So about Obama being a Muslim...

[Glen]

The idea is that something has authority. You're saying that the rule book was not really written by an authority and that we're free to ignore it. That may be so, but if you say that we can change all rule books because there is no authority, then you can't say that there's an authority. It's just an obvious point that many people stumble upon.

I never said that. You seem to have a problem with putting words into the mouths of others.

[juansavage1]

Here's a thought for you, Juan. If there is a God, maybe he/she/it wants us to figure out our own rules. This seems borne out by history, which could be see as an ongoing trial-and-error sequence, which will continue indefinitely.

 

As I've sometimes said, human nature is discovering and creating what human nature is.

Maybe. I just want people to be consistent and logical. 

 

To sum up: 

 

1. Obama is probably the kind of Marxist you meet at college. I base this on his associations, policies, and upbringing. 

2. Nobody here thinks Obama is a Muslim. 

3. Some people who oppose him say that he is. They could just be trying to make him seem bad or they could be reading bad information from Alex Jones or whatever. 

4. Most people want people of the same ideology to lead their nation.

5. Religion and political ideology can be separate or related. In Europe, they have Christian Democrats based mostly on Catholic social teaching so it's mixed there. 

6. It's up to individuals to decide how much of a mixture it should be. 

7. Whatever we assert, we have to be honest about the logical consequences. 

[Schildog]

juan, do you have a job?

[Hollyw00d]

He's claimed he is a teacher.

God help those kids

[TobiasFunke]

Hillsdale college professors also claim they are teachers

[Angelsjunky]

Maybe. I just want people to be consistent and logical. 

 

To sum up: 

 

1. Obama is probably the kind of Marxist you meet at college. I base this on his associations, policies, and upbringing. 

2. Nobody here thinks Obama is a Muslim. 

3. Some people who oppose him say that he is. They could just be trying to make him seem bad or they could be reading bad information from Alex Jones or whatever. 

4. Most people want people of the same ideology to lead their nation.

5. Religion and political ideology can be separate or related. In Europe, they have Christian Democrats based mostly on Catholic social teaching so it's mixed there. 

6. It's up to individuals to decide how much of a mixture it should be. 

7. Whatever we assert, we have to be honest about the logical consequences. 

 

1. The idea that Obama is an extreme leftist and/or socialist is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Obama is actually relatively centrist, as is Hillary and Biden. If you want a true leftist, look at Bernie Sanders.

 

2. Hopefully not.

 

3. I'm going to assume that the majority of them simply aren't that bright.

 

4. Yes, true.

 

5. I have no problem with a Christian president, if said president doesn't try to enforce Christian belief on the country. This is why a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum should never be president. The president is supposed to represent everyone, not just Christians.

 

6. Yes.

 

7. Sure, but this is a vague statement.

[Tank]

Here's a thought for you, Juan. If there is a God, maybe he/she/it wants us to figure out our own rules. This seems borne out by history, which could be see as an ongoing trial-and-error sequence, which will continue indefinitely.

 

As I've sometimes said, human nature is discovering and creating what human nature is.

 

i think most Christians believe that rules for behavior have already been given to us by the authority of scripture and the ten commandments. i think how we apply them in daily living is where there is a lack of consistency.

[juansavage1]

1. The idea that Obama is an extreme leftist and/or socialist is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Obama is actually relatively centrist, as is Hillary and Biden. If you want a true leftist, look at Bernie Sanders.

 

2. Hopefully not.

 

3. I'm going to assume that the majority of them simply aren't that bright.

 

4. Yes, true.

 

5. I have no problem with a Christian president, if said president doesn't try to enforce Christian belief on the country. This is why a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum should never be president. The president is supposed to represent everyone, not just Christians.

 

6. Yes.

 

7. Sure, but this is a vague statement.

Centrist is a relative term. You can be in a room full of Marxists and be a centrist because you think Kulaks should have been given a second chance. I'm saying that Obama, like about half of all sociology professors in the country has Marxist assumptions.  I use Marxist as an identifiable philosophy with tenets. Conflict Theory, Institutional Racism, Gender Identidy etc. All of those are terms influenced by Marxism. Of course, he's not going to say that just like he's not going to say that he's for gay marriage. In his books, he talks about his commie pals in Hawaii and discussing leftist authors like Foucault. 

 

What's going on is that people don't like the label for two reasons. First, it gives the game away. They'd prefer to just be caring and just. Second, it has a negative connotation in the US. 

 

Some of you don't like it because you don't know what Marxism is and just think it means bad guy. 

