Originally posted by stockenZarathustra also recognizes the bad within us. But he doesn't give it too much focus.
Zarathustra also recognizes the bad within us. But he doesn't give it too much focus. When you get real with yourself, you won't have to worry about ahriman taking control over your actions.
Simple as that. Feel what is the right thing to do in the bigger scheme of things. Think hard about it. Then do. Always, always, take care to consider ...[text shortened]... of life. No harm to anyone there. Well, unless you expect people to take care of you, that is...
This seems to be the general Jewish viewpoint as well. The yetzer ha tov, inclination to “good,” and the yetzer ha ra, inclination to “evil” are both natural inclinations. Neither tov nor ra are strictly moral terms, but cover the whole range of good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, harmonious/disharmonious, etc., including, but not limited to the moral realm. However, the primary moral/ethical term in Judaism is tsedeq, justice or righteousness. tov and ra are the terms used for the tree in the garden: etz ha da’at tov v’ra, the “tree of the knowledge of tov and ra.”
Additionally, the yetzer ha ra is not always “bad,” since it (at least according to some rabbis) includes such instincts as sexual desire, without which, as the Talmud points out, people would not marry and raise families. In such cases, the yetzer ha ra can be channeled into behaviors that are tov. The same would be for other natural instincts, such as hunger. In this sense, yetzer ha ra seems to represent those inclinations that, if pursued to excess, can be dangerous. I cannot recall anything from the literature offhand, but I suppose that there are things that are normally or predominantly tov that under certain circumstances could flip to the ra side of the balance.
The bottom line is that, while the yetzer ha ra could be called “sin nature” I suppose, (1) it is not an inclination that necessarily leads to sin (error, failure), let alone immorality; and (2) it does not mean that people are “by nature sinful;” it is not a measure of human incapability.
I’m glad that you’re presenting Zarathustra on here: His is a religion that I know practically nothing about
DC: Are you going to demonstrate that Hitler and Manson were devoid of sympathy and empathy? I can hardly wait.
LH: That's what you have to demonstrate. You claim that sympathy and empathy is what keeps men moral. Since these men were clearly not moral, you need to demonstrate to me that these men lacked those attributes. Otherwise, you cannot justify your claim.
---
I took this from a few posts back in the discussion between DC and LH. I think there's an interesting question here. What is a moral code based on? And how do zoroastrian define the moral codes? I also wanted to see how a society built on christian values would compare to a society built on zoroastrian values. (Naturally, a single thread is to small for the entire subject, but it helps me think.)
If we don't share the same sense of right and wrong (which is likely since we're all supposedly unique), how can we co-exist in the manner that Zarathustra taught?
He said: "Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and then all beneficial rewards will come to you also."
But who's to say what is the right thing to do?
---
Hitler, of course, did the right thing according to any nazi.
Bush did the right thing invading Iraq according to a lot of people.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to remove Israel from the map is considered by some to be a good thing.
---
Apparently, killing and abusing others are considered appropriate (if only under certain circumstances - like war or self-defence). It doesn't matter what religion you adhere to (almost). I suppose it's a matter of what you consider to be right at the moment.
Zarathustra had a firm belief that Ahura Mazda (divine essence and creator) is part of us all and that if we just listen to what is good we will do good. We don't have to worry, then, about doing evil (fall victim to Ahriman).
Are the moral standards we set for ourselves upheld by our ability to emphasize or sympathize?
There was no apparent sense of empathy in Hitler (although you could argue that he cared a great deal for his own), yet according to some people he did the right thing. A lot of people agree with what Bush and his administration is doing right now. Apparently, moral laws can be adjusted at will to suite the concept of: us and them. A sympathy for your own, if you will.
The less people you have the ability to sympathize with, the more evil you are considered by others. The reason is simple. Consider yourself. That which makes you feel safe and happy you would call good things, yes? All the things that scare you and makes you sad, are evil. So, a person who simply doesn't care for you and who are ready to kill you or anyone you love (or whom you think are ready to hurt you), must be considered evil (by you). It doesn't matter if (s)he in turn is doing it for the group of people (s)he belongs to.
So, our capacity for empathy and sympathy is highly adjustable to suite the current needs (and our current state of mind).
(I suppose this also claims that we are in fact equal in our sense of what is right and wrong - contradictory to what I said above. I'll save that thought for later, though.)
