What's the place of religion in ethical debate?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 08:39 am
@xris,
Except that the original posts speaks of "nearly all governments"; besides, what's wrong with expanding the discussion to universal consideration? It's not as if I'm saying your figures from the UK are incorrect. I trust the BBC numbers.

As for the Jedi Knight numbers, that was the result of an internet campaign with the purpose of lampooning organized religion, making a joke of government, and to bug people. While it is possible that there are a few serious Jedi Knights out there, the fact of the matter is that the numbers represent people who were interested in making a joke, not practicing Jedi Knights.

Then again, if you can track down Yoda, I see no reason to bar him from a conversation of ethics. My gut tells me he will be hard to find, though. As I recall he died in one of the movies.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 10:43 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;78112 wrote:
Except that the original posts speaks of "nearly all governments"; besides, what's wrong with expanding the discussion to universal consideration? It's not as if I'm saying your figures from the UK are incorrect. I trust the BBC numbers.

As for the Jedi Knight numbers, that was the result of an internet campaign with the purpose of lampooning organized religion, making a joke of government, and to bug people. While it is possible that there are a few serious Jedi Knights out there, the fact of the matter is that the numbers represent people who were interested in making a joke, not practicing Jedi Knights.

Then again, if you can track down Yoda, I see no reason to bar him from a conversation of ethics. My gut tells me he will be hard to find, though. As I recall he died in one of the movies.
Why are you wiggling Tom you made a mistake just be honest,you tried to make me out as incompetent, admit it you have a problem.
Why are you undermining a religion?does it not live up to your normal believable standards.Don't you realise for some of us they are all unbelievable.As for Yoda his alive and well somewhere in the universe, looking down on us instilling the force into those who have the will to believe.Its a matter of perspective.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:38 am
@xris,
xris;78133 wrote:
Why are you wiggling Tom you made a mistake just be honest,you tried to make me out as incompetent, admit it you have a problem.


Disagreeing with someone does not mean that you are trying to make them out as incompetent. Instead of making condescending personal assumptions about me, perhaps you could actually address my arguments?

Or are you going to cry that I should leave you alone again?

xris;78133 wrote:
Why are you undermining a religion?does it not live up to your normal believable standards.


I'm not undermining a religion. I'm responding to your claim about the Jedi census figures with documented fact. In case you were unaware:

Jedi census phenomenon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

xris;78133 wrote:
Don't you realise for some of us they are all unbelievable.


Yeah, I get that. And I have nothing against disbelief. I rather liked what the Buddha had to say about believing something.

But what's your point, anyway? So what - some people do not believe in any religion. What does that have to do with the relevance of spiritual leader's thoughts on ethics? What does that have to do with census numbers?

Even the atheist can find wisdom in religious teaching - 'don't kill people' and 'be nice to others' are good moral teachings even for you, hmm? Or do you endorse random violence and cruel behavior?
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:47 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Tom you are a tinker,you tried to make out I was wrong about percentages and got it wrong yourself...So now tell me what question have i not answered?
I know your all about your blinkered views on religion Tom you dont have to repeat yourself.If you want to declare war just say so but i thought you had better principles than to be petty minded.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 12:09 pm
@xris,
I was wrong about church attendance in the US? I was somehow wrong when I said that your numbers, provided by the BBC, were correct? That's a stretch.

You assert that there are more Jedi Knights than Buddhists, which seems false given the evidence provided. But you did not respond to this. Nor have you explained the relationship between the disbelief of people and the relevance of that matter to census numbers and the ethical thought of people who happen to be religious. Nor did you respond to my question regarding your acceptance or rejection of those aforementioned religious teachings regarding ethics which are so universal as to be accepted by nearly every person alive, religious or otherwise. Nor have you responded to my point regarding the irrelevancy of church attendance with respect to the relevance of religious leaders' ethical considerations.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I want to "declare war" nor do I have a clue what that could possibly mean. Nor do I have the slightest idea as to what you think I might have done that was petty - I'm not the one describing a person's responses as "wiggling" nor am I the one demanding that a person admit some unidentified problem.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 12:30 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;78159 wrote:
I was wrong about church attendance in the US? I was somehow wrong when I said that your numbers, provided by the BBC, were correct? That's a stretch.

