Mrs. JB, I'm not all too familiar with eastern philosophy, though what I've heard of it sounds more interesting and akin to what I could believe than what I've learned of Christian beliefs. And yeah, the little argument that I brought up was meant to point out inconsistencies in the Christian perspective. I'd read the argument before and had forgotten about it until my wife discovered one of her students was being abused. Grizzled, I agree that on the macro level there is some bad events that can end up with good results, esp national matters. But on the micro level ... some of the sick things that happen I refuse to believe happen because they help out some grand scheme for goodness. Simply becomming a statistic is not worthwhile, imo. I definitely agree with the sentiment of your last paragraph though. Jeff, I definitely believe in the concept of good and evil. Yes, it can at times be subjective from one person to the next, but there is something innate about these definitions, I think, in everyone. The perception can be nurtured and distorted quite a bit, but imo there is a base.
Forcibly taking a small child from his or her parents and sexually assaulting it. That would just "be", I guess...? I suppose that objectively speaking, that act could either be good or bad? I have a very difficult time accepting that approach to life as anything other than a figurative shrug. "Ah, can't figure it out, might as well rationalize it". It's similar to the widely-derided Christian acceptance of the incongruence of God's omnipotence and willingness to permit evil to exist. Christians are said to excuse any such inconsistencies as "the will of God". It's interesting. I think the only positions in this debate I can really respect are those that admit man's perspective is limited. The very idea we can define God according to human descriptives amuses me-- I mean, really, "perfect" is a human concept and a human conceptualization. It is simple intellectual arrogance to assume we can assign set parameters, designed by our fallible and limited minds, to God and then decide that if the events we attribute to His hand don't fit within those parameters, the seeming inconsistency proves anything. Think of it like this: there is existence. Things exist. We exist. The universe exists. That very fact means that there must be an alternative: the possibility that nothing could exist. And yet it does. How?
BK: You are over-simplifying the belief. I'm not suggesting that we are stupid to assign blame or feeling to a situation or that doing it makes us un-spiritual. I am also not suggesting that you just shrug if it happens and rationalize it. The same teachings that teach detachment teach things like "right speech" and "right action." The very act of ignoring something like child abuse violates everything Buddhism stands for. Even not saying anything when you know is considered not part of that path. However, the idea is that we don't simply apply a generalized concept or feeling to anything that happens. Once something happens, we are powerless to reverse THAT action. It doesn't mean we cannot prevent similar things from happening in the future or that we shouldn't speak out or act against it. As for your suggestion that it is ridiculous to try and define God, I completely agree. We don't have the capacity to rationalize anything even remotely as complex as God.
Jeff, I know what you're saying, and I went down that path for a while myself, but never found it satisfying. I should clarify. I am now a Christian. When I pursued that spirit of goodness I felt, I found it to be the spirit of God. Prior to this realisation, when I had pursued the spirit of defeat/anger/rebellion that also exists in me, I found it to be very much the opposite. I should do some further clarifying at this point. As the other Christians on this board will confirm, none of us have anything close to all the answers, and we all come from our own perspectives within Christianity. I am against capitol punishment and against the angry, judgmental, self-righteous elements often seen in the Christian right. I am for compassion, charity, forgiveness, tolerance and humility, even though I often falter in these areas myself. "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone." "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." I'm not trying to be preachy here. It's just that if I'm going to publicly identify myself as a Christian in this discussion, it's important to me to be clear that I do not identify with what is stereotypically seen as the "Christian Right" in North America. I can accept that many of these people are really Christians, even though many of their actions and attitudes seem very un-Christian to me. I'm sure that they could find numerous shortcomings in my conduct as well. I think that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum, looking at the same middle, if you will. Now, were was I. "Good" and "Bad." I certainly