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Principles_of_modern-day_Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrianism seem to have a few guidelines. It's not all about listening to your inner-self and do what is good. It's also about recognizing what is good. Everything in nature has to be taken into account when making that judgement. You can't easily go: us and them, if everything in nature is us. So, the moral code that says: "You shall not kill", clearly must include everything. You must not kill anything. Anyone who kills (for whatever reason - in a war or self-defense) are doing wrong. That's a moral code, relentless in its simplicity and based in the respect for all living things.
If you choose to do wrong, you will be condemned to the "Realm of Darkness and Separation", and if you follow the moral codes to the letter, you will exist in the "House of Songs or Realm of light" when you leave this world.
This, of course, is very similar to the Heaven and Hell construct in judaism (and its derivatives). Zoroastrianism, in a way, is even more relentless than christianity in the sense that you really have to take the consequenses of your own actions, no matter what your reasons were. At least christianity says that you can always go to church, "sincerely" beg for forgiveness and all is well (no matter what you've done). In the teaching of Zarathustra, there seem to be no place for forgiveness of that kind because you have chosen to follow the evil path. The only way back is to change yourself and start following the path of light (to help and care for others; to choose happiness).
So it is clear then (within zoroastrian philosophy) that Hitler, Bush and Mahmoud are good people. They've chosen to follow a path of evil (as defined by zoroastrianism) but they can still change for the better (with the obvious exception of Hitler being already dead, of course). (Or is he?)
---
An important observation (in my opinion):
- To be forgiven by the christian God you need to "sincerely" beg for forgiveness.
- To be forgiven by the zoroastrian God you must really change your ways.
---
A society built on zoroastrianism would be different than a society built on christianity, simply because even though the morals of christianity prohibits certain actions (which we can now consider evil) there is no real mechanism to encourage us to follow those guidelines. If it suites our need, we can choose to go into war with "the others", and if we feel bad about it, we can ask for forgiveness before we pass.
Zoroastrianism seem to be more applicable on the world today, where it's clear we need to think of the world as consistent of us, and not us and them.
[edit: please note that I'm not for putting the entire world under a religion of any sorts. I'm merely analyzing zoroastrianism to the best of my abilities.]
[b][b]To be forgiven by the christian God you need to "sincerely" beg for forgiveness.Your opinion is wrong. Forgiveness from God has already been purchased. No one goes to hell for sin.
- To be forgiven by the zoroastrian God you must really change your ways.
---
1 John 1:9 states:
If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
This verse is directed toward believers, but it addresses the issue of forgiveness. The sole criteria is confession. Sincerity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential and irrelevant.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat sort of just proves my point, doesn't it?..
Your opinion is wrong. Forgiveness from God has already been purchased. No one goes to hell for sin.
1 John 1:9 states:
If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
This verse is directed toward believers, but it addresses the issue of forgiveness. The sole criteria is confession. Sincerity, or lack thereof, is inconsequential and irrelevant.
Originally posted by stocken[/i]Stocken: "But who's to say what is the right thing to do?"
[b]DC: Are you going to demonstrate that Hitler and Manson were devoid of sympathy and empathy? I can hardly wait.
[i]LH: That's what you have to demonstrate. You claim that sympathy and empathy is what keeps men moral. Since these men were clearly not moral, you need to demonstrate to me that these men lacked those attributes. Otherwise, you cannot ...[text shortened]... nder a religion of any sorts. I'm merely analyzing zoroastrianism to the best of my abilities.][/b]
In the context of your question you might find the following link interesting:
Cathechism of the Roman-Catholic Church.(n 1950-1986)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
"The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin."
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo hard discussing a subject without afflicting your own point of view in the discussion. 🙂
[/i]Stocken: "But who's to say what is the right thing to do?"
In the context of your question you might find the following link interesting:
Cathechism of the Roman-Catholic Church.(n 1950-1986)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
"The natural law expresses the original moral sense which en ...[text shortened]... and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin."
This natural law you refer to, is the same thing as the divine essence that Zarathustra spoke of. Yes? It's what helps us make the right choices that will lead to good.
My point of view is that the natural law is just our survival instinct, if somewhat refined. Things that threaten my existence in any way are considered evil. Things that are pro-my-existence are good. We then apply this to the people around us whom we love and/or need. So, things that happen to "us" are good or evil depending on how "we" are affected. I apologoize for the simplistic nature of my argument.