You assert that there are more Jedi Knights than Buddhists, which seems false given the evidence provided. But you did not respond to this. Nor have you explained the relationship between the disbelief of people and the relevance of that matter to census numbers and the ethical thought of people who happen to be religious. Nor did you respond to my question regarding your acceptance or rejection of those aforementioned religious teachings regarding ethics which are so universal as to be accepted by nearly every person alive, religious or otherwise. Nor have you responded to my point regarding the irrelevancy of church attendance with respect to the relevance of religious leaders' ethical considerations.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I want to "declare war" nor do I have a clue what that could possibly mean. Nor do I have the slightest idea as to what you think I might have done that was petty - I'm not the one describing a person's responses as "wiggling" nor am I the one demanding that a person admit some unidentified problem.
So you want me to provide figures for Buddhists and Jedi?is that it?
My response to active church goers and their influence on ethics, i thought was self evident.As for the religious having a monopoly on ethics,now that is bigoted.So tell me exactly whats your problem? I can remember a certain proclaimed christian saying he never gets angry,if your posts are not filled with anger, i need a reality check.

---------- Post added 07-18-2009 at 01:34 PM ----------

Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline i think this gives the figures you required..
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 12:46 pm
@ElAleph,
ElAleph;75752 wrote:
I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country...

... What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?


Good post and good question; and yes, I do think its a good idea.

If any government is an agent of the people (rather than the other way around) and that nation's people are influenced by one or more religions, it only makes sense that those religious authorities should be polled or consulted on ethical issues by the government.

This doesn't mean all advice should be taken, nor that any government should be a puppet of religious leaders (at least not in my opinion). But if a nation has any hope of making an intelligent decision that has ethical implications on its citizens, it just makes sense to me that those ethical sources are consulted.

Thanks
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 01:00 pm
@xris,
xris;78085 wrote:
Religious dogma has the individual not being able to rationalise on an ethical problem.The priest or CE vicar can not vocalize his own opinions or change the accepted dogma of his church.When attending such gatherings all he is there for is to reinforce his churches position.Any change in dogma requires the vatican or the CE synod permission.Ethics or morals in the public domain can be debated and altered by common consent and does not require like the faithful we see foundering in conflict over interpretation of scripture.Just look at the anglican division brought about by the subject of homosexuality.Look at the deep unrest in the Rc church over contraception.Flexibility in debate is the only way ethics can be duscussed,dogma of any description kills debate.



Dogma and Doctrine are not the same thing, Doctrine is the official stance /practice/belief of a church, Dogma is the traditional corollary as actually practiced, these often do not coincide. Also, keep in mind no one as practitioners of any strain of dogmatic thought, which is everyone, has the ability and does exercise rational thought within the confines of their accepted rationality. Representatives of a church are simply figureheads, even if they could dictate action they don't. As you were fond of pointing out the 'low percentage of active practitioners', this would indicate that there is a variance between any sort of papal style doctrine and practice en mass. The dogma of tradition is still there in an entire cline of those who were raised and still somewhat believe. Aside from this I really don't see flexibility in debate from anyone on the opposite side of the argument, although there are the same styles and amounts of dogmatic principles expressed there. The same cultural castigations happen for people who do not practice the non-religious dogmas as for those who do not practice the religious dogmas. The main castigation being banishment from the mainstream group of which they desire to belong. What I see here is someone who is upset that others don't believe what s/he believes and is attempting to call those people biggoted because of it.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 01:10 pm
@GoshisDead,
xris;78160 wrote:
So you want me to provide figures for Buddhists and Jedi?is that it?


No, those figures have been provided. In response to those figures, I gave an explanation of the Jedi figures and the reason why those figures do not accurately depict the number of practicing Jedi - checking Jedi was a joke, not a true statement of belief.

xris;78160 wrote:
My response to active church goers and their influence on ethics, i thought was self evident.


