Two Alternatives

[Virgil Showlion]

@copperpouches: One doesn't require religion to comport with Biblical law in some regards. Most people will never murder (adults) in their lifetimes, for example.

People who keep the Law, even for reasons other than obedience to God, are blessed for keeping it. As I recently stated in another thread, the spiritual Law of God is a living law that applies regardless of one's belief in it. That includes the blessings as well as the penalties.

You and your husband's faithfulness in marriage has brought you its blessings--peace, security, a loving home. Your inlaws' paying lip service to the Law but transgressing it brought upon them the penalties (and will continue to incur penalties that ripple outward to many people far into the future) insofar as God isn't willing to spare them by His Grace. Sin is a terrible thing, and the Bible emphasizes the enormity of the consequences of even minor sins. God beholds where that one brick we figured we could shove in slightly crooked will compromise the integrity of the entire palisade. Insight of this depth is well beyond man's capabilities. Chaos theory tells us that it will always be well beyond man's capabilities. That's one of the reasons why a Christian has no faith in man's ability to discern what is right and wrong contrary to the Law of God.

Regarding why religion is necessary: firstly, because I know of no non-believer in scripture who keeps all of the laws pertaining to the treatment of our fellow human beings. Moreover, I know of no non-believer who doesn't add at least a few de facto moral taboos of their own, with common examples being veganism, patriotism, racism, etc. that can create a world of problems if people aren't extremely careful.

Secondly, four of the Ten Commandments (which are commandments [as in: not suggestions]) pertain to how we are to worship and not to worship our Creator, which non-believers obviously won't adhere to. There are also requirements in baptism, attending holy convocations, growing in scriptural knowledge, strictly taking care of the body (the temple), accepting and responding to Christ's sacrifice, bringing our thoughts into captivity, minding prophecy, etc. that non-believers won't adhere to.

In this particular thread, I don't particularly care why people might take up the advice in the OP. It suffices that even one reader take it to heart for whatever reason (s)he sees fit.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 18:27:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I'm not sure shotgun weddings really honour the biblical standards you are espousing. And from what I know of those times, affairs were pretty common. I know that adultery specifically makes the top ten, I don't recall premarital sex being there. I'm not sure they had any easier a time maintaining the standard, or were any more successful at it.

Mind that:

• this discussion is about fornication rather than infidelity
  
  
• you'll need some sort of a basis for convincing me that everything my grandparents observed in their small hometowns was a facade
  
  
• my argument stands regardless of whether every teenager in town besides my grandparents were getting on like rabbits.  It was extraordinarily difficult for little Johnny to shop around for moral guidance until he found somebody willing to permit him to make love to the girl he liked.  And if he did convince himself it was well to sleep with her, he had to contend with the risk of a shotgun wedding if anybody ever found out.
  

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 18:56:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In this particular thread, I don't particularly care why people might take up the advice in the OP. It suffices that even one reader take it to heart for whatever reason (s)he sees fit.

Most of what I do, I do because it seems to make logical sense to me.

I avoid drinking because it's costly, drunkenness because it can be dangerous.  School was very explicit about alcohol poisoning dangers.  Drinking to the puking or blackout stage sounds frankly worrisome at many levels.  Both of my sisters feel the same way, older sis is a fierce atheist, younger sis is not particularly introspective, but has excellent "horse sense."  We like keeping our senses about us.

Sex ed classes in middle school, high school, and college made me seriously concerned about STDs, along the technical explanations of safety protocol.  The STD descriptors got progressively more candid the older we got.  Biology classes augmented, with those "take a vial, go mix it with another kid, then another" projects, where by the end 80%+ had herpes.

DH is a good guy, he really cherished me.  It seemed like a bad idea to throw away a rare sweet fish caught on the first cast, just because I might catch a mackerel the next time and I'd never had mackerel.  So we tested for a long time, seemed to suit well, and stayed together. 


I don't know.  I just find it odd that we're acknowledged as commendable by many Christians, but I'm told that I'm utterly hell bound unless I accept Jesus as my savior, there is no exception, that is the only way.  I've been told that very seriously to my face by a coworker.

There were a lot of Wiccans in my home area, they are religious guides too.  I imagine if we all had to live under some sort of local religious influence, they'd be strong in the running for a majority there.  I know a fair number of people who've switched denominations, and seemed totally fine with alternative absolute beliefs.  Religious influence just seems quite chaotic and individualized, but none of it is really debatable at all, it's all belief.  Religion can be a strange area of consideration for someone who was raised without.

