Doing what is right in an out of control world


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I have to go out shortly so can't reply in full. Maybe later.

But yes. I would advocate a fridge-magnet for everyone, that they will inevitably see as they get their cereal and milk from their fridge for breakfast in the morning, stating 'Today, I am going to live a better, fuller life than yesterday!' And I would leave it to themselves, through trial and error, to discover what a better, fuller life actually entails.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Ana makes a great point. However, you -also- have placed striving to improve as a default morality choice.

 

Why should we? And 'improving' implies at least a passing knowledge of the thing that we are attempting to improve towards.  If we do not know, nor do we have a yardstick by which such truth can be known, how do we know if we are improving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Great magnet.  Except... you have one life.  If you have to rely on trial and error without any guidance you could end up waking up on your 80th birthday realizing you did everything wrong.

Indeed. That is the existential risk we all face. But, the advantage of trial and error is that we tend to learn better by our own mistakes, than those of other people. And so, we each individually gradually converge on what is better, and what is fuller, as regards this strange state of consciousness we call life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed. That is the existential risk we all face. But, the advantage of trial and error is that we tend to learn better by our own mistakes, than those of other people. And so, we each individually gradually converge on what is better, and what is fuller, as regards this strange state of consciousness we call life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Or we get worse. Without a basic yardstick by which to measure better or worse, and no way of perceiving it, how do you know we get better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Or we get worse. Without a basic yardstick by which to measure better or worse, and no way of perceiving it, how do you know we get better?

Well, that has been my question to the forum, though I have phrased it differently. How do we know we know what is moral?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, that has been my question to the forum, though I have phrased it differently. How do we know we know what is moral?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Mormongator AND Ana have both given you examples that they believe, which you dismissed.

 

So now I'm asking you - How do you, specifically, know they get better, as you just stated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Mormongator AND Ana have both given you examples that they believe, which you dismissed.

 

So now I'm asking you - How do you, specifically, know they get better, as you just stated?

I don't. I'm just an optimist, and I think humanity, in general, in the right circumstances, will strive for good, in general. I think moral progress happens, if we just observe Jesus' two great commandments: to love God, and to love each other. But whether this tendency to goodness will continue forever, I do not know. I just hope it will.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I don't. I'm just an optimist, and I think humanity, in general, in the right circumstances, will strive for good, in general. I think moral progress happens, if we just observe Jesus' two great commandments: to love God, and to love each other. But whether this tendency to goodness will continue forever, I do not know. I just hope it will.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Now that's interesting. You quote Jesus in this case, and his two great commandments. 

 

Do you believe he existed? Do you believe he taught the things he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

Now that's interesting. You quote Jesus in this case, and his two great commandments. Do you believe he existed? Do you believe he taught the things he did?

I think the Gospels are probably the most reliable part of the scriptures.

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, that has been my question to the forum, though I have phrased it differently. How do we know we know what is moral?

Best wishes, 2RM.

You mentioned trial and error.  Obviously, this is a very inefficient process as we don't have unlimited lifespans to have unlimited tries.

But, if you notice, people who build computers today do not need to know how to build transistors and capacitors.  They simply trust the people before them who has already figured out transistors and capacitors and placed them inside CPUs.

So, that is how you avoid spending an entire lifetime doing trial and error.  You leverage the entire history and tradition of the human race - you study their trials and errors.

Now, we're back to... having a plethora of human history before you, what is moral?  Is the Catholic tradition moral?  How about the Islamist tradition?  Buddhists, Hindus?  How do you know?  Well, you already have the truth (as we have discussed previously), you simply need an Authority on the matter to confirm it to you.  Hence, appealing to the authority of the Holy Ghost.  So that, when asking - is Catholic moral, Islamist, Buddhist, etc. etc.?  The answer to that question is Yes.  All those traditions have truths to them from which morality stems.  After all, when a Catholic says to a Buddhist, do not murder, it doesn't make it immoral to the Buddhist just because a Catholic believes it.