Not the churchgoer's influence, but the ethical perspectives of religious leaders. I made an argument as to why churchgoing numbers are not relevant when considering the relevance of the ethical perspectives of religious leaders - adherence to a particular faith of the religious leader is largely irrelevant; what matters is the extent to which the leader is respected. As an example, I sighted the Dalai Lama - while there are relatively few British Buddhists, that leader happens to be widely respected.

xris;78160 wrote:
As for the religious having a monopoly on ethics,now that is bigoted.


I never once said that the religious have a monopoly on ethics - instead, I said that religious people sometimes advance ethical claims that enjoy near universal acceptance by the religious and non-religious alike, that sometimes religious people and non-religious people can, in fact, agree on certain ethical statements.

xris;78160 wrote:
So tell me exactly whats your problem?


I don't have a problem, despite your constant assertions to the contrary. I'm simply arguing that religious leaders often times do have something useful to contribute to ethical conversations.

xris;78160 wrote:
I can remember a certain proclaimed christian saying he never gets angry,if your posts are not filled with anger, i need a reality check.


I get angry all of the time, and have never said anything to the contrary.[/COLOR]
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 01:25 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;78168 wrote:
Dogma and Doctrine are not the same thing, Doctrine is the official stance /practice/belief of a church, Dogma is the traditional corollary as actually practiced, these often do not coincide. Also, keep in mind no one as practitioners of any strain of dogmatic thought, which is everyone, has the ability and does exercise rational thought within the confines of their accepted rationality. Representatives of a church are simply figureheads, even if they could dictate action they don't. As you were fond of pointing out the 'low percentage of active practitioners', this would indicate that there is a variance between any sort of papal style doctrine and practice en mass. The dogma of tradition is still there in an entire cline of those who were raised and still somewhat believe. Aside from this I really don't see flexibility in debate from anyone on the opposite side of the argument, although there are the same styles and amounts of dogmatic principles expressed there. The same cultural castigations happen for people who do not practice the non-religious dogmas as for those who do not practice the religious dogmas. The main castigation being banishment from the mainstream group of which they desire to belong. What I see here is someone who is upset that others don't believe what s/he believes and is attempting to call those people biggoted because of it.
Sorry but are you saying dogma has no real part in the life of the faithful,they modify their faith:perplexed:without dogma the church has no authority.Doctrine is the teachings of faith and they may not be dogmatic.These figure heads are the ones who state the churches dogma,they reinforce their demands.Bigoted, is an obstinate attention to dogma and that is why i oppose faith driven ethics in a countries ethical views.I dont ask for pardon on my views, i hold them up for examination and i abhor the faith driven views expressed by so many and their unbalanced influence.We have driven the bigots from our system and i press for more exclusion.

---------- Post added 07-18-2009 at 02:34 PM ----------

Tom the faithful can have their opinions on ethics but while they are plagued with dogma i believe they have no rights expressing them to a country who has little in common with their bigoted views.It once had the view that if you did not attend church you did not work,it never gave its views on labours freedom or expressed itself sufficiently enough against slavery.It has always abide by its own dogmatic views and feathered its nest by a cosy relationship to rule.I think by now you realise i have little love of organised religions.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 10:30 pm
@xris,
Xris:
I am saying dogma is real, its is the doctrine in action. I am however, also saying that

1) Dogma is not restricted to religious sects. Dogma is a solidification in tradition of ideals. Every group has dogmatic practices. Non-religious groups have dogmatic practices, groups that are not even official organizations have dogmatic practices, heck even high school cliques have dogmatic practices. To say that X group is contra-logical because it follows dogmatic practices that discourage thinking for one's self is to say that no-one ever thinks for themselves.

