The Joy of Pantheism [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

garthoverman

July 21st 2003, 12:56 PM

07-19-2003 @ 04:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152946#post152946)
seer:

Compared with Christian theism, Pantheism is quite attractive. First, there is no God with moral preferences.
Umm.... yes there is. I have moral preferences, and I am transparent with the God-consciousness. You have moral preferences and you are transparent with the God-consciousness. Just like everyone and everything else.

No demands on our moral life.
Save for those we put on ourselves.

We invent our own ethics, and consider ourselves good moral men when we live up to those ethics. And this is true no matter how low we set the standard of said ethics.
If you think your own standard is low, then by definition you must believe that they should be higher.

Everything is god, and god is everything - which gives us humans the thing we always wanted - To be god. The worship of nature, finally, in the end, brings us around to self-worship. Yes, quite attractive indeed...
What puzzles me is that you can believe your concept of God to be accurate, which I must assume entails that this entity is "perfect," yet you freely admit that a different conceptualization of God is superior to your own in offering fulfillment to the believer. Somewhere along that line of reasoning you've overlooked an inconsistency.

Yours,
Garth

garthoverman

July 21st 2003, 01:29 PM

Yesterday @ 06:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=153742#post153742)
JardinPrayer:

Good Grief! The word "anarchy" comes to mind...
While I don't think that our present society is ready for anarchy, I do believe that anarchy would characterize an ideal society. Right now, individuals do not trust themselves enough cope with the responsibility that anarchy requires. It might be possible that a the complete level of self-trust that successful anarchy* requires is unattainable, but I still keep trying.

*"Successful anarchy" defined here as a system that exhibits the human values of peace, fulfillment, love, creativity, freedom, etc...

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 21st 2003, 06:13 PM

Umm.... yes there is. I have moral preferences, and I am transparent with the God-consciousness. You have moral preferences and you are transparent with the God-consciousness. Just like everyone and everything else.

And Hitler has his moral preferences, as did Stalin. So have you really said anything except that god contradicts himself? One part of god loves his neighbor, another part of god kills his neighbor.

No demands on our moral life.

Save for those we put on ourselves.

Correct, and we can lower them at will. But still they have no binding authority. Just moral whims...

We invent our own ethics, and consider ourselves good moral men when we live up to those ethics. And this is true no matter how low we set the standard of said ethics. ”

If you think your own standard is low, then by definition you must believe that they should be higher.

Not the point. The pont was that we can set the bar as low as we like. Have you ever read the NAMBLA site? These child molesters really believe that they are good moral men.

Everything is god, and god is everything - which gives us humans the thing we always wanted - To be god. The worship of nature, finally, in the end, brings us around to self-worship. Yes, quite attractive indeed... ”

What puzzles me is that you can believe your concept of God to be accurate, which I must assume entails that this entity is "perfect," yet you freely admit that a different conceptualization of God is superior to your own in offering fulfillment to the believer. Somewhere along that line of reasoning you've overlooked an inconsistency.

Of course you again read into my thought things are just not there. Men love self-worship. Men love being their own god. Men love fulfilling their lust. Men love greed and power. Your god grants all of the above and more. So yes for the sinful man pantheism is much better than a God who has moral preferences and demands.

garthoverman

July 21st 2003, 08:27 PM

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154779#post154779)
seer:

And Hitler has his moral preferences, as did Stalin.
So your assertion that the pantheistic god has no moral preferences is plainly false.

So have you really said anything except that god contradicts himself?
What contradiction? All men love good, and hate evil. Some just have different purposes, and with those purposes come different and sometime distorted ideas of what good and evil are.

One part of god loves his neighbor, another part of god kills his neighbor.
The pantheistic god does not have neighbors, and no identity is ever annihilated. Your statements merely reflect your own misunderstanding.

Correct, and we can lower them at will. But still they have no binding authority. Just moral whims...
Why do you feel the need to be bound by authority? Don't trust yourself?

In any case, they do have binding authority in that you must always act in accordance with your own moral beliefs or feel badly about yourself.

Not the point. The pont was that we can set the bar as low as we like.
No, the bars of others will sometimes seem low to you. It is impossible for a person to regard his own bar as low, because that presupposes an acknowledgement of a superior bar by which he is making the comparison.

Have you ever read the NAMBLA site? These child molesters really believe that they are good moral men.
What do they have to do with anything?

Of course you again read into my thought things are just not there.
Which part did I get wrong? Do you not think your God is "perfect"?

