the fact that it's always right.

But other than those things, yeah, nothing else.

At least you seem not to accept any priesthood as your authority!

That much is true.

[Harbal]

You have no reasonable justification for accepting The Bible as your authority.

Well, other than that Christ did, and that the apostles all did, and that the Christian community has for over 2,000 years, and the Jews longer than that. And the fact that it's always right.

Can I ask what you mean when you say the Bible is always right? Right about what sort of things?

[Immanuel Can]

You have no reasonable justification for accepting The Bible as your authority.

Well, other than that Christ did, and that the apostles all did, and that the Christian community has for over 2,000 years, and the Jews longer than that. And the fact that it's always right.

Can I ask what you mean when you say the Bible is always right? Right about what sort of things?

Sure.

It's right about a lot of things...prophecy, morality, wisdom, history, law...but let me pick an interesting one.

One of the most important things is that it's right about human nature. A major fallibility of all human political projects is that they are not realistic about that. That's why they kill so many people: because when their ideology is not working out, they think they have to extinguish people in order to prove true that which is patently false.

We could all do with a more Biblical view of that.

[promethean75]

Yeah but all religions are 'right' about the basic truisms they all share... and they all share uh lot.

I mean the law of manu or the the Japanese Shintoists share some very basic ideas with Christianity I'm sure of it, and yet that doesn't make them 'the right religion'.

[Harbal]

It's right about a lot of things...prophecy, morality, wisdom, history, law...but let me pick an interesting one.

That doesn't really tell me anything useful, It's just a claim with nothing to justify it.

One of the most important things is that it's right about human nature. A major fallibility of all human political projects is that they are not realistic about that. That's why they kill so many people: because when their ideology is not working out, they think they have to extinguish people in order to prove true that which is patently false.

That's not really specific enough to tell how insightful of human nature it is, but whatever the Bible might tell us about human nature and political systems, couldn't we find many, and better, sources of that kind of information. And if we find some particular value in getting our insights into human nature from old literature, wouldn't Shakespeare serve us better? He does it so much more poetically, and covers just about every aspect of the human condition, or so I hear, as I am woefully ignorant on the works of Shakespeare myself, I'm afraid.

[Immanuel Can]

It's right about a lot of things...prophecy, morality, wisdom, history, law...but let me pick an interesting one.

That doesn't really tell me anything useful, It's just a claim with nothing to justify it.

Well, hold on for a minute, and I'll see if I can make that better.

One of the most important things is that it's right about human nature. A major fallibility of all human political projects is that they are not realistic about that. That's why they kill so many people: because when their ideology is not working out, they think they have to extinguish people in order to prove true that which is patently false.

That's not really specific enough to tell how insightful of human nature it is, but whatever the Bible might tell us about human nature and political systems, couldn't we find many, and better, sources of that kind of information. [/quote]
No doubt we could. But you'll have a hard time finding ones that aren't influenced by the Bible already.

Take Shakespeare, for example, since you point him out; he is, indeed, and astute observer of human nature...or was, anyway. But it's not a matter of conjecture where he got his insights. There are some 1,350 identifiable Biblical quotations in Shakespeare's works themselves. Or take the father of human rights theory, John Locke: his suppositions, in his writings, are entirely the Biblical ones. In fact, his whole rationale for human rights is grounded explicitly in those. And since Locke, we have found no rationale at all capable of grounding any account of human rights at all.

And I like human rights...a lot.

But let me point out the difference between getting things right and getting them wrong, in this regard. Limitations on government authority have this rationale: that no person is infallible, and anybody, especially somebody who achieves high office, is capable of tyranny and worse. So democratic systems have often built-in safeguards against tyranny. The fact of a sin-nature in every person is the bedrock belief behind such safeguards. But in a Socialist state, human nature is treated as much more one-dimensional and unproblematic: people are thought to be driven by simple, unobjectionable ideals, such as the desire to work or the desire to share; and any present problems are assumed to be capable of being worked out though progressive moral evolution. Moreover, some people are admired and held up a specially exemplary, and thus theoretically incapable of such corruption. They are thought to be too devoted to "the Cause" to be corruptible at all. So centralized power is not only trusted by considered desirable. It's the fastest road to utopia, they think.

This is what causes things like democratic and republican systems of governance to be hedged with protections against tyranny, such as term-limits and codes of human rights. And it's what causes Socialist systems to wave all such concerns, and to capitulate to tyranny so readily as they always do, historically speaking.

So getting this wrong not only ends up depriving people of rights and freedoms, but also leads to tyranny and death. Those are high stakes.

Now, is that the sort of practical example you were looking for, or did you want something different?

[Harbal]

But let me point out the difference between getting things right and getting them wrong, in this regard. Limitations on government authority have this rationale: that no person is infallible, and anybody, especially somebody who achieves high office, is capable of tyranny and worse. So democratic systems have often built-in safeguards against tyranny. The fact of a sin-nature in every person is the bedrock belief behind such safeguards. But in a Socialist state, human nature is treated as much more one-dimensional and unproblematic: people are thought to be driven by simple, unobjectionable ideals, such as the desire to work or the desire to share; and any present problems are assumed to be capable of being worked out though progressive moral evolution. Moreover, some people are admired and held up a specially exemplary, and thus theoretically incapable of such corruption. They are thought to be too devoted to "the Cause" to be corruptible at all. So centralized power is not only trusted by considered desirable. It's the fastest road to utopia, they think.

This is what causes things like democratic and republican systems of governance to be hedged with protections against tyranny, such as term-limits and codes of human rights. And it's what causes Socialist systems to wave all such concerns, and to capitulate to tyranny so readily as they always do, historically speaking.

So getting this wrong not only ends up depriving people of rights and freedoms, but also leads to tyranny and death. Those are high stakes.

Thank you, but this doesn't tell me why, if I wanted to study sociopolitical affairs, the Bible should be my go-to text book.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you, but this doesn't tell me why, if I wanted to study sociopolitical affairs, the Bible should be my go-to text book.

Well, that's not quite what I proposed, of course.

I just said that if you wanted a realistic assessment of human nature, upon which you might base a political project or even just an ordinary policy, the Bible has that right. Every time we expect too much good -- or nothing but unremitting evil -- from a human being, we seem to find out we were wrong. But the Bible had the right balance, all along: human beings are created in the image of God, meaning capable of God-like activities such as creativity, insight, charity, beauty, and so on, but also fallen and flawed. And they definitely do have an alarming propensity toward evil. That much is abundantly clear from history itself.

So it turns out that any project launched on suppositions about human nature harmonious with the Biblical depictions is much better founded than any that are premised on wishful thinking or utopian aspirations about what we wish human being were like...but that they never are.

So that's just one way in which the Bible is importantly right.

[Harbal]

Well, that's not quite what I proposed, of course.

I just said that if you wanted a realistic assessment of human nature, upon which you might base a political project or even just an ordinary policy, the Bible has that right. Every time we expect too much good -- or nothing but unremitting evil -- from a human being, we seem to find out we were wrong. But the Bible had the right balance, all along: human beings are created in the image of God, meaning capable of God-like activities such as creativity, insight, charity, beauty, and so on, but also fallen and flawed. And they definitely do have an alarming propensity toward evil. That much is abundantly clear from history itself.

So it turns out that any project launched on suppositions about human nature harmonious with the Biblical depictions is much better founded than any that are premised on wishful thinking or utopian aspirations about what we wish human being were like...but that they never are.

So that's just one way in which the Bible is importantly right.

Thanks for taking the time to explain, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks for taking the time to explain, IC.

Always, anytime. Thanks for asking.