agree that the distinction can get very muddy and seem subjective, but if you look you'll find many commonalties between religions and societies with respect to what is good and is bad. Murder, incest, assault and theft, for example, are all almost universally held to be bad. (Do we have any sociologists in the crowd?) al-Qaeda is a fanatical fringe group in Islam, and does not have main stream support. An early version of al-Qaeda was responsible for assassinating Anwar Sadat, and they have also bombed mosques in Egypt for being "too liberal." The vast majority of spiritual Muslims (as opposed to political Muslims) will say that the actions of al-Qaeda are not supported by the Qur'an. I would suggest that most people, including Muslims, would see the attack of 09/11/01 as wrong. I suggest that most of the world, and I hope most of the US, would not want to see Bin Laden executed and would see that as wrong too. (This would only perpetuate the cycle, and would only make a martyr of him for those who are inclined to see him that way, but this is a practical rather than a moral argument.). So I think there are commonly, if not universally, held beliefs about good and bad. This suggests these concepts may be more than simply a personal construction. But the external rationalisations are secondary in importance, I think. The only truly convincing test is to look internally. Do you have, like CriscoKidd says, an innate sense of what's right and wrong, even if that sense is imperfect and prone to error? If so, where does it come from? At this point we can head off on the nature vs. nurture debate and pick-up the free will debate while we're at it. CriscoKidd, While I understand what you're saying, I don't believe that any death or tragic event is simply a "statistic." Every one sends a message to somebody. They may challenge somebody do so something different, or think differently, or take action. Who's to say what event will cause somebody to say, "enough is enough" and take action, or get involved, or vote a different way. Who would have thought that a presidential election could be decided by so few votes? Sometimes small changes can make a big difference.
I'm not a sociologist (although it was my minor) so here goes: I think the examples you show of "good" as opposed to "bad" are more examples of societal conditioning than some sort of internal moral compass. Yes, most of us share would share the belief that what happened on Sept. 11 is a tragedy. However, that comes from the fact that we live here on the same planet at the same time in similar conditions and circumstances. If we, as good people, are morally opposed to murder, why are we now in Afghanistan killing their soldiers? See, here's where societal conditioning immediately kicks into gear -- we can rationalize it in a whole host of ways "it's not murder if it's a war," "but they're soldiers, not innocent civilians," "they started it." If our internal moral compass was truly set to believe that murder was wrong, it would apply to ALL situations, not just the ones where it was helpful for US foreign policy. There were numerous societies (ancient Egypt and aancient Greece to name a couple) that practiced incest. They didn't believe it was a sin. Society held that it was an acceptable practice. Murder has been a religious practice (sacrifices to the gods) since organized religion began. Again, these societies felt they were pleasing their god not offending him/her. Buddhism teaches that one of the ways of suffering is our dualistic nature -- our habit of assigning right/wrong, good/bad, happy/sad judgements to every circumstance in our lives. The path out of this suffering is to adopt the non-dualistic stance of simply accepting all that is in a non-judgemental fashion -- to realize that most of the suffering in our lives comes not from the events themselves, but from the value judgements we assign to them. People often bristle at the suggestion that they drop exterior notions of right/wrong. I know I did. It is often feared that society would descend into chaos and that man's naturally evil tendencies will be given free reign. Yet those who practice non-dualistic thinking are often the most peaceful people I've ever met. Maybe the soul's natural tendency is simply toward positive evolution.
Part of the "price" of free will is <b>randomness</b>. In the case of Jerry Falwell's untimely comments regarding 9/11, even he never said that those innocents killed by the terrorists were responsible for their own horrible fate. He "fixed the blame" on other elements of society, i.e. the ACLU and the Abortion Industry. Still we are <b>all</b> vulnerable because of the random nature of evil loosed in the world. Ironically, the more Godly men and women we have in the world, the more contained (rebuked) is evil-- but it can never be removed from the earth. Easily the most insidious aspect of evil is that it often seeks out <b>innocent victims</b>.
Grizz: I know what you mean as well. I WAS a Christian (at one point, a born again, right wing, Bible thumper in every sense of the word) and that changed for me once I began to explore other possibilities. I think how you approach Christianity with non-judgemental beliefs is a great thing. I'm sure there are very judgemental Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and the like. I don't think that good/bad behavior can be assigned to a religion necessarily. We all do what we do more for personal reasons rather than spiritual. I can say that, for myself, I have always had a fascination with spiritual things which is why, I suppose, I was as strongly entrenched in Christianity when I was a Christian. Much of what changed in me was not my inherent beliefs in how we should live but my approach to how I, personally, should find a connection to God. I still believe a lot of what Christianity teaches. There are many Buddhists who are still practicing Christians and Jews, for example. Religion, for them, is a way of expressing themselves and they want grounding in a variety of languages. Buddism is not my primary practice anyway. I have an interest in most Eastern religions and I am still a bit earthy so Christianity and even pagan practices are of interest as well. I think that there are elements of all religions that resonate with me. This thread still continues to be interesting!
There is NO GOD You all have been brainwashed (family, school) that there is a god and we should believe in him and serve him. Now think for a second about all the sh*t that's going on in the world and all the other painful history stuff (Hitler) and then tell me there is a god.
In my humble opinion (I'm obviously still learning here), the nanosecond one is "born" or "created" into existence free will begins; we come to be (created) whether we'd want to our not. So, assume for a moment that once we are here we have free will. At that point is free will good only for a finite period of time (i.e., until death)? More questions: Obviously I cannot "opt out" of existence (I mean physically and spiritually) if I so desired now that I do exist, so where does free will apply? Am I free to do good, evil or nothing at all? Could I be justifiably penalized for either?
As a <b>creature</b>, you are free to do what you will. As a <b>citizen</b>, whether voluntary or not, you must answer to your society. On a very real level, that is not free at all. And, if convicted, it is completely not free at all! However, that is just. Conceptually, free will directly addresses the concept of choice possibilities.
Freedom is perception. What you are talking about is physical freedom - freedom of the body. No one can cage the mind or the spirit no matter how long you are locked up. In essence, there is still every bit the same amount of freedom. There are simply consequences to acting in a way that is contrary to the norms of society. You still have the freedom to choose whatever action you want. It doesn't mean you won't be punished for it, but that is the nature of everything. You can jump off a cliff if you want to. It doesn't mean you'll survive the fall, but you still have the choice to jump.
Jeff, your point is valid regarding the duality of mind and body. Let me ask you this: how(much) is your freedom compromised by the reality of knowing a consequence which is out of your control-- be it gravity or law enforcement-- is in your future? I do think that some minds have been changed as a result of being locked up. Ever heard of brain-washing or Catholic school?!
So if your argument against God is that there is pain and suffering in the world, then an argument for God would be that there is much more goodness and beauty in the world, correct?
"Catholic school." he he he I know what you are saying and I agree that there are plenty of people (myself included) who limit their choices based on the fear of punishment. I think the key here is that your freedom is never compromised because the choice is still open to you. If a person limits themselves based on fear or even, for that matter, because of moral or ethical choices, it still doesn't remove the available option. I would (at least I HOPE NOT!) not ever choose to pick a person at random and stab them to death. My feelings about the implications of that act both in the sense of the moral quandry and the potential for punishment prevent me from even considering it. However, that doesn't mean the option isn't available to me. The choice is still mine to make even if I choose to limit myself.
The entire argument of if there is a God or isn't a God is useless and is basically the same as evolution vs. creation. Neither side can prove the other wrong because of lack of physical evidence but both sides can produce strong statements and some facts for both their arguments. As for free will, that is about the same as above. Many people belive that humans are born will free will which is then influenced by environments which they are put in but some people think free will is simply an "illusion" and that your behavior is determined from birth.
Man, this is a very interesting thread!! I hope that it's still alive by the time I get home this evening so I can add my 2 cents worth. (I'm at work). Keep it alive!!
That is a rather broad statement to say there is NO justice in the world. There is certainly pain, suffering and hardship, but there IS justice. There are plenty of positives. There is much joy, beauty and happiness.
