|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
This is true. Morality does not fall into the mission statement of science.
However, morality is not the exclusive domain of religion. It's quite possible to be a decent human being without ever stepping foot inside a church. And there's nothing to suggest that it's vitally needed in order to have morality.
On the other hand, the need for humans to work and live together is far more likely to be the influence on what becomes acceptable behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
This is true. Morality does not fall into the mission statement of science.
However, morality is not the exclusive domain of religion. It's quite possible to be a decent human being without ever stepping foot inside a church. And there's nothing to suggest that it's vitally needed in order to have morality. |
That's true too.
Edit: Although, the original concept of a church was that of a community, not a building, which is somewhat related to your last sentence:
| twg wrote: |
| On the other hand, the need for humans to work and live together is far more likely to be the influence on what becomes acceptable behavior. |
One more edit from Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
The Christian concept of a "Church" is used for the Greek "εκκλησία" � ekklesia, ref. Strong's Concordance � 1577, Bauer's, Thayer's, and Moulton's and is introduced by Jesus of Nazereth in the New Testament. Of the 114 occurrences of the term in the New Testament, Three are found in the Gospel accounts, all spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my ekklesia, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16:1 ; and "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ekklesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the ekklesia, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax-collector" (Mt 18:17).
The Greek term εκκλησία � ekklesia, which literally means a "gathering" or "selection" i.e. "eklectic" in English" or "called out assembly", was a governmental and political term, used to denote a national assembly, congregation, council of common objective (see Ecclesia (ancient Athens), Ecclesia (Church)) or a crowd of people who were assembled. It did not signify a "building" as early Christians did not have purpose built buildings for worship. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
De Mello on the concept of God:
| Quote: |
| Every word, every image used for God is a distortion more than a description. |
| Quote: |
"Help us to find God."
"No one can help you there."
"Why not?"
"For the same reason that no one can help the fish to find the ocean." |
| Quote: |
| The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music; but analyzing the notes will not reveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words; yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation; but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through careful examination of your body. |
| Quote: |
| The Master would insist that the final barrier to our attaining God was the word and concept "God." |
|
Those are all very quaint. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that those quotes are anything other than the hopeful ramblings of a very talented writer.
No matter how beautiful the unproven assumptions are written, they remain unproven assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
This is true. Morality does not fall into the mission statement of science.
However, morality is not the exclusive domain of religion. It's quite possible to be a decent human being without ever stepping foot inside a church. And there's nothing to suggest that it's vitally needed in order to have morality.
On the other hand, the need for humans to work and live together is far more likely to be the influence on what becomes acceptable behavior. |
I absolutely agree. Religion is not required for morality. A community of like-minded people with shared experiences is all that is required to establish morality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If we didnt have certain moral instincts, long before the advent of religion, we simply would not be here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your fucking pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
God CANNOT rationally exist. You have just spent the morning quoting Maimonides, saying that God is not non-existent, but cannot be defined positively, but then you suggest that God CAN RATIONALLY exist. You don't know what you're talking about. By the very definition that you have chosen, God cannot rationally exist. You've proven it yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christian theology suffers for want of a bona fide disciplic succession that purely transmits the original message via people who were exemplary in following the teachings.
Certainly not all Popes were exemplary in their behavior, and the Protestants more-or-less threw the baby out with the bathwater, focusing more on politics and economics.
The Greek philosophers added some sophisticated speculation to Christian theology, but that's not pure religion. Pure religion is directly enunciated by God, and it's not the product of speculative philosophy.
Any real discussion of religion would not ignore the original teachings of Krishna as they are purely transmitted by his pure devotee in disciplic succession in Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
The root of such ignorance is the envious attempt on the part of Christians , Jews, and academic leaders during the British colonization of India to discredit the remarkable claims of Vedic culture.
The cultural prejudice was the result of deliberate undermining with the disguised intention of asserting the superiority of their own Christian-based values and outlook, as well as the perpetuation of colonial rule. This intention actually played a prominent role in the reason why they wanted the Sanskrit texts interpreted into English and to have their Christian scripture interpreted into Sanskrit. And many of the notable professors at the time had the audacity to consider themselves to be better authorities on their questionable interpretations of the Vedas than the Indian scholars.
http://www.salagram.net/History-and-Source-of-Vedas-page.htm
http://www.asitis.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
God CANNOT rationally exist. You have just spent the morning quoting Maimonides, saying that God is not non-existent, but cannot be defined positively, but then you suggest that God CAN RATIONALLY exist. You don't know what you're talking about. By the very definition that you have chosen, God cannot rationally exist. You've proven it yourself. |
What I said was that God's positive attributes cannot be defined. If I say God is good, then God's being good may be exclusive of another of God's qualities. So if God is good, can God also be just at the same time? But God is just and good, no? This is the problem Maimonides poses.
