mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/17/85)
In article <360@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> >It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to >> >members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort >> >resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require >> >absolute moralistic criteria. >> The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere >> else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and >> comfort. >I don't understand this. The fact that "moral authority" has been transferred >in now way proves that it is absolute. The fact that it could be transferred >could be taken as evidence that it is not absolute. Sure it's absolute. you've elevated "increased stability and comfort for the group as a whole" to an absolute principle. >> ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >"moral authority" to justify this. But that's just the point. If I can see a way to improve my own position EVEN MORE, at the expense of others, why should I not take it? Mutual gain must be a goal that everyone should have, for that criticism to have merit-- unless there is some absolute principle backing it up. >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >> supposed human nature should be catered to. >I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >and above what has already been said. I didn't say that there had a complicated model. But you can't just state that the mutual good of society as a universal priniciple without some backing, and if you are going to abandon that, and take up pure relativism, then there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. >I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. Democracy is a political system. In the form that we practice it, it is based upon the supposition of certain rights and certain notions about human nature. It is somewhat empirical, in the sense that we can change what doesn't work out. But it is not an ethical or moral system. Especially, there are certain tests for moral systems which any sort of majority rule voting doesn't pass. >> ... And besides, you >> must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any >> essential human nature? >Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. No, it is central. If you take a hard core existentialist position and assert that there is no discoverable shared human nature, then you can't appeal to any innate rights or characteristics. Again, you trap moral systems in pure relativism. THere is then every reason to expect that, used by another person, your moral system is WRONG. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/17/85)
> In article <360@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > >> >It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to > >> >members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort > >> >resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require > >> >absolute moralistic criteria. > > >> The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere > >> else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and > >> comfort. > > >I don't understand this. The fact that "moral authority" has been transferred > >in now way proves that it is absolute. The fact that it could be transferred > >could be taken as evidence that it is not absolute. > > Sure it's absolute. you've elevated "increased stability and comfort for the > group as a whole" to an absolute principle. It is a guiding principle for me, and is not absolute since society will only adopt such a principle by concensus. Depending on the mood, or type of society, the guiding principles will be different. Societies differ as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour on the part of their members, and on the rights to be accorded to them as individuals. So the moral authority is not absolute. It seems that we differ in the use of the word "absolute". I use it in the context of "invariant", while you seem to be using it in the sense of "over-riding/monolithic". > >> ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? > > >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting > >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute > >"moral authority" to justify this. > > But that's just the point. If I can see a way to improve my own position > EVEN MORE, at the expense of others, why should I not take it? Mutual gain > must be a goal that everyone should have, for that criticism to have merit-- > unless there is some absolute principle backing it up. Simply because others would be just as entitled to do the same to you. > >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best > >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, > >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some > >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this > >> supposed human nature should be catered to. > > >I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to > >say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone > >from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect > >me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting > >to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature > >to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you > >with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over > >and above what has already been said. > > I didn't say that there had a complicated model. But you can't just state > that the mutual good of society as a universal priniciple without some > backing, and if you are going to abandon that, and take up pure relativism, > then there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. I defended "mutual good" on a pragmatic basis, and didn't abandon it. To say, or imply otherwise, is disingenuous. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that the pragmatically based "mutual good" principle is inconsistent with relativism, or that you are competent to decide who should listen to what. > >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively > >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings > >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. > > >I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. > > Democracy is a political system. In the form that we practice it, it is > based upon the supposition of certain rights and certain notions about human > nature. It is somewhat empirical, in the sense that we can change what > doesn't work out. But it is not an ethical or moral system. Especially, > there are certain tests for moral systems which any sort of majority rule > voting doesn't pass. You asked why should one listen to the agregation of feelings. Since I do not claim to have absolute truth, I do not try to force it upon others. I expect to be treated similarly by other members of society, therefore I see democracies and pluralistic societies as being the optimum solution. Yes this is political, but so what? The reason that society listens to the agregation of feelings is to reach some concensus as to which guiding principles to adopt. > > >> ... And besides, you > >> must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any > >> essential human nature? > > >Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. > > No, it is central. If you take a hard core existentialist position and > assert that there is no discoverable shared human nature, then you can't > appeal to any innate rights or characteristics. Again, you trap moral > systems in pure relativism. THere is then every reason to expect that, used > by another person, your moral system is WRONG. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe You have not defined "human nature", not to mention "shared human nature", or even demonstrated whether or not such a beast exists. I don't know what you mean by "innate rights or characteristics". When I reach the conclusion that I want to live, and that I don't want to be the object of some violent act, then on that basis I am happy to give up any right to do violent acts to others, if such a right is denied others also. Esoteric discussions as to whether or not there is really any essential human nature are fine, but I am not prepared to kill someone on the basis of the discussion's outcome. This does not mean that I am a hypocrite (I hope), but that I do not place such a degree of trust in our ability to philosophize, and determine truths, that I am willing to take extreme actions as a result of reaching extreme conclusions. Padraig Houlahan.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/18/85)