2) No one actually acts to the potential of their ideals. We may think we do, but we don't. Have someone follow you around for a day and count the times you act in a way that is not in accordance to your ethical code. We are all moderates in action, so to speak. Although we may not act as if we believe in our own ideals, we do believe in them. On a societal scale we have symbolic representations of our ideals as a society. They express the ideals that no one else actually follows or even so much believes internally. There are a lot of conscientious believers in animal rights for example who would never bomb a whaling ship. Yet these the extreme voice of the opinions that they do hold are people who would. Not every catholic is going to be a priest or a nun either. People need polarity for identification purposes. These polemic figures are symbols of our ideals, without them we could not sufficiently delineate our own beliefs somewhere in the middle.

So bring on the talking heads for all ideals, its is through the dogma involved in polarity that I can find a comfortable way not to live up to the ideals that i think that I hold.

note: many of the above views can be corroborated with cognitive dissonance theory as it applies to belief systems and culture.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 04:34 am
@GoshisDead,
When a ethical problem occurs we need a clear head to debate them and coming to the table with bigoted dogma has a detrimental effect.Take abortion can a catholic in reality give his considered opinion or just relay the Churches dogma.That individual representing the church is obliged to follow dogma otherwise he is mere mortal and has no more reason to attend than my paper boy.I think in the 21c we have outgrown the need of faith driven ethics,we are capable without their input.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 05:33 am
@ElAleph,
I notice that you automatically equate 'dogma' with 'bigotry'. Dogma really just means 'agreed opinion'. It is a formulaic way of expressing an agreed religious truth or ethical precept. What is problematical is authoritarianism, the vilification of dissidents, the enforcement of dogma on pain of persecution, and so on. Fortunately due to the separation of church and state we no longer have to suffer that and are free to act according to our conscience. But dogma itself, is not necessarily bigoted. If you want to propogate basic moral truths, if you are a religious institution, it is much easier to find a standard way of codifying and expressing them than to spend your entire time re-writing and re-formulating them for each new person or situation.

Obviously abortion (in particular) and several other issues of contemporary morality are extremely vexed and very difficult issues to make judgements on. But one can understand why the Catholic church has to make a judgement on such issues. It can't be all things to all people, and it must needs take a conservative view of the matter. We are, fortunately, able to make up our own minds on the matter, but I still understand why the catholic church will have the attitude it does. The fact that it holds firmly to a view that I and many others don't like doesn't make it bigoted, as the position is in my view defensible, even if I don't agree with it.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:20 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
I fail to understand that. Situation: The Catholic church is against abortions. I am Catholic. Should I be against abortions. Or am I not catholic anymore since I am for them?
Didymos Thomas;78073 wrote:
Hitler, no, because he was not a man interested in ethics in the least. Bin Laden, no, because his considerations are not ethics, but a fundamentalist reading of the Koran - instead of meditating on the Koran's message, he does exactly the opposite; he mindlessly accepts passages at face value, and only the passages he wants to accept.

Hitler did not have ethical theory?.. Nietzshce also?..
Why art thou not ready to hear bin Laden? If a christian fundamentalist has a view that he must "turn the other cheek" because Jesus said that, and that is the only way how the kingdom of God may be established on earth, wouldst thou bar him? Bin Laden would try to substantiate his views also...

Didymos Thomas;78073 wrote:
No, we should not consider every view. There are some people who argue that ethics should be overthrown entirely - they argue that people should be unethical. Inviting arbitrary and anti-ethical views to the table for sake of diversity is not going to help us have a valuable conversation about ethics.

What??? I think that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, and thou seemedst to agree with that (may be I understood thee incorrect, I don't know). Now thou art approaching this question with beliefs of should that ethics i.e. be, art thou not? Thou art lost and if some one says thee: "If thou wantest to come home, go westward", and thou instead of asking why replying him : "No, I shall never even consider that I probably should go westward?"
I wonder at this view. Hast thou never heard of evolutional theory which teaches that the struggle is a normal state and it is natural to kill for food or rape? Hast thou never heard of psychology? Freud? Should all this be banned from discussion of what is our true good? See that thou art not afraid of truth?