For this thread it's besides the point what I believe, though. Zarathustra firmly believed, just like catholics believe, that the good is within us all as part of whom we are. Or as the author of "Catheism of the Catholic Church" would say: it is written and engraved in our souls. (I like that phrase, very poetic).
Now, what I'm getting at above, is that anyone who has these moral standards within them, must also be able to make them clear. It must be clear to each and everyone of us (if we really are engraved with the same sense of right and wrong) what is good. Clearly, since we humans seem to be able to apply one set of morals to our own people, and another set of morals to all the others, we aren't very clear about what's right or wrong. Or:
Have we been engraved with a moral that's adaptive by nature to fit our specific needs for survival? (In which case I would be right, it's merely a case of refined survival instincts.)
Like the jewish "yetzer ha ra", mentioned in visitesd's post, can sometimes be considered good and sometimes bad. Perhaps the moral laws (natural law) is adaptive, and if so, it's not something you can actually build a just society on. I feel that a moral law must be relentlessly simple and clear to have any meaning. I find that what little I've read about zoroastrian beliefs, it is very clear. If you work to help others in their everyday strives, actively seek to progress society into perfection, you're doing the right thing and you will find happiness. If you're lazy, seeking to settle down and accept things the way they are even if they're far from perfect, you're frowned upon.
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know much about zoroastrianism either yet. (As you may have noticed.)
[b]Zarathustra also recognizes the bad within us. But he doesn't give it too much focus.
This seems to be the general Jewish viewpoint as well. The yetzer ha tov, inclination to “good,” and the yetzer ha ra, inclination to “evil” are both natural inclinations. Neither tov nor ra are strictly moral terms, but cover the wh ...[text shortened]... you’re presenting Zarathustra on here: His is a religion that I know practically nothing about[/b]
It took some time for me to grasp your post (and I'm not sure I have yet). I don't know much about judaism, so I ask you if this would be an accurate description (jewishly, that is):
The moral terms are justice and righteousness (tsedeq). What we know is part of the tree of knowledge as either ra or tov. It also depends on the situation whether or not a given human instinct is considered ra or tov.
Am I terribly confused here, or does that mean that a persons action is judged as good or evil depending on who is performing the act (and when)? So, if I have sex, and it's not in the purpose to pro-create, I'm doing evil, but otherwise it could be considered good? Or, if I kill in self-defense, it could be considered a non-evil (if not good) act, but killing someone for no such reason is evil? (Assuming we consider murder to be ra?)
I would like to try and apply the jewish viewpoint on zorostrianism to see what happens with my understanding of it. See the subject from a new angle, so to speak. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your post in any way.
Originally posted by stockenThe moral terms are justice and righteousness (tsedeq). What we know is part of the tree of knowledge as either ra or tov. It also depends on the situation whether or not a given human instinct is considered ra or tov.
I don't know much about zoroastrianism either yet. (As you may have noticed.)
It took some time for me to grasp your post (and I'm not sure I have yet). I don't know much about judaism, so I ask you if this would be an accurate description (jewishly, that is):
The moral terms are justice and righteousness (tsedeq). What we know is part of the ...[text shortened]... ct from a new angle, so to speak. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your post in any way.
This seems correct to me. The primary moral/ethical term, based on my studies anyway, is tsedeq.
One way to read the story of the “tree of knowledge” is in terms of the development of human consciousness—the ability to make distinctions and decisions for ourselves. In this sense, it is not a “fall” story. It is the story of children who achieve adulthood—personhood— and have to leave the “garden” of childhood. The whole story can be pretty fully fleshed out that way. God actually sets it up so the children can do that (what kind of parent wants the children to stay at home all their life, not to make discernments and decisions for themselves--even to rebel? What parent really wants from their children a lifetime of simple obedience?) It’s difficult, but growing up always is.
This is just a quote to sum up one rabbi’s view on it:
“The proposition that we ought to remain the same and never leave our ‘father’s house’ is more than indecent: it does violence to a person. To remain the same means that we keep on doing what we have done in the past….The son who makes the break, who does not take up his father’s profession or his culture…listens to the demands of the future and is detached from the past.”
