Establishing Secular Morality

[Astrid]

You were using the word "transcendent" img that I was saying one set of values is higher or better than another rather than a clinical epistemological use. I was just trying to point out that you may be misunderstanding the use of the word and therefore misconstruing the argument.

Edit: For clarity's sake; any appeal to an authoritative use of morality either through disagreement (saying a certain moral stance is wrong) or agreement (affirming the truth of the presuppositions used to establish a moral stance) is to require a transcendent justification (i.e. one that is independent of either parties' beliefs) for the propositions' truthfulness. Either through an appeal to a standard by which to evaluate specific behaviours or to the truth of the presuppositions used to establish any kind of moral reasoning. Hence the thread title of "Establishing" and the use of the word 'transcendent'.

God bless

Lotta words to say something simple but OK,
semantics, and no particular disagreement.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Lotta words to say something simple but OK,
semantics, and no particular disagreement.

It's not simple if you lack the necessary understanding of the terms and it's absolutely not semantics. Arguments about morality are 'transcendental arguments' (google it).

All this done as directed by the source of Transendant
Morality.

You're making a transcendental argument here in this comment above by proposing/implying that the morals were wrong or heinous. I was trying to show you that the argument is about the justification for the standard you use to say why it's wrong. This isn't semantics, you're missing the entire point of the thread by misconstruing the use of the word transcendent.

 

[Astrid]

It's not simple if you lack the necessary understanding of the terms and it's absolutely not semantics. Arguments about morality are 'transcendental arguments' (google it).

You're making a transcendental argument here in this comment above by proposing/implying that the morals were wrong or heinous. I was trying to show you that the argument is about the justification for the standard you use to say why it's wrong. This isn't semantics, you're missing the entire point of the thread by misconstruing the use of the word transcendent.

You're showing how to be tiresome

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You're showing how to be tiresome

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be, I'm just trying to explain the position as coherently as I can.

 

[FireDragon76]

'Do as I say, not as I do" is not really a good
model for morality.

A psalm of lamentation isn't about morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

Re that last I encountered a
"christian" , or one who believed he
was, who told me he daily prayed for
Word that it's time to kill all the atheists.

In all honesty that sounds more like an evil cult. It doesn't sound like the kind of religion I am familiar with.

 

[Bradskii]

In all honesty that sounds more like an evil cult. It doesn't sound like the kind of religion I am familiar with.

Me neither. It sounds like the person has problems that need to be addressed. If some people who think that whatever God commands is acceptable, that is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people. Because if any given person wakes up one morning and has had a very vivid dream where God appeared to him and said 'Today's the day we start killing atheists' then they'll simply put that down to being a disturbing dream. Because God would never order such a thing.

However...for the person Estrid mentioned, it could well be the prompt he needs to start stockpiling ammo, making pipe bombs or - as we have seen, start flying lessons. Let's face it, if you can justify beating innocent babies to death, then a few atheists is not going to be a problem at all.

 

[Astrid]

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be, I'm just trying to explain the position as coherently as I can.

No prob. And I've a tendency to be abrupt or harsh.

But I do know what words mean.
( I learned etymology of "tarmac" today
Do you know? It's sort of cool ) To me.




My current big project is fluency in
Singlish.

Investigate,its worlds most
efficient language, extreme economy of words.

So trimming words is on my mind.

A psalm of lamentation isn't about morality.

Like I said it was.
Why do you find a need to be evasive?

 

[FireDragon76]

Like I said it was.
Why do you find a need to be evasive?

It seems to me you're making very sweeping generalizations about a diverse religion, and also engaged in biblical interpretation without seriously engaging with traditional biblical hermeneutics.

 

[FireDragon76]

Me neither. It sounds like the person has problems that need to be addressed. If some people who think that whatever God commands is acceptable, that is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people. Because if any given person wakes up one morning and has had a very vivid dream where God appeared to him and said 'Today's the day we start killing atheists' then they'll simply put that down to being a disturbing dream. Because God would never order such a thing.

I would think somebody like that needs to get checked out for mental illness.

However...for the person Estrid mentioned, it could well be the prompt he needs to start stockpiling ammo, making pipe bombs or - as we have seen, start flying lessons. Let's face it, if you can justify beating innocent babies to death, then a few atheists is not going to be a problem at all.

