Why you believe what you believe I

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*sneaks into the bathroom to shave off her beard*

It's ABOUT TIME you did that!

[Rían]

Rats - I"m discovered!

(just don't tell my husband!)

[Nurvingiel]

Well I'm keeping my beard! I think it looks cool.

Yet more short posts from two of the most verose people in this thread. (RÃ*an and I ). What is the world coming to!?

BoP, do you believe that RÃ*an and I have beards? (Or that RÃ*an formerly did anyway.)

Or is there another, possibly deeper, aspect of your beliefs you'd like to explore?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Elfhelm that is an over-generalisation. Some societies used incest as a means of binding together families to prevent the wealth from 'filtering' out, or as a means of concreting a tie to the throne.

we have only to view
nero and octavia
agrippina and claudius
nero and agrippina
etc

[Rían]

BOP - are you still with us? There's pending questions - would you like a summary?

And who would like to go next?

And in the meantime, I'll state what I mean by we're created in the image of God - basically, to me it means that we are moral agents that can choose how we act, based upon our thinking and our knowledge/sense of what's right and wrong. Also, we are creative (both mentally and actually carrying out sub-creations), and passionate (have feelings about things - joy, sorrow, laughter, love, etc.), and are initiators as well as receivers (i.e., we interact with others), and are in authority, for good, over lesser things (tho we mostly abuse it ). God is all of these things, and we are made in His image. There's more, too, but it's Monday morning and my brain is fuzzy

[BeardofPants]

I know I still have to deal with Inked's comments, but I don't know what else I've missed. A summation would be good, and then the next ... victim... can stand up.

[Rían]

Nurvi and I had follow-ups on the antiquities museum - maybe Nurvi can sum up the questions if she's still trying to avoid studying (we've all been there, Nurvi!) I have to go pick up the kids in a few minutes


looking back, here's another from Nurvi :

It has been mentioned before that Christian beliefs are relitively quite radical (as compared to other world religions). What do you think about that BoP? I mean, what are your feelings/thoughts on this statement. (I sound like such a git with that statement, but my intention is merely curiosity, not being a git. )

And she had one more request for an opinion on a post a little further up.

All I can see back is 20 posts right now, but I'm pretty sure there's more - I'll try to sum up when I get back.

[Rían]

And I'll add one quick one - I have about 5 minutes left - let me see if I can phrase it OK -

Given your (prevailing) atheistic beliefs (with the occasional surfacing of agnosticism), can you then say that you believe that human "morality" is entirely tied into preservation of the species, and whatever - whatever - happens to promote this, directly or indirectly, will be considered to be "good" and/or "right" by humans? If something was considered right by these standards at one point in time, and is not necessary for another, can "right"/"good" change, even to the point of where it's completely opposite from what it once was?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

we have only to view
nero and octavia
agrippina and claudius
nero and agrippina
etc

Yes, I know, I was trying to point out that the theory of cultural materialism does attempt to explain incest taboos scientifically. Marvin Harris and an earlier anthropologist named E. B. Tylor make the claim that marriages have the power to form alliances between groups and that's where a lot of the attitudes come from. I'm not saying I agree. Also, the Egyptian families and their imitators the Romans rather prove the theory. In those cases, incest formed stronger alliances and was not taboo. That just means the taboo IS based on economics.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

At best it would mean in some cases the taboo is seemingly based on economics. By far the bulk of incest prohibitions are religious in nature. This raises the question of which came first: a generalized moral prohibition for the incestuously minded which was broken in certain modes in specific societies for given reasons, or, the evolution of the prohibition from wildly incestuous societies for some greater societal good? I think there is little, if any, evidence for the latter.

In the case of the former, why is it (and the bulk of the data, the overwhelmingly large amount of the data) that in the huge range of human societies the god(s) disapproved the behaviours?

In the latter, given the short duration of human life for the bulk of history, how did the individual groups discover the adverse effects of incest and pass along the information and its analysis so as to inhibit it?

[Nurvingiel]

Brilliant Summary of Brilliance
(Yes… I am putting off studying a bit… )


About the Antiquities Museum in Iraq

Nurvingiel:
What is the Antiquities Museum and what hapenned to it?