>>>>It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to >>>>members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort >>>>resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require >>>>absolute moralistic criteria. >>>The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere >>>else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and >>>comfort. >>I don't understand this. The fact that "moral authority" has been transferred >>in now way proves that it is absolute. The fact that it could be transferred >>could be taken as evidence that it is not absolute. [HOULAHAN] > Sure it's absolute. you've elevated "increased stability and comfort for the > group as a whole" to an absolute principle. [WINGATE] Are you claiming that such a principle is not an obvious goal of a group? Would you rather the group had self-annihilation as a principle/goal? >>>...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? >>From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >>directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >>"moral authority" to justify this. > But that's just the point. If I can see a way to improve my own position > EVEN MORE, at the expense of others, why should I not take it? Mutual gain > must be a goal that everyone should have, for that criticism to have merit-- > unless there is some absolute principle backing it up. How about the principle that you gain more for a longer period of time by cooperation with others than by "improving you position at the expense of others", incurring their wrath and prompting any person or group of persons to act against you (through violence, revenge, blockade, etc.) It is in your interest to cooperate with those around you. Something people are very slow to learn, individually, as nationalities, and as a planet. >>>It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >>>I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >>>perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >>>empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >>>supposed human nature should be catered to. >>I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >>say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >>from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >>me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >>to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >>to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >>with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >>and above what has already been said. > I didn't say that there had a complicated model. But you can't just state > that the mutual good of society as a universal priniciple without some > backing, and if you are going to abandon that, and take up pure relativism, > then there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. I thought I just gave such a reason. Some people (apparently) won't accept what's logically clearly in their own best interests (like mutual cooperation) unless a parent/authority figure tells them they have to. That's why they invent gods. >>>I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >>>with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >>>which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. >>I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. > Democracy is a political system. In the form that we practice it, it is > based upon the supposition of certain rights and certain notions about human > nature. It is somewhat empirical, in the sense that we can change what > doesn't work out. But it is not an ethical or moral system. Especially, > there are certain tests for moral systems which any sort of majority rule > voting doesn't pass. As a "system" (we're not talking about the individual laws under it), it performs exactly the function I describe above. "I am a person, I could take everything from my neighbor, but by the same token he/she could take everything from me. Perhaps to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement of our rights and the minimal limits to those rights that allow non- interference, we can not only live peacefully, but garnish some benefits out of the cooperation as well!! What a great idea!" To which some people seem to feel the need to respond: "NAAH! This will only work if we get a god to enforce the arrangement, therefore... >>>... And besides, you >>>must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any >>>essential human nature? >>Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. > No, it is central. If you take a hard core existentialist position and > assert that there is no discoverable shared human nature, then you can't > appeal to any innate rights or characteristics. Again, you trap moral > systems in pure relativism. THere is then every reason to expect that, used > by another person, your moral system is WRONG. On the contrary, this system may be "pure relativism", but it is clearly a system that offers maximal rights, maximal benefits, and minimal constraints on people, which to me sounds quote optimal for all involved. So-called "human nature" indeed has nothing to do with this argument. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/20/85)
(Rich Rosen's article rearranged slightly) >>>>It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >>>>I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. > How about the principle that you gain more for a longer period of time by > cooperation with others than by "improving you position at the expense of > others", incurring their wrath and prompting any person or group of persons > to act against you (through violence, revenge, blockade, etc.) It is in > your interest to cooperate with those around you. I will look from a different perspective at the question wherewith I started this discussion: If you are nothing but matter, how can there be a "you" in whose interest cooperation is? Your model of human nature (100% biochemistry) seems inconsistent with the fact that we are having this discussion at all -- or how do you think we happen to be alive, conscious, and intelligent? The idea that these somehow came/come out of inanimate matter (which you implicitly ASS-U-ME) is infinitely more implausible -- indeed, preposterous -- than the idea that they were put there by a Designer. Of course this isn't net.origins; but it does seem that your morality is at variance with your assumptions. > Some people (apparently) won't accept what's logically clearly in their own > best interests (like mutual cooperation) unless a parent/authority figure > tells them they have to. That's why they invent gods. As I've implied before, some people have, as a result of their past hurts, an idea of what seems to be in their own best interests which may be at variance with what is actually in their best interests. What they need is not just logic, but healing. Or, sometimes they may know what is in their best interests -- what they really want to do -- but these same hurts make them too fearful to do it, too fearful that the hurts will be repeated. The Bible was written, among other things, to give us guidelines as to what is actually in our best interests, though we may not have discovered it yet. God Himself is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false wants and find out what we really want, then have the courage to go for it. But until this healing is completed (or at least well along), those guidelines are there so that we don't mess ourselves up worse than we already are. Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Paul puts it even more strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his own body" -- i.e. hurts himself. This is why there exists the Bible and the Church (not any organized church, but the whole body of believers) -- to help people find out what is in their own best interests and then be enabled to do that; to help thirsty people obtain a drink of "living water" -- and indeed, to pour this love and joy onto those around, like a river. Both Jesus and Paul talked a fair amount about joy; Jesus specifically told His disciples (John 16:23,24 NIV), "...my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.... Ask and you will receive, AND YOUR JOY WILL BE COMPLETE." (my emphasis) In other words, Rich, you and I are both striving toward the same goal -- becoming the fullest and best persons we can be. No matter how many preach the Law, that's not what Christ and Christianity are about (as Paul wrote rather strongly in Galatians). A lot of the pain that I dumped on the net last winter was from the fact that my mind knew many of the good things I have been saying in this article, but I could not manage to get them internalized. Now, I'm starting to internalize them and experience their reality in my life. It is my contention that starting from the basis that one is loved and accepted is a far more effective means of becoming free to reach one's fullest potential than merely sticking to dry rationalism. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq If you don't bet your life on at least one wild-looking chance before you die, then you won't have really lived....
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
> I will look from a different perspective at the question wherewith I started > this discussion: If you are nothing but matter, how can there be a "you" in > whose interest cooperation is? Your model of human nature (100% biochemistry) > seems inconsistent with the fact that we are having this discussion at all -- > or how do you think we happen to be alive, conscious, and intelligent? By virtue of the make-up of that biochemistry that enables us to do that. That biochemical make-up IS me. By the way, wrong newsgroup for this: net.philosophy is probably the place to continue such discussion, as it has been going on there for some time. > The idea that these somehow came/come out of inanimate matter (which you > implicitly ASS-U-ME) is infinitely more implausible -- indeed, preposterous > -- than the idea that they were put there by a Designer. Only, of course, if you have assumed that there IS such a designer. Preposterous? Perhaps very unlikely and hugely complex. But that's exactly what the world happens to be. Amongst the whole universe (or set of universes), this one that we're in is the one where physical laws are as they are and this small part of it that we're in is the one in which conditions were such that life could exist. Why are we here, in this spot? Because if this wasn't "here", there wouldn't be any "we", conditions wouldn't have allowed it. Does that imply some designer? Not at all. We are "here" because this is the only place that had conditions to allow us to exist. If conditions were some other way, there might not have