 

If you said to me, "JS, you say that people have a right to life and that we have a right to property because you have Theist assumptions,' I'd say "Yes." It would be a lot shorter, more efficient conversation. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Juan Savage

[juansavage1]

i think most Christians believe that rules for behavior have already been given to us by the authority of scripture and the ten commandments. i think how we apply them in daily living is where there is a lack of consistency.

Yes. We all fall short, but we have the model for behavior. We argue the details. A pitch clock is a detail as is the height of the pitching mound. Hitting the ball with the hand or not having to run around the bases is another game. 

[Hollyw00d]

Juan is stuck in the 1950s

Where everything was "perfect.". At least according to cons

[juansavage1]

 

But thanks for clarifying. I can see your point and don't entirely disagree with your assertion that some kind of transcendent factor (although not necessarily "authority") is required for a morality that is above personal opinion. But I think this is possible without belief in the monotheist God. Buddhism is essentially non-theistic but has a moral system based upon compassion, which in turn is based upon the realization that we are interconnected. Or some philosophers talk about the Ground of Being, or in Hinduism there is the idea that the universe itself is God, and as we are part of the universe we are God too.

 

 

 

Yes. As I've stated, a person can choose a morality and stick with it. It's like the people who decide the rules of a game. You can make up the rules you think are best and stick with them. 

 

Buddhism is not an easy subject. I was sitting next to a non-theistic Buddhist on a plane who believed in Karma or reincarnation. I asked him who decided what you come back as or something, and he didn't know. That seemed illogical to me. 

 

I'm not familiar with Ground of Being, but it sounds suspiciously like people who don't want to be religious, but nonetheless want to believe in a good and evil. 

 

Hinduism doesn't withstand scrutiny, but that's different from saying that Hindus are dumb or mean or something. I'm not an expert, but I think they have many deities. 

[Angelsjunky]

Hinduism is an umbrella term that includes many different religions, so I don't think it makes sense to say it "doesn't withstand scrutiny" (whatever that means). You really have to specify what you're talking about. Different forms of Hinduism emphasize different deities. They even have a trinity.

[juansavage1]

 

But here's the thing: why do you need "intrinsic truth?" Why is God and absolute morality necessary to be a good person? I'd say it isn't. As others have said, there's no direct correlation between theological belief and morality.

 

 

You need intrinsic truth for there to be good or bad people. Otherwise, you'd say, "According to what I think is good, he's a good person" or, more logically assuming atheism, "he's acting according to his nature and nurture. He can do no more or less." 

 

I think there is a link between what's called religiosity and behavior. Demographers measure religiosity by Church attendance. People who attend Church volunteer more time and money, marry more, divorce less, have more children, are happier and other measures. As we've become more secular, the duties people have felt before have disappeared. Things that are hard for people to do, like take care of parents, stay married, volunteer, and others have "decreased." I think other things like cheating have increased. 

 

Think about what you're saying. You're saying that emphasizing certain moral traits has no effect on the person's behavior. So, we shouldn't emphasize tolerance, or non-racism, or compassion because it doesn't matter. 

[juansavage1]

Hinduism is an umbrella term that includes many different religions, so I don't think it makes sense to say it "doesn't withstand scrutiny" (whatever that means). You really have to specify what you're talking about. Different forms of Hinduism emphasize different deities. They even have a trinity.

I don't really want to start another mini-thread, but it has to do with causality (God has to have certain characteristics) and historical accuracy, at least of what I'm familiar with. Doesn't mean that Hindu people aren't nice. 

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, I'm losing interest in this conversation - not because of our disagreements, but because you continue to ascribe things to me that don't apply, or that I didn't say. It feels like a waste of time, that I have to constantly correct you as you continue to debate against your Atheist/Leftist/Marxist strawman.

 

As Obi-wan said, "these aren't the droids you're looking for."

[juansavage1]

Last one for tonight: 

 

Belief in God was (and still is) necessary to bring men out of violent tribalism, whether we're talking about the Middle Eastern tribes of 3,000 years ago or gangs today. A lot of violent criminals find God in jail (whether Christian or Islamic) and become better people. For them it is a positive development. But I don't think that's the case for all, and that it is possible to develop a strong moral sense without religion. In some cases, even, religion becomes an obstacle to develop a deeper morality - one that is not bound by an external creed, but comes from within.In other words, there's a difference between doing good things because God says you should, which is like a child obeying a parent, and doing good things because it is what you want to do - which is like an adult.

 

I'd also argue that no one, at least not at first, decides their morality. It comes from upbringing. Almost everyone in this country is, to varying degrees, influenced by Christianity in this regard. So that forms a kind of bedrock, and then we decide how we are going to live our lives - so we start to evolve and adapt our morality. But I think the basic moral sense comes from upbringing.