[Virgil Showlion]

@copperpouches: The last three paragraphs of this recent post touches on a few of the points you raise. In particular, I don't believe you're utterly hellbound.

[steff]

Regarding why religion is necessary: firstly, because I know of no non-believer in scripture who keeps all of the laws pertaining to the treatment of our fellow human beings. Moreover, I know of no non-believer who doesn't add at least a few de facto moral taboos of their own, with common examples being veganism, patriotism, racism, etc. that can create a world of problems if people aren't extremely careful.

Secondly, four of the Ten Commandments (which are commandments [as in: not suggestions]) pertain to how we are to worship and not to worship our Creator, which non-believers obviously won't adhere to. There are also requirements in baptism, attending holy convocations, growing in scriptural knowledge, strictly taking care of the body (the temple), accepting and responding to Christ's sacrifice, bringing our thoughts into captivity, minding prophecy, etc. that non-believers won't adhere to.

So religion is necessary because YOUR religious beliefs say it's necessary. 

*broken record moment*  YOUR beliefs belong to YOU, and do NOT apply to everyone just because YOU think they do.  WE are not required to live by YOUR beliefs, only YOU the believer are. 

why is that so hard for you to understand?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 23:06:40 GMT -5 steff said:

Regarding why religion is necessary: firstly, because I know of no non-believer in scripture who keeps all of the laws pertaining to the treatment of our fellow human beings. Moreover, I know of no non-believer who doesn't add at least a few de facto moral taboos of their own, with common examples being veganism, patriotism, racism, etc. that can create a world of problems if people aren't extremely careful.

Secondly, four of the Ten Commandments (which are commandments [as in: not suggestions]) pertain to how we are to worship and not to worship our Creator, which non-believers obviously won't adhere to. There are also requirements in baptism, attending holy convocations, growing in scriptural knowledge, strictly taking care of the body (the temple), accepting and responding to Christ's sacrifice, bringing our thoughts into captivity, minding prophecy, etc. that non-believers won't adhere to.

So religion is necessary because YOUR religious beliefs say it's necessary. 

*broken record moment*  YOUR beliefs belong to YOU, and do NOT apply to everyone just because YOU think they do.  WE are not required to live by YOUR beliefs, only YOU the believer are. 

why is that so hard for you to understand?

See my comments about the nature of absolutist viewpoints here.

[steff]

so because you say so.


good grief.

[Virgil Showlion]

You actually have a streak of absolutism yourself.

For example, you no doubt reject the correctness of any major philosophy that discards the basic tenets of humanism, and there are many such philosophies.

Rejecting these philosophies is tantamount to asserting that nobody is subject to their postulates. Hence you're plainly guilty of applying your beliefs in this regard to everyone "just because you think they do".

[steff]

You assume to know much more about me than you actually do.   Reality is, you don't know anything other than what I type on this board & that could all be bullshit for all you really know. 

So stop assuming to know what anyone thinks, feels, thinks, acts on or believes.  You aren't that impressive or amazing or talented.

[mmhmm]

Rejecting these philosophies is tantamount to asserting that nobody is subject to their postulates.

I don't see this as true. If one espouses behaviors based on a belief system, that person is responsible to themselves to uphold that belief system through his/her behaviors. Is that not true? That does not translate to a requirement for everyone to adapt those same behaviors, as I see it. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 0:13:27 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Rejecting these philosophies is tantamount to asserting that nobody is subject to their postulates.

I don't see this as true. If one espouses behaviors based on a belief system, that person is responsible to themselves to uphold that belief system through his/her behaviors. Is that not true? That does not translate to a requirement for everyone to adapt those same behaviors, as I see it. 

It's more complicated than that.

Perhaps an example to illustrate.

A humanist doctrine (or a doctrine compatible with humanism) will assert that a human is more valuable than a tree. If presented with a scenario in which a 300-year-old redwood tree must be cut down to save the life of a 4-year-old boy, then you, I, (and, I assume, steff) wouldn't hesitate to cut down the tree to save the child's life. Moreover, we would judge a park ranger's decision to let the boy die for sake of saving the tree to be immoral (or the very least, very foolish).