“Adam makes a break with nature; Abraham a break with society; and Jacob, a break with family.”
Rabbi Nilton Bonder, Our Immoral Soul: A Manifesto of Spiritual Disobedience (italics mine)
Am I terribly confused here, or does that mean that a persons action is judged as good or evil depending on who is performing the act (and when)? So, if I have sex, and it's not in the purpose to pro-create, I'm doing evil, but otherwise it could be considered good? Or, if I kill in self-defense, it could be considered a non-evil (if not good) act, but killing someone for no such reason is evil? (Assuming we consider murder to be ra?)
I knew I was going to create confusion with that! I admit, I find discussions of the “yetzers” confusing myself.
No, I don’t think it’s evil (using that word now in the contemporary moral sense) to have sex without the intent of procreation! But maybe it’s like this: Sex for my own pleasure only: okay, comes from a natural instinct. Sex as loving intimacy, giving as well as receiving pleasure: ra moves into tov. Sexual addiction, rape, etc.: ra goes haywire.
The problem is that ra is such a broad term that can be applied so many ways, and translation is difficult. The same with tov: “mazel tov!” simply means “good luck!”
Even the English word “evil” once meant nothing more than unpleasant: “What an evil meal that was!” Using evil in its contemporary moral sense, your statement on murder seems close to the mark. Maybe my tobacco addiction is another example.
But I don’t think that tov and ra in the Eden story refer strictly to the “yetzers;” there, I think it just refers to “distinguishing consciousness,” for lack of a better term.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sorry. That was a remark I made when I was really, really tired, and I should have explained right away what I meant by it.
Sorry, maybe I missed it. In light of my post, what proves your point?
You said that one doesn't actually have to sincerely ask for God's forgiveness, because we are all forgiven. But to avoid the flames of hell, one must confess all the sins that one has committed.
This proves my point in the sense that you don't really have to change your ways. Just make sure you make the time to confess regularly, and you should be fine (spiritually speaking).
No?
Originally posted by stockenWe are not required to ask for what has already been granted.
You said that one doesn't actually have to sincerely ask for God's forgiveness, because we are all forgiven. But to avoid the flames of hell, one must confess all the sins that one has committed.
This proves my point in the sense that you don't really have to change your ways. Just make sure you make the time to confess regularly, and you should be fine (spiritually speaking).
No?
In becoming a believer, one begins with faith in Christ. Specifically, claiming as our own, the work accomplished by another. No emotions are necessary, nor are the same excluded.
Salvation is the work of Christ, our acceptance of it is simple: non-meritorious faith in His work on our behalf. No life led perfectly, no 'real heart for the Lord' crap, and etc.
Once salvation is acquired via that non-meritorious faith, then the fun begins. As Christ is accepted, in the same manner our lives are led: in faith.
The commandments from that point on are limited, but all-encompassing. The biggest one is to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, which requires remaining Spirit-filled.
However, we did nothing to gain the faith, we can do nothing to lose it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI shall start a new thread on this subject, since clearly it's so important to you. I find many flaws in your reasoning, but then that's common with christian philosophy.
We are not required to ask for what has already been granted.
In becoming a believer, one begins with faith in Christ. Specifically, claiming as our own, the work accomplished by another. No emotions are necessary, nor are the same excluded.
Salvation is the work of Christ, our acceptance of it is simple: non-meritorious faith in His work on our behalf ...[text shortened]... maining Spirit-filled.
However, we did nothing to gain the faith, we can do nothing to lose it.
I will be rather buzy for a few weeks now (christmas, followed by a whole lot of overdue work), but I will start a thread called: The purpose of confessions.
Would you care to join me there, then?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe jury has nothing to do with this.
Oh, right. Well, a murderer who repents and behaves correctly in confinement is much more likely to receive parole than one who does not. Then there's the healing process, which cannot begin until the person decides to act positively. The jury has nothing to do with this.
Then it is obviously not applicable. More like a murderer repentant before sentencing. My point was that in the real world merely changing your ways is not enough - there is still a demand for justice and restitution.
Originally posted by HalitoseThe real world or this world?
Then it is obviously not applicable. More like a murderer repentant before sentencing. My point was that in the real world merely changing your ways is not enough - there is still a demand for justice and restitution.
I feel compelled to point out that Zarathustra's name is supposed to mean "one who owns old camels".