‘righteousness itself is divisive’.

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by _Z_, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    ‘righteousness itself is divisive’.

    discuss notion.
    some ideas on it...

    there are many kinds of truth and many people think they have the only singular version that is true. it only takes the slightest difference in ideas and opinions/interpretations then we get another religion, denomination thereof or a cult. it would appear that the arrow of truth splits its target in two!
    we know that in science you cannot have an absolutely accurate observation, is truth the same? because an idea can always have more than one meaning, there can never be absolute meaning and hence those who think they know the truth cannot possible know it. the very idea is what divides people, the idea in peoples minds of being right makes then so and other not so.

    the main problem is that of the anti-philosophical approach; it is with self- righteous bigots who think that their truth makes them better than others for one reason or another. religion only exasperates this problem and the more true they thing there religion is the more duality occurs.

    this is an individual and societal problem where people demonize individuals and other groups that don’t fit into their idea of normal. people are pushed into corners and come out fighting or commit suicide...
    ...in short, we create the monsters we most fear! obviously there is too an amount of self righteousness within the individuals who commit crimes and that probably goes up exponentially according to the level of crime committed.

    i think we have to address both sides, to see where the masses who gather around ranting on about this person who done this or that, then note; nobody questions the righteous! we see it all the time on the news, ‘x’ did not fit in, ‘x’ was a loner, we always though ‘x’ was a bit weird, so why did ‘x’ do it ~ because evil isn’t created it is made! both we and the said individuals make it, there is no ‘switch’ by which some people go crazy, people don’t just go mad they are driven.

    hmm, obviously much of it comes down to one form of insanity or another, but are people born mad? perhaps on occasion but in the main any mental health problems people have can be dealt with, but if condemned and demonized these problems can only be exasperated.
     
  2. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    Didn't you say we'd agreed this didn't exist?

    s.
     
  3. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    lols yes, it does not exist, when it occurs in the outer world it is false.
     
  4. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    Is your day job a politician? :eek:;)

    s.
     
  5. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,307
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Namaste snoop,

    I liked Zs answer. To me it meant in the paradigm of the religions that claim sole ownership of truth, dualism exists. And in those religions often we find the G!d/Satan, Heaven/Hell attitudes not as one and lack but as opposites.

    And yes Z I agree with the thread title.
     
  7. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    ...and yes, although it is divisive...there seems to be almost a...a...a rush to right...

    s.
     
  8. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    snoopy
    lols, no i am a builder. :)

    interesting point.

    seattlegal

    nice quote.

    wil
    trust you to say it better than me! :D
     
  9. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    only a reference to the thread of that title. :)

    (builder eh? can I have a free quote then? :):))

    s.
     
  10. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,307
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Namastezee,

    thanx and a builder??

    talk about your divisive occupations.

    myself as well.

    What a wonderful testing ground to examine oneness, utilize positive thought, encourage camaraderie, nonjudgement and unconditional love!

    In this industry I've succeeded in none of these goals, and am ready to move to fertile ground...
     
  11. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    aye it keeps me grounded, it isn’t the most philosophical of environments, hitler would have got many recruits.

    i think i bounce off it kinda. :)
     
  12. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Righteousness occurs, like doo doo, in the duality zone. It's Capricornic.

    Chris
     
  13. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some people are automatically righteous, and some have to try harder. Farmers and craftsmen have a special exemption. It's hard to be righteous when you have a job where you help a corporation screw people. Lawyers and telemarketers might as well forget it.

    Chris
     
  14. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good question. I suggest that maybe we just 'Can't handle the truth'. I also agree its easier to be nice depending on what your job is. In the end everybody has to recognize their limitations, instead of trying to do more than is humanly possible. "Neither be too evil nor too good. Why destroy yourself?" Ecc 7:16 When people can't grasp this, reality splits them in two. Two groups, denominations, two-faced, etc. They expect perfection and get judgmental about everything.
     