Our making this judgment implies moral absolutism. Specifically, we reject the notion that the park ranger was right to save the tree over the boy simply because he wholeheartedly believes that saving a tree is more important than saving a boy. We might forgive him, but we assert that his decision was wrong, possibly even punishable.

Conversely, a moral relativist would claim that the ranger did right (or at least did no wrong) because an individual is bound only by his/her personal morals, and it was the ranger's heartfelt belief that the life of the tree was more valuable.

I don't think steff is a moral relativist. As DJ has pointed out many times, moral relativism is an ethically invalid doctrine.

Our viewpoints differ in the scope of the moral doctrines we reject. My view rejects all but a single doctrine, while yours (and I believe steff's) admit the correctness of a class of doctrines that share certain properties, including e.g. the belief that a human life is worth more than a tree, and the belief that a human life is worth more than avoiding denting one's beloved Mercedes Benz, neither of which is provable.

Still, we are all, to varying degrees, moral absolutists. Steff's Reply #35 seems to deny this, prompting my reply.

[mmhmm]

If your statement was in response only to Steff's post, I can understand where you're coming from, Virgil Showlion. I hope you're also able to understand where I'm coming from. We've had this discussion before, quite some time ago. I think we agreed, at that time, that all but the most dense (or stubborn) of us hold to some absolutes. While I might not find the ranger wrong (or, right, for that matter), not believing that to be my call, I would stand against him to protect the child - just as would you, and Steff, and most anyone else. As we share this planet, we share a great deal more and I've always tried to make room for all people within my view. I don't have to agree with them to love them and care for them. I will not condemn them; nor, do I believe it my place to try to change them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 1:23:30 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If your statement was in response only to Steff's post, I can understand where you're coming from, Virgil Showlion. I hope you're also able to understand where I'm coming from. We've had this discussion before, quite some time ago. I think we agreed, at that time, that all but the most dense (or stubborn) of us hold to some absolutes. While I might not find the ranger wrong (or, right, for that matter), not believing that to be my call, I would stand against him to protect the child - just as would you, and Steff, and most anyone else. As we share this planet, we share a great deal more and I've always tried to make room for all people within my view. I don't have to agree with them to love them and care for them. I will not condemn them; nor, do I believe it my place to try to change them.

You say that you'd stand against him to protect the child. But then you say you wouldn't condemn the ranger's choice, punish him, or try to change him in any way. I don't see how to reconcile those two statements.

Suppose you knew that he might again be faced with the situation of choosing between a human being and a tree. Would you fire him? If so, depending on whether he promised never to do it again, you would either be punishing him or coercing him to change.

Suppose a respected surgeon gets drunk and accidentally kills a patient. By his good fortune, he's able to conceal his malpractice. And although he knowingly violated the guidelines for his profession and is guilty of manslaughter, he believes with his whole heart that disclosing the truth will only compound the wrong by destroying his career and depriving the world of a skilled surgeon.

Is his rationalization acceptable to you? Would you not condemn it? Would you not try to change his mind, arguing that he should disclose the truth and face the consequences?

I realize that your view "makes room" for more than mine. I've explicitly stated that. The point is that your view certainly doesn't make room for everything, and that (I hope) you would condemn evil, injustice, malfeasance, etc. and try to change people who engage in them. Otherwise I've gravely misread you.

[mmhmm]

I would not condemn, Virgil. That's not my place. I would protect the child and would explain why, if allowed. However, I would not condemn; nor, would I assume my explanation as to why the child's life mattered more to me would change the stance of the ranger. That would be the ranger's decision to contemplate. I'll not look to a future I cannot see to fathom what that ranger's future decision might be. I'll not punish, nor coerce. I shall simply protect the child and explain my reasoning. I have no need to make room for "everything". I'll not encounter everything. I deal, as I can, with that which I encounter. I'm not here to change people. I consider myself neither qualified to do so, nor perfect enough to do so. If they wish to hear my explanation and heed it, they will do so. If they don't, they won't. I have no problem reconciling that. YMMV, and that's fine, too.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 2:46:39 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I would not condemn, Virgil. That's not my place. I would protect the child and would explain why, if allowed. However, I would not condemn; nor, would I assume my explanation as to why the child's life mattered more to me would change the stance of the ranger. That would be the ranger's decision to contemplate. I'll not look to a future I cannot see to fathom what that ranger's future decision might be. I'll not punish, nor coerce. I shall simply protect the child and explain my reasoning. I have no need to make room for "everything". I'll not encounter everything. I deal, as I can, with that which I encounter. I'm not here to change people. I consider myself neither qualified to do so, nor perfect enough to do so. If they wish to hear my explanation and heed it, they will do so. If they don't, they won't. I have no problem reconciling that. YMMV, and that's fine, too.

