What would you do if pt 2

[earl]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Tariki,

As always you come in with the most appropriate works! "Crime and Punishment" is an excellent reference for this thread, and the words of Buddha confirm what Wil alluded to earlier. It is only a particular v-meme that believes the essential nature of man is evil and that there is even a transcendent figure that sets things right.
In Silas' model God is "out there" somewhere directing us by an objective law or principle to which we ultimately must surrender and integrate into our being. All well and good of course, but it dismisses out of hand the notion that the Buddha and others pointed out that "being good" to put it simply aligns us with our original nature and therefore the nature of suchness. When this alignment takes place there is great merit, peace, joy and happiness.
I think the problem is delving too far into what is known as a "what if" fallacy of logic in order to propagate a particular world view. Ultimately the motivation for that behavior could only be self aggrandizement.

Peace
Mark

Your notion of being good aligning us with our own true nature is how I see it as well; that by opening the heart of love/compassion one also opens to a deeper, truer Being, one which words/concepts can only fail. Buddhists of course have long placed compassion on a par with wisdom-compassion as a spiritual practice which deepens our awareness as well as a natural response when we act from a deeper place of awareness. They see compassion and wisdom as 2 wings of the same bird. I've typically read Buddhists when speaking of their traditional ethics as saying those ethics are both mind training and how enlightened people would naturally act. take care, earl

[lunamoth]

I like this idea of alignment with our true nature, our Christ nature. If in Him I live and move and have my being...then repentance (transformation) and redemption (righting my relationship) means that my being in the image of God becomes clearer. It must have been there to start with, or how else could it emerge?

I can't help but notice the relationship of this thread to the discovery of the putative Jesus and Mary crypts. I would note that only a faith dependent upon a very literal understanding of Christ and redemption would be shaken by an authenticated discovery. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the crypt is bunk.

Morality may be fine-tuned by religion, but IMO a drive to play nice with others is hard-wired into us (by God, via evolution). If we are of good mental health and past our youthful rebellious, selfish stage, and if we are not under extreme physical duress, cooperation with others and a basic morality will emerge naturally (and at the same time, by the grace of God).

[Silas]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Silas,

Darn good question! I'm hoping you can provide an answer. You posit that humans are sinful and wicked by nature, or have repeatedly for about 600 posts...

And without G-d permitting them (you also say that we don't choose G-d but G-d chooses us) And that without Jesus saving them...we are destined to be true to that evil nature.

So why, since you've repeatedly told me I am not a Christian, and that I do not love Jesus, and that I will reap G-d's wrath...

Why, why do I donate my time to benefit others, why do I spend time teaching youth, why do I donate to charity, why do I try to raise moral children? Now I ain't no saint, but why do I do these things...the fallen human that I am?

Why do I spend time here, and in real life on interfaith and learning, why not spend it chasing women in bars? Why does this inherently evil being do this Silas?

It is really a very good question, thanks! You didnt answer it though, you only went on a long spill about things that have nothing to do with the topic. We're not talking about religions right now. The question at hand is dealing with the "what if" fact that there is no God. If there is no God and you came from a cosmic accident, and your life is meaningless, you have no worth, and you will soon die, why would you choose to be moral? I mentioned that I would do all the things my heart desired and probably more. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be moral? Answer that please.


That aside, l'll answer your question. The reason you do any good is because God is pleased not to have totally depraved people be utterly depraved. You will never be as bad as you can be for God's sake. All of life is grace and although you are evil, you still know how to give and do good things (Luke 11:13).

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Prober

Well, without a G-d I don't know what would make that person want to take another look at their life, but being good just works better than being bad. Taking just what you need works better than taking more than you need. Being friendly works better than being unfriendly, etc.


There's a peacefulness that comes from being good. Like you're teflon-coated and nothing can hurt you and it wouldn't matter if it did anyway.

I know that the term "good" is a subjective thing. I'm not trying to get mixed up in semantics. I'm just saying...

The reward of a good life is a good life!

Then if you put G-d in the mix, that's an extra bonus.

my 2 cents...

Love,
Mark

Thanks for answering! But no one has answered the question yet. I'm sorry if Im not asking correctly, but I just want to know why someone who would opt for being the result of years of chance, aka, evolution, and who would believe that their life is meaningless since they came from nothing and will ultimately go no where, why would they choose to be moral at all? It doesnt make sense to believe one way and live opposite to that belief.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Silas

If there is no God and you came from a cosmic accident, and your life is meaningless, you have no worth, and you will soon die, why would you choose to be moral? I mentioned that I would do all the things my heart desired and probably more. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be moral? Answer that please.

It has been answered repeatedly Silas, by myself and others...because over time I learn that living a wrong life begets more issues...living a moral life softens the blow of life in general. To me it is common sense, living with a positive loving outlook produces more of the same...as it was said, being good has its own rewards. The 'G-dless' Buddhists discovered this...as have many.