Now, here is our bold claim.  A lot of Truth is found in all traditions - Christian, non-Christian, even Atheists and everything in between.  WE, the LDS, claim that we have ALL truth as far as it has been revealed by God to Man.  How do you know this claim is true?  That's when you go and humble yourself and appeal to the authority of the Holy Ghost that He may testify and confirm that truth to you.  The objective is to get you closer to Christ who is the ultimate example of morality.  It doesn't matter if you follow Catholic tradition or Buddhist tradition as long as you are getting closer to the ideal of Christ.  The historical lessons learned from the peoples of the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon makes it so that you don't have to go through a lifetime of error to find what is moral.  They already found it for you.  All you have to do is apply the lessons to your life to bring you closer to Christ.

Okay... now the next question is... how do you seek the confirmation of the Holy Ghost?  Well, one thing is for certain... you won't find that confirmation in Academia.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, @anatess2, for that. It's all good stuff!

I need to say a little though, about trial and error. It's not such an inefficient system as it might first appear. Suppose I ask you to think of a number between 1 and 100, and you ask me to 'guess' what it is. All you will tell me is whether my 'guess' is higher or lower than your secret number. My first guess is 50. Suppose your number is higher. My next guess is 75. Suppose your number is lower. My next guess is 62. And so on. I am sure you can see that pretty soon I will converge on your secret number. I don't need 100 guesses, the most I need is 7, given your feedback.

So, life works the same sort of way, it seems to me. The 'guess' is the lifestyle I adopt. The 'feedback' is whether that lifestyle makes me more or less happy, contented, fulfilled and satisfied. If it does, I do more of the same, but maybe with some enhancement or other; more time with my children, maybe, or an extra half-hour with my hobby. If it doesn't I simply look for what enhancements might make it so; perhaps, seeking promotion at work, or starting my own business, or  just buying the wife a bouquet of flowers. And, in this way, and with a certain amount of honest self-appraisal, I pretty soon zero in on what is important to me, in my life. 

That, I submit, is something no cleric can tell me. I need to find it out for myself.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thanks, @anatess2, for that. It's all good stuff!

I need to say a little though, about trial and error. It's not such an inefficient system as it might first appear. Suppose I ask you to think of a number between 1 and 100, and you ask me to 'guess' what it is. All you will tell me is whether my 'guess' is higher or lower than your secret number. My first guess is 50. Suppose your number is higher. My next guess is 75. Suppose your number is lower. My next guess is 62. And so on. I am sure you can see that pretty soon I will converge on your secret number. I don't need 100 guesses, the most I need is 7, given your feedback.

So, life works the same sort of way, it seems to me. The 'guess' is the lifestyle I adopt. The feedback is whether that lifestyle makes me more or less happy, contented, fulfilled and satisfied. If it does, I do more of the same, but maybe with some enhancement or other; more time with my children, maybe, or an extra half-hour with my hobby. If it doesn't I simply look for what enhancements might make it so; perhaps, seeking promotion at work, or buying the wife a bouquet of flowers. And, in this way, and with a certain amount of honest self-appraisal, I pretty soon zero in on what is important to me, in my life. 

That, I submit, is something no cleric can tell me.

Best wishes, 2RM

That is very naive.  And leads to hedonistic errors.  More time with my children - Maybe?  By the time you figure it out, your children would have been grown and wallowing or enjoying the effects of your parenting... not much you can do about that particular trial especially after you find out it was an error.  You can't take back the effects of those choices that leave a legacy your children and their children will live through.

How long do you think it will take mankind to figure out the effects of Marriage and Divorce?  Parenting?  Gay Marriage? 3rd Wave Feminism?  Abortion?  50+ genders?  Hormone blockers before puberty?  ADHD medicine?  TV, movies, and video games?  Etc. etc. etc.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That is very naive...