Men love self-worship. Men love being their own god. Men love fulfilling their lust. Men love greed and power.
Self-worship is not as bad as you think it is when you understand that proper self-worship acknowledges that the individual is one with the universe. Therefore, worshipping the universe is self-worship. I don't see how "men lov<ing> to be their own god" is any different from a Christian trying to be Christ-like. Lust and greed are negatives by definition, so it is a contradiction in terms to say that men love something evil. As for power, I don't see what the problem is.

Your god grants all of the above and more.
Just like your God "grant<ed>" the slaughter of Amalekite babies or all the first born in Egypt? If all of the above exist in a Christian universe, then your God grants them existence too, so the point your making is irrelevant to distinguishing pantheism from Christianity.

So yes for the sinful man pantheism is much better than a God who has moral preferences and demands.
So then you don't really think that pantheism is superior when compared to Christian theism as you orignally asserted. Otherwise why would you imply that a sinless man would not choose it?

BTW, as I showed above, the pantheistic god does indeed have moral preferences and demands, so your continued assertion that it doesn't amounts to a strawman... or did you fail to read that part of my post? That would be a little strange seeing as how you wrote reponsive statements to it, but I suppose it is keeping with your posting style.

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 21st 2003, 10:41 PM

So your assertion that the pantheistic god has no moral preferences is plainly false.

Yeah right - we are god... I forgot... But then again, we can define those moral preferences as we wish.

So have you really said anything except that god contradicts himself?

What contradiction? All men love good, and hate evil. Some just have different purposes, and with those purposes come different and sometime distorted ideas of what good and evil are.

How could god have a distorted idea of what good and evil are? Or, who are you to judge? Maybe your idea of good and evil is distorted.

One part of god loves his neighbor, another part of god kills his neighbor. ”

The pantheistic god does not have neighbors, and no identity is ever annihilated. Your statements merely reflect your own misunderstanding.

You don't have neighbors? But if the above is true then killing your neighbor is no big deal - right?

Have you ever read the NAMBLA site? These child molesters really believe that they are good moral men. ”

What do they have to do with anything?

But you agree that they are good moral men - correct?

BTW, as I showed above, the pantheistic god does indeed have moral preferences and demands, so your continued assertion that it doesn't amounts to a strawman... or did you fail to read that part of my post? That would be a little strange seeing as how you wrote reponsive statements to it, but I suppose it is keeping with your posting style.

But again those preferences could be anything,therefore they mean nothing. Like molesting that child. In your world the child molester is acting out of love - correct?

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 01:05 AM

Today @ 07:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154948#post154948)
seer:

How could god have a distorted idea of what good and evil are?Or, who are you to judge? Maybe your idea of good and evil is distorted.
From the perspective of some others, it likely is. Your point?

You don't have neighbors?
I am them.

But if the above is true then killing your neighbor is no big deal - right?
Wrong.

But you agree that they are good moral men - correct?
You wish I would, but I don't.

But again those preferences could be anything,therefore they mean nothing. Like molesting that child. In your world the child molester is acting out of love - correct?
His distorted idea of it.

BTW, I think you should address this part of my post, though I can understand why you would want to ignore it:
So then you don't really think that pantheism is superior when compared to Christian theism as you orignally asserted. Otherwise why would you imply that a sinless man would not choose it?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 22nd 2003, 06:27 AM

How could god have a distorted idea of what good and evil are?Or, who are you to judge? Maybe your idea of good and evil is distorted.

From the perspective of some others, it likely is. Your point?

1. Which god has the correct moral view then?

2. How is it that god is in confict here? In contradiction?

You don't have neighbors?

I am them.

Really? How so? And why does it matter if you kill your neighbor instead of loving your neighbor, since "no identity is ever annihilated."

But you agree that they are good moral men - correct? ”

You wish I would, but I don't.

So the child molester part of god is morally wrong, in your view? Again how is it that one part of god objects to the actions of another part of god? Is god confused? And which part of god is right here - you or the child molester?

So then you don't really think that pantheism is superior when compared to Christian theism as you orignally asserted. Otherwise why would you imply that a sinless man would not choose it?

No, I do think it is superior for those who love sin. Heck even child molesting is not objectively evil. Child molesting in fact is an act of god. But as a working model for objective truth and moral certitude it falls way short.

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 10:49 AM

Today @ 03:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155118#post155118)
seer:

1. Which god has the correct moral view then?

2. How is it that god is in confict here? In contradiction?
I've answered both of these questions in numerous posts. Perhaps you should begin reading them -- this time for comprehension?

