Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Page 4 of 12 [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 10:19 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Yes, I'm fully aware of this aphorism's origins. But until I see compelling evidence that my thinking is flawed, I stand by my statements.


I made no statement whatsoever about your thinking in my post. I was just explaining the actual meaning of the phrase a little more clearly (it refers to intention with inaction and not to well intended actions and their consequences). Nothing more.


Again, I'm aware of that. I used the statement deontologically.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Nov 2013, 11:08 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


I agree completely, though it is a big surprising to hear a Lutheran claim that good works mean something. I forget Luther's exact statement concerning good works, but it was something about them being ashes on a dung heap in the eyes of God. I agree.

I think the key to understanding human nature is to understand that our natures result from the conflict between our selfish desires necessary for self-preservation, and the need for selfless cooperation to form societies. While both factors are necessary for human existence, our selfish, animal-type desires all too frequently win out. The point of Christian morality is to attenuate our selfish desires without fully extirpating them. It is the same with Islam and Buddhism. Islam teaches its adherents to place Allah before themselves; and Buddhism teaches about the extinction of karma, or achieving a state of non-atman.

I have already pointed out that good intent is an absolute prerequisite to good actions. My point is that it is NOT the case that good intentions necessarily lead to good results.

BTW, it is interesting that you feel this way, since consequentialist ethics is central to the left.


Luther had attacked the theology that good works contributed to our salvation, but he never dismissed the obvious Biblical teaching that works were the outward sign of faith. For Luther, and Lutherans since, unconditional grace is the cause of our salvation, that faith is part of God's gift rather than an initiative we take as a prerequisite to salvation, and that works are our faith in action. As Christ said, "By their works you shall know them."
As I understand your argument about Christians trying to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness - actually, it was Christ who had told his followers that there was no greater love than laying down one's life for your friends. And it must be remembered how the rich young noble could not let go of his material wealth when Christ had told him to sell his bed and all that he owned, give the money to the poor, and then follow him. In other words, yes, Christ called for his disciples to let go of their selfish needs. The emphasis on Christian living has always been denying greed and envy for the service of others. I admit, I more than fall short of that in my personal life.
As for good intentions - I still think doing the right thing, even if it doesn't turn out perfectly, is still better than doing nothing at all.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 11:35 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


I agree completely, though it is a big surprising to hear a Lutheran claim that good works mean something. I forget Luther's exact statement concerning good works, but it was something about them being ashes on a dung heap in the eyes of God. I agree.

I think the key to understanding human nature is to understand that our natures result from the conflict between our selfish desires necessary for self-preservation, and the need for selfless cooperation to form societies. While both factors are necessary for human existence, our selfish, animal-type desires all too frequently win out. The point of Christian morality is to attenuate our selfish desires without fully extirpating them. It is the same with Islam and Buddhism. Islam teaches its adherents to place Allah before themselves; and Buddhism teaches about the extinction of karma, or achieving a state of non-atman.

I have already pointed out that good intent is an absolute prerequisite to good actions. My point is that it is NOT the case that good intentions necessarily lead to good results.

BTW, it is interesting that you feel this way, since consequentialist ethics is central to the left.


Luther had attacked the theology that good works contributed to our salvation, but he never dismissed the obvious Biblical teaching that works were the outward sign of faith. For Luther, and Lutherans since, unconditional grace is the cause of our salvation, that faith is part of God's gift rather than an initiative we take as a prerequisite to salvation, and that works are our faith in action. As Christ said, "By their works you shall know them."
As I understand your argument about Christians trying to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness - actually, it was Christ who had told his followers that there was no greater love than laying down one's life for your friends. And it must be remembered how the rich young noble could not let go of his material wealth when Christ had told him to sell his bed and all that he owned, give the money to the poor, and then follow him. In other words, yes, Christ called for his disciples to let go of their selfish needs. The emphasis on Christian living has always been denying greed and envy for the service of others. I admit, I more than fall short of that in my personal life.
As for good intentions - I still think doing the right thing, even if it doesn't turn out perfectly, is still better than doing nothing at all.


Bill, I agree with it all except for Luther's position, which you correctly stated. I prefer the Catholic position, which is that while good works alone won't merit salvation, salvation is impossible without them. In other words, if we're not good, we're not going to be saved. Anything else is essentially antinomian.

