How do you justify moral actions?

[Tuur]

The time of heady rhetoric of human rights has passed, anyways, so it's a moot point. There's no way to easily put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, however much reactionaries wish otherwise. The US is becoming a de-Christianized society, even faster than Europe. We have alot of religion in parts of the US that's a mile wide, an inch deep, and divorced from any deep theological reflection or even traditional orthodoxy. Politics (often based on fear, particularly fear of the Other) and simplistic moralism has replaced real religion.

My only quibble here is that it goes back far earlier. Prior to 1860, there was someone who had a run-in with a notorious figure over a deal about hogs. They had struck the deal when they met at a Camp Meeting. It may well be that the only thing that has changed is that people no longer feel obligated to give lip service.

 

[Tuur]

Unless you are using a metaphor, I don't really think the term "fundamentalism" applies to the Left. I'm speaking specifically to fundamentalism associated with Islam and Christianity: Abrahamic religion and the associated dynamics and hermeneutics. Because in most western countries, leftist extremism and violence isn't a significant threat to civil society. It's people gravitating around notions of Christian and/or white nationalism that the FBI now considers the greatest domestic terror threat, for instance, an in Europe, most of the unrest there comes from disaffected Islamic fundamentalists and "Euro-Christian" nationalists.

I disagree because most Black congregations in the US tend to be Fundamentalist, yet are politically liberal - to a point. Maybe about two decades ago, maybe more, a representative to a state legislature called something a civil rights issue. He was then met by ministers who had participated in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s, who informed him that no, it wasn't. It's quite possible to be a theological conservative and a political liberal.

 

[Chriliman]

In a sense, yes, but I personally subscribe to a perspective similar to that of Gaudapada's 'ajativada' (non-origination). If the appearing world is impermanent, transient, and illusory, then it cannot have an origin or an end, therefore, it could be said to be co-existent and non-existent at the same time. It is like how a dream was real as an experience, but not real as an actual event affecting the world in the waking-state. The dream and the way it would play out has always been there present in the subconscious mind, it simply wasn't manifested as an experience until you were directly aware of it.

Well, think about it like this, if I placed before you a banana, you, assuming that all of your senses work, would be aware of the form, smell, taste, feel, and sound of a banana. We would rightly say that the banana's nature is being, because it appears to be. We cannot say, then, that a banana is a banana by nature, that is, a thing in itself. Why not? If a banana was a banana by nature, it would not be. Do you get it? The essential reality of that banana is being, not a banana. If a banana was a banana by nature, it would not-be as well as unknowable. We do not know what a banana is in itself. We are only aware of surface information like the smell, the taste, the form, the sound, etc., but the object itself is completely unknowable in itself. Therefore, what? A banana is just an appearance of being. Our knowledge of a banana stops there. All that there is to the world, then, is a perception, a sensation, and a thought, but not the world itself. We do not know what a world is without it appearing. We only know it as an experience, but not anything else.

We, therefore, cannot speak of non-conscious things apart from our experience of them. They only exist in our experience of them. So I would say, because a non-conscious object appears in consciousness, it has always co-existed, but not always manifested.

That all makes sense to some degree, but it doesn’t explain why we can’t just manifest whatever we want in reality, instantly, or why there appears to be a past separate from our experience that brought us into existence.

 

[Jonaitis]

That all makes sense to some degree, but it doesn’t explain why we can’t just manifest whatever we want in reality, instantly, or why there appears to be a past separate from our experience that brought us into existence.

Who is 'we'?

Your ego is simply an idea. This thing that you call 'me,' that likes and dislikes, that is simply an idea in the mind, unless you can find it?

 

[Chriliman]

Who is 'we'?

Your ego is simply an idea. This thing that you call 'me,' that likes and dislikes, that is simply an idea in the mind, unless you can find it?

Hmm, starting to lose me…

 

[Jonaitis]

Hmm, starting to lose me…

I hope so!

There is no me or you; experience is simply unfolding. We are "that" in which this finite experience appears.

I am, but I do not exist.

 

[atpollard]

If something is good, it's worth doing whether or not there is a reward in the hereafter.

“All I ask is to die in battle, a sword in my hand and the bodied of my enemies piled high around me.” [a Norse prayer … once the pinnacle of morality to be strived for.]