RÃ*an:
Why does "" sum it up? What about it made you mad, and why?
(btw, I agree - what a loss! )


Morality

Nurvingiel:
In addition (for everyone), I think morality applies only to humans. Is it immoral for the dominant male lion to kill the cubs of his predecessors? Is it immoral for the cow to eat the last blade of grass, or for the tiger to eat the [insert small cute furry mammal]?

[Added in this post] What do you think? (You did already deal with this in part, so feel free to ignore.)

RÃ*an:
And in the meantime, I'll state what I mean by we're created in the image of God - basically, to me it means that we are moral agents that can choose how we act, based upon our thinking and our knowledge/sense of what's right and wrong. Also, we are creative (both mentally and actually carrying out sub-creations), and passionate (have feelings about things - joy, sorrow, laughter, love, etc.), and are initiators as well as receivers (i.e., we interact with others), and are in authority, for good, over lesser things (tho we mostly abuse it ). God is all of these things, and we are made in His image. There's more, too, but it's Monday morning and my brain is fuzzy


Image of God (if there is one)

Tessar:
We don't think we look physically like God, we believe he breathed his 'spirit' into us. In a sense, made us animated.

[Added in this post, by me] What do you think?


Christian beliefs – your views on these beliefs

Nurvingiel:
It has been mentioned before that Christian beliefs are relitively quite radical (as compared to other world religions). What do you think about that BoP? I mean, what are your feelings/thoughts on this statement. (I sound like such a git with that statement, but my intention is merely curiosity, not being a git. )


And… who’s next?

[Rían]

Thanks for your summary, Nurvi - I think you got 'em all, except for the most recent one I slipped in there (Isn't it fun to avoid studying! ) Here it is:

RÃ*an:
Given your (prevailing) atheistic beliefs (with the occasional surfacing of agnosticism), can you then say that you believe that human "morality" is entirely tied into preservation of the species, and whatever - whatever - happens to promote this, directly or indirectly, will be considered to be "good" and/or "right" by humans? If something was considered right by these standards at one point in time, and is not necessary for another, can "right"/"good" change, even to the point of where it's completely opposite from what it once was?


I'll go next, if no one else wants to go next

[BeardofPants]

Nurvingiel:
What is the Antiquities Museum and what hapenned to it?

I assumed she meant the looting of the antiquities museum during the earlier part of the iraq invasion. There was also a recent looting of the british museum as well. I dislike private collections, and anything related to this practice. History belongs to the people, not a small group of wealthy collectors! Which is what the Iraqi looting will mean - that part of history will now be lost.

RÃ*an:
Why does "" sum it up? What about it made you mad, and why?
(btw, I agree - what a loss! )

See above. I kinda thought it was self-explanatory, hence not answering them.

Nurvingiel:
In addition (for everyone), I think morality applies only to humans. Is it immoral for the dominant male lion to kill the cubs of his predecessors? Is it immoral for the cow to eat the last blade of grass, or for the tiger to eat the [insert small cute furry mammal]?

Yes, I dealt mainly with this. As I explained to Inked, I feel that morality is a blanketing term used by humans, generally used as a means of explaining behaviours relating directly/indirectly to survival mechanisms. Morality is also a means of coding for group cohesion (social behaviours, hierarchy, acceptance...)

RÃ*an:
And in the meantime, I'll state what I mean by we're created in the image of God - basically, to me it means that we are moral agents that can choose how we act, based upon our thinking and our knowledge/sense of what's right and wrong.

Tessar:
We don't think we look physically like God, we believe he breathed his 'spirit' into us. In a sense, made us animated.

Fair enough. Clearly, not all theists conceive themselves as being mirror-images of a respective deity, and I should add that I didn't mean to imply such a thing. I was merely stating that mirror-image humans from "God" seemed a bit problematic, and arrogant. I guess I can't find anything too offensive about the notion of having the "spirit" of god breathed into humans. Clearly, I discount that notion (of a deity), but it has a certain appeal in terms of the universe breathing life into life, so to speak.

As far as 'moral agents' go... well, I just don't buy it. It again seems to place us as humans on some sort of pedestal. We humans are still animals, entirely capable of reverting to our more baser natures... If we're supposed to be moral agents, then I find that very depressing, indeed. If we're the example to be held as perfection (granted, sinful perfection, but still the top of God's heap), then well... excuse me, I have to go laugh in my sleave now. Moral agents.... again, it implies a level of arrogance, superiority, etc, which I'm sorry to say, has been my predominant impression of christian theism.