It is easy to be selfish; being selfless is much more difficult, though just as necessary. This is why the Bible has nothing good to say about money, though it never forbids it outright. We don't need to be encouraged to be greedy and selfish; we do need to be encouraged to be generous and selfless.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Nov 2013, 11:54 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


I agree completely, though it is a big surprising to hear a Lutheran claim that good works mean something. I forget Luther's exact statement concerning good works, but it was something about them being ashes on a dung heap in the eyes of God. I agree.

I think the key to understanding human nature is to understand that our natures result from the conflict between our selfish desires necessary for self-preservation, and the need for selfless cooperation to form societies. While both factors are necessary for human existence, our selfish, animal-type desires all too frequently win out. The point of Christian morality is to attenuate our selfish desires without fully extirpating them. It is the same with Islam and Buddhism. Islam teaches its adherents to place Allah before themselves; and Buddhism teaches about the extinction of karma, or achieving a state of non-atman.

I have already pointed out that good intent is an absolute prerequisite to good actions. My point is that it is NOT the case that good intentions necessarily lead to good results.

BTW, it is interesting that you feel this way, since consequentialist ethics is central to the left.


Luther had attacked the theology that good works contributed to our salvation, but he never dismissed the obvious Biblical teaching that works were the outward sign of faith. For Luther, and Lutherans since, unconditional grace is the cause of our salvation, that faith is part of God's gift rather than an initiative we take as a prerequisite to salvation, and that works are our faith in action. As Christ said, "By their works you shall know them."
As I understand your argument about Christians trying to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness - actually, it was Christ who had told his followers that there was no greater love than laying down one's life for your friends. And it must be remembered how the rich young noble could not let go of his material wealth when Christ had told him to sell his bed and all that he owned, give the money to the poor, and then follow him. In other words, yes, Christ called for his disciples to let go of their selfish needs. The emphasis on Christian living has always been denying greed and envy for the service of others. I admit, I more than fall short of that in my personal life.
As for good intentions - I still think doing the right thing, even if it doesn't turn out perfectly, is still better than doing nothing at all.


Bill, I agree with it all except for Luther's position, which you correctly stated. I prefer the Catholic position, which is that while good works alone won't merit salvation, salvation is impossible without them. In other words, if we're not good, we're not going to be saved. Anything else is essentially antinomian.

It is easy to be selfish; being selfless is much more difficult, though just as necessary. This is why the Bible has nothing good to say about money, though it never forbids it outright. We don't need to be encouraged to be greedy and selfish; we do need to be encouraged to be generous and selfless.


Actually, Lutherans and Catholics in recent dialogues have discovered they have been saying pretty much the same thing, but have been talking past each other for centuries. While we don't believe good works contribute to our salvation, one really can't be in God's grace without performing them. Luther's beef was with the notion that a priest could dole out certain acts of penance for the sinner to perform to make up for that sin.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 11:57 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


I agree completely, though it is a big surprising to hear a Lutheran claim that good works mean something. I forget Luther's exact statement concerning good works, but it was something about them being ashes on a dung heap in the eyes of God. I agree.

I think the key to understanding human nature is to understand that our natures result from the conflict between our selfish desires necessary for self-preservation, and the need for selfless cooperation to form societies. While both factors are necessary for human existence, our selfish, animal-type desires all too frequently win out. The point of Christian morality is to attenuate our selfish desires without fully extirpating them. It is the same with Islam and Buddhism. Islam teaches its adherents to place Allah before themselves; and Buddhism teaches about the extinction of karma, or achieving a state of non-atman.

I have already pointed out that good intent is an absolute prerequisite to good actions. My point is that it is NOT the case that good intentions necessarily lead to good results.

BTW, it is interesting that you feel this way, since consequentialist ethics is central to the left.