Really? How so? And why does it matter if you kill your neighbor instead of loving your neighbor, since "no identity is ever annihilated."
Because I don't want to die.

So the child molester part of god is morally wrong, in your view?
It is wrong to me.

Again how is it that one part of god objects to the actions of another part of god? Is god confused?
It would do you better to ask yourself why you make these atrocities that you perceive part of your reality. If you do not like them, it is your responsibility to make them right. If you do not encounter them personally, then I have to wonder why you dwell on them so pessimistically.

And which part of god is right here - you or the child molester?
I have answered this question in numerous posts. I have to believe at this point that you are trolling.

No, I do think it is superior for those who love sin.
Which implies that a better person would regard it as inferior. Is that a true statement? Or is it that you would like to realize the freedom to decide what is morally right to you, and that is what is attractive about it to you? If that's not true, then how can your original assertions be truthful? What is it about pantheism that YOU find so attractive?

Heck even child molesting is not objectively evil. Child molesting in fact is an act of god. But as a working model for objective truth and moral certitude it falls way short.
Why do you need someone else to tell you what's right and wrong to have moral certitude? Can't tell for yourself?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 22nd 2003, 11:32 AM

ignore

seer

July 22nd 2003, 11:36 AM

1. Which god has the correct moral view then?

2. How is it that god is in confict here? In contradiction? ”

I've answered both of these questions in numerous posts. Perhaps you should begin reading them -- this time for comprehension?

You said:

What contradiction? All men love good, and hate evil. Some just have different purposes, and with those purposes come different and sometime distorted ideas of what good and evil are.

This is the crux of the matter Garth so let's focus. You believe that they (the child molester and murderer) have distorted ideas of good and evil. But they may in fact believe that you have distorted ideas of good and evil. So...

1. Who is actually right?

2. It still puts god in contradiction. Part of god thinks that child molesting is good, and part of god thinks that view is distorted..

3. To my final point: loving a child is just as much a part of god as raping and killing that child - correct?

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 11:51 AM

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155281#post155281)
seer:

You said:

What contradiction? All men love good, and hate evil. Some just have different purposes, and with those purposes come different and sometime distorted ideas of what good and evil are.

This is the crux of the matter Garth so let's focus. You believe that they (the child molester and murderer) have distorted ideas of good and evil. But they may in fact believe that you have distorted ideas of good and evil. So...

1. Who is actually right?

2. It still puts god in contradiction. Part of god thinks that child molesting is good, and part of god thinks that view is distorted..

3. To my final point: loving a child is just as much a part of god as raping and killing that child - correct?
Tell you what, I'll answer your questions (again!) when you answer the questions that I asked in the last two segments of my previous post. Or you could just refer to the last time I answered them, or the time before that....

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 22nd 2003, 12:50 PM

Tell you what, I'll answer your questions (again!) when you answer the questions that I asked in the last two segments of my previous post. Or you could just refer to the last time I answered them, or the time before that....

This is not about me Garth, it is about pantheism. But I will humor you. Then you may answer my points:

No, I do think it is superior for those who love sin. ”

Which implies that a better person would regard it as inferior. Is that a true statement? Or is it that you would like to realize the freedom to decide what is morally right to you, and that is what is attractive about it to you? If that's not true, then how can your original assertions be truthful? What is it about pantheism that YOU find so attractive?

I do not find ANYTHING attractive about pantheism, my quote was tongue and cheek. But I could see why the child molester would. After all in pantheism the child molester could consider himself perfectly moral - and he would be right.

Why do you need someone else to tell you what's right and wrong to have moral certitude? Can't tell for yourself?

The universe needs some objective source of ethics. For there can be no moral certitude in a universe where both a Hitler and a Ghandi can be considered moral equals.

Now back to my points:

You believe that they (the child molester and murderer) have distorted ideas of good and evil. But they may in fact believe that you have distorted ideas of good and evil. So...

1. Who is actually right?

2. It still puts god in contradiction. Part of god thinks that child molesting is good, and part of god thinks that view is distorted..

3. To my final point: loving a child is just as much a part of god as raping and killing that child - correct?

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 01:25 PM

Today @ 09:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155339#post155339)
seer:

I do not find ANYTHING attractive about pantheism, my quote was tongue and cheek.
Which part of your opening post was supposed to reveal that? Or are you now simply trying to spin your untruthfulness into something "tounge and(sic) cheek"? This is the second specific instance of untruthfulness from you, Seer. I'm most disappointed.

Seer: "Compared with Christian theism, Pantheism is quite attractive. ... Yes, quite attractive indeed..."