Christian beliefs – your views on these beliefs

Nurvingiel:
It has been mentioned before that Christian beliefs are relitively quite radical (as compared to other world religions).

Radical as compared to whom? Historically? Or contemporarily? And from whose point of view? It's all relative, innit? Personally, I think all religions to some extent can share some issues of radical-ness, but I don't think christianity is anymore radical than any others - they all require a leap of faith that I find a bit... odd.


Please forgive if none of this makes sense, my brain is yet again... mush.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

RÃ*an:
Given your (prevailing) atheistic beliefs (with the occasional surfacing of agnosticism), can you then say that you believe that human "morality" is entirely tied into preservation of the species...

No, I don't think "morality" is coded entirely for the survival of the species. I thought I'd made that clear.

Originally Posted by rian

... and whatever - whatever - happens to promote this, directly or indirectly, will be considered to be "good" and/or "right" by humans?

No, I don't. Clearly, some aspects of morality are not tied directly to survivability, and clearly there are some aspects that *should* be considered good behavioural practices, but aren't. Nothing is concrete, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Practices vary from culture to culture. Some aspects of 'morality' could be construed as degenerative to the culture.

Originally Posted by rian

If something was considered right by these standards at one point in time, and is not necessary for another, can "right"/"good" change, even to the point of where it's completely opposite from what it once was?

I think it's possible, yes. Depending of course to what extent the behaviour was "harmful" to an organism. If the morality stemmed from a cultural behaviour, then yes, I think it could. If the 'moral' behaviour was a debilitating one - as in physically harmful, or whatever - then more than likely not.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I assumed she meant the looting of the antiquities museum during the earlier part of the iraq invasion. There was also a recent looting of the british museum as well. I dislike private collections, and anything related to this practice. History belongs to the people, not a small group of wealthy collectors! Which is what the Iraqi looting will mean - that part of history will now be lost. ....
See above. I kinda thought it was self-explanatory, hence not answering them.

Yes, your reaction was entirely expected and justified, IMO. What I was trying to get at by asking (you must have thought it was a very odd question! I did it on purpose) was this : I was trying to find out what pushed your buttons, and why. You say - "History belongs to the people, not a small group of wealthy collectors." What is important about human history, if we're just animals that happened to rise above the fray for a bit? Why is it a shame that some artifacts belonging to this entirely unspecial group of animals got stolen?

Yes, I dealt mainly with this. As I explained to Inked, I feel that morality is a blanketing term used by humans, generally used as a means of explaining behaviours relating directly/indirectly to survival mechanisms. Morality is also a means of coding for group cohesion (social behaviours, hierarchy, acceptance...)

Sorry, I missed the group cohesion part. I see it now - but to me, you're mincing words - why is group cohesion important, if not for survival?

As far as 'moral agents' go... well, I just don't buy it. It again seems to place us as humans on some sort of pedestal.

And why don't you think that's a possibility (taht we're somehow different from animals)? Do you just automatically discount anything that you think might be a projection of a wish? If so, do you think that's wise or fair or even logical, and does this make you look at evidence unfairly? I know that when I was dating my husband-to-be, I wished that he would propose. When he actually did, I decided to accept that he meant it, even tho it was a "wish-fulfillment".

We humans are still animals ...

Your opinion, of course, and contrary to the opinion of millions of others (not to say majority makes right, but just to point out that it IS an opinion, and there is more than one opinion on that subject).

... entirely capable of reverting to our more baser natures...

Absolutely. The Bible calls it sin nature, but that doesn't change our status of being in God's image - it just makes it tragic.

If we're supposed to be moral agents, then I find that very depressing, indeed.

A moral agent can choose to do good ... or bad ...

If we're the example to be held as perfection (granted, sinful perfection, but still the top of God's heap), then well... excuse me, I have to go laugh in my sleave now.

What of human art? (and is it tragic that it got looted from the antiquities museum? Hmm?) What of human courage and sacrifice? What of humor and friendship? These are beautiful things that exist - and it's even more tragic when the opposite happens, because the beautiful does exist, and we see how tragically we fall short of maintaining it ... sounds like a problem that my favorite worldview accurately identifies and addresses.