 

 

The deeper morality thing is something I don't want to get into too much right now. This is one way, similar to what you're talking about, but I don't agree and neither would the people who sacrificed their life to start leprae colonies, like this dude. Unless a lot of higher order morality people started leprae colonies or ministered to the unclean in India instead of sit around and called themselves higher order in front of their college students. 

[juansavage1]

Juan, I'm losing interest in this conversation - not because of our disagreements, but because you continue to ascribe things to me that don't apply, or that I didn't say. It feels like a waste of time, that I have to constantly correct you as you continue to debate against your Atheist/Leftist/Marxist strawman.

 

As Obi-wan said, "these aren't the droids you're looking for."

Sorry. I think I got a couple of people mixed up once or twice. When I'm at work, I look quickly in between classes or after I take roll. We can table this for now. My goal is not to convince people, but to represent a point of view that some people don't usually hear. 

[Angelsjunky]

Last one for tonight: 

 

 

The deeper morality thing is something I don't want to get into too much right now. This is one way, similar to what you're talking about, but I don't agree and neither would the people who sacrificed their life to start leprae colonies, like this dude. Unless a lot of higher order morality people started leprae colonies or ministered to the unclean in India instead of sit around and called themselves higher order in front of their college students. 

 

I think Kohlberg's stages are basically sound and have been corroborated by other theorists. Of course people have reject stage models, especially when their stage isn't the highest! But Kohlberg's model well represents why I think religion--which is basically "conventional" morality--has its place, to in a sense "tame" those that are "pre-conventional." But there are higher stages beyond this, what Kohlberg calls "post-conventional" which is more individualistic and universal at the same time - not referring back to a structure moral code but in a way transcending it. I'd actually argue that there are stages beyond Kohlberg's, but that's another matter.

 

It is also important to point out that you could apply Kohlberg's model within a religion, say Christianity. While Christian fundamentalism is conventional, there are Christians who develop post-conventional morality (e.g. Thomas Merton and Matthew Fox are two examples that I can think of). The churches usually feel threatened by these types (Fox was excommunicated, I believe).

 

I don't why Father Damien disproves Kohlberg, though.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[Crampknees]

I need the cliffs notes guys.  Possibly even pare it down to one word like Muslim, Marxist, Communist, Chi-knee, Aztec, Amish, Trannie, etc.  Sorry for not being an intellect.  I need it kept simple.  Thanks for understanding. 

[juansavage1]

I think Kohlberg's stages are basically sound and have been corroborated by other theorists. Of course people have reject stage models, especially when their stage isn't the highest! But Kohlberg's model well represents why I think religion--which is basically "conventional" morality--has its place, to in a sense "tame" those that are "pre-conventional." But there are higher stages beyond this, what Kohlberg calls "post-conventional" which is more individualistic and universal at the same time - not referring back to a structure moral code but in a way transcending it. I'd actually argue that there are stages beyond Kohlberg's, but that's another matter.

 

It is also important to point out that you could apply Kohlberg's model within a religion, say Christianity. While Christian fundamentalism is conventional, there are Christians who develop post-conventional morality (e.g. Thomas Merton and Matthew Fox are two examples that I can think of). The churches usually feel threatened by these types (Fox was excommunicated, I believe).

 

I don't why Father Damien disproves Kohlberg, though.

Father Damien doesn't disprove it, necessarily. I've just heard people talk about these things and seem to use it against religion. It does sound suspiciously like secular people wanting to place themselves above religious people. I just wanted to know what Kohlberg or any of his students did to relieve suffering, like Father Damien did. What good is being at some higher stage if you don't do anything?  Anyways, I'll stop for a while. 

[juansavage1]

I need the cliffs notes guys.  Possibly even pare it down to one word like Muslim, Marxist, Communist, Chi-knee, Aztec, Amish, Trannie, etc.  Sorry for not being an intellect.  I need it kept simple.  Thanks for understanding. 

No problem

 

Muslim: Good at keeping time. 

Marxist: Don't date them. They'll get mad when you open the door for them and won't shut up about how your grandfather oppressed your grandmother. 

Communist: Same as above, but don't take them to a game unless you want to hear about how we're taking advantage of the Haitians who make the baseballs. 

Chi-knee: Not sure, but I think they make cool turquoise jewelry. 

Trannie: Now, transgendered. Don't date these either, if you want authentic trim. On the other hand, you can save money on feminine supplies and share shoes. 

[Angelsjunky]

Father Damien doesn't disprove it, necessarily. I've just heard people talk about these things and seem to use it against religion. It does sound suspiciously like secular people wanting to place themselves above religious people. I just wanted to know what Kohlberg or any of his students did to relieve suffering, like Father Damien did. What good is being at some higher stage if you don't do anything?  Anyways, I'll stop for a while. 

 

A couple things. First of all, there are remarkable people that do amazing things at every stage of development, and in every group of people - secular and religious, different religions, etc.

 

Secondly, the latest research into psychological stages shows that one can be highly developed in one way, not so developed in another way. For instance, one could have a highly developed moral sense and be very open-hearted and loving, but still be stuck in conventional mind-sets. Or one could be highly cognitively developed, able to think holistically and incorporate multiple perspectives, but be a total asshole in terms of emotional intelligence. See, for instance, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

 

Thirdly, you make a good point in your underlined bit. But see my first couple points. That said, there are different ways to relieve suffering, different ways to contribute to humanity. Providing a deeper understanding of the human being, of psychology, may seem indirect but it has the potential to further human understanding. Not everyone needs to directly heal the sick and feed the poor. You're a teacher - that's a huge way of contributing.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't see Kohlberg's model as a way to put down religious people. As I said, the different stages can be applied within religions as well. A pre-conventional religious person might be a mobster who does horrible things and then confesses his sins as a way to put off real moral development and responsibility, and then goes back to doing horrible things. Or it might be a Jonathan Edwards who used religion as a way to spread hate. A conventional religious person is more of the orthodox/fundamentalist type, someone who follows closely the religious code, believes in the deity in a specific, often literal way, and generally seems themselves as a servant of the divine. A post-conventional religious person might emphasize the universal qualities within all religions, be interested in inter-faith dialogue, and live from a sense of "the divine within" that can take different forms and express itself through different religions, rather than external rules and codifications.

 

Anyhow, there are a ton of variations on the stages of development - Wade, Erikson, Piaget, Maslow, Wilber, Cook-Greuter, Gebser, Aurobindo, Graves, etc. Kohlberg--who is based on Piaget--is a bit out-dated at this point. I'd recommend checking out Ken Wilber, or look at Spiral Dynamics, which is based on the work of Clare Graves.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[juansavage1]

A couple things. First of all, there are remarkable people that do amazing things at every stage of development, and in every group of people - secular and religious, different religions, etc.

 

Secondly, the latest research into psychological stages shows that one can be highly developed in one way, not so developed in another way. For instance, one could have a highly developed moral sense and be very open-hearted and loving, but still be stuck in conventional mind-sets. Or one could be highly cognitively developed, able to think holistically and incorporate multiple perspectives, but be a total asshole in terms of emotional intelligence. See, for instance, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

 

Thirdly, you make a good point in your underlined bit. But see my first couple points. That said, there are different ways to relieve suffering, different ways to contribute to humanity. Providing a deeper understanding of the human being, of psychology, may seem indirect but it has the potential to further human understanding. Not everyone needs to directly heal the sick and feed the poor. You're a teacher - that's a huge way of contributing.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't see Kohlberg's model as a way to put down religious people. As I said, the different stages can be applied within religions as well. A pre-conventional religious person might be a mobster who does horrible things and then confesses his sins as a way to put off real moral development and responsibility, and then goes back to doing horrible things. Or it might be a Jonathan Edwards who used religion as a way to spread hate. A conventional religious person is more of the orthodox/fundamentalist type, someone who follows closely the religious code, believes in the deity in a specific, often literal way, and generally seems themselves as a servant of the divine. A post-conventional religious person might emphasize the universal qualities within all religions, be interested in inter-faith dialogue, and live from a sense of "the divine within" that can take different forms and express itself through different religions, rather than external rules and codifications.

 

Anyhow, there are a ton of variations on the stages of development - Wade, Erikson, Piaget, Maslow, Wilber, Cook-Greuter, Gebser, Aurobindo, Graves, etc. Kohlberg--who is based on Piaget--is a bit out-dated at this point. I'd recommend checking out Ken Wilber, or look at Spiral Dynamics, which is based on the work of Clare Graves.

There's nothing here I disagree with. 

 

I don't see the effort to categorize things human experience as necessarily bad as long as we know that it's a man's observation of society, with all of its biases, limitations, and hang ups. I don't think contemplating goodness would compel people to actually go out and do something as much as a commandment to do so would. Again, not arguing against any of these theories or goodness formulations. 

[Tank]

i don't read most of these long-winded posts from anyone.

[Angelsjunky]

i don't read most of these long-winded posts from anyone.