Then: "I do not find ANYTHING attractive about pantheism."

Which one of us has the contradiction problems?

But I could see why the child molester would. After all in pantheism the child molester could consider himself perfectly moral - and he would be right.
No, he wouldn't.

The universe needs some objective source of ethics. For there can be no moral certitude in a universe where both a Hitler and a Ghandi can be considered moral equals.
This does nothing to answer my questions, so I'll restate them more clearly: Why thing do you need someone ELSE to tell you what is right and wrong? Why are you (apparently) unable to know right from wrong on your own? Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it? Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?

When these are answered to my satisfaction, I will answer your questions. It should go without saying that you needn't answer them each individually, only that you must demonstrate that you understand the point of my questions through your response.

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 22nd 2003, 01:39 PM

Which part of your opening post was supposed to reveal that? Or are you now simply trying to spin your untruthfulness into something "tounge and(sic) cheek"? This is the second specific instance of untruthfulness from you, Seer. I'm most disappointed.

Seer: "Compared with Christian theism, Pantheism is quite attractive. ... Yes, quite attractive indeed..."

Then: "I do not find ANYTHING attractive about pantheism."

Which one of us has the contradiction problems?

You are the deceiver here Garth. I was never untruthful in our debates. And for you to suggest so shows your moral character. And honest person can tell that my quote was tounge and cheek. Pantheism is a horrible belief.

But I could see why the child molester would. After all in pantheism the child molester could consider himself perfectly moral - and he would be right. ”

No, he wouldn't.

LOL, but the child molester considers himself moral - who are you to judge? After all it is god who is raping the child. Are you saying that god is immoral?

Why thing do you need someone ELSE to tell you what is right and wrong? Why are you (apparently) unable to know right from wrong on your own? Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it? Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?

Would I have the same dislikes and likes if I was raised as a Hitler youth in Nazi Germany? If so, I would know that a beating hurt - but so what? I would still beat jews and think myself very moral person. And of course in pantheism I would be perfectly moral, for I am god and god is always perfectly moral.

Now answer my questions:

You believe that they (the child molester and murderer) have distorted ideas of good and evil. But they may in fact believe that you have distorted ideas of good and evil. So...

1. Who is actually right?

2. It still puts god in contradiction. Part of god thinks that child molesting is good, and part of god thinks that view is distorted..

3. To my final point: loving a child is just as much a part of god as raping and killing that child - correct?

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 04:23 PM

Today @ 10:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155391#post155391)
seer:

You are the deceiver here Garth. I was never untruthful in our debates. And for you to suggest so shows your moral character. And honest person can tell that my quote was tounge and cheek. Pantheism is a horrible belief.
This question should look familiar:

Which part of your opening post was supposed to reveal that?

Maybe you can answer that this time around.

LOL, but the child molester considers himself moral - who are you to judge?
I am myself, and I will embrace my likes and dislikes. That which I do not like, I will attempt to change, and that includes child molesters and disingenuous posters on internet forums.

After all it is god who is raping the child. Are you saying that god is immoral?
I'm saying there are elements of my experience that I dislike, and I will live trying to make them better.

Would I have the same dislikes and likes if I was raised as a Hitler youth in Nazi Germany? If so, I would know that a beating hurt - but so what? I would still beat jews and think myself very moral person. And of course in pantheism I would be perfectly moral, for I am god and god is always perfectly moral.
None of this answers any of my questions, it simply makes imaginitive suppositions and derives conclusions from them that amount to another strawman. I have already written answers to each of your questions individually, but I will not supply them until you address mine.

BTW, I was trying to be lenient last time, but now I would like you to address each of them individually. Here they are again:

Why do you need someone ELSE to tell you what is right and wrong? Why are you (apparently) unable to know right from wrong on your own? Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it? Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 22nd 2003, 05:27 PM

This question should look familiar:

Which part of your opening post was supposed to reveal that?

Maybe you can answer that this time around.

Garth, are we living on the same planet? My first post and this whole thread was meant to discredit pantheism. Do you HONESTLY believe I started this to support pantheism?

I am myself, and I will embrace my likes and dislikes. That which I do not like, I will attempt to change, and that includes child molesters and disingenuous posters on internet forums.

So why do you want to force your likes and dislikes on others?

I mean god is doing the child raping, why don't you like what god does? Are there a lot of things that god does that you don't like?

Why do you need someone ELSE to tell you what is right and wrong? Why are you (apparently) unable to know right from wrong on your own?

I thought you said that right and wrong do not exist Garth? So do right and wrong exist?

Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it? Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?