Luther had attacked the theology that good works contributed to our salvation, but he never dismissed the obvious Biblical teaching that works were the outward sign of faith. For Luther, and Lutherans since, unconditional grace is the cause of our salvation, that faith is part of God's gift rather than an initiative we take as a prerequisite to salvation, and that works are our faith in action. As Christ said, "By their works you shall know them."
As I understand your argument about Christians trying to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness - actually, it was Christ who had told his followers that there was no greater love than laying down one's life for your friends. And it must be remembered how the rich young noble could not let go of his material wealth when Christ had told him to sell his bed and all that he owned, give the money to the poor, and then follow him. In other words, yes, Christ called for his disciples to let go of their selfish needs. The emphasis on Christian living has always been denying greed and envy for the service of others. I admit, I more than fall short of that in my personal life.
As for good intentions - I still think doing the right thing, even if it doesn't turn out perfectly, is still better than doing nothing at all.


Bill, I agree with it all except for Luther's position, which you correctly stated. I prefer the Catholic position, which is that while good works alone won't merit salvation, salvation is impossible without them. In other words, if we're not good, we're not going to be saved. Anything else is essentially antinomian.

It is easy to be selfish; being selfless is much more difficult, though just as necessary. This is why the Bible has nothing good to say about money, though it never forbids it outright. We don't need to be encouraged to be greedy and selfish; we do need to be encouraged to be generous and selfless.


Actually, Lutherans and Catholics in recent dialogues have discovered they have been saying pretty much the same thing, but have been talking past each other for centuries. While we don't believe good works contribute to our salvation, one really can't be in God's grace without performing them. Luther's beef was with the notion that a priest could dole out certain acts of penance for the sinner to perform to make up for that sin.


Fundamentally, you are correct, since it is orthodox Christian teaching that only grace can save. One huge difference is that Catholics believe in purgatory, in which bad actions, or a lack of good ones, can be expiated.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Nov 2013, 12:57 pm

Lutherans don't have a purgatory, as we believe all sins are already forgiven, despite our imperfect nature.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 1:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Lutherans don't have a purgatory, as we believe all sins are already forgiven, despite our imperfect nature.


Bill, I think Kant makes an important distinction in his ethics between what he calls the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative.

The hypothetical imperative is where we are good with a specific goal in mind. For example, I will be good because I want to go to heaven.

The categorical imperative is being good simply because it is the right thing to do.

Obviously, the categorical imperative is the more lofty type of morality. But, unfortunately, most people operate in the hypothetical mode. In other words, most people cannot be counted on to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do; they are good because of desire for reward, or to avoid punishment. Thus, the necessity of the carrot and stick approach, which Catholic theology fully recognizes. Obeying moral rules cannot be optional any more than obeying legal rules can be. There has to be consequences for failing to keep both.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Nov 2013, 1:21 pm

My right thing and your right thing may be two different things.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 1:23 pm

Misslizard wrote:
My right thing and your right thing may be two different things.


So, right is whatever we want it to be?



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Nov 2013, 1:32 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
My right thing and your right thing may be two different things.


So, right is whatever we want it to be?

Depends on your own moral compass.I don't think it's right to spread poison on my garden.To another person this is ok.
Some people think capital punishment is right,others don't.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 1:35 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
My right thing and your right thing may be two different things.


So, right is whatever we want it to be?

Depends on your own moral compass.I don't think it's right to spread poison on my garden.To another person this is ok.
Some people think capital punishment is right,others don't.


It's called moral relativism, which is another way of saying no morality at all. If we all decide what is moral for us, then it's hard to find fault with anything, is it not? Stalin thought it was right to wipe out everybody except the working class. So, it must be okay--right?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

08 Nov 2013, 1:53 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
It's called moral relativism, which is another way of saying no morality at all. If we all decide what is moral for us, then it's hard to find fault with anything, is it not? Stalin thought it was right to wipe out everybody except the working class. So, it must be okay--right?


Just out of curiosity, do you believe that no one has the right to have their own sense of morality if it differs from others? That there can only be one definitive definition of morality for every case in every issue and that any disagreement is due to one side being immoral?
I think I may be misunderstanding something here.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Nov 2013, 2:22 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lutherans don't have a purgatory, as we believe all sins are already forgiven, despite our imperfect nature.


Bill, I think Kant makes an important distinction in his ethics between what he calls the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative.

The hypothetical imperative is where we are good with a specific goal in mind. For example, I will be good because I want to go to heaven.

The categorical imperative is being good simply because it is the right thing to do.