We all do not believe that man is inherently evil....I believe that man is inherently good and given time that would prove out, hence the reason man creates laws and governments and religions to assist in enforcement...but it appears that various interpretations of G-d (religions) and Gov't have gotten in the way....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Silas

It is really a very good question, thanks! You didnt answer it though, you only went on a long spill about things that have nothing to do with the topic. We're not talking about religions right now. The question at hand is dealing with the "what if" fact that there is no God. If there is no God and you came from a cosmic accident, and your life is meaningless, you have no worth, and you will soon die, why would you choose to be moral? I mentioned that I would do all the things my heart desired and probably more. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be moral? Answer that please.


That aside, l'll answer your question. The reason you do any good is because God is pleased not to have totally depraved people be utterly depraved. You will never be as bad as you can be for God's sake. All of life is grace and although you are evil, you still know how to give and do good things (Luke 11:13).

Silas,

Perhaps we need more clarification here. You say you are not discussing religion in your thesis statement, but the underlying premise suggests that without God life is essentially meaningless and humans are basically worthless.

So, how then are we to proceed with a discussion that excludes God, but frames the argument based on a religious premise?

Peace
Mark

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Silas

Thanks for answering! But no one has answered the question yet. I'm sorry if Im not asking correctly, but I just want to know why someone who would opt for being the result of years of chance, aka, evolution, and who would believe that their life is meaningless since they came from nothing and will ultimately go no where, why would they choose to be moral at all? It doesnt make sense to believe one way and live opposite to that belief.

Sorry. Perhaps I'm reading "why should they" instead of "why would they".

Why would they choose something else?

I suppose, without impetus, they wouldn't. A body at rest tends to stay at rest, etc.

I don't know...it's hard for me to imagine...

In other words, without something to stimulate a change, there would most likely be no change.

[Silas]

Originally Posted by wil

It has been answered repeatedly Silas, by myself and others...because over time I learn that living a wrong life begets more issues...living a moral life softens the blow of life in general. To me it is common sense, living with a positive loving outlook produces more of the same...as it was said, being good has its own rewards. The 'G-dless' Buddhists discovered this...as have many.

We all do not believe that man is inherently evil....I believe that man is inherently good and given time that would prove out, hence the reason man creates laws and governments and religions to assist in enforcement...but it appears that various interpretations of G-d (religions) and Gov't have gotten in the way....

Wil,

This has nothing to do with man being evil at all! In fact, this has nothing to do with relligion or God. The question is: If there is no God and no absolute morals and consequences of sin and that your life is the result of years of blind chance, namely evolution, and then your life is meaningless because you came from nothing and is going no where, why choose to live contrary to that belief and be moral at all?

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Silas,

Perhaps we need more clarification here. You say you are not discussing religion in your thesis statement, but the underlying premise suggests that without God life is essentially meaningless and humans are basically worthless.

So, how then are we to proceed with a discussion that excludes God, but frames the argument based on a religious premise?

Peace
Mark

That would be an assumed premises that shouldnt be added into what I said.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Silas

Wil,

This has nothing to do with man being evil at all! In fact, this has nothing to do with relligion or God. The question is: If there is no God and no absolute morals and consequences of sin and that your life is the result of years of blind chance, namely evolution, and then your life is meaningless because you came from nothing and is going no where, why choose to live contrary to that belief and be moral at all?

Now you are aware that to me we are not punished for our sins but by them. That has nothing to do with G-d or religion, just a physical reaction. I punch you in the mouth, you respond by punching me in the mouth. I don't like getting punched in the mouth, so I stop doing this. I try to rob someone, they beat me up, I decide to try another method. In this world it is easier to be nice than mean...my understanding. No blind chance, sin is missing the mark, not doing your best, an archery term meaning you missed the bullseye...how many sins, how from from your mark are you? The more times in life I hit the bullseye the better life is for me. Now despite the fact that I believe that is the way our creator set it up...I still don't need to believe in G-d for that to happen. And if perchance as you posit that G-d didn't create the world and this wonderful 'karmic' reaction....then so be it, it was a wonderful case of blind chance.

You still haven't answered....why did I decide to become moral, become a better person before I found an understanding with G-d?

[Silas]

Originally Posted by wil

Now you are aware that to me we are not punished for our sins but by them. That has nothing to do with G-d or religion, just a physical reaction. I punch you in the mouth, you respond by punching me in the mouth. I don't like getting punched in the mouth, so I stop doing this. I try to rob someone, they beat me up, I decide to try another method. In this world it is easier to be nice than mean...my understanding. No blind chance, sin is missing the mark, not doing your best, an archery term meaning you missed the bullseye...how many sins, how from from your mark are you? The more times in life I hit the bullseye the better life is for me. Now despite the fact that I believe that is the way our creator set it up...I still don't need to believe in G-d for that to happen. And if perchance as you posit that G-d didn't create the world and this wonderful 'karmic' reaction....then so be it, it was a wonderful case of blind chance.

You still haven't answered....why did I decide to become moral, become a better person before I found an understanding with G-d?

Im sorry Wil, Im going to end this converstion now because I dont think I did a well enough job explaining what this coversation is about. This was just a philosophical question and it has nothing to do with God or penelity for sins. Rather, it has everything to do with the thought of no God, no judgement for sin, and why do people choose to be moral? I'll have to think about this on my own, thanks for answering anyway!!

As for your question, why you decided to be moral? I think its because you try to appease God without having to submit to God. You seem to think that your goodness or worth is of any true goodness or worth in God's eyes. You, like most, have a form of godliness but deny the power. Hopes that helps!!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Silas

That would be an assumed premises that shouldnt be added into what I said.

I'm sorry Silas, but that is exactly what you said. Perhaps you would like to reframe your argument? Your statement implies that without a God, there is no meaning and humans are worthless is that correct?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Silas

Im sorry Wil, Im going to end this converstion now...

As for your question, why you decided to be moral? I think its because you try to appease God without having to submit to God. You seem to think that your goodness or worth is of any true goodness or worth in God's eyes. You, like most, have a form of godliness but deny the power. Hopes that helps!!

Namaste Silas,

When the going gets tough, stick with it my brother...don't sidestep to where it is easier.

You seem to wish to continue the dance between two worlds. I answer every one of your questions exactly as the question is posed. And for the purpose of your 'what if'. But in reality, I am a Christian, following my elder brother and wayshower Jesus the Christ. In reality I do know the source of my supply and goodness goes to the creator.... But that realization was not what came first, my first realization was in the secular world, knowing that there was more to being human than trying to get over, knowing that personal growth and understanding would be valuable, knowing that service to others leads to personal gain, not just monetarily. These natural laws affect us, they affect us all, and given time to contemplate and comprehend we can see that. Many of us however have a clouded vision, clouded by alcohol or drugs, clouded by beer and circus, the material world... Once we step back and realize we are digging our own ditch we change our ways...for some it is a light from above, for others an inner knowing. Some come to G-d without being beat about the head.

[Tariki]

We seem to have reached an impasse here, with Silas claiming that his original question, as set - or at least, as he understands it to have been set - has not yet been answered. From my own perspective, it appears to have been answered perfectly comprehensively, yet perhaps another try?

(As an aside, Silas, if you are genuinely concerned with having your question answered I would recommend the works of Friedrich Nietzche. I would just say that I always need to look up exactly how to spell the guys name, which points to the reality that personally I'm unable to truly understand his philosophical subtleties and arguments. Yet others may fare better than I!)

Getting back to the question, it seems to be why a mere product of matter in motion, a chance collection of atoms, in a universe that just happens to have happened with no intrinsic meaning, should choose the "ethical". To answer in Christian terms, one would need to consider how the "unethical" entered the world created by God, considered at the time to be "good". This question has been posed by John Hick ,in his book "God and the Universe of Faiths" , wherein he discusses the original eruption of evil, or the choice to be "unethical". He argues that such a choice, given the original "goodness" of man and of the angels, becomes self-contradictory. Hick brings forth the works of that great pillar of the Church, St Augustine, to substantiate his conclusion.

He quotes St Augustine extensively, and sums up.........thus St Augustine saw that the notion of finitely perfect beings, endowed with all the goodness that God's love prompts him to bestow upon its objects, deliberately and sinfully turning away from their maker, is an impossible idea..........a theory which postulates the self-creation of evil ex nihilo is not a viable option.

Yet evil has in fact been "chosen".

The point of all this is that if such be the case - and I accept that if one were to obtain the book, or read St Augustine oneself, one may well disagree with both Hick and St Augustine - then the idea of mere matter in motion, a human being in a universe without God, actually choosing the ethical, is the opposite side of the coin. Good is chosen ex nihilo! And with as much to "justify" it as the original choice of evil/sin!

It is mostly the existentialist philospohers who argue in favour of the ethical choice in the face of a "meaningless" universe. (Once again, I have to admit, in ways that leave my own intellect flagging). Here is Hazel Barnes...........

......self-realization is immediate. It is the direct intuition of freedom. I am not speaking of the reflective abstract idea that one is free. The experience of freedom is best realized in the nonreflective spontaneous act in which consciousness' implicit self-awareness of itself as acting takes the form of a nonreflective comprehension that the act is free of any consideration save the immediate willing.

Exitentialism (at least Atheist Existentialism) speaks in terms of the authentic and the unauthentic life, and the need to "justify" it, and Hazel Barnes continues........

The choice to live unauthentically rests upon a refusal to recognise the existence and demands of freedom; it seeks to hide from itself the very fact that it is a choice. The choice to be ethical embraces both the recognition that one is free and the acceptance of the reponsibility which freedom entails. It is an authentic choice, for it recognises that the decision to justify one's life derives from one's own spontaneous desire and is not imposed from the outside.

Well, after all that, one might not agree. Yet the attempt to answer the question as framed has been made. Silas, if the attempt has failed, please just ask another question......

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Silas

What if there is no God and humanity was just the effect of an accidential cause, namely, the big bang? What if we came from a huge cosmic accident? If we come from no where and are going no where ultimately, does this change the way you look at things? Will life then becoming meaningless and glib? Will you still strive for things even though you know it will have no real purpose or meaning to it in the end? What will you do?

Will a computer or any physical thing in this world care if it is told that God is not its creator? Will it call you a liar? Will life seem any more meaningless and glib to it? Will a computer strive for things even though it will have no real purpose or meaning in the end?