Didymos Thomas;78073 wrote:
By accepting that title, he made public his status as an enlightened being; as an enlightened being, he made it quite clear that one should not accept his words on authority - again, he explicitly states this:

Quote Details: The Buddha: Do not believe in... - The Quotations Page

The Buddha was concerned with establishing a spiritual order that could stand the test of time and help as many people as possible achieve enlightenment. This is why he set up a monastic order.

The Buddha's enlightenment means that his teachings are wise. However, each person should consider those teachings for himself before accepting them.

"Buddha" is only vague if we have not looked into it's meaning. A Buddha is someone who is enlightened. The historic Gautama Buddha was a Buddha who taught in India sometime around 400 BCE and founded Buddhism.

Look here. I am telling thee things I consider to be truth (maybe they are truth:)). Dost thou need to know who I am? How does it contribute to our discussion? If I said: I am buddha, enlightened, awakened, anointed... what does it change? Does it make words truer? If not, what's the point?.. (I hope thou understandst what I am driving at)
Didymos Thomas;78073 wrote:
People cease to be religious when they think for themselves? I see no reason to make such an assertion. History is filled with a great many renown individuals who thought for themselves. The Catholic Church has made Saints out of people who thought for themselves, people who came up with new ideas about religion.

Well, I think we should first agree what it is to be religious. What is it for thee?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:32 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
I fail to understand that. Situation: The Catholic church is against abortions. I am Catholic. Should I be against abortions. Or am I not catholic anymore since I am for them?


A great many Catholics do not oppose abortion rights.

Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
Hitler did not have ethical theory?.. Nietzshce also?..


Hitler's ethical theory, if we can even call it that, was anti-ethics. Nietzsche did have an ethical theory, a theory that Hitler did not embrace; the Nazis tried to use Nietzsche's ethics, but their understanding of it was confused and twisted.

Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
Why art thou not ready to hear bin Laden? If a christian fundamentalist has a view that he must "turn the other cheek" because Jesus said that, and that is the only way how the kingdom of God may be established on earth, wouldst thou bar him? Bin Laden would try to substantiate his views also...


Neither fundamentalist should be present as, for fundamentalists, there does not exist room for discussion.

Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
What??? I think that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, and thou seemedst to agree with that (may be I understood thee incorrect, I don't know). Now thou art approaching this question with beliefs of should that ethics i.e. be, art thou not? Thou art lost and if some one says thee: "If thou wantest to come home, go westward", and thou instead of asking why replying him : "No, I shall never even consider that I probably should go westward?"
I wonder at this view. Hast thou never heard of evolutional theory which teaches that the struggle is a normal state and it is natural to kill for food or rape? Hast thou never heard of psychology? Freud? Should all this be banned from discussion of what is our true good? See that thou art not afraid of truth?


I am saying that people who disregarding ethics entirely have no place at a table for the discussion of ethics.

Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
Look here. I am telling thee things I consider to be truth (maybe they are truth:)). Dost thou need to know who I am? How does it contribute to our discussion? If I said: I am buddha, enlightened, awakened, anointed... what does it change? Does it make words truer? If not, what's the point?.. (I hope thou understandst what I am driving at)


Buddha is a title bestowed upon people who are fully awakened. The historic Buddha taught that people should not believe something simply because the Buddha teaches it.

Eudaimon;78324 wrote:
Well, I think we should first agree what it is to be religious. What is it for thee?


To be religious is to have a spiritual practice.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:57 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
A great many Catholics do not oppose abortion rights.

... but nevertheless they remain Catholics, right? It seems to me that the very name "Catholic" as well as "Orthodox" implies that one believes in all what pope/patriarch says.


Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
Hitler's ethical theory, if we can even call it that, was anti-ethics. Nietzsche did have an ethical theory, a theory that Hitler did not embrace; the Nazis tried to use Nietzsche's ethics, but their understanding of it was confused and twisted.

But still it was, that is they had ethical theory, let's call that "confused and twisted Nietzsche's one"...

Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
Neither fundamentalist should be present as, for fundamentalists, there does not exist room for discussion.

I like this statement. But it seems to me that now thou agreest with ElAleph because I think that was exactly his point. So to sum up, we need only those people who are free from their dogmas and if they appeal to "writs" only we should not invite them, right? That is man is relevant to such a degree that he is free from his religion. So all catholics and orthodoxes and a great deal of protestant will be outboard, since for them the words of the bible are revelation, the only truth.


Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
I am saying that people who disregarding ethics entirely have no place at a table for the discussion of ethics.

We agreed that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, didn't we? In this case there are no people who disregard ethics, since "happiness is the only thing we want for its own sake".
Now what if all our happiness is satisfaction of animal needs as evolutionists say? What if the only way to be happy is to eat, drink and copulate with every pretty girl one meets. Regardless of what others think and want. That's what the theory of evolution teaches. So my question is: "Is it right to ban from discussion those who believe that human is animal, Darwin, Freud, Jung, Marx etc., etc.?" In this case I think many, almost all the scientific world, will be outboard.

Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
Buddha is a title bestowed upon people who are fully awakened. The historic Buddha taught that people should not believe something simply because the Buddha teaches it.

And Gautama modestly bestowed that upon himself... Again, my question is: "What's the point of calling oneself Buddha, Christ etc.?" To satisfy one's vanity? If one knows truth is it not better just to speak it than emphasise that thou art "supreme being" which leads to stupid worshipping only.

Didymos Thomas;78363 wrote:
To be religious is to have a spiritual practice.

What is the purpose of spiritual practice? To become someone? In this case we should consider two questions:
1) Wherefrom does that desire to be exactly that one come? (Why should I exercise to understand trinity but not to understand Non-dual Brahman, or meditate on Buddha but not meditate on Krishna, or take up yoga but not take up tantric sex, be Christian saint but not be Hindoo saint, be monk but not sannyasi etc.);
2)What if I have eventually become that one, like Siddhartha. That is I do not need practice any more. Do I cease to be religious?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:17 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;78266 wrote:
I notice that you automatically equate 'dogma' with 'bigotry'. Dogma really just means 'agreed opinion'. It is a formulaic way of expressing an agreed religious truth or ethical precept. What is problematical is authoritarianism, the vilification of dissidents, the enforcement of dogma on pain of persecution, and so on. Fortunately due to the separation of church and state we no longer have to suffer that and are free to act according to our conscience. But dogma itself, is not necessarily bigoted. If you want to propogate basic moral truths, if you are a religious institution, it is much easier to find a standard way of codifying and expressing them than to spend your entire time re-writing and re-formulating them for each new person or situation.

Obviously abortion (in particular) and several other issues of contemporary morality are extremely vexed and very difficult issues to make judgements on. But one can understand why the Catholic church has to make a judgement on such issues. It can't be all things to all people, and it must needs take a conservative view of the matter. We are, fortunately, able to make up our own minds on the matter, but I still understand why the catholic church will have the attitude it does. The fact that it holds firmly to a view that I and many others don't like doesn't make it bigoted, as the position is in my view defensible, even if I don't agree with it.
I think dogmas and bigotry are one and the same thing.You cant dispute dogma in the religious sense and religious bigotry is the blind obedience to creed.As for understanding why the RC church obstinately stinks to dogma on abortion is understandable, you could also argue why you see the reason they burnt heretics.It does not make it right.I dont want any faith driven dogma telling me the value of their ethics or advicing my government on how they should procede with laws and the ethical consequences.They have had their distorted dogma harming our societies for over two thousand years,their times up.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 09:47 pm
@xris,
Eudaimon;78378 wrote:
... but nevertheless they remain Catholics, right? It seems to me that the very name "Catholic" as well as "Orthodox" implies that one believes in all what pope/patriarch says.


Except that one can disagree with the Pope and the Patriarchs. Despite the absurd attempts by strange bigots, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do allow for a variety of opinions on a number of matters.

Eudainmon wrote:
But still it was, that is they had ethical theory, let's call that "confused and twisted Nietzsche's one"...


Even if we call Hitler's ethical views an ethical theory, his views do not allow room for discussion. If one doubted his opinion of the Jews, he sent you off to a camp. Thus, he is not the sort of person who could possibly make a positive contribution to an ethical discussion.

Eudaimon wrote:
I like this statement. But it seems to me that now thou agreest with ElAleph because I think that was exactly his point. So to sum up, we need only those people who are free from their dogmas and if they appeal to "writs" only we should not invite them, right? That is man is relevant to such a degree that he is free from his religion. So all catholics and orthodoxes and a great deal of protestant will be outboard, since for them the words of the bible are revelation, the only truth.


No. Catholics can bring more to the table than Bible quotes. Go read some of their works.

Eudaimon wrote:
We agreed that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, didn't we? In this case there are no people who disregard ethics, since "happiness is the only thing we want for its own sake".


And yet there are people who prefer to be unhappy - there are people who mistakenly think themselves happy when they are engaged in the destruction of others. Such people have no place in the discussion.

Eudaimon wrote:
Now what if all our happiness is satisfaction of animal needs as evolutionists say?


Evolution does not make any such claim regarding human happiness.

Eudaimon wrote:
What if the only way to be happy is to eat, drink and copulate with every pretty girl one meets. Regardless of what others think and want. That's what the theory of evolution teaches. So my question is: "Is it right to ban from discussion those who believe that human is animal, Darwin, Freud, Jung, Marx etc., etc.?" In this case I think many, almost all the scientific world, will be outboard.


Again, you are incorrect about evolution's teaching on happiness. The theory of evolution makes no positive statement regarding happiness.

Eudaimon wrote:
And Gautama modestly bestowed that upon himself... Again, my question is: "What's the point of calling oneself Buddha, Christ etc.?" To satisfy one's vanity? If one knows truth is it not better just to speak it than emphasise that thou art "supreme being" which leads to stupid worshipping only.


Actually, others first gave him the title.

Eudaimon wrote:
What is the purpose of spiritual practice? To become someone?


To become an increasingly better person; and if one manages to be the best person one can be, to maintain one's goodness.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 12:55 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
Except that one can disagree with the Pope and the Patriarchs. Despite the absurd attempts by strange bigots, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do allow for a variety of opinions on a number of matters.

O.K. my freiend. Now, explain me please what it means to be catholic or orthodox.

Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
Even if we call Hitler's ethical views an ethical theory, his views do not allow room for discussion. If one doubted his opinion of the Jews, he sent you off to a camp. Thus, he is not the sort of person who could possibly make a positive contribution to an ethical discussion.

Let us imagine that Hitler has no power to send us off to a KZ but it's just that he comes and says why we should do certain things.
And tell me please, why, if thou art afraid of his threats, thou agreest to hear what say the others who allow violence. They say: "Thou shalt not kill, or steal, and if thou dost not agree, thou wilt be imprisoned!" Is it not the same? Or what about military service or paying taxes? If thou dost not agree, thy place is prison...

Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
And yet there are people who prefer to be unhappy - there are people who mistakenly think themselves happy when they are engaged in the destruction of others. Such people have no place in the discussion.

No one prefer to be unhappy, that's just nonsense, since again we do everything for the sake of happiness. Some people dost not understand, and that is another question.
And who gave us right to decide which people prefer to be unhappy? Now we are discussing with thee some questions and do not agree with one another. Does that mean that some of us prefer to be unhappy (I don't agree that it's possible but anyways) and must be banned?


Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
Evolution does not make any such claim regarding human happiness.
Again, you are incorrect about evolution's teaching on happiness. The theory of evolution makes no positive statement regarding happiness.

Well, thou art welcome to propose another explanation to the evolutional theory. That would be interesting to hear how through the years of surviving of the fittest, which means struggle, violence etc., etc. we can find another name for happiness than the rudest physical pleasures, which are tasty food, comfortable bed, sexual intercourses etc. Through years of killing and animalism there appears as deus ex machina that our happiness is compassion, that it is better to give thy food to the poor which exactly contradicts natural breeding... Isn't that ridiculous?
And apart from all that, wouldst thou not invite, say, Freud to an ethical discussion? He taught that pleasure is the only good and all the other things like compassion are caused by violence that is they contradict to our nature.

Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
Actually, others first gave him the title.

Well allow me to refer to the text called the Gospel of Buddhawhich is compilation of Pali canon texts
Quote:


But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner,
they involuntarily rose from their seats
and greeted him in spite of their resolution.
Still they called him by his name and addressed him as "friend Gotama." [2] When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said:
"Do not call the Tathagata by his name
nor address him as 'friend,'
for he is the Buddha, the Holy One.
The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings,
and they therefore call him 'father.'
To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. [3]


Didymos Thomas;78908 wrote:
To become an increasingly better person; and if one manages to be the best person one can be, to maintain one's goodness.

Thou didst not answer my two questions...
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 01:33 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
O.K. my freiend. Now, explain me please what it means to be catholic or orthodox.


To be a Catholic or Orthodox is to be a member of those particular institutions.

The crux of the matter is whether or not Catholics and Orthodox individuals can have a variety of opinions. Yes, they can have a variety of opinions, and, yes, they can have differing views on ethics. These are facts which are evident to anyone who cares to investigate the literature associated with these groups.

For example, some Catholic priests supported the American involvement in Vietnam, others opposed this: both took their positions due to ethical concerns.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
Let us imagine that Hitler has no power to send us off to a KZ but it's just that he comes and says why we should do certain things.


That's beside the point: Hitler was uninterested in ethical opinions contrary to his own.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
And tell me please, why, if thou art afraid of his threats, thou agreest to hear what say the others who allow violence. They say: "Thou shalt not kill, or steal, and if thou dost not agree, thou wilt be imprisoned!" Is it not the same? Or what about military service or paying taxes? If thou dost not agree, thy place is prison...


If someone supports violence in a particular situation, and is willing to reconsider this ethical position by hearing and duely considering the opinions of others, then they are capable of contributing to an ethical discussion.

I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated: either someone is willing or is unwilling to consider different perspectives. Those who are unwilling have no place at the table, those who are willing do have a place at the table.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
No one prefer to be unhappy, that's just nonsense, since again we do everything for the sake of happiness. Some people dost not understand, and that is another question.


Which is why I said that some people are mistaken as to what happiness happens to be.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
Well, thou art welcome to propose another explanation to the evolutional theory. That would be interesting to hear how through the years of surviving of the fittest, which means struggle, violence etc., etc. we can find another name for happiness than the rudest physical pleasures, which are tasty food, comfortable bed, sexual intercourses etc. Through years of killing and animalism there appears as deus ex machina that our happiness is compassion, that it is better to give thy food to the poor which exactly contradicts natural breeding... Isn't that ridiculous?


Again, I think you misunderstand evolution. I'm certainly no expert, but I have never heard an expert in the field give such an interpretation of evolutionary theory. If you know of such an expert, I would be very interested in hearing what they have to say.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
And apart from all that, wouldst thou not invite, say, Freud to an ethical discussion? He taught that pleasure is the only good and all the other things like compassion are caused by violence that is they contradict to our nature.


Freud was also willing to consider views other than his own opinions. Thus, he would be able to actively contribute to an ethical discussion.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
Well allow me to refer to the text called the Gospel of Buddhawhich is compilation of Pali canon texts


Which is fine, however, according to Karen Armstrong's biography of the Buddha, when Gautama set out after enlightenment, he was immediately recognized as being enlightened - thus, he was called the Buddha.

The particular instance you sight deals with followers who, after the Buddha was already recognized as the Awakened One, had the thought to call him by his name.

Eudaimon;79042 wrote:
Thou didst not answer my two questions...


Because they are not relevant. You asked those two questions in case your assumption about the purpose of spiritual practice was accurate; I disagreed with your assumption regarding spiritual practice.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 09:29:23