...How long do you think it will take mankind to figure out the effects of Marriage and Divorce?  Parenting?  Gay Marriage? 3rd Wave Feminism?  Abortion?  50+ genders?  Hormone blockers before puberty?  ADHD medicine?  TV, movies, and video games?  Etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps generations. But I am patient. And I would rather people learned by trying stuff out, and making mistakes, than that their freedom was compromised by someone who thinks they know better, but can't explain (without reference to their own personal conception of God) how they know they know their morality is best. And who knows? Perhaps some of these alleged mistakes might turn out not to be mistakes, after all.

The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, talked a lot about 'experiments of living' in his 'On Liberty' (1859). You might like to google it, for his arguments as to why, provided no harm is caused, people should be allowed to live as they please.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think the Gospels are probably the most reliable part of the scriptures.

Best wishes, 2RM

And yet,, that is another question that you aren't really answering. Is that a yes? No? Yes, but...? No, but...?


Why is it, do you think, that you find it impossible to give direct answers to direct questions? Or at least complete answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

@FunkyTown, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Neither more nor less. If you can construe somehow that I think the Gospels the most reliable part of scripture, but don't accept Jesus as Saviour, I'd be interested in your line of thought.

Best wishes, 2RM.

A raft is the most reliable piece of transportation between a raft, a paper airplane and an anvil. I still wouldn't cross the ocean in one.

 

"The most reliable" could mean you think all of the Old Testament is terrible and the new testament only barely better, simply by virtue of having more connection to traceable historicity.

 

Or you could think they're all incredibly reliable, but the Gospels are absolute truth while the Old Testament is more parable.

 

Or you could believe that the New Testament is filled with error, the Gospels slightly less so and the Old Testament slightly more so.

 

If you believe the Gospels are the most reliable(But still unreliable), that could mean you believe:

 

Jesus was a fiercely pious man and a radical who lied to try to save the Jews from the Romans and committed no miracles.

Jesus was the Son of God and did everything the Gospels say he did, including the miracles.

Jesus was a charismatic madman.

 

Or anything in between those three. Do you understand how that statement is so vague as to be meaningless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That's exactly the point. I will not make any claims to any knowledge I do not have.

Best wishes, 2RM.


Then the answer to my question was not 'I believe the Gospels are the most reliable part of scripture'. The answer to my question was, "Not really. He probably existed as a man, but whether he taught the things he did or did the things they say he did, I have no firm belief."

 

Do you understand how you are being deliberately obtuse? In over a hundred posts, you have not directly answered any question I have asked. You have asked how we can know the truth, I asked how you would know that you knew the truth. You prevaricated. I gave a sample morals question and asked how you came to your conclusion and you gave those same vague answers.

 

You need to ask  yourself a question: Are you really searching for truth? If so, why are you so afraid of answering questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh huh.

Let's take a little break here, and read a short poem by AE Housman. It's called 'An Easter Hymn', and even as an atheist, it was a favourite of mine, for it's simplicity of language, it's beauty of expression, and it's mortal significance. So much so, I learned it by heart.

Then came a night when I was seriously stressed. About me, about the people I loved, about the world in general.

And as I lay in bed, in the darkness, I found myself reciting this poem, not as poetry, but as prayer. 

And the love of God hit me like a meteor, invading my heart with all the joy, all the pain, all the ecstasy of God. It was too much to bear, and I asked for it to end. And it subsided. But I have never forgotten the experience, and when Housman says, 'But if, the grave rent, and stone rolled by...' etc, I know that the grave was rent, the stone was rolled by, etc. Because, if it wasn't true, Jesus wouldn't have been there to answer my prayer.

So, I guess I'm saying, I know what Housman asks for in the second stanza is true. And that Jesus does indeed 'bow hither, out of heaven, and see and save'.

But I do not know more than this, and will not claim to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
16 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Let's take a little break here, and read a short poem by AE Housman.

"A Shropshire Lad"-some of the best poems of that era.
Since you loved my list of philosophers (Have you read any yet? Probably not, only been a few days), I can give you a list of poets I like too. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Don't worry. All your philosophers are on my reading list. And I am glad you like Housman, too.