Obviously, the categorical imperative is the more lofty type of morality. But, unfortunately, most people operate in the hypothetical mode. In other words, most people cannot be counted on to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do; they are good because of desire for reward, or to avoid punishment. Thus, the necessity of the carrot and stick approach, which Catholic theology fully recognizes. Obeying moral rules cannot be optional any more than obeying legal rules can be. There has to be consequences for failing to keep both.


Remember, though, how Luke (and later also in Revelations) recounts Jesus had said at the final judgement, those living in grace will be told, "When I was hungry you fed me, when I was naked you clothed me, when I was in prison you visited me." When they asked, "But when did we do these things for you," his answer was, "When you did these things for the least of your brethren, you did it for me." I think Christ addresses this matter of doing the right thing just to get into heaven, and doing them just to be good.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 2:41 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
It's called moral relativism, which is another way of saying no morality at all. If we all decide what is moral for us, then it's hard to find fault with anything, is it not? Stalin thought it was right to wipe out everybody except the working class. So, it must be okay--right?


Just out of curiosity, do you believe that no one has the right to have their own sense of morality if it differs from others? That there can only be one definitive definition of morality for every case in every issue and that any disagreement is due to one side being immoral?
I think I may be misunderstanding something here.


In order to be worthy of the name, morality, like language and laws, must all be something held in common, and commonly understood. OTOH, I certainly think it is possible to hold opinions of a moral nature--i.e., of right and wrong. For example, a lot of people think it is immoral to listen to, say, death metal music. Others think it is immoral to smoke or drink to excess. But that is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

Having said this, I am NOT a moral universalist. I do believe that every group has the right to decide what is moral and immoral for them. For example, if Muslims believe that, say, female genital mutilation and polygyny are moral, that is their business. If Westerners say these things are immoral, that is our business. Again, as with laws and language, morality must be commonly recognized by the society to be worthy of the name. Laws, language, and morality are absolutely necessary prerequisites for any civil society.

Having said this, of course we can argue over what SHOULD be moral, as long as we fully recognize what IS moral, just as we can argue over whether something should be legal or illegal as long as we recognize that issue's actual legal status.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 08 Nov 2013, 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 2:44 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lutherans don't have a purgatory, as we believe all sins are already forgiven, despite our imperfect nature.


Bill, I think Kant makes an important distinction in his ethics between what he calls the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative.

The hypothetical imperative is where we are good with a specific goal in mind. For example, I will be good because I want to go to heaven.

The categorical imperative is being good simply because it is the right thing to do.

Obviously, the categorical imperative is the more lofty type of morality. But, unfortunately, most people operate in the hypothetical mode. In other words, most people cannot be counted on to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do; they are good because of desire for reward, or to avoid punishment. Thus, the necessity of the carrot and stick approach, which Catholic theology fully recognizes. Obeying moral rules cannot be optional any more than obeying legal rules can be. There has to be consequences for failing to keep both.


Remember, though, how Luke (and later also in Revelations) recounts Jesus had said at the final judgement, those living in grace will be told, "When I was hungry you fed me, when I was naked you clothed me, when I was in prison you visited me." When they asked, "But when did we do these things for you," his answer was, "When you did these things for the least of your brethren, you did it for me." I think Christ addresses this matter of doing the right thing just to get into heaven, and doing them just to be good.


Exactly. What is being referred to is what the social scientists call comity ways, or society's rules for getting along with one another. But enforcing any morality involves the carrot and stick method, or what the Behavioralists called positive and negative reinforcement. Heaven is naturally a positive reinforcement, and hell the negative.

I would further add that "those in grace" is the key word. "Those in grace" can be assumed to be those who adhere to moral standards.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

08 Nov 2013, 3:12 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
My right thing and your right thing may be two different things.


So, right is whatever we want it to be?

Depends on your own moral compass.I don't think it's right to spread poison on my garden.To another person this is ok.
Some people think capital punishment is right,others don't.


It's called moral relativism, which is another way of saying no morality at all. If we all decide what is moral for us, then it's hard to find fault with anything, is it not? Stalin thought it was right to wipe out everybody except the working class. So, it must be okay--right?

I like the Golden Rule.But I also believe that as a human I am no more special than a spider.All beings want to live and be happy.How am I more special in my desire for happiness than an insect?
Image


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi