The Virtue of Submission?

Originally posted by whodey
Who is under an illusion in terms of the existence of a God who is a personality? I say he exists as where you say he does not. Can both of us be correct? Must not one of us be under an illusion and the other not? Who then can we say is delusional?

As for the adult bit, I would say that those who are accountable to God for their actions have reached ad ...[text shortened]... nd good, however, Christ said that only through him are can the chains of sin be truly broken.

Agreed. I was less than 6 years old when I accepted Christ. It was not "illusory" then and it ain't now.

Originally posted by whodey
Who is under an illusion in terms of the existence of a God who is a personality? I say he exists as where you say he does not. Can both of us be correct? Must not one of us be under an illusion and the other not? Who then can we say is delusional?

As for the adult bit, I would say that those who are accountable to God for their actions have reached ad ...[text shortened]... nd good, however, Christ said that only through him are can the chains of sin be truly broken.

Who is under an illusion in terms of the existence of a God who is a personality? I say he exists as where you say he does not. Can both of us be correct? Must not one of us be under an illusion and the other not?

I have stated this very point before (though not to you, I think). I have talked at length about the clear-mind before thinking (and will not do so here—you can thank me now! 😉 ). Here we argue over what we see as contradictions in one another’s positions and premises.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I don't know enough to make the same choice you have. How do you explain this?

Our sin is our disconnect from God. We have an internal sense of this sin via our conscience and the outward evidence outlined via scripture.

Originally posted by vistesd
[/i].........Now, I think that people clearly are capable of establishing moral and ethical codes of conduct, across cultures and religions. Those codes of conduct reflect what various groups of people specify as moral behavior, and that specification constitutes what they mean by the words “moral” or “morally virtuous”—and from which they extrapolate to imagine what “moral perfection” might mean..

Im not too sure I agree totally with you here when you say that people are clearly capable of establishing moral and ethical codes or conduct. Im still trying to figure it out myself.

In the meantime I have 2 questions
1. Are moral and ethical codes the same across cultures and religions?
2. If (our) standards of moral and ethical perfection are established in one period, would they apply in another period say 50 years from today?

It seems to me that if these standards change then they cannot be considered 'perfect'. Standards with regard to sexuality is one example.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not too sure I agree totally with you here when you say that people are clearly capable of establishing moral and ethical codes or conduct. Im still trying to figure it out myself.

In the meantime I have 2 questions
1. Are moral and ethical codes the same across cultures and religions?
2. If (our) standards of moral and ethical perfection are establi ...[text shortened]... e then they cannot be considered 'perfect'. Standards with regard to sexuality is one example.

There is a difference between the roots of morals and the specific application. A moral rule always has conditions and exceptions but should not change over time or location but should rather be seen as having different conditions and therefore the result may be different.
For example what is acceptable during war time may not be acceptable during peace time. It is not a rule change but a situation change.
Lets say someone decides that in todays society, the death penalty is unacceptable. However when it is not possible to imprison someone for life (due to lack of resources etc as was the case in some places in the past) then it might be morally acceptable to use the death penalty rather than allow a dangerous criminal to continue committing violent acts.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not too sure I agree totally with you here when you say that people are clearly capable of establishing moral and ethical codes or conduct. Im still trying to figure it out myself.

In the meantime I have 2 questions
1. Are moral and ethical codes the same across cultures and religions?
2. If (our) standards of moral and ethical perfection are establi ...[text shortened]... e then they cannot be considered 'perfect'. Standards with regard to sexuality is one example.

In my opinion
1) No
2) No

Moral and ethics evolve (in a very slow, subconscious way) according to the necessities of mankind, history and lots of other factors. Religion tries to impose their moral and ethics, that made a lot of sense 2000 year ago, but now it's a little obsolete.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not too sure I agree totally with you here when you say that people are clearly capable of establishing moral and ethical codes or conduct. Im still trying to figure it out myself.

In the meantime I have 2 questions
1. Are moral and ethical codes the same across cultures and religions?
2. If (our) standards of moral and ethical perfection are establi ...[text shortened]... e then they cannot be considered 'perfect'. Standards with regard to sexuality is one example.

1) They are clearly not the same. I don’t know what statistical variation one might find across cultures with respect to the moral norms of particular behaviors—owning slaves , for example: I suspect that it was in the past more “normal” (in the statistical sense) to view slavery as moral. Your example of sexuality is another; and the status of women in their respective cultures has varied from society to society, as well as over time.

There does seem to be a common principle: that is, that one must have a sufficient justifying reason to harm another person. What is viewed as a sufficient justifying reason may vary.

2) I do not think we are capable of perfection.* In the face of the position that I’ve outlined, we simply have to live with that.