Let's say that I know I don't like it when someone hurts me - what conclusion does that lead us to? But you keep using right and wrong - is there right and wrong in the universe Garth? So god, as you understand it, can do "WRONG?"

garthoverman

July 22nd 2003, 10:30 PM

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155568#post155568)
seer:

Garth, are we living on the same planet? My first post and this whole thread was meant to discredit pantheism. Do you HONESTLY believe I started this to support pantheism?
I believe that when you stated that pantheism was attractive, you were being truthful. Apparently, I was mistaken.

So why do you want to force your likes and dislikes on others?
Where did I say that I wanted to do that? Care to point it out to me? Do you practice constructing strawmen at home in your spare time?

I mean god is doing the child raping, why don't you like what god does?
You conveniently ignore that it is also "god" being raped. Why wouldn't I want to stop that?

Are there a lot of things that god does that you don't like?
There are infinitely many things that I like and infinitely many things that I don't.

I thought you said that right and wrong do not exist Garth? So do right and wrong exist?
Aside from the fact that this doesn't answer the questions, I'll request that you point out where I said what you are claiming I said.

Let's say that I know I don't like it when someone hurts me - what conclusion does that lead us to?
Aside from the fact that this doesn't answer the question -- you can reason that whatever hurt you is hurtful, and that according to your own standards it should not be done.

But you keep using right and wrong - is there right and wrong in the universe Garth?
Aside from the fact that this doesn't answer the question -- sure there is. They are simply subjective.

So god, as you understand it, can do "WRONG?"
There are things that I think can be better. What would be the purpose of existing if nothing could be improved?

Now, eventually I would like to answer your questions, but for what I think is the third or fourth time I will insist that you directly answer mine. Is that beyond your ability?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 23rd 2003, 06:12 AM

So why do you want to force your likes and dislikes on others? ”

Where did I say that I wanted to do that? Care to point it out to me? Do you practice constructing strawmen at home in your spare time?

You said:

I am myself, and I will embrace my likes and dislikes. That which I do not like, I will attempt to change, and that includes child molesters and disingenuous posters on internet forums.

So why attempt to change other people to agree with your likes and dislkes? What makes your likes and dislikes superior?

I mean god is doing the child raping, why don't you like what god does? ”

You conveniently ignore that it is also "god" being raped. Why wouldn't I want to stop that?

So where is the harm in god raping god? I mean why do you object if god wants to rape it's self?

Are there a lot of things that god does that you don't like? ”

There are infinitely many things that I like and infinitely many things that I don't.

But why do you object to god's actions? It's god doing it after all.

But you keep using right and wrong - is there right and wrong in the universe Garth? ”

Aside from the fact that this doesn't answer the question -- sure there is. They are simply subjective.

So why is your subjective feelings about right and wrong, more right than Hitler's? After all Hitler is as much god as you are.

Let's say that I know I don't like it when someone hurts me - what conclusion does that lead us to? ”

Aside from the fact that this doesn't answer the question -- you can reason that whatever hurt you is hurtful, and that according to your own standards it should not be done.

That does not follow. Just because I know something may hurt me does not mean that I won't use harm to get my way. We humans do it all the time.

So god, as you understand it, can do "WRONG?" ”

There are things that I think can be better. What would be the purpose of existing if nothing could be improved?

So god can be improved?

You said:

"Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it?"

Nope, but my likes or dislikes are not the basis for morality. Any more than Hitler's.

"Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?"

Actually no. What if I liked to rob people - is robbing people now right?

garthoverman

July 23rd 2003, 08:44 PM

Today @ 03:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156183#post156183)
seer:

You said:

I am myself, and I will embrace my likes and dislikes. That which I do not like, I will attempt to change, and that includes child molesters and disingenuous posters on internet forums.
Note that I said nothing about forcing my likes upon others.

So why attempt to change other people to agree with your likes and dislkes? What makes your likes and dislikes superior?
I cannot forcefully change what others like and dislike, nor did I say that I could or would . I can only affect what happens as a result of my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

So where is the harm in god raping god?
Ask the victim 'god'. I'm sure you'll get quite a detailed response.

I mean why do you object if god wants to rape it's self?
Because I would not want to be raped, obviously.

But why do you object to god's actions? It's god doing it after all.
You confuse your god-concept with mine. That I dislike elements of my reality is likewise "god's" dislikes.

So why is your subjective feelings about right and wrong, more right than Hitler's? After all Hitler is as much god as you are.
Because my feelings are mine, and not Hitler's.