I don't see how what you've described is consistent with protecting the child. As best I can interpret it, the above is consistent with a conversation of the following nature:

mmhmm: Help! There's a child pinned under the root of a giant redwood! He's suffocating. Ranger, you need to get him out!
ranger: Oh, that's so tragic. So very tragic. But... I can't cut that root. It will kill the tree.
mmhmm: The child's life is more important than the tree!
ranger: No! I will not claim the life of an ancient, beautiful tree.
mmhmm: Don't you see that a child is a sapient being like you and me, but the tree knows nothing?
ranger: The tree is an ancient living creature. I won't sacrifice it.
mmhmm: I don't agree with your decision, but I respect where you're coming from.

(5 minutes later)

child: *gasp* *gasp* *gasp* ... ... ...
mmhmm: He's dead.
ranger: There's nothing we could have done.
mmhmm: That's so unfortunate. What will you tell his parents?
ranger: I won't tell his parents. They would insist on cutting through the root to claim his body. I can't permit that.
mmhmm: But surely you'll spare them the heartache of wondering what became of their son?
ranger: They'll kill the tree. Do you not understand? I won't do it. Now come along, you're in this part of the park illegally.
mmhmm: I suppose you need to follow your heart.
ranger: Please don't tell anyone about this, I beg you. They'll cut down that tree and end its life. The tree will die, the child will have died in vain, and my life will be over.
mmhmm: I won't condemn you to a life in prison or condemn the tree to death, I promise. You did what you felt was right in your heart, and I respect that.
ranger: Thank you for understanding.


Is this a more or less accurate summary of how you'd react throughout the ordeal?

If so, how does it constitute you protecting the child? How is it not simply cowardice?

[mmhmm]

LOL!! Drama, anyone? Hyperbole? Got it here ... cheap!

I'm not going to stand and argue with someone, Virgil Showlion, in a case where I know darned well what needs to be done. Get the kid out of the tree root. If necessary, get the ranger out of the way. I'll deal with dude later. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Well...   You laugh, but what you're clearly describing is "Screw you and your values, treehugger. If you won't save the kid, I'll pry the axe from your cold, dead hands and save him myself."

Your description: "That would be the ranger's decision to contemplate. I'll not look to a future I cannot see to fathom what that ranger's future decision might be. I'll not punish, nor coerce. I shall simply protect the child and explain my reasoning." sounds like you'd sit the guy down to a cup of tea to speak about his feelings.

In other words, you're the one being hyperbolic. It obviously isn't the ranger's decision to contemplate. You can fathom the future and take action. You will punish and coerce. And your actions go vastly beyond explaining your reasoning.

I'm glad to hear it. I couldn't fathom the conscience of a man whose reasoning is, "Oh, well, he loves trees more than people, and who am I to question his values."

To condemn means to pronounce judgment on, or to express strong disapproval of. You condemn people's words and actions every day. You're almost certainly going to condemn my bolder assertions in this post. I really don't expect you to break out the marshmallows and start singing 'Kumbaya'.

[mmhmm]

Whatever, @vsyonid. You and I obviously speak different languages. That's fine with me. If you want to believe I'm condemning you, that's your privilege.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 30, 2015 12:07:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Whatever, @vsyonid. You and I obviously speak different languages. That's fine with me. If you want to believe I'm condemning you, that's your privilege.

He and I are speaking different languages on the other thread as well. He seems to have a bug up his butt.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 12:07:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Whatever, @vsyonid. You and I obviously speak different languages. That's fine with me. If you want to believe I'm condemning you, that's your privilege.

You're not condemning me, you're condemning my logic--my arguments.

...or at least you would be if you took serious exception to them. In this thread, you seem more disinterested than critical.

Your "BULLHOCKEY!!" in the atheism thread from the other day was a brief (albeit expressive ) condemnation of my argument in that thread. That's the mmhmm I'd hope to see if a child was dying and Ranger Rick lapsed into moral philosophizing about the life of the tree.

[mmhmm]

Mar 30, 2015 13:17:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 30, 2015 12:07:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Whatever, @vsyonid. You and I obviously speak different languages. That's fine with me. If you want to believe I'm condemning you, that's your privilege.