None of this bears on the existence of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Christian theology suffers for want of a bona fide disciplic succession that purely transmits the original message via people who were exemplary in following the teachings.
Certainly not all Popes were exemplary in their behavior, and the Protestants more-or-less threw the baby out with the bathwater, focusing more on politics and economics.
The Greek philosophers added some sophisticated speculation to Christian theology, but that's not pure religion. Pure religion is directly enunciated by God, and it's not the product of speculative philosophy.
Any real discussion of religion would not ignore the original teachings of Krishna as they are purely transmitted by his pure devotee in disciplic succession in Bhagavad-gita As It Is.
The root of such ignorance is the envious attempt on the part of Christians , Jews, and academic leaders during the British colonization of India to discredit the remarkable claims of Vedic culture.
The cultural prejudice was the result of deliberate undermining with the disguised intention of asserting the superiority of their own Christian-based values and outlook, as well as the perpetuation of colonial rule. This intention actually played a prominent role in the reason why they wanted the Sanskrit texts interpreted into English and to have their Christian scripture interpreted into Sanskrit. And many of the notable professors at the time had the audacity to consider themselves to be better authorities on their questionable interpretations of the Vedas than the Indian scholars.
http://www.salagram.net/History-and-Source-of-Vedas-page.htm
http://www.asitis.com/ |
Have you EVER contributed anything useful to a discussion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
God CANNOT rationally exist. You have just spent the morning quoting Maimonides, saying that God is not non-existent, but cannot be defined positively, but then you suggest that God CAN RATIONALLY exist. You don't know what you're talking about. By the very definition that you have chosen, God cannot rationally exist. You've proven it yourself. |
What I said was that God's positive attributes cannot be defined. If I say God is good, then God's being good may be exclusive of another of God's qualities. So if God is good, can God also be just at the same time? But God is just and good, no? This is the problem Maimonides poses.
None of this bears on the existence of God. |
YES IT DOES. Only something that EXISTS can have attributes and qualities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Judeo-Christian and Islamic conceptions of God are vague. The qualities of God are clearly delineated in the Vedic literatures.
The Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu describes 64 transcendental qualities of Krishna:
http://members.aol.com/blissed259/64Qualities/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
God CANNOT rationally exist. You have just spent the morning quoting Maimonides, saying that God is not non-existent, but cannot be defined positively, but then you suggest that God CAN RATIONALLY exist. You don't know what you're talking about. By the very definition that you have chosen, God cannot rationally exist. You've proven it yourself. |
What I said was that God's positive attributes cannot be defined. If I say God is good, then God's being good may be exclusive of another of God's qualities. So if God is good, can God also be just at the same time? But God is just and good, no? This is the problem Maimonides poses.
None of this bears on the existence of God. |
YES IT DOES. Only something that EXISTS can have attributes and qualities. |
God exists.
The above sentence may be said about God. God has attributes and qualities, but speech fails in its endeavor to reveal them without obfuscating the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Eyeball_Kid
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The_Eyeball_Kid wrote: |
Even still, it's nevertheless sophistry at its worst. |
That's the second post where you've added nothing new. You've even used my own term: sophistry. Could you explain why its sophistry? This is not a polite request, I'm actually curious as to whether its possible. |
Your phrase? Well I beg your *beep* pardon!
It is sophistry because you are trying to tie up in linguistic knots a concept that defies rational explanation simply because it cannot rationally exist. |
God cannot rationally exist? Care to prove that?
I won't hold my breath for you to square that circle... |
God CANNOT rationally exist. You have just spent the morning quoting Maimonides, saying that God is not non-existent, but cannot be defined positively, but then you suggest that God CAN RATIONALLY exist. You don't know what you're talking about. By the very definition that you have chosen, God cannot rationally exist. You've proven it yourself. |
What I said was that God's positive attributes cannot be defined. If I say God is good, then God's being good may be exclusive of another of God's qualities. So if God is good, can God also be just at the same time? But God is just and good, no? This is the problem Maimonides poses.
None of this bears on the existence of God. |
YES IT DOES. Only something that EXISTS can have attributes and qualities. |
God exists.
The above sentence may be said about God. God has attributes and qualities, but speech fails in its endeavor to reveal them without obfuscating the matter. |
No, YOU fail in your endeavour to illuminate anything about God's existence beyond the imaginary existence attributable to any fictional character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