been any "us" to ask such questions! Don't like that? Want something more? Well, you're free to want whatever you like, but that don't have an effect on the real world (though you've seemed in the past to think that it does). >>Some people (apparently) won't accept what's logically clearly in their own >>best interests (like mutual cooperation) unless a parent/authority figure >>tells them they have to. That's why they invent gods. > As I've implied before, some people have, as a result of their past hurts, an > idea of what seems to be in their own best interests which may be at variance > with what is actually in their best interests. What they need is not just > logic, but healing. Or, sometimes they may know what is in their best > interests -- what they really want to do -- but these same hurts make them > too fearful to do it, too fearful that the hurts will be repeated. The Bible > was written, among other things, to give us guidelines as to what is actually > in our best interests, though we may not have discovered it yet. Agreed. Much of it was written with that purpose in mind. But given that there's no reason to believe it really was the "word of god" (assuming for now that there is such a beast), when one sees some of the flaws in the reasoning found in the book, some of the things it claims (and commands!) are WRONG for everyone and should be punished, one should take the time to stop and think. Does this book, though it offers some brilliant philosophy, offer the be all and end all? Do I believe EVERYTHING I read in it regardless of evidence to the contrary, or do I take from it what is good, what helps, and take the rest as parable, fable, legend, or even the wild impositions of some author of the time? > God Himself > is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false wants and find out > what we really want, then have the courage to go for it. For instance, what are "false wants"? I agree that some things one may want are not in one's best interest, some things may be downright wrong. But is it a false want just because a book says so? > But until this > healing is completed (or at least well along), those guidelines are there so > that we don't mess ourselves up worse than we already are. One can be better healed by better recognizing one's position in the real world. I shouldn't speak for those who simply cannot get along without belief in a parent figure that runs it all despite the lack of evidence to support that notion, but such cases strike me as very sad. > Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many > fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which > renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual > fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a > want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which > can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what makes it WRONG? > Paul puts it even more > strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his > own body" -- i.e. hurts himself. In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside "conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! > It is my contention that starting from the basis that one is loved and > accepted is a far more effective means of becoming free to reach one's fullest > potential than merely sticking to dry rationalism. Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the real thing is out here amongst us people. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <1235@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>>>It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to >>>>>members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort >>>>>resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require >>>>>absolute moralistic criteria. >> Sure [the principle stated above is] absolute. you've elevated >> "increased stability and comfort for the >> group as a whole" to an absolute principle. [WINGATE] >Are you claiming that such a principle is not an obvious goal of a group? >Would you rather the group had self-annihilation as a principle/goal? That doesn't give any moral weight to it, without the assumption that one should cooperate with the wishes of the group. >>>From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >>>directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >>>"moral authority" to justify this. >> But that's just the point. If I can see a way to improve my own position >> EVEN MORE, at the expense of others, why should I not take it? Mutual gain >> must be a goal that everyone should have, for that criticism to have >> merit-- unless there is some absolute principle backing it up. >How about the principle that you gain more for a longer period of time by >cooperation with others than by "improving you position at the expense of >others", incurring their wrath and prompting any person or group of persons >to act against you (through violence, revenge, blockade, etc.) It is in >your interest to cooperate with those around you. Something people are very >slow to learn, individually, as nationalities, and as a planet. How long? an eternity? a lifetime? a week? 5 minutes? Unless you've suddenly acquired a belief in an afterlife, I think it is readily shown that, for some people, their desires in life demand noncooperation and exploitation of others. From their point of view, your statement is patently false. >>>I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >>>say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >>>from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >>>me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >>>to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >>>to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >>>with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >>>and above what has already been said. >> I didn't say that there had a complicated model. But you can't just state >> that the mutual good of society as a universal priniciple without some >> backing, and if you are going to abandon that, and take up pure relativism, >> then there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. >I thought I just gave such a reason. Some people (apparently) won't accept >what's logically clearly in their own best interests (like mutual >cooperation) unless a parent/authority figure tells them they have to. >That's why they invent gods. But Rich, everyone doesn't agree with you that it is in their best interests. If they did, there would be no problem. Even this completely ignores the all-important problem of what exactly constitutes mutual cooperation. And the gratuitous comment about Gods is precisely equivalent to me postulating that atheists disbelieve in Gods because they don't like the moral system that the Gods have set forth. A groundless speculation either way. >> Democracy is a political system. In the form that we practice it, it is >> based upon the supposition of certain rights and certain notions about >> human >> nature. It is somewhat empirical, in the sense that we can change what >> doesn't work out. But it is not an ethical or moral system. Especially, >> there are certain tests for moral systems which any sort of majority rule >> voting doesn't pass. >As a "system" (we're not talking about the individual laws under it), it >performs exactly the function I describe above. "I am a person, I could >take everything from my neighbor, but by the same token he/she could take >everything from me. Perhaps to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement >of our rights and the minimal limits to those rights that allow non- >interference, we can not only live peacefully, but garnish some benefits >out of the cooperation as well!! What a great idea!" To which some people >seem to feel the need to respond: "NAAH! This will only work if we get a god >to enforce the arrangement, therefore... Democracy can get you enforcing any set of moral principles at all. So is any other government (at least in theory). Democracy also quite explicitly punts on the question of whether an individual can have a moral system superior to the group he is in. By way of illustration, suppose that the freely elected Government of Texas enacts all kinds of restrictive laws (take your pick). Democracy doesn't care that, by Rich Rosen's criterion, a person who advocates repeal of these laws is in fact more moral than the group. If he cannot muster a majority, his view cannot be adopted. >> No, it is central. If you take a hard core existentialist position and >> assert that there is no discoverable shared human nature, then you can't >> appeal to any innate rights or characteristics. Again, you trap moral >> systems in pure relativism. THere is then every reason to expect that, >> used by another person, your moral system is WRONG. >On the contrary, this system may be "pure relativism", but it is clearly >a system that offers maximal rights, maximal benefits, and minimal >constraints on people, which to me sounds quote optimal for all involved. >So-called "human nature" indeed has nothing to do with this argument. Oh, nonsense. If you have no guarantee that maximal rights are best for everyone WHEN TAKEN AS INDIVIDUALS, than it ain't a moral imperative. You can make a very strong argument that trying to assasinate Hitler would have been quite morally justified, but it sure as hell isn't giving him maximal rights. If you accept that it was moral, then you've thrown away the universality; if you deny it, then I suggest that you are worshiping the wrong principles. Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe "You want me to make a donation to the Coast guard Youth Auxiliary!"