  15. cyberpi

    cyberpi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is fairly easy to prove you wrong Z. All I have to do is say that you are wrong here, and that I am right. So then have I done as you have said, backed you into a corner where you must either come out fighting or to commit suicide? Your choice, and if you do either then you have proven yourself right, and myself wrong as it applied to you. If you claim that my words, whether right or wrong, is what would drive or cause you to either fight or to commit suicide, then it is within your power to make yourself right by doing one or the other. Whereas I can make myself right by doing neither... I expect to be wrong by other people and I recognize that I neither have to fight nor commit suicide just because all of the homework or the tests are bleeding with red ink, or the parents still disapprove of me, or the church kicks me out, or the employer fires me, etc... any imposed righteousness on me does NOT cause me to have to fight or commit suicide. Thus I must say Z... you are wrong.

    But you can prove me wrong Z. I am using my righteousness to call you wrong. You are wrong. So which will you be using to prove yourself right... to prove that my righteousness here causes you to either fight or to commit suicide? Will it be a fight, or suicide?
     
  16. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
    I would say that self-righteousness can certainly be divisive, even malignant.
     
  17. Francis king

    Francis king New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, but it's often the self-righteous who deny self...
     
  18. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,307
    Likes Received:
    1,197
    Namaste cp,

    Would it, or would the fact that you stod there and claimed to be right and Z to be wrong proof that he was right?

    Couldn't he provide the ultimate Cyberpi type answer.

    CP, "I am righteous and not at all devisive, therefor you are wrong and this is proof"

    z, "See, I rest my case."
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,932
    Likes Received:
    1,096
    Hi Z —

    Yes, it separates the just from the unjust.

    OK. But many kinds signifies one ontology ... this does not infer that truth as such does not exist, nor that Truth does not exist, only that people are fallible. Nor have you demonstrated that everyone is wrong.

    The same with scientific theory ... else it would never have moved on.

    There are two witnesses to an event ... and no doubt their testimonies will not concur on every point ... but an event did happen, and it is possible that one of the witnesses is absolutely right in every detail.

    I don't think you have proved that. I think you are blaming truth for human fallibility.

    Do we? But then again, truth is not governed by science ... science is governed by truth. The truths that science can affirm ... and not with any absolute accuracy, is empirical truth.

    There are other orders of truth not governed by empirical methodology.

    It can have the right meaning, according to the originator of the idea, and degrees of misunderstanding ... but you have not proven, and cannot prove, that everyone in receipt of the idea is wrong, according to the idea.

    Furthermore, you cannot possibly make that statement, because you own idea is possibly erroneous, by your own argument.

    So you might be wrong, but that does not mean everyone else is wrong.

    It's like saying, because I don't know, nobody can know.

    I'm afraid your argument falls under that heading, to my mind.

    Straw man argument. Ad hominem, etc.

    Religion as a mode of knowing is not subject to empirical measure or method.

    I have heard many scientists laughingly complain that the one thing that refuses to observe empirical method or measure is their own inspiration.

    Such as scientists who insist they are the arbiters of all truth. Prof. Dawkins, for example. Personally, I think secular fundamentalism is the worst and most insidious sort.

    Just some thoughts ...

    BTW — Aristotle, Aquinas would not agree — and they have not been 'disproved'. If you want a current model, Bernard Lonergan's General Empirical Method, and Congitive theory, etc., disagree with your line of reasoning, I think.

    Generally I think I am not far off the mark if I describe your theory as within the philosophy of AngloAmerican Analytical? I favour the Continental modes ... Murleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, Derrida ...

    Thomas
     
  20. mee

    mee Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jehovah himself is called "the abiding place of righteousness." (Jer 50:7)


    He is therefore the Righteous One, and all righteousness on the part of his creatures comes from their relationship with him.



    God is to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by Jesus Christ, and he will create "new heavens and a new earth" in which righteousness is to dwell.
    (Acts 17:31; 2Pe 3:13)
     

Share This Page