 

[FireDragon76]

I disagree because most Black congregations in the US tend to be Fundamentalist, yet are politically liberal - to a point. Maybe about two decades ago, maybe more, a representative to a state legislature called something a civil rights issue. He was then met by ministers who had participated in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s, who informed him that no, it wasn't. It's quite possible to be a theological conservative and a political liberal.

African Americans largely did not participate in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Martin Luther King was a theological modernist. Several African American civil rights leaders were members of denominations such as the Episcopalians, who were not aligned with Fundamentalist theology.

 

[Tuur]

African Americans largely did not participate in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Martin Luther King was a theological modernist. Several African American civil rights leaders were members of denominations such as the Episcopalians, who were not aligned with Fundamentalist theology.

A Fundamentalist is one that adheres to the fundamentals. Call it the core beliefs, or basic tenets, or whatever. A Fundamentalist has a strong reliance on the writings of their belief. In the chase of Christian, the bible. This means the Fundamentalist tent is much larger than some realize. Yes, black congregations tend to be Fundamentalist; you can hear it in the preaching where it concerns salvation.

 

[FireDragon76]

A Fundamentalist is one that adheres to the fundamentals. Call it the core beliefs, or basic tenets, or whatever. A Fundamentalist has a strong reliance on the writings of their belief. In the chase of Christian, the bible. This means the Fundamentalist tent is much larger than some realize. Yes, black congregations tend to be Fundamentalist; you can hear it in the preaching where it concerns salvation.

No, African Americans aren't part of what is usually thought of as Fundamentalism. Lots of churches take the Bible seriously- almost all do. Lots preach about salvation. That is after all what the Gospel is all about. I can go to my local United Church of Christ, and aside from the the rainbow flag outside, and maybe the female pastor, the sermons and statement of faith aren't that different from sermons I've heard at more conservative churches that don't have rainbow flags or female pastors.

Christian Fundamentalists started as an early 20th century movement among historically white Christian churches, mostly Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Baptist. They created a controversy because they objected to theological modernism, which itself was a response to new scientific discoveries about the world.


Christian Fundamentalism overview, by a conservative Presbyterian Church historian:

 

[Tuur]

No, African Americans aren't part of what is usually thought of as Fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalists started as an early 20th century movement among historically white Christian churches, mostly Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Baptist. They created a controversy because they objected to theological modernism, which itself was a response to new scientific discoveries about the world.

Actually, Fundamentalism was a reaction to a type of theology that began to dismiss parts of the bible. Some of the theologically liberal thought early on was that people as early as Moses couldn't have developed complex laws, or even, amazingly enough, writing, and so it couldn't possibly be true (just two things I recall at the moment). The science aspect wasn't as huge a deal as some might think. Old Earth Creationism seemed to be the norm. For example, see Scofield's notes on Genesis, though what I recall as more common around the mid 20th Century turned out to be more Augustinian. I don't know if my grandparents changed their view during their lifetimes (1890s onward), but they were distinctly OEC when I came along.

I will hazard a guess and say if black congregations weren't involved in the pushback, it was because they'd never left the fundamentals to begin with. A least locally, you're more likely to hear a "fire and brimstone" sermon from a black minister than a white one.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, Fundamentalism was a reaction to a type of theology that began to dismiss parts of the bible. Some of the theologically liberal thought early on was that people as early as Moses couldn't have developed complex laws, or even, amazingly enough, writing, and so it couldn't possibly be true (just two things I recall at the moment).

There were debates about whether Moses actually existed, but not that ancient peoples couldn't have complex thought.

German higher criticism in the 18th and 19th century was questioning whether Moses wrote the Torah, and that's one of the things that Fundamentalists were reacting to, among other things. Fundamentalism was largely a reaction to German higher criticism in general, but gradually it took on other issues, such as the wider Enlightenment patrimony and modernity in the United States.

I will hazard a guess and say if black congregations weren't involved in the pushback, it was because they'd never left the fundamentals to begin with. A least locally, you're more likely to hear a "fire and brimstone" sermon from a black minister than a white one.

African-American churches have a variety of theological perspectives, just like white ones. But they weren't part of the Fundamentalist movement, which was distinctly white and Anglo-American (because white people dominated society in the pre-Civil Rights era). It's similar to how Lutherans in the US largely did not participate in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, due to not being part of the dominant culture at the time (a similar controversy occurred among Missouri-Synod Lutherans in the 1960's culminating in what became known as Seminex).