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/22/85)
-=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>Are you claiming that such a principle is not an obvious goal of a group? >>Would you rather the group had self-annihilation as a principle/goal? > That doesn't give any moral weight to it, without the assumption that one > should cooperate with the wishes of the group. Moral what? You mean like "God says so." or "Do it or I'll blow your head off?" If one is a member of the group, one gains from cooperating with the group. The group's goals are the goals of its individuals (survival, etc.). Obviously the optimal arrangement is for the "group" to be the human race at large. >>>But that's just the point. If I can see a way to improve my own position >>>EVEN MORE, at the expense of others, why should I not take it? Mutual gain >>>must be a goal that everyone should have, for that criticism to have >>>merit-- unless there is some absolute principle backing it up. >>How about the principle that you gain more for a longer period of time by >>cooperation with others than by "improving you position at the expense of >>others", incurring their wrath and prompting any person or group of persons >>to act against you (through violence, revenge, blockade, etc.) It is in >>your interest to cooperate with those around you. Something people are very >>slow to learn, individually, as nationalities, and as a planet. > How long? an eternity? a lifetime? a week? 5 minutes? Unless you've > suddenly acquired a belief in an afterlife, I think it is readily shown > that, for some people, their desires in life demand noncooperation and > exploitation of others. From their point of view, your statement is > patently false. No, they simply fit into the category of the last statement I made in the paragraph before yours above. (Readily shown?) >>>I didn't say that there had a complicated model. But you can't just state >>>that the mutual good of society as a universal priniciple without some >>>backing, and if you are going to abandon that, and take up pure relativism, >>>then there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. >>I thought I just gave such a reason. Some people (apparently) won't accept >>what's logically clearly in their own best interests (like mutual >>cooperation) unless a parent/authority figure tells them they have to. >>That's why they invent gods. > But Rich, everyone doesn't agree with you that it is in their best > interests. If they did, there would be no problem. Hmmm... Why is it that they don't? > Even this completely > ignores the all-important problem of what exactly constitutes mutual > cooperation. And the gratuitous comment about Gods is precisely equivalent > to me postulating that atheists disbelieve in Gods because they don't like > the moral system that the Gods have set forth. A groundless speculation > either way. Certainly a morality with an unprovable religion behind cannot hold a candle to a morality with reason behind it. Look at your world today. People suddenly realizing "Hey, there ain't no reason to believe in this god stuff, so this whole morality stuff is garbage!" Tying morality to a bogus religion inevitably leads to people shirking the morality (the good parts of it, too) along with the religious belief. Morality based on reason stand up to such tinkering. And I think the "morality" shown above, least impositional, most free, most beneficial, is logically the best, despite its lack of "moral weight" (God says so!) [on democracy] >>As a "system" (we're not talking about the individual laws under it), it >>performs exactly the function I describe above. "I am a person, I could >>take everything from my neighbor, but by the same token he/she could take >>everything from me. Perhaps to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement >>of our rights and the minimal limits to those rights that allow non- >>interference, we can not only live peacefully, but garnish some benefits >>out of the cooperation as well!! What a great idea!" To which some people >>seem to feel the need to respond: "NAAH! This will only work if we get a god >>to enforce the arrangement, therefore... > Democracy can get you enforcing any set of moral principles at all. So is > any other government (at least in theory). Democracy also quite explicitly > punts on the question of whether an individual can have a moral system > superior to the group he is in. By way of illustration, suppose that the > freely elected Government of Texas enacts all kinds of restrictive laws > (take your pick). Democracy doesn't care that, by Rich Rosen's criterion, a > person who advocates repeal of these laws is in fact more moral than the > group. If he cannot muster a majority, his view cannot be adopted. One of the reasons for having a Constitution that provides maximal freedom from such things. Again, talk about morality, and talk about political systems, but they're not the same thing and it's silly to treat them like they are in this context. >>On the contrary, this system may be "pure relativism", but it is clearly >>a system that offers maximal rights, maximal benefits, and minimal >>constraints on people, which to me sounds quote optimal for all involved. >>So-called "human nature" indeed has nothing to do with this argument. > Oh, nonsense. If you have no guarantee that maximal rights are best for > everyone WHEN TAKEN AS INDIVIDUALS, than it ain't a moral imperative. You > can make a very strong argument that trying to assasinate Hitler would have > been quite morally justified, but it sure as hell isn't giving him maximal > rights. Pardon me, but wasn't he interfering with people's maximal rights? In a not so benign way? By the way, give an example of a case where maximal rights within the proscribed limits is NOT beneficial for an individual. > If you accept that it was moral, then you've thrown away the > universality; if you deny it, then I suggest that you are worshiping the > wrong principles. I wasn't talking about an absolute tolerance, but rather a MAXIMAL tolerance. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/25/85)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr): > Amongst the whole universe (or set of > universes), this one that we're in is the one where physical laws are as they > are and this small part of it that we're in is the one in which conditions > were such that life could exist. Why are we here, in this spot? Because if > this wasn't "here", there wouldn't be any "we", conditions wouldn't have > allowed it. Does that imply some designer? Not at all. We are "here" > because this is the only place that had conditions to allow us to exist. Obviously the physical conditions here allow us to exist. But allowing something is an immense distance from causing it. Your assumption that life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a state where there were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) -- is not at all empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world view. >> The Bible was written, among other things, to give us guidelines as to what >> is actually in our best interests, though we may not have discovered it yet. > Agreed. Much of it was written with that purpose in mind. But given that > there's no reason to believe it really was the "word of god" (assuming for > now that there is such a beast), when one sees some of the flaws in the > reasoning found in the book, some of the things it claims (and commands!) > are WRONG for everyone and should be punished, one should take the time to > stop and think. Does this book, though it offers some brilliant philosophy, > offer the be all and end all? Do I believe EVERYTHING I read in it regardless > of evidence to the contrary, or do I take from it what is good, what helps, > and take the rest as parable, fable, legend, or even the wild impositions of > some author of the time? I am genuinely pleased that you and I have found some ground of agreement. (No :-); I mean that.) It would be interesting, but time-consuming, to have a discussion of some of the "flaws in the reasoning" -- that is, if there are any other than the basic premise of the existence of God, which you obviously consider a flaw. I'm not sure why so much of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) was put in terms of crime and punishment, other than perhaps to make graphically clear the idea that if you do something wrong (or, as I've said elsewhere, suboptimal), you'll suffer for it sooner or later (perhaps only inside yourself). And heck, a great many Christians don't believe everything in it, because they (we) have a vested interest in not doing so (e.g. Matthew 6, starting at about verse 19). But anyway, I am glad that you do not reject the entire Bible out of hand. >> God Himself is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false >> wants and find out what we really want, then have the courage to go for it. > For instance, what are "false wants"? I agree that some things one may want > are not in one's best interest, some things may be downright wrong. But is > it a false want just because a book says so? Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. >> But until this healing is completed (or at least well along), those >> guidelines are there so that we don't mess ourselves up worse than we >> already are. > One can be better healed by better recognizing one's position in the real > world. I shouldn't speak for those who simply cannot get along without > belief in a parent figure that runs it all despite the lack of evidence to > support that notion, but such cases strike me as very sad. Actually my point was that sticking within Biblical limits stands a good chance of preventing you from requiring more healing than you already do. And yes, many people who come to Christ are indeed very sad when they come or perhaps for years after, and it is Christ who enables them to discard that sadness. >> Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many >> fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which >> renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual >> fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a >> want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which >> can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Paul puts it even more >> strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his >> own body" -- i.e. hurts himself. > Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what > makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside > "conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! Anyone out there who is married but who played around before marriage care to comment on the difference between the two? All I can say is that my minimal experience with premarital sex was pretty painful (no, not physically!). At least I can say that it doesn't work without a high degree of trust between the partners, such trust as is at its strongest when the two have made a solemn commitment to each other. >> It is my contention that starting from the basis that one is loved and >> accepted is a far more effective means of becoming free to reach one's >> fullest potential than merely sticking to dry rationalism. > Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, > but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity > your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. > Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things > in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from > those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often > spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without > interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the > real thing is out here amongst us people. But it is a foundation that has transformed me in the past 10 years or so. As to the source of love and acceptance: Certainly the love and acceptance of humans who cared for me though I didn't offer them much of anything except draining them with my need for self-esteem and acceptance has helped me. But so has a lot of prayer alone in my room. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>Amongst the whole universe (or set of >>universes), this one that we're in is the one where physical laws are as they >>are and this small part of it that we're in is the one in which conditions >>were such that life could exist. Why are we here, in this spot? Because if >>this wasn't "here", there wouldn't be any "we", conditions wouldn't have >>allowed it. Does that imply some designer? Not at all. We are "here" >>because this is the only place that had conditions to allow us to exist. [RR] > Obviously the physical conditions here allow us to exist. But allowing > something is an immense distance from causing it. Your assumption that > life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a state where there > were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) -- is not at all > empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world view. [SARGENT] It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the assumption. > It would be interesting, but time-consuming, to have > a discussion of some of the "flaws in the reasoning" -- that is, if there are > any other than the basic premise of the existence of God, which you obviously > consider a flaw. It is that assumption (the existence of god) that all the further compounded "flaws" seem to stem from. (They're not "flaws" in reasoning because they're perfectly valid if you accept the assumption, though it seems a few added assumptions must be inserted along the way to fill in cracks.) >>> God Himself is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false >>> wants and find out what we really want, then have the courage to go for it. >> For instance, what are "false wants"? I agree that some things one may want >> are not in one's best interest, some things may be downright wrong. But is >> it a false want just because a book says so? >Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? >>>Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many >>>fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which >>>renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual >>>fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a >>>want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which >>>can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Paul puts it even more >>>strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his >>>own body" -- i.e. hurts himself. >>Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what >>makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside >>"conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! >Anyone out there who is married but who played around before marriage care to >comment on the difference between the two? All I can say is that my minimal >experience with premarital sex was pretty painful (no, not physically!). At >least I can say that it doesn't work without a high degree of trust between >the partners, such trust as is at its strongest when the two have made a solemn >commitment to each other. Sure add in enough guilt ("this is WRONG! this is WRONG! this is...") and it's sure to be painful. Working from assumptions again. Since you have no experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in no position to judge. I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non- Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. >>Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, >>but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity >>your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. >>Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things >>in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from >>those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often >>spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without >>interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the >>real thing is out here amongst us people. > But it is a foundation that has transformed me in the past 10 years or so. Cults, beliefs, etc. all have successfully transformed people. > As to the source of love and acceptance: Certainly the love and acceptance > of humans who cared for me though I didn't offer them much of anything > except draining them with my need for self-esteem and acceptance has helped > me. But so has a lot of prayer alone in my room. Good thing they saw good in you that you yourself were hiding. If prayer puts you in a frame of mind that makes you feel better about yourself, great. It sounds like it only makes you feel better about yourself in relation to something else, though. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/30/85)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr): >> Your assumption that life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a >> state where there were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) >> -- is not at all empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world >> view. > It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an > assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and > DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the > assumption. Rich, you're entering obnoxious mode without provocation (per my article "a suggestion"). The parenthetical note in your paragraph above is unnecessary. The sciences you name support the idea that changes have occurred on earth (e.g. dinosaurs once lived here, but no more), but they do not imply that there was no intelligence behind the changes. And as I said, we don't see evolutionary changes taking place now, and we certainly don't see life coming from non-life now. The idea that that could happen is an assumption by those who, like you, do not want to admit the existence of a god. >>Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >>they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. > Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and > truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to > see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other > people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? It's all in the definition of "harm", I suppose. Sex, for instance, is such a titanic linkage of two people that if one has sex with numerous partners, one is in a sense violating oneself by bringing too many people too close. And actually, a lot of things in the Bible are backwards from the way most people think. Not for nothing has the Kingdom of God been called "the upside-down kingdom"; as one progresses as a Christian, one can discover radical new ways of looking at life that are totally different (and better, more freeing) than the way "the world" looks at life. > I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's view [that premarital > sex is unwise], but the fact that others may not, and that married and > unmarried non- Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows > that the blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. Once again, I'm not talking "right" and "wrong"; I'm talking "best for the people involved". >> As to the source of love and acceptance: Certainly the love and acceptance >> of humans who cared for me though I didn't offer them much of anything >> except draining them with my need for self-esteem and acceptance has helped >> me. But so has a lot of prayer alone in my room. > Good thing they saw good in you that you yourself were hiding. If prayer > puts you in a frame of mind that makes you feel better about yourself, > great. It sounds like it only makes you feel better about yourself in > relation to something else, though. Yes and no. It does help me to see things more clearly (there are some things that don't have to be looked at radically [as above], rationally [!] does fine, thank you). But be it noted that the idea that acceptance by {S,s}omeone else can help you to accept yourself and grow toward wholeness is not confined to Christendom; the most obvious more secular example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Sigh.... No time to say more, system is shutting down for the night. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (07/30/85)