That does not follow. Just because I know something may hurt me does not mean that I won't use harm to get my way. We humans do it all the time.
It does so follow, and the fact that others do not reason out a harmony in their own cognitive dissonance does not refute it.

So god can be improved?
Everything can always be improved.

You said:

"Do you not know when you've been wronged by someone else? When someone does something, do you need to consult the bible every time before you know whether or not you like it or dislike it?"

Nope
Is this an answer to the first question or the second? I believe I indicated I wanted the questions each addressed individually. Or did you not read that post either? More than that, the answer to the first question is the more significant of the two, so I understand why you dodged it. Its evident in your additional dodging below.

my likes or dislikes are not the basis for morality.
Sure they are. It is true by definition that you will dislike things that you think are immoral, and like things that you think are moral. You cannot like something and simultaneously think its immoral. That's like saying you love hate. If you think either of those two statements are consistent, you must be speaking a very different language than English.

"Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?"

Actually no. What if I liked to rob people - is robbing people now right?
This does not answer the question. "What if's" are not answers. I'm asking you to state whether or not you can know what you believe to be right and wrong without having to be told it. Would you like to be robbed? Do you know the answer to that question, or does someone/something have to tell you whether or not you would like to be?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 24th 2003, 06:37 AM

"Aren't your likes and dislikes your own? Can't you be certain of what you believe is right and wrong without having to consult an outside source?"

Actually no. What if I liked to rob people - is robbing people now right? ”

This does not answer the question. "What if's" are not answers. I'm asking you to state whether or not you can know what you believe to be right and wrong without having to be told it. Would you like to be robbed? Do you know the answer to that question, or does someone/something have to tell you whether or not you would like to be?

Garth, you do realize that you are speaking to an ex-con? And no I do not like to be robbed, but that fact never prevented me from robbing - nor would it now. "Doing unto others" had no moral weight for me until I became a Christian.

Let me ask you Garth, if you were King of the USA in 1942 would you have used force, even killing to stop the Nazis? Or would you have allowed them keep on murdering Jews and possibly,one day, to rule all of Europe,or even the world?

Heathen Dawn

July 24th 2003, 05:31 PM

seer,

While I'm not a pantheist, I must say that your religion (Christianity) doesn't fare much better than pantheism in terms of morality. Keep in mind that, according to Christianity, the mass murderer gets eternal heaven if he accepts Jesus on his deathbed, while the feeder of the hungry gets eternal hell just for not doing so. Some morality indeed!

I should say Christianity is Satan's perfect work.

seer

July 24th 2003, 06:48 PM

While I'm not a pantheist, I must say that your religion (Christianity) doesn't fare much better than pantheism in terms of morality. Keep in mind that, according to Christianity, the mass murderer gets eternal heaven if he accepts Jesus on his deathbed, while the feeder of the hungry gets eternal hell just for not doing so. Some morality indeed!

Are you upset that Christ can and would forgive the worst of us? And I personally hold out hope for the feeder of the hungry - if he is doing that out of love and pure motives I suspect that he is not far from God...

garthoverman

July 24th 2003, 11:02 PM

Today @ 03:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156906#post156906)
seer:

Garth, you do realize that you are speaking to an ex-con?
What does that have to do with anything?

And no I do not like to be robbed,
So, if you had been robbed, you would have felt wronged, no?

but that fact never prevented me from robbing - nor would it now.
Knowing right from wrong, and doing right not wrong are two different things.

"Doing unto others" had no moral weight for me until I became a Christian.
That doesn't mean it is any more or less obvious or reasonable with a scary punishment and a flowery reward tacked on to it.

Let me ask you Garth, if you were King of the USA in 1942 would you have used force, even killing to stop the Nazis? Or would you have allowed them keep on murdering Jews and possibly,one day, to rule all of Europe,or even the world?
I don't know, I am not him, and I did not choose his unique responsibilities. Did I want the Jews to die? No. I don't want anybody to die.

Yours,
Garth

garthoverman

July 24th 2003, 11:06 PM

Today @ 03:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=157532#post157532)
seer:

Are you upset that Christ can and would forgive the worst of us?
In my opinion, Christians should begin by forgiving themselves instead of constantly berating themselves and their brethren with statements like "The heart of man is evil," "We are all unrepentent sinners," and "We are deserving of Hell."

Yours,
Garth

Jezz

July 25th 2003, 01:01 AM

Garth and seer,

In my opinion, you guys should stop the bickering over seer's opening post. :smile:

I have to admit, that because I knew that seer was Christian and seeing his arguments else where, it was obvious to me that his opening post was tongue-in-cheek.