 

[Tuur]

German higher criticism in the 18th and 19th century was questioning whether Moses wrote the Torah, and that's one of the things that Fundamentalists were reacting to, among other things. Fundamentalism was largely a reaction to German higher criticism in general, but gradually it took on other issues, such as the wider Enlightenment patrimony and modernity in the United States.

I didn't know whether to use the term "The German School" or not. But yes: what passed for higher criticism argued Moses didn't exist and other things. And they did doubt people at that point were advanced enough for complex law. Then they found the Code of Hammurabi. And I'm somewhat sure there was some argument that they didn't even have real writing. Then they figured out the Egyptian hieroglyphs. If hazy memory happens to be correct, that would place this sort of thing to the early 19th Century.

African-American churches have a variety of theological perspectives, just like white ones. But they weren't part of the Fundamentalist movement, which was distinctly white and Anglo-American (because white people dominated society in the pre-Civil Rights era). It's similar to how Lutherans in the US largely did not participate in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, due to not being part of the dominant culture at the time (a similar controversy occurred among Missouri-Synod Lutherans in the 1960's culminating in what became known as Seminex).

I think our disagreement is over definition. You're defining Fundamentalism as a movement. I'm defining it as a belief. I hesitate to recommend Hershel Hobbs' Fundamentals of Our Faith, not because it's not a good book, but because it's very similar to his What Baptists Believe.

 

[Ligurian]

If everything is temporary and therefore in time will be forgotten, why does it matter if I do what is "good" according to the current culture?

"Socrates: And you remember how we said that the children of the good parents were to be educated, and the children of the bad secretly dispersed among the inferior citizens; and while they were all growing up the rulers were to be on the look-out, and to bring up from below in their turn those who were worthy, and those among themselves who were unworthy were to take the places of those who came up?"--Plato, Timaeus

 

[Ligurian]

Man's life is finite, it comes to an end. This is a fact. So why then hold eternity as the standard of value? It makes no sense.

Life is an end in itself, to be earned for its own sake and not for some other purpose like being remembered. I justify acting morally because it's what my life requires and I love my life. I want to live as long as I can and enjoy my life and be happy. I don't give a dingo's kidney what other people who aren't even born yet think of me. But that's just me, I'm not a second-hander.

If you're wrong about the next life, not even your dingo's kidney will buy you a do-over.

 

[Ligurian]

I didn't know whether to use the term "The German School" or not. But yes: what passed for higher criticism argued Moses didn't exist and other things. And they did doubt people at that point were advanced enough for complex law. Then they found the Code of Hammurabi. And I'm somewhat sure there was some argument that they didn't even have real writing. Then they figured out the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

If it ever happens that we're allowed to learn the Minoan Script, or find the missing Book of Diodorus Siculus, we might not miss the Library of Alexandria quite so much. The victors write history... maybe because they burned-up the histories of the vanquished. I'm thinking the Druid Histories would look a lot like Plato.

Translations aren't always a sure thing. The Nuzi Tablets seem to fall into that category.

 

[Stephen3141]

Jesus had an interesting teaching, that we should do righteous actions to
pile up wealth "in the heavens".

Jesus didn't care much, what our local culture thought of us.
What God this of us, is the really important thing.

1 “[But] take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. 2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Mt 6:1–4.

 

[Astrid]

If everything is temporary and therefore in time will be forgotten, why does it matter if I do what is "good" according to the current culture?

Why does anything at all matter?

 

[partinobodycular]

Jesus had an interesting teaching, that we should do righteous actions to
pile up wealth "in the heavens".

That seems like an extremely selfish philosophy. How about we simply do that which is in our hearts to do, without regard for either punishment or reward. That, it seems to me, would reveal the true measure of a person.

For a righteous person the admonition to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God should be all the guidance needed. No thought of reward necessary.

 

[rjs330]

That seems like an extremely selfish philosophy. How about we simply do that which is in our hearts to do, without regard for either punishment or reward. That, it seems to me, would reveal the true measure of a person.

For a righteous person the admonition to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God should be all the guidance needed. No thought of reward necessary.

Perhaps Jesus was simply informing us of the rewards that await us. That in doing well we will be rewarded for it. I mean he had some reason for telling us.

Perhaps the ideal is what you said and should be our goal. But that doesn't negate that we have also been told that we will obtain rewards in heaven for our actions. As long as we are doing them not for praise on earth.