Moral agents.... again, it implies a level of arrogance, superiority, etc, which I'm sorry to say, has been my predominant impression of christian theism.

I must say I agree with you that Christian theism too often presents this face - IMO, it's due to mass media, and the kind of "Christians" that seek it out. I've mentioned the many good works at my church several times (do you remember my length post describing them?), and we don't get into the news.

What's one of your best characteristics? I'll identify one for you, to save time. You're intelligent, as judged by common standards. Now, you are intelligent - THRU NO EFFORT OF YOURS (what you DO with the intelligence is another matter ). Now, is it arrogant to acknowledge that you're intelligent, or is it just acknowledging a fact? (and the WAY you acknowledge that you're intelligent can be arrogant, but that's not what I'm talking about.)

Please forgive if none of this makes sense, my brain is yet again... mush.

Sorry - hope you feel better soon and if someone approaches you with honey and brown sugar - RUN!

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for all your answers BoP. Sorry I put up a couple questions you had dealt with, but I was sifting through two pages of posts (which isn't that bad)...

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Radical as compared to whom? Historically? Or contemporarily? And from whose point of view? It's all relative, innit? Personally, I think all religions to some extent can share some issues of radical-ness, but I don't think christianity is anymore radical than any others - they all require a leap of faith that I find a bit... odd.

Well Christianities beliefs of Jesus quite radical; I'm not saying this in a bad way. IIRC Christianity is the only religion that has a belief like that - I child of God coming to Earth in human form and dying for all people.

That's what I was getting at, but you don't have to field that one.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'll go next, if no one else wants to go next

I think we've also got Finrod lined up somewhere.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, your reaction was entirely expected and justified, IMO. What I was trying to get at by asking (you must have thought it was a very odd question! I did it on purpose) was this : I was trying to find out what pushed your buttons, and why. You say - "History belongs to the people, not a small group of wealthy collectors." What is important about human history, if we're just animals that happened to rise above the fray for a bit? Why is it a shame that some artifacts belonging to this entirely unspecial group of animals got stolen? RUN!

(Not wanting to steal your lime light, BoP, but) personally I think that -though there is still a lot of animal in us- that doesn't mean we can't value things like history. On the whole what would it matter that we lost a piece of history? Well, it matters to us. We see the world from human values, so regardless of the fact that we might be animals, we do value things and they will have a meaning for us.

Even if we're an unspecial group of animals, we're a different group, just like there are so many (sometimes fundamental) differences in the animal groups. But the ability to value distant and less substantial things makes us no more special than the rest of the fauna and flora kingdom, only different.

[Rían]

Finrod, do you want to go, or should I?

(he's prob. busy touring ...)

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

(Not wanting to steal your lime light, BoP, but) personally I think that -though there is still a lot of animal in us- that doesn't mean we can't value things like history.

Well, that's my feelings on this matter as well. Just because we're animals doesn't mean that we should revert back to our baser animalistic tendencies all the time - STOP FRICKIN' BEEPING YOUR #@!#ING HORN YOU MORONIC CARS!!!!... er... where was I? Oh yes, clearly our sentience de-marks us as different from other mammals; clearly our sentience plays a part in our biological, and cultural make-up, and how we interact with the environment; clearly, what we are, WHO we are, is made-up in a large part of where we come from. Our bid to understand the past is what enables us to understand what we are NOW, and where we are going TO.

[Rían]

And why should we bother understanding who we are and where we are going to? Shouldn't we just go with the flow of evolution? Unless you think it's better to go a certain direction - but "better" implies a standard you are judging against, which implies the existence of an absolute, doesn't it?

Anyway, thank you very much, BOP, for being in the hot seat. There's follow-up questions that I had for you in my previous post, but I get the feeling that you're just not motivated to answer them, which is fine. I was also hoping you'd feel comfortable enough to dive into those areas that set off "vehement" reactions, but you aren't, which is just where you're at now, and I'm fine with that, too, altho I wish we could have delved into them. I think areas like that are worth exploring, altho it isn't easy.

Could you please wrap up, and then I think I'll go next, as Lizra suggested - I'd love for Finrod to go, but he just isn't around much, and I'd like to pick up the pace of the thread.