In article <2147@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >>> The Bible was written, among other things, to give us guidelines as to what >>> is actually in our best interests, though we may not have discovered it yet. This is a lovely opinion, unless one happens to have some other religion, or no religion at all, or if one is gay, or.... >Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. And that is why they say 'but this is for your oun good' as they put you in the oven (jail, whatever). >>> fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which >>> renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual >>> fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a >>> want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which >>> can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. >Anyone out there who is married but who played around before marriage care to >comment on the difference between the two? All I can say is that my minimal >experience with premarital sex was pretty painful (no, not physically!). At >least I can say that it doesn't work without a high degree of trust between >the partners, such trust as is at its strongest when the two have made a solemn >commitment to each other. And some ceremony in front of a priest, preacher, or minister (of the Christian faith, I presume) is the only way to make that trusting commitment. I have to disagree and my reasons are personal. This sounds like another way of saying 'you aren't married, your relationship is not "real"'. I hear this regularly about my (gay) relationship, but there is no legal mechanism for marrying two men (can you say 'catch 22'?). I can say "bullshit". Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/31/85)
>>>Your assumption that life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a >>>state where there were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) >>>-- is not at all empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world >>>view. >>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an >>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and >>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the >>assumption. > Rich, you're entering obnoxious mode without provocation (per my article > "a suggestion"). The parenthetical note in your paragraph above is > unnecessary. The parenthetical note is neither obnoxious nor unnecessary. Given the weight of evidence supporting the notions that such people wish to debunk, their attempts really are nothing but "Yes it did happen! It did! It did!" assertions. > The sciences you name support the idea that changes have occurred on earth > (e.g. dinosaurs once lived here, but no more), but they do not imply that > there was no intelligence behind the changes. And as I said, we don't see > evolutionary changes taking place now, and we certainly don't see life coming > from non-life now. The idea that that could happen is an assumption by those > who, like you, do not want to admit the existence of a god. "Do not want to admit"? You mean "do not want to assume"! Let's get that quite clear. One "admits" things that have been shown to be true. Have you done so? Until you do, don't you dare claim that others who disagree with your notions "do not want to ADMIT" them. >>Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and >>truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to >>see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other >>people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? > It's all in the definition of "harm", I suppose. Sex, for instance, is such > a titanic linkage of two people that if one has sex with numerous partners, > one is in a sense violating oneself by bringing too many people too close. Please document your assumptions here. Show me in what way these statements are anything more than your assertions about sex. You feel that way because of the way you feel about sex. Does that make it universal? >>I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's view [that premarital >>sex is unwise], but the fact that others may not, and that married and >>unmarried non- Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows >>that the blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. > Once again, I'm not talking "right" and "wrong"; I'm talking "best for the > people involved". When you talk, Jeff, you seem to assume that what's right for you as you see it APPLIES to ALL other people "involved". Witness your foray into net.singles on homosexuality, AGAIN. Thus, we ARE talking right and wrong because of the way you talk about things. In your paragraph about "harm", you make reference to people in general ("if *one* has sex..."). I've always said that right and wrong are subjective and individually rooted, and you've been saying that it's not, that right and wrong are written in a book. > But be it noted that the idea that acceptance by {S,s}omeone else > can help you to accept yourself and grow toward wholeness is not confined to > Christendom; the most obvious more secular example is Alcoholics Anonymous. Agreed. It's a shame when one HAS to depend on the external continually to feel the self-acceptance. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <5409@fortune.UUCP> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: > >And some ceremony in front of a priest, preacher, or minister (of the Christian >faith, I presume) is the only way to make that trusting commitment. I have to >disagree and my reasons are personal. This sounds like another way of saying >'you aren't married, your relationship is not "real"'. I hear this regularly >about my (gay) relationship, but there is no legal mechanism for marrying two >men (can you say 'catch 22'?). I can say "bullshit". > I would say that the important thing is the public commitment, *not* the legal recognition of it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/06/85)
> > It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an > assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and > DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the > assumption. [RR] Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts. Cosmology doesn't pose too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG... dream on!!!!) > > >Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because > >they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. > [SARGENT] > Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and > truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to > see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other > people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? Maybe you haven't gotten hurt yet, but I tend to doubt that. Everybody gets hurt, eventually, from intimate relationships that don't last. And often the things that hurt are actually done to us so that we will hurt. If you haven't been hurt, then maybe you've been doing all the lashing out. At some point it always comes down to the same thing. Relationships end and people get hurt. Marriage, on the other hand, when done with the right reasons with the right two people, should not end..until death do you part. Chew on that for a while. The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) inside of you. God fills it too, if you let Him. And without the hurt that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody involved. And if not the mental anguish...what about the physical diseases going around. Fool around with the wrong person these days and you may not be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. > > >>Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what > >>makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside > >>"conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! Sex is not the thing that hurts. It's the relationship that does. Sex creates an intimacy that is an illusion when there is no love between two people. And if there is love, true love...why not marriage. The only way sex can hurt is physically...by disease, partners being inconsiderate (why bother if it's only tonight), force, unwanted pregnancy. Mentally, it's not the sex that hurts but the mirrage it creates. > > Sure add in enough guilt ("this is WRONG! this is WRONG! this is...") and > it's sure to be painful. I never felt a guilty moment in bed, but I got hurt. Expectations are built on the intimacy that sex creates. If both people don't live up to those expectations, someone will get hurt. And it's usually pretty messy. Most people don't remain friends (socially) after sharing an intimate relationship. > Working from assumptions again. Since you have no > experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in > no position to judge. I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's > view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non- > Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the > blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. [RR] If your not Christian, nobody's telling you to change your way of life. If you become Christian, it's just a matter of time before you will, with God's help. > >>Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, > >>but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity > >>your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. > >>Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things > >>in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from > >>those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often > >>spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without > >>interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the > >>real thing is out here amongst us people. [RR] Usually, parents (good parents that is) exhibit this king of love for a child. Eventually, their patience runs thin sometimes. God's patience is forever, He's just waiting for us to ask for help, and He's there to help. My mom and dad have often had to have this same attitude. Jesus loves you! (even if you don't care) Julie Harazduk
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/09/85)