OK.... I don't see the psalm as justifying anything like that, though. Most Christians I know either understand it in a figurative or mystical sense (the babies do not represent actual babies), or more commonly, they don't approve of the action and see it as an expression of grief and anger.

As one pastor I listened to put it, reading these kinds of psalms can help us deal with own our own anger, by recognizing that we too have the capacity for anger. In that sense, it helps us understand our shadow side. It's not about endorsing violence, but about understanding our capacity to feel hurt and respond with anger.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not simple if you lack the necessary understanding of the terms and it's absolutely not semantics. Arguments about morality are 'transcendental arguments' (google it).

You're making a transcendental argument here in this comment above by proposing/implying that the morals were wrong or heinous. I was trying to show you that the argument is about the justification for the standard you use to say why it's wrong. This isn't semantics, you're missing the entire point of the thread by misconstruing the use of the word transcendent.

I see morality as evolving and adapting to different situations. Judging a 2,500 year old psalm by contemporary moral standards misses other potential ways of analyzing and understanding the text.

It's like if I judged a movie harshly because it dealt with violent or disturbing themes. Even though movies aren't always made as morality tales. Likewise, not everything in the Bible is a morality tale. The Bible is primarily a history of a people and their religious experiences, not a book of morality. We can derive moral lessons from the Bible, but it's never so simple as just lifting a text out of the Bible without considering the wider context in which it was written.

 

[Bradskii]

I would think somebody like that needs to get checked out for mental illness.

I agree.

OK.... I don't see the psalm as justifying anything like that, though. Most Christians I know either understand it in a figurative or mystical sense (the babies do not represent actual babies), or more commonly, they don't approve of the action and see it as an expression of grief and anger.

I agree, the psalm doesn't justify it. And I think there was some confusion by one poster who might have thought it did. But anyway, that poster made an argument that if God had approved of the action then it would have meant it was acceptable. I'm not for a minute suggesting that that poster was in danger of doing anything stupid. But people in Paris, New York, London...they have all died because someone thought they were doing God's work. They thought it was justified because they thought that whatever God wanted is justified.

 

[Astrid]

It seems to me you're making very sweeping generalizations about a diverse religion, and also engaged in biblical interpretation without seriously engaging with traditionalist biblical hermeneutics.

So, you wont engage with either of the things I
said.

Then evade the plain words in the Bible. saying i cant read so well as you.

Its some one else, maybe the prince of darkness
who directed all the slaughter ?

Is it traditional reading methods that gives 40,000,se ts each with the right reading ?

 

[Astrid]

I would think somebody like that needs to get checked out for mental illness.



OK.... I don't see the psalm as justifying anything like that, though. Most Christians I know either understand it in a figurative or mystical sense (the babies do not represent actual babies), or more commonly, they don't approve of the action and see it as an expression of grief and anger.

As one pastor I listened to put it, reading these kinds of psalms can help us deal with own our own anger, by recognizing that we too have the capacity for anger. In that sense, it helps us understand our shadow side. It's not about endorsing violence, but about understanding our capacity to feel hurt and respond with anger.

What's this about a psalm justifying something.

The God depicted in the OT is "do as i say
(Or else ) not as i do ( Or else )



A very poor example on which to base a code of conduct.

 

[FireDragon76]

What's this about a psalm justifying something.

The God depicted in the OT is "do as i say
(Or else ) not as i do ( Or else )


A very poor example on which to base a code of conduct.

It seems like your picking a few verses and trying to judge the moral worth of an entire, diverse religious tradition based on a very narrow interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Astrid]

It seems like your picking a few verses and trying to judge the moral worth of an entire, diverse religious tradition based on a very narrow interpretation of the Bible.

Seems like you find a need to make up things about me.

Ive said or implied nothing of the kind.


Do you find " narrow" and to be disregarded the ten
commandments?

Plain text, numerous places, the OT God directs the mass killings of innocents.

But we are not to follow that example.
Some moral exemplar.

You are still being very evasive, so, forget it.
I'm off for lunch with friends.

 

[FireDragon76]

Seems like you find a need to make up things about me.

Ive said or implied nothing of the kind.


Do you find " narrow" and to be disregarded the ten
commandments?

Plain text, numerous places, the OT God directs the mass killings of innocents.

But we are not to follow that example.
Some moral exemplar.

You are still being very evasive, so, forget it.
I'm off for lunch with friends.