On the other hand, if I did not have this background, I can easily see how someone like Garth might misunderstand it and take seer's comments at face value. So I can't blame Garth for misunderstanding.

I guess this once again proves that context is important for gaining a correct understanding. :smile:

As for the rest of the argument - I'd love to join in but I'm kinda pressed for time right now. I'll leave you guys to duke it out. I just felt that a third party might be better at resolving that particular dispute, which seemed silly to me. Kiss and make up! :smile:

seer

July 25th 2003, 06:40 AM

but that fact never prevented me from robbing - nor would it now. ”

Knowing right from wrong, and doing right not wrong are two different things.

That is the point Garth. The fact that I did not like to be robbed was not a moral basis for me to stop robbing. Remember Garth there is no objective right or wrong in your universe, just preference.

"Doing unto others" had no moral weight for me until I became a Christian. ”

That doesn't mean it is any more or less obvious or reasonable with a scary punishment and a flowery reward tacked on to it.

Of course it is less reasonable. This is much more resonable: "do unto others before they do unto you." Survival of the fittest.

Let me ask you Garth, if you were King of the USA in 1942 would you have used force, even killing to stop the Nazis? Or would you have allowed them keep on murdering Jews and possibly,one day, to rule all of Europe,or even the world? ”

I don't know, I am not him, and I did not choose his unique responsibilities. Did I want the Jews to die? No. I don't want anybody to die.

Well obviously god did want the jews to die. And death is a part of life. But are you saying you would not have killed the Nazis to save the Jews?

garthoverman

July 25th 2003, 10:20 PM

Garth, you do realize that you are speaking to an ex-con?
What does that have to do with anything?

And no I do not like to be robbed,
So, if you had been robbed, you would have felt wronged, no?

Answer these questions, please.

That is the point Garth. The fact that I did not like to be robbed was not a moral basis for me to stop robbing.
Sure it was. You obviously felt that robbing was wrong, yet you did it. That's just dishonesty to one's self. The point is that the morals were there. Christians do what they know is wrong all the time, but this thread isn't about what acts are committed. Its about the existence of morals. Obviously you had them, regardless of whether you were consistent with your beliefs or not, so my point is demonstrated. Persons can have morals -- they can know right from wrong -- without requiring an objectively defined system of morality.

Remember Garth there is no objective right or wrong in your universe, just preference.
So? Obviously you preferred not to be robbed, because you thought being robbed was wrong. Nobody needed to convince you of that.

Of course it is less reasonable. This is much more resonable: "do unto others before they do unto you." Survival of the fittest.
How is that more reasonable??? Doing unto others before they do unto you does not guarantee that the same act will not be revisted upon you. In fact, it increases the probability since in a neutral environment, when another has never considered a certain act and then becomes the vicitim of that act, the act then becomes a part of his reality when it wasn't before. "Fittest" indeed. :no: BTW -- "Survival of the fittest" applies to populations and not individuals, and populations of individuals acting in accordance with their own beliefs about what's right and wrong are more fit to survive. Your past actions were in fact in direct conflict with "survival of the fittest," which also BTW is not a principle, but an description of our observations.

Well obviously god did want the jews to die. And death is a part of life. But are you saying you would not have killed the Nazis to save the Jews?
I just answered that question. Didn't you read it?

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 26th 2003, 07:03 AM

That is the point Garth. The fact that I did not like to be robbed was not a moral basis for me to stop robbing. ”

Sure it was. You obviously felt that robbing was wrong, yet you did it. That's just dishonesty to one's self. The point is that the morals were there. Christians do what they know is wrong all the time, but this thread isn't about what acts are committed. Its about the existence of morals. Obviously you had them, regardless of whether you were consistent with your beliefs or not, so my point is demonstrated. Persons can have morals -- they can know right from wrong -- without requiring an objectively defined system of morality.

That simply does not follow Garth. Just because I did not like being robbed does not mean that translates into not robbing other folks. It's not being inconsistent since we make up our own morals. Your ethic says that you will not do to others what you do not want done to you. My ethic said I will do to others as I please. Neither ethic is higher or better. In your universe that is.

Of course it is less reasonable. This is much more resonable: "do unto others before they do unto you." Survival of the fittest. ”

How is that more reasonable??? Doing unto others before they do unto you does not guarantee that the same act will not be revisted upon you. In fact, it increases the probability since in a neutral environment, when another has never considered a certain act and then becomes the vicitim of that act, the act then becomes a part of his reality when it wasn't before.

First, that is just untrue. I know good people who were never robbed, that were robbed at gun point more than I. But you again have no objective basis for taking one ethic over the other.

BTW -- "Survival of the fittest" applies to populations and not individuals, and populations of individuals acting in accordance with their own beliefs about what's right and wrong are more fit to survive. Your past actions were in fact in direct conflict with "survival of the fittest," which also BTW is not a principle, but an description of our observations.

First that again is not true. SOF does indeed apply to individuals. The strong,bold and clever win. Not only is this true of the animal kingdom on the individual level, it is true of the human on the individual level. Look at the richest most powerful men in the world - do you think they got there by practicing the golden rule? Please...

Look at it this way: say I could dismiss the golden rule and gather to myself and loved ones great wealth and power. Why wouldn't I want to do that?

garthoverman

July 26th 2003, 11:58 PM

That simply does not follow Garth. Just because I did not like being robbed does not mean that translates into not robbing other folks.
It means that you felt that being robbed was wrong, which is all I need to demonstrate. You didn't need an ancient Holy Writ to tell you what was right or wrong, therefore there is a basis for morals without Christianity.

t's not being inconsistent since we make up our own morals.
Which you did: You felt that robbing was wrong -- all on your own.

Your ethic says that you will not do to others what you do not want done to you. My ethic said I will do to others as I please. Neither ethic is higher or better. In your universe that is.
Incorrect. In my universe the first ethic is morally superior. I've told you that time and time again.

First, that is just untrue. I know good people who were never robbed, that were robbed at gun point more than I.
This statement is nonsense. It says you knew people that were never robbed that were robbed. Do you know married bachelors too?

But you again have no objective basis for taking one ethic over the other.
I don't need one.

First that again is not true. SOF does indeed apply to individuals. The strong,bold and clever win.
The "fittest" are not necessarily the most "strong, bold and clever." You're unwarrentedly projecting your own arbitrary assumptions about fitness on to the population.

Not only is this true of the animal kingdom on the individual level, it is true of the human on the individual level. Look at the richest most powerful men in the world - do you think they got there by practicing the golden rule?
Why do you think that wealth and power are the ideals? They are not my ideals.

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 27th 2003, 06:29 AM

Ok Garth, I think this thread has seen it's better days. The new thread pretty much distills this down to one question. Let's take it from there.

garthoverman

July 27th 2003, 03:45 PM

Today @ 03:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160432#post160432)
seer:

Ok Garth, I think this thread has seen it's better days. The new thread pretty much distills this down to one question. Let's take it from there.
Yet it completely ignores that I've just demonstrated a basis for morality that does not require an objective moral standard. Your point is clearly refuted. I can understand why you would like to escape the refutation, but its rather disingenuous to ignore it and simply begin again in another thread with that assumptions-laden hypothetical from which you derive questions of fact that really only succeed in demonstrating your own incredulity.

Face it, morals can be meaningful even though they are relative because they are based in our own sense of aesthetics. That there is no objective measure of beauty does not make beauty meaningless -- so it is with morality.

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 27th 2003, 04:16 PM

Face it, morals can be meaningful even though they are relative because they are based in our own sense of aesthetics. That there is no objective measure of beauty does not make beauty meaningless -- so it is with morality.

First, I would disagree. I do believe there is an objective sense to beauty. Second I NEVER said that subjective morality is meaningless. Just subjective - and your opinion is no higher or better than a Stalin's. And Garth you have refuted nothing. As the new thread will prove.

garthoverman

July 28th 2003, 09:55 PM

Yesterday @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160567#post160567)
seer:

First, I would disagree. I do believe there is an objective sense to beauty.
Are you serious? You're saying that a person can be wrong about they think is beautiful? How does that work?

Second I NEVER said that subjective morality is meaningless.
Your next statement implies it.

Just subjective - and your opinion is no higher or better than a Stalin's.
So what are you trying to say, then? If you indeed find subjective moralities meaningful, then you can certainly make a claim as to which "opinion" is superior to the other.

Yours,
Garth

seer

July 30th 2003, 05:39 PM

First, I would disagree. I do believe there is an objective sense to beauty. ”

Are you serious? You're saying that a person can be wrong about they think is beautiful? How does that work?

So if a person found the sight of a baby being tortured to death to be beautiful - it would be?

Just subjective - and your opinion is no higher or better than a Stalin's. ”

So what are you trying to say, then? If you indeed find subjective moralities meaningful, then you can certainly make a claim as to which "opinion" is superior to the other.

Of course you could believe that your moral position is superior to Stalin's, but objectively both are equal.