You're not condemning me, you're condemning my logic--my arguments.

...or at least you would be if you took serious exception to them. In this thread, you seem more disinterested than critical.

Your "BULLHOCKEY!!" in the atheism thread from the other day was a brief (albeit expressive ) condemnation of my argument in that thread. That's the mmhmm I'd hope to see if a child was dying and Ranger Rick lapsed into moral philosophizing about the life of the tree.

I'm glad you've acknowledged a difference between condemning someone's conclusions as opposed to condemning the person.

Frankly, I don't take serious exception to your arguments. They're yours, not mine. You're entitled to your deductions and I'm entitled to mine. I have no reason to condemn your arguments as they aren't relevant to me, or to my life.

As to your last statement, I'll speak to that nonsensical bit of drama one more time:  Ranger Rick can philosophize while I'm taking care of business. I've faced that situation many times. No condemnation for the Ranger Ricks of the world from me. Just get out of my way and let me get the job done here. We'll philosophize later. That's been my attitude for many, many years ... longer than you've been alive.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2015 9:13:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't see how what you've described is consistent with protecting the child. As best I can interpret it, the above is consistent with a conversation of the following nature:

mmhmm: Help! There's a child pinned under the root of a giant redwood! He's suffocating. Ranger, you need to get him out!
ranger: Oh, that's so tragic. So very tragic. But... I can't cut that root. It will kill the tree.
mmhmm: The child's life is more important than the tree!
ranger: No! I will not claim the life of an ancient, beautiful tree.
mmhmm: Don't you see that a child is a sapient being like you and me, but the tree knows nothing?
ranger: The tree is an ancient living creature. I won't sacrifice it.
mmhmm: I don't agree with your decision, but I respect where you're coming from.



Is this a more or less accurate summary of how you'd react throughout the ordeal?

If so, how does it constitute you protecting the child? How is it not simply cowardice?

I actually find this a little funny because of its improbability.  Country humor, I guess.  Redwoods are sort of like corn, or grasses.  They have tons and tons of smaller, shallow roots that stretch for far distances so that they can catch fog drip or faint rain, no tap roots.   Dad loves them because they almost never fall over in heavy rain or wind, unlike Douglas Firs, which have ball type root systems.

My parents are very fierce about chasing away burl rustlers that come through every once in a while.  Cutting off burls can allow a tree to sicken and die.  But roots can usually be messed with fairly safely, and redwoods are disease and pest resistant to begin with due to their bark and timber compounds.  They trenched an area between a huge coastal redwood and their septic system, cutting through some roots, and the tree is thriving along fine, the roots were all fairly small even closer to the trunk, like digging around a little near a blade of grass.  A single root... probably not going to faze a redwood.


I do think some people do have religious stances about trees though, very clear ones.  I'm not sure all Hindus would take an ax to a cow to save a human life either.  Belief is belief, it can be quite puzzling to people with different belief structures. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 30, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'm glad you've acknowledged a difference between condemning someone's conclusions as opposed to condemning the person.

I've never stated or insinuated otherwise.

Mar 30, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Frankly, I don't take serious exception to your arguments. They're yours, not mine. You're entitled to your deductions and I'm entitled to mine. I have no reason to condemn your arguments as they aren't relevant to me, or to my life.

You sure blast away at my arguments a lot for somebody that doesn't take serious exception to them.

If the Proboards search engine had the ability to look up instances of all-caps bolded text...

Mar 30, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

As to your last statement, I'll speak to that nonsensical bit of drama one more time:  Ranger Rick can philosophize while I'm taking care of business. I've faced that situation many times. No condemnation for the Ranger Ricks of the world from me. Just get out of my way and let me get the job done here. We'll philosophize later. That's been my attitude for many, many years ... longer than you've been alive.

Suppose Ranger rick has the only axe, he refuses to give it to you, and your only options are to reason with him or overpower him. What do you do then?

I actually find this a little funny because of its improbability. Country humor, I guess. Redwoods are sort of like corn, or grasses. They have tons and tons of smaller, shallow roots that stretch for far distances so that they can catch fog drip or faint rain, no tap roots.

I know.

That's not even a tenth of what's implausible about the hypothetical.

I couldn't think of any reasonable situation where somebody would have to choose between a boy and tree, but plausibility is never the point of a hypothetical anyway.