I don't think you understand. I don't think the Bible needs any justification, because it simply doesn't function the way you think it does in my hermeneutic, or any hermeneutic of Christians I have fellowshipped with.

All I'm really hearing is "Bible bad". Well, Ok, but that's like an opinion. It doesn't tell me why I should be persuaded to that viewpoint, especially when I am not understanding those parts of the Bible as prescriptive in any way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

1. It's not...I'm fairly certain whatever you think is good and whatever I think is good will certainly differ in some ways on some things. I can't control your thoughts, so I'm not quite sure what you think is authoritative about any of this.
2. Generally, I'd say a feeling of fairness as it relates to the behavior and the degree to which that behavior comports to the social norms of the group.
3. I don't, see #2.
4. See #2.
5. See #1.

 

[Astrid]

I don't think you understand. I don't think the Bible needs any justification, because it simply doesn't function the way you think it does in my hermeneutic, or any hermeneutic of Christians I have fellowshipped with.

All I'm really hearing is "Bible bad". Well, Ok, but that's like an opinion. It doesn't tell me why I should be persuaded to that viewpoint, especially when I am not understanding those parts of the Bible as prescriptive in any way.

Always "hermeneutics" , none of those exegeses?
I'm not impressed by 25 cent words.
I'm even less impressed by someone choosing a
a school of thought to tell them how to think,
Claiming it gives them superior insight is just laughable.

It's only your chosen readin' you are going on about.
Nothing more.

Among tens of thousands of the One Right Readin'.
So of course I don't see it as you are pleased to.

It's not the same as " don't understand".*

And, of course you " fellowship" with those who choose
the same readin'. That's about less intellectual integrity. Not more. Less.

Good reveal telling me, quote, " All I'm really hearing".

It has layers! Like an onion.

See, it's fine to speak of superior interpretive skill.
I, for example, would interpret circles and oblate
spheroids around you in a Hong Kong market. Or
examiming a geological formation.
I can walk the walk. I can speak with assurance.

From you I keep hearing how well you hermeneurify.
Compared to me.
But can you show it?
Talk is cheap.
Peel off that layer


" All I'm really hearing".
Yes, I believe it's what you "hear:
Another layer.
In practice you ignore what I actually say, and hermeneuticate it into something entirely different.

The opposite of a display of interpretive skill,
but theres value in it for quite possibly displaying
there's yet another layer to
pull back, laying bare the quality of your chosen way of
bible interpretin'.

I said nothing remotely to the effect of "Bible bad "
But its all you can hear. Being the inside of your own head.

Why do you suppose you are like that?

Better your time devoted to some self- reveal rather
than finding fault in me for something you made up.


* I understand the Bible for what it is

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Always "hermeneutics" , none of those exegeses?
I'm not impressed by 25 cent words.
I'm even less impressed by someone choosing a
a school of thought to tell them how to think,
Claiming it gives them superior insight is just laughable.

It's only your chosen readin' you are going on about.
Nothing more.

Among tens of thousands of the One Right Readin'.
So of course I don't see it as you are pleased to.

It's not the same as " don't understand".*

And, of course you " fellowship" with those who choose
the same readin'. That's about less intellectual integrity. Not more. Less.

Good reveal telling me, quote, " All I'm really hearing".

It has layers! Like an onion.

See, it's fine to speak of superior interpretive skill.
I, for example, would interpret circles and oblate
spheroids around you in a Hong Kong market. Or
examiming a geological formation.
I can walk the walk. I can speak with assurance.

From you I keep hearing how well you hermeneurify.
Compared to me.
But can you show it?
Talk is cheap.
Peel off that layer


" All I'm really hearing".
Yes, I believe it's what you "hear:
Another layer.
In practice you ignore what I actually say, and hermeneuticate it into something entirely different.

The opposite of a display of interpretive skill,
but theres value in it for quite possibly displaying
there's yet another layer to
pull back, laying bare the quality of your chosen way of
bible interpretin'.

I said nothing remotely to the effect of "Bible bad "
But its all you can hear. Being the inside of your own head.

Why do you suppose you are like that?

Better your time devoted to some self- reveal rather
than finding fault in me for something you made up.


* I understand the Bible for what it is

Hermeneutics as an academic field includes within its purview the various attempts at "exegesis" (of ANY text, whether it be bible or other media) which any one of us may make...