Again, we would need to be able to at least imagine what activities would comprise morally perfect behavior, which means that we have to first be able to specify the kinds of activities that are morally virtuous.

After all, no theist on here wants to think they are making up an imaginary being simply in order to escape self-reliance in the face of existential uncertainty. One wants to be able to first determine (to one’s own satisfaction) that: (a) such a being exists, and (b) is morally worthy of one’s submission.

—Have you ever read Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus? LemonJello suggested I read it a couple of years ago, and it really blasted a lot of my prior thinking to smithereens. If you can get a break from the hurly-burly of running your business, have a seat in a corner of your own place, draw yourself a cold one (and one for me!)—it’s well worth the read.

____________________________________

* However, here is another word that might need to be defined precisely. In this case, I would understand it to mean the ability to make moral decisions, and act on them, without error, ever.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, it seems that Dr. S. caught me not defining “authority” clearly (though you got the sense in which I intended it).

2 a: [b]power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior (Webster’s Online Dictionary)

One might submit to the "authority" of an argument because one concludes that it is correct. One might (at least tentatively) subm need to be present for a powerful agent to have some additional, legitimating authority...[/b]

Does submitting to [God who is Love] play a part in the picture you want to discuss ?

Originally posted by whodey
Our sin is our disconnect from God. We have an internal sense of this sin via our conscience and the outward evidence outlined via scripture.

I thought Jesus took care of the whole sin situation for me? Why does it still come between me and God?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Does submitting to [God who is Love] play a part in the picture you want to discuss ?

It certainly can! (Especially in light of the wonderful news about the upcoming RCC document you mentioned in the other thread.)

Can we take Paul’s articulation of the attributes of love (that you and I both once posted in “Spiritual Quotes” ) as a guiding definition?

My point of departure would be similar to that in discussing "moral perfection": we need to (1) know what we're talking about when we use the word "love", and (2) need to believe that God (however else we define that word) is characterized by that understanding.

I freely admit that I put such a high premium on love (agape) that it may represent a chink in my otherwise solid Zennist armor.

________________________________________

1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant

5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.

7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.

9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;

10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.

11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

St. Paul (1st Corinthians 13)

Originally posted by serigado
In my opinion
1) No
2) No

Moral and ethics evolve (in a very slow, subconscious way) according to the necessities of mankind, history and lots of other factors. Religion tries to impose their moral and ethics, that made a lot of sense 2000 year ago, but now it's a little obsolete.

Ok ... so using Vistesd's definition.. do you think that people do have or can have the ability to make moral decisions, and act on them, without error, ever... ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a difference between the roots of morals and the specific application. A moral rule always has conditions and exceptions but should not change over time or location but should rather be seen as having different conditions and therefore the result may be different.
For example what is acceptable during war time may not be acceptable during peace ...[text shortened]... se the death penalty rather than allow a dangerous criminal to continue committing violent acts.

So it does not seem that humans are capable of establishing clearly in their minds what constitutes moral or ethical perfection as defined by Vistesd, does it? It more likely that at any point in time we will be torn between several options (depending on the the circumstances as you say). But only one of those options will be close to the moral rule, and the chances are thats not the one we will choose. Am I reading you right ?

Originally posted by vistesd
1) They are clearly not the same. I don’t know what statistical variation one might find across cultures with respect to the moral norms of particular behaviors—owning slaves , for example: I suspect that it was in the past more “normal” (in the statistical sense) to view slavery as moral. Your example of sexuality is another; and the status of women in ...[text shortened]... understand it to mean the ability to make moral decisions, and act on them, without error, ever.

Thanks for the tip about the book. I will certainly try to make the time to read it.

I have difficulty believing that people are able to establish proper codes of conduct re morals and ethics on their own accord. I think these are the result of tradition, culture, religion and history. If we place 2 genetically identical twins to grow up one in the USA and the other in say Iran. The resulting adults will be miles apart (in certain aspects) on what constitutes good (or perfect) moral / ethical values. Clearly they both cant be proper morals or ethics .... can they?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thanks for the tip about the book. I will certainly try to make the time to read it.

I have difficulty believing that people are able to establish proper codes of conduct re morals and ethics on their own accord. I think these are the result of tradition, culture, religion and history. If we place 2 genetically identical twins to grow up one in the USA an ...[text shortened]... erfect) moral / ethical values. Clearly they both cant be proper morals or ethics .... can they?

I think these are the result of tradition, culture, religion and history.

Ah—maybe we were talking past one another (or I was anyway). I would include those. If the basis of morality has to do with how one behaves toward the other, then it has an inseparable social context. Like language.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I thought Jesus took care of the whole sin situation for me? Why does it still come between me and God?

Because love demands choice. God could have simply taken away your ability to reject him. Why did he not do that do you suppose? The cross simply allows you to choose God now.