>>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an >>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and >>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the >>assumption. [RR] > Archeology winds up supporting Biblical accounts. Cosmology doesn't pose > too many definite answers as to the origins of things (from nothing...BANG... > dream on!!!!) [HARAZDUK] You left out paleontology. Of course. Archaelogy merely shows that the civilizations described in the Bible existed around the times and places described therein. Archaeology certainly offers no support to the notions of divine acts also described therein. And as for cosmology, well, this just sounds like "Ah, you don't know the ultimate truth, therefor MY wishful speculations MUST be right". >>>Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >>>they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. >>>[SARGENT] >>Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and >>truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to >>see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other >>people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? > Maybe you haven't gotten hurt yet, but I tend to doubt that. Everybody gets > hurt, eventually, from intimate relationships that don't last. And often > the things that hurt are actually done to us so that we will hurt. If you > haven't been hurt, then maybe you've been doing all the lashing out. At > some point it always comes down to the same thing. Relationships end and > people get hurt. Marriage, on the other hand, when done with the right > reasons with the right two people, should not end..until death do you > part. Chew on that for a while. "Should" not end? Hmmm... No matter. Is there something wrong with "getting hurt"? Must we always seek the ultimate protective sure-thing environment? Why? In doing so, in fact, in seeking the unattainable "perfect lifetime relationship with a person living up to YOUR expectations", you are predestined to fail. (That much of determinism is a surefire reality!) > The sexual life style is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. > Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) > inside of you. God fills it too, if you let Him. And without the hurt > that numerous intimate relationships wind up inflicting on everybody > involved. And if not the mental anguish...what about the physical diseases > going around. Fool around with the wrong person these days and you may not > be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. The married lifestyle is not all as glamorous as you make it out to be. Those things you say you want to do are filling some emptiness (need) inside of you. Freedom of thought and action do that too, if you let them. And without the hurt that the intimacy of a single longterm relationship of commitment to a particular person winds inflicting on EVERYBODY involved. And if not the mental anguish...what about the high incidence of marital violence and abuse perpetrated by people who expect and demand certain things from a marriage. Marry the wrong person these days and you may not be around to tell the story a couple of years from now or so. See how easy it is to make crass generalizations about a lifestyle? >>>>Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what >>>>makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside >>>>"conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! > Sex is not the thing that hurts. It's the relationship that does. Sex > creates an intimacy that is an illusion when there is no love between two > people. Just as marriage often creates an illusion of possession/possessedness and safety that simply is not there. Works both ways. > And if there is love, true love...why not marriage. And the more important question: if there is love, why MUST there be marriage? > The only way > sex can hurt is physically...by disease, partners being inconsiderate (why > bother if it's only tonight), force, unwanted pregnancy. Mentally, it's > not the sex that hurts but the mirrage it creates. Being inconsiderate? How about the notion in marriage that the partner is now "yours", and thus you no longer need to be considerate as you did during the process of "snaring" this person? You can't just blithely condemn a non-marriage lifestyle when such problems are rife in people's preconceptions and actions in marriage. >>Sure add in enough guilt ("this is WRONG! this is WRONG! this is...") and >>it's sure to be painful. > I never felt a guilty moment in bed, but I got hurt. Expectations are built > on the intimacy that sex creates. If both people don't live up to those > expectations, someone will get hurt. And it's usually pretty messy. Most > people don't remain friends (socially) after sharing an intimate relationship. If you're talking about expectations, don't leave out marriage. More people get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what the other partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' family, the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could care to count. And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted marriages as a result. >>Working from assumptions again. Since you have no >>experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in >>no position to judge. I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's >>view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non- >>Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the >>blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. [RR] > If your not Christian, nobody's telling you to change your way of life. If > you become Christian, it's just a matter of time before you will, with God's > help. I'm not sure what on earth this has to do with my statement above. Christians have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage, though your assertions in your article make it appear that you feel that you do. My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective on requirements about marriage, that (as shown above) a lot of assumptions are made within it. I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective, but that's his business, and his problem. I'm just offering a different perspective from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point. >>>>Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, >>>>but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity >>>>your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. >>>>Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things >>>>in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from >>>>those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've >>>>often spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need >>>>without interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, >>>>but the real thing is out here amongst us people. [RR] > Usually, parents (good parents that is) exhibit this kind of love for a child. > Eventually, their patience runs thin sometimes. God's patience is forever, > He's just waiting for us to ask for help, and He's there to help. My mom > and dad have often had to have this same attitude. Without rehashing how the existence of god is an a posteriori imposition of the things you want in the universe onto that universe (and its "creator"), this is just what you WANT to have, not necessarily what exists. Your belief that such things exist is your belief, that's all. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/12/85)
> >>It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an > >>assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and > >>DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the > >>assumption. > > > Rich, you're entering obnoxious mode without provocation (per my article > > "a suggestion"). The parenthetical note in your paragraph above is > > unnecessary. > > The parenthetical note is neither obnoxious nor unnecessary. Given the > weight of evidence supporting the notions that such people wish to debunk, > their attempts really are nothing but "Yes it did happen! It did! It did!" > assertions. I see you doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Making assertions without any proof. The evidence has all been circumstantial. Few of these scientific fields that you've mentioned are based on empirical studies. Most of these that you mention just collect evidence and then attempt to explain it in the best way they know how. I think that's great and I don't think it should stop, but stop trying to make it all sound like its FACT, FACT, FACT ...when its HYPOTHESIS, HYPOTHESIS, HYPOTHESIS (just using the famous Rich Rosen emphatical redundancy :-). Big difference...really. > "Do not want to admit"? You mean "do not want to assume"! Let's get that > quite clear. One "admits" things that have been shown to be true. Have you > done so? Until you do, don't you dare claim that others who disagree with > your notions "do not want to ADMIT" them. I'd be curious to know what it is God has to do before you believe. Just curious. Do you think that if you were alive when Jesus lived, you would have believed if you saw all the miracles and then the ressurection...or would you have needed more proof? How about when the Red Sea was opened for the Israelites to pass through? Would that have amazed you enough? Or when the three men were thrown into the fire because they wouldn't bow down- and they were unharmed in that fire and a fourth man was seen who looked like the Son of God. How about when the Jordan opened for the wander- ing Israelites, would that have convinced you? What do you have to live through to be convinced? God just may do it, if you define it, so be careful. For the benefit of those who had to see great works, God did them. For the benefit of those who had to see God, He did that too, in the form of His Son Jesus. I think if God came to your door and personally invited you to Heaven, you would turn Him away. I don't believe you need proof. You probably wouldn't believe it if you had it. But really. I would like to know what you would consider conclusive proof. You never know what could happen. Julie
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/85)