Best wishes, 2RM

You and I should start our own thread. "How to be pretentious and name drop poets/philosophers." You in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.

Another of Housman's I like goes:

'In my own shire, if I were sad,

Homely comforters I had.

The earth, because my heart was sore,

sorrowed for the son she bore...'

Do you know that one?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Sure.

Another of Housman's I like goes:

'In my own shire, if I were sad,

Homely comforters I had.

The earth, because my heart was sore,

sorrowed for the son she bore...'

Do you know that one?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I do know that one.  It always reminded me of an Emily Dickinson poem. 

 

My personal favorite by Housman: 

IF it chance your eye offend you,

  Pluck it out, lad, and be sound:

’Twill hurt, but here are salves to friend you,

  And many a balsam grows on ground.

 

And if your hand or foot offend you,        

  Cut it off, lad, and be whole;

But play the man, stand up and end you,

  When your sickness is your soul.

That,  and the famous "When I was One and Twenty". I like his poems that deal with regret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh.

Let's take a little break here, and read a short poem by AE Housman. It's called 'An Easter Hymn', and even as an atheist, it was a favourite of mine, for it's simplicity of language, it's beauty of expression, and it's mortal significance. So much so, I learned it by heart.

Then came a night when I was seriously stressed. About me, about the people I loved, about the world in general.

And as I lay in bed, in the darkness, I found myself reciting this poem, not as poetry, but as prayer. 

And the love of God hit me like a meteor, invading my heart with all the joy, all the pain, all the ecstasy of God. It was too much to bear, and I asked for it to end. And it subsided. But I have never forgotten the experience, and when Housman says, 'But if, the grave rent, and stone rolled by...' etc, I know that the grave was rent, the stone was rolled by, etc. Because, if it wasn't true, Jesus wouldn't have been there to answer my prayer.

So, I guess I'm saying, I know what Housman asks for in the second stanza is true. And that Jesus does indeed 'bow hither, out of heaven, and see and save'.

But I do not know more than this, and will not claim to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

 

Now that's interesting. 


In over a hundred posts, and asking numerous questions, I know the following about your beliefs:

 

1) You believe that man cannot possibly know objective truth as to what is moral.

2) You believe that a man did, indeed, know objective truth about what is moral - Jesus. Or he saved us without knowing objective truth about morality. Or he was just a moral philosopher who improved us without knowing what objective truth in morality was. 

3) You believe we get better morally

4) You have no way of measuring what 'better' means, nor do you have any concept of how we could possibly know that it was better.

5) You believe even a school child knows what 'better' means,.

6) You do not know what 'better' means in the context you were using it in - That is, in the context of improved morality and understanding.

7) You have no reason to believe we get better morally as a species due to the aforementioned lack of any possible measuring stick for what better means, but you like to think of yourself as an optimist and optimists believe things are better.

😎  You hate answering questions.

How accurate am I in this assessment, I ask, knowing the answer is that I am probably wrong about all 8 assumptions because I have been wrong about every attempt at interpreting your words in this several hundred thread back and forth. Because you refuse to answer any questions.

 

Do you see that you aren't actually answering anything and are completely unable to learn anything, because you reject plain truths, but by the same token are unwilling to share any method by which you accept truth?

 

You spoke about the Gospels as the (Least inaccurate/most accurate/vaguely accurate/very accurate/somewhere in between all those) source of truth in the bible. Do you know why John spoke in the poetic verse of the Greeks, Luke spoke in clinical Jewish historical words and every gospel used slightly different methods of pushing truth? It's because they were all being written for a different audience, who had different standards by which truth could be known. If we do not know your standard, we can not communicate in a manner anyone can reach you with.

 

So, please answer - This is not a rhetorical device, or a question you need to just think about: I genuinely,, honestly, want to know the real answer - Without ambiguity.

Do you want to know the truth more than you want to argue?

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share