> I'd be curious to know what it is God has to do before you believe. Exist. > Just curious. Do you think that if you were alive when Jesus lived, you would > have believed if you saw all the miracles and then the ressurection...or > would you have needed more proof? Yes, indeed. Just as I would need proof when Uri Geller bends sppons, or when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat. ("This time fer sure!" :-) The fact that you weren't there and still just blithely believe says something about what kind of scrutiny you subject your potential beliefs to. > How about when the Red Sea was opened > for the Israelites to pass through? Would that have amazed you enough? Did it amaze you when you were there? Or are you perhaps not quite that old, which would mean that you accept the accounts at face value? Why don't you equally accepts Grimm's Fairy Tales? There's little need to go through the rest of the examples. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/15/85)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr): > Is there something wrong with "getting hurt"? Must we always seek the > ultimate protective sure-thing environment? Why? There's a difference between 1) doing what you believe is right (not just allowed, but right and best) and being hurt for doing it (as usual, the prime examples are Jesus and many of the apostles and prophets) and 2) asking for trouble by doing something that may be far from the best thing for you (though nothing says it isn't allowed). As to most of the rest of the discussion (unrestricted sex vs. marriage), it becomes apparent that much of your (Rich's) views of marriage come from your own observations of what was apparently not a very good marriage between your parents, as per this: > More people get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what > the other partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' > family, the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could > care to count. And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted > marriages as a result. You're right that exceptions can fry a marriage (this was brought out in the series I recently posted to net.singles from a seminar on Preparing for Marriage), but haven't you ever known any good marriages? Or is there some reason you always emphasize the worst side of everything that most people consider basically good? Sure there are problems in marriage. Sure people should be warned about them -- but not in the spirit of throwing out the baby with the bath water (i.e. implying [as you SEEM to] that marriage should be tossed out entirely). For that matter, the same could be said about being a Christian; there are lots of problems along that road, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good road. > Christians have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage. > .... My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective > on requirements about marriage, that ... a lot of assumptions are made within > it. I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective, but that's > his business, and his problem. I'm just offering a different perspective > from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point. What good is there in the atheist's (hardly unbiased) perspective on marriage? For example, a marriage "until we don't feel like it any more" is hardly a marriage in the full sense of the word, because it does not provide the secure commitment that "so long as we both shall live" does. The idea of staying married only so long as both feel like it implies that each partner *has* to work at being good to the other or risk losing him/her, which implies somewhat of a loss of freedom built right into the very fabric of the arrangement. The idea of staying married no matter what allows, and I hope encourages, the partners to love each other because they want to, not because they dare not do otherwise; i.e., lifelong commitment fosters fuller human growth if the partners choose to grow. Love given freely, by choice (as in the second case) is far better than love given from fear of loss (as in the first case); indeed, fear-based "love" probably couldn't be called love at all. Perhaps this "until we don't feel like it" isn't your particular approach to marriage, but it is that of a fair number of people nowadays; I'm just pointing out that while they may think they are freer by not committing themselves for life, they're actually less free. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq Faith is admitting that you ain't God.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
>>Is there something wrong with "getting hurt"? Must we always seek the >>ultimate protective sure-thing environment? Why? [ROSEN] > There's a difference between 1) doing what you believe is right (not just > allowed, but right and best) and being hurt for doing it (as usual, the prime > examples are Jesus and many of the apostles and prophets) and 2) asking for > trouble by doing something that may be far from the best thing for you (though > nothing says it isn't allowed). You're probably right. There probably is a difference. I'd still like the opportunity to go through both (1) and (2) and learn from both. Why do you assume that (2) is "asking for trouble"? Must you always choose some "optimum" (by what standard) route? > As to most of the rest of the discussion (unrestricted sex vs. marriage), it > becomes apparent that much of your (Rich's) views of marriage come from your > own observations of what was apparently not a very good marriage between your > parents, as per this: Stop. If I ever hear Jeff Sargent project things onto other people that have no basis in reality except his own mind, I'm going to scream so loud it will be heard in California! >>More people get married with unvoiced preconceptions and expectations of what >>the other partner is "supposed" to be (it worked like this in my parents' >>family, the Bible says that a spouse is supposed to do this...) than we could >>care to count. And more of THEM wind up either in divorce or bitter twisted >>marriages as a result. How the hell you get "not a very good marriage between my parents" from this is beyond me. My parents have been married for 30 years, thank you. They may have their faults, but the basis for my statements comes from experience with quite a lot of married people in very different situations. The examples I gave of people citing their own parents' lives or the Bible as "proof" of how marriage is "supposed" to be is pretty widespread. > You're right that exceptions can fry a marriage (this was brought out in the > series I recently posted to net.singles from a seminar on Preparing for > Marriage), but haven't you ever known any good marriages? Yeah, the ones in which each party overcame or shirked preconceived expectations for the other ranking high among them. > Or is there some reason you always emphasize the worst side of everything > that most people consider basically good? I thought that was you who harped on how horrible people are, how the worst examples like Stalin and Hitler are the basis for judging humanity. No, I'm wrong, those were other Christians. > Sure there are problems in marriage. Sure people > should be warned about them -- but not in the spirit of throwing out the baby > with the bath water (i.e. implying [as you SEEM to] that marriage should be > tossed out entirely). Where did you see words implying "tossed out entirely". If marriage works for certain people, fine. You are the one who is insisting that it is a MUST for successful relationships in the specific religious form you depict. It is NOT a necessity for solid relationships. That is the point. > For that matter, the same could be said about being a > Christian; there are lots of problems along that road, but that doesn't mean > it isn't a good road. But I think you need new tires, Jeff. :-) >>Christians have no monopoly on proper perspective about things like marriage. >>.... My point was that Jeff need not listen only to the Christian perspective >>on requirements about marriage, that ... a lot of assumptions are made within >>it. I doubt that he wants to hear anything but that perspective, but that's >>his business, and his problem. I'm just offering a different perspective >>from a different and perhaps less biased vantage point. > What good is there in the atheist's (hardly unbiased) perspective on marriage? A lot. I think I've just presented some of it. Did you read any of it? In fact, it is much more unbiased. Nowhere did I say (as you repeatedly and maliciously imply) that marriage as an institution is worthless. I *have* repeatedly said that many people who view marriage as a "given" (I grow up, I get married, I buy a house, I raise kids...) treat human relationships in the shabbiest way (as do some non-marrieds), as described above, with preconception and expectation. Marriage is not a cure-all, a magic potion that makes two people learn about relationships. In that sense, it is just as good (and just as bad) as any other relationship arrangement between people. Not some glorious ultimate better thing tht you depict it to be. (And why do I get referred to as an atheist?) > For example, a marriage "until we don't feel like it any more" is hardly a > marriage in the full sense of the word, because it does not provide the > secure commitment that "so long as we both shall live" does. So? Maybe both people would be better off in a closed-ended (or open-ended) relationship. Who are you to say that it MUST be a lifetime commitment? There are other relationship possibilities. > The idea of > staying married only so long as both feel like it implies that each partner > *has* to work at being good to the other or risk losing him/her, which > implies somewhat of a loss of freedom built right into the very fabric of > the arrangement. So, what's wrong with that? I don't understand why you consider simply treating another person with common decency to be work. In any form of relationship, if you treat the other person badly and maliciously on a continuous basis (if the other person has any sense)---BOOM! Fini. Are you proposing that marriage should keep such relationships together? > The idea of staying married no matter what allows, and I > hope encourages, the partners to love each other because they want to, not > because they dare not do otherwise; i.e., lifelong commitment fosters fuller > human growth if the partners choose to grow. And of course this gets back to the head of the article: why must the so-called best path be chosen always? > Love given freely, by choice > (as in the second case) is far better than love given from fear of loss (as > in the first case); indeed, fear-based "love" probably couldn't be called > love at all. I'm not quite sure what planet you come from anymore Jeff. If you see a relationship in such a negative way, if you see it as "If I don't love her she'll leave me so I'd better love her or else", you make it sound like it's some kind of ordeal loving this person. If it's so hard to offer that person love, if you make such a big deal out of it that you see it as hard work, then perhaps you don't really love this person at all. > Perhaps this "until we don't feel like it" isn't your particular approach > to marriage, but it is that of a fair number of people nowadays; I'm just > pointing out that while they may think they are freer by not committing > themselves for life, they're actually less free. I don't see how you reach that conclusion. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr