[quote]forlife wrote:
values are internally derived, rather than coming from an external source.[/quote]
Hey that is what I believe. 
Haha
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
For your reading pleasure:
[quote]1 Corinthians 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
[/quote]
Most other moral systems say the same.
As I said earlier, you’re entitled to believe whatever makes sense to you, including the belief that I don’t really value love. I have no desire to disprove you, feel free to believe whatever you want :)[/quote]
What translation is this? I have never heard this passage with out the word “love” in it. This doesn’t even read the same.[/quote]
First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians
Charity is to be preferred before all gifts.
1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.
This reads better, but still does not say ‘love.’ It’s the Douay-Rheims Bible
[quote]forlife wrote:
One thing I’ve learned is that you don’t really need to defend yourself in these kinds of discussions, particularly against people that blatantly twist and misinterpret your statements to meet an agenda. Most people are smart enough to catch those tactics.
[/quote]
Please show me where I “twisted” your statements. The one time you said I did, I agreed and took it back.
Otherwise, you simply answered my questions and were plainly outclassed and got in hot water pretty quickly - not because I’m smarter, but because you think you’re a lot smarter than you in fact are; and because you obviously haven’t thought very much or deeply about this stuff.
Prolly that’s what you mean by my “tactics.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…forlife, why do you set yourself up for a flogging like this?[/quote]
I was just answering his questions, I really don’t care what he actually believes.[/quote]
LOL Is this^^ the deep and abiding love for humanity that you profess? LOL!!!
On ephrem - It’s hard for forlife to see people actually engaging and thinking. He really can’t stand it himself. He’d rather repeat the same thing over and over again and retreat into his shell. I’m convinced that ephrem is rather like a clam.
[/quote]
Why don’t you just state what you’re trying to get at, instead of asking leading questions and re-interpreting what forlife says?
He says love is the most important thing in life. While love might need an object: others, abstract ideas, the self, it can still be an end in itself.
I can say, the most important thing in my life is love, as in were my life devoid of love, it would be meaningless. The particular object is not important, but we can assume that anything he does in fact love, means an awful lot to him, it is the act of love and loving that he values more highly, and being able to share that love, than any particular thing or individual that he might love.[/quote]
Love without an object is a completely empty abstraction. You seem to agree - then you say it can be an “end unto itself.” Which is it?
The answer is, that love requires an object and cannot be and “end unto itself.” (The only creation in the universe that is an end unto itself is a human being. A human being should never be considered as instrumental.)
If you don’t think that the particular object of that love matters, well, I guess I feel a little sorry for you.
And while the object of his love obviously means an “awful lot to him” - consider this: first we must recognize what that object is; and with many people it’s unconscious and unrecognized; second, we have to consider whether this “love” is a real and sacrificial giving of self that is required in the action of love. An alcoholic’s “love object” is whiskey; a narcissist loves his self; etc. Would you say that these are examples of love? et cetera…
[/quote]
You think the mechanics by which love affects the human brain can’t be hijacked. But it can. And alcoholism and religion are two great examples of this. So is gambling.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…forlife, why do you set yourself up for a flogging like this?[/quote]
I was just answering his questions, I really don’t care what he actually believes.[/quote]
LOL Is this^^ the deep and abiding love for humanity that you profess? LOL!!!
On ephrem - It’s hard for forlife to see people actually engaging and thinking. He really can’t stand it himself. He’d rather repeat the same thing over and over again and retreat into his shell. I’m convinced that ephrem is rather like a clam.
[/quote]
Why don’t you just state what you’re trying to get at, instead of asking leading questions and re-interpreting what forlife says?
He says love is the most important thing in life. While love might need an object: others, abstract ideas, the self, it can still be an end in itself.
I can say, the most important thing in my life is love, as in were my life devoid of love, it would be meaningless. The particular object is not important, but we can assume that anything he does in fact love, means an awful lot to him, it is the act of love and loving that he values more highly, and being able to share that love, than any particular thing or individual that he might love.[/quote]
Love without an object is a completely empty abstraction. You seem to agree - then you say it can be an “end unto itself.” Which is it?
The answer is, that love requires an object and cannot be and “end unto itself.” (The only creation in the universe that is an end unto itself is a human being. A human being should never be considered as instrumental.)
If you don’t think that the particular object of that love matters, well, I guess I feel a little sorry for you.
And while the object of his love obviously means an “awful lot to him” - consider this: first we must recognize what that object is; and with many people it’s unconscious and unrecognized; second, we have to consider whether this “love” is a real and sacrificial giving of self that is required in the action of love. An alcoholic’s “love object” is whiskey; a narcissist loves his self; etc. Would you say that these are examples of love? et cetera…
[/quote]
You think the mechanics by which love affects the human brain can’t be hijacked. But it can. And alcoholism and religion are two great examples of this. So is gambling.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean. Please 'esplain.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What translation is this? I have never heard this passage with out the word “love” in it. This doesn’t even read the same.
First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians
Charity is to be preferred before all gifts.
1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.
This reads better, but still does not say ‘love.’ It’s the Douay-Rheims Bible
[/quote]
I have not heard of this translation, this is the way I have always heard this reading, in most translations I have read, even the ESV bible which is the closest to the origional texts that I know of:
If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
3
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4
3 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
5
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
6
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
7
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8
4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
9
For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
10
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11
When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
12
At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
13
5 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You think the mechanics by which love affects the human brain can’t be hijacked. But it can. And alcoholism and religion are two great examples of this. So is gambling.[/quote]
No, it cannot. Even if scientists knew the exact bio-electro-chemical make up of some one that is feeling love and could replicate it, they cannot make some “love”. It is more than chemistry, electricity and biology.
Alcoholism and religion, really? Man you have serious hate issues. This is not even remotely rational. But I’ll give a chance, prove your point. Prove that you can replicate the biological affect that love has on the the brain, by other means. Just even remotely.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
What translation is this? I have never heard this passage with out the word “love” in it. This doesn’t even read the same.[/quote]
King James version, it’s the one I was raised with :)[/quote]
Really? I never looked at the King James version, I must admit, but I have looked at various translations and never seen the word “charity” in place of “love”.
Recently, a bunch of scholars and experts in the translations of Aramaic, Hebrew, greek and Latin, painstakingly revisited the original texts in their original languages and translated as close as they could, in to English. I really like how they did it. Where there was confusion on a word or phrase, they noted the other phrasing in the footnotes.
It’s actually quite interesting how passages read differently in the more literal translation of the original text.
I don’t know much about the King James version, but if that passage you pasted is an example, I’d say they took some liberties.
I know there are “intent” translations, vs. literal ones. I wonder if King James was one of them?
That passage as you pasted means nothing to me, and I think it one of the most profound things a hard ass like Paul has ever written. Love matters a whole lot more than charity. Charity is a component of love.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Bunyip wrote:
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Either way, everyone finds god and religion their own way, on their own terms. Whether it be agnostic, athiest, christian, unexplainable universal energy, etc… It’s pretty useless to judge someone because of what they believe in.[/quote]
This is wrong. Atheists don’t believe in a God or religion. There is no such thing as an atheist religion, the only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in God and religion. They haven’t found God or religion and they have probably stopped looking (or else they ought to be considered agnostic). Hell I personally don’t think there is anything to find and I sure as hell I am not wasting my time caring. Grappling with such questions are part of growing up though.
And its not useless to judge someone based on their belief. A person’s belief says something about them. A person’s belief is part of what makes them who they are and they ought to be judged according to it or their failure to adhere to said beliefs. Though judging people based on their actions is more useful.[/quote]
Atheists have to be empiricists, believing that all concepts in our heads have to have root in our experience. The philosopher Kant rants on and on about this and changed the course of philosophy.
The trouble with that is the example of an ant on a tree leaf. The ant is on the leaf but not aware that it is also on a tree. Its perception is limited to the leaf.
So, no one knows if the ‘leaf’ is all there is.
[/quote]
-
Kant was a man who tried to find a rational basis for his religious belief and moved the Golden Rule from a religious doctrine to an impractical moral imperative. I find Schopenhauer to be a far better thinker.
-
You are confusing belief with knowledge. Religious, agnostic, atheist all describe systems of belief. Every honest atheist will admit they don’t have all the answers when it comes knowledge. I am not sure what religious people think, but for most I assume they have no direct knowledge of a Supernatural being etc and are aware of this fact. Some obviously think they have actual knowledge of God (i.e. Joan of Arc) but unless they can prove that than I take it no more realistically than a child telling me they saw the tooth fairy.
katzenjammer, entertaining as your Socratic routine was, what is the point you are trying to make? Can you please state it as simply and clearly as possible?
[quote]pat wrote:
Just as an aside, anybody notice that 2 out of the 3 religious threads and the last two older ones were all started by atheists? I just find that interesting, I am not sure what it says, but I find their curiosity interesting. [/quote]
I think this may be so, because most of us come from initially religious backgrounds, we often have contemplated (sometimes struggled with) religious questions a lot - which is how we often came to our current views. This doesn’t really mean that we suddenly lose the interest in spiritual or religious questions - it’s mostly a change of perspective.
I myself, am really not interested in spiritual matters (haven’t been for about 25 years), but I’m still very interested in the moral and socio-political impact of religions.
I hope that makes sense.
Makkun
[Edit:] And just as an aside, most threads about homosexuality/islam/socialism here are started by people professing not to be homosexual/muslim/socialist themselves. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to be interested in a topic without being a card carrying member of a specific interest group. 
/hijack
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean. Please 'esplain.[/quote]
An example is moths and their tendency for self immolation. You might ponder why they do so? Why do they go out of their way to burn themselves to death? Well, that’s the wrong question. What people usually fail to notice is the other moths successfully using a source of light that isn’t man made (the stars and moon) to navigate. The self immolation behavior is simply a misfiring of a normal function. Religion merely hijacks sexual lust and love to suit it’s own ends.
[quote]makkun wrote:
[Edit:] And just as an aside, most threads about homosexuality/islam/socialism here are started by people professing not to be homosexual/muslim/socialist themselves. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to be interested in a topic without being a card carrying member of a specific interest group. /hijack[/quote]
Yes. However, suppose there this guy who claimed to be heterosexual - and yet, he continually started threads about the errors and evils of homosexuality.
Now, honestly, Makkun, what suspicions might you begin to entertain about this^^ person?
[quote]Bunyip wrote:
- Kant was a man who tried to find a rational basis for his religious belief and moved the Golden Rule from a religious doctrine to an impractical moral imperative. I find Schopenhauer to be a far better thinker.
[/quote]
They seem rather similar, what is it about Schopenhauer do you do you like over Kant?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean. Please 'esplain.[/quote]
An example is moths and their tendency for self immolation. You might ponder why they do so? Why do they go out of their way to burn themselves to death? Well, that’s the wrong question. What people usually fail to notice is the other moths successfully using a source of light that isn’t man made (the stars and moon) to navigate. The self immolation behavior is simply a misfiring of a normal function. Religion merely hijacks sexual lust and love to suit it’s own ends.[/quote]
Okay, so in order to discuss whether “love” can be diverted towards ends that are destructive to the person (is that what you mean?) we will have to have some agreed upon definition of love.
We’re liable to get bogged down forever here, so let’s just throw out what we’ll call “provisional and working definitions of love.” Okay? I say that love is a self-giving act. What say you?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is what you do all that different than what the religious do? The only difference I can see is that generally religions claim value assignment comes from a mythical third party deity. You claim value assignment comes from the mythical 1st person called a conscience. Neither is more logically reasonable. You and I have had this discussion before.[/quote]
Religious people and nonreligious people can have the same values, the difference is the source of those values. Some derive their morality from the belief in a supernatural being, and others derive their morality internally. It’s one thing to perform an act because you believe a god wants you to do so, and another thing to do the act for the sake of the act itself.[/quote]
For your paragraph to remain logically consistent, the last sentence should have read “It’s one thing to perform an act because you believe a god wants you to do so, and another thing to do the act for the sake of the voice inside your head.”
Deriving good and bad internally does not lead to doing an act for the sake of an act. You are doing it for the sake of your internal mystical conscience.
Don’t you get it? You may not believe in an external mystic being, but you do believe and put your faith in an internal one. You, in essence, are your own god. (not being critical of your beliefs, just making the observation)
[quote]Bunyip wrote:
katzenjammer, entertaining as your Socratic routine was, what is the point you are trying to make? Can you please state it as simply and clearly as possible?[/quote]
Each and every so-called “Atheist” worships a deity.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Otherwise, you simply answered my questions and were plainly outclassed and got in hot water pretty quickly - not because I’m smarter, but because you think you’re a lot smarter than you in fact are; and because you obviously haven’t thought very much or deeply about this stuff.
Prolly that’s what you mean by my “tactics.”
[/quote]
No, what I meant was that you set up a strawman argument which you then proceeded to knock down, so you could crow victory. It’s a tactic that I’ve seen over and over again on this forum.
Most people would consider my response to your question about what people value to be reasonable. The vast majority of religions and moral systems agree that love is the most important value a person should strive to emulate in his life.
As I said, I’m happy to have a constructive discussion if you’re up for it. But I have no interest in pissing contests in order to prove who has the biggest internet ego. If you want to declare victory and walk away feeling smug about how you schooled me, then feel free. I honestly don’t mind. If you do want to respond in a mature manner, that’s fine too. The ball is in your court.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have even changed how I see things in the same year drastically, but it just ends up making more sense.
I used to see God as something I understood, now I understand Him less. However, this has brought about a more of a yearning to understand what I don’t/can’t. Mysteries. [/quote]
I’m happy to hear that, BC. I personally believe that part of life’s spiritual journey is learning to become more tolerant of ambiguity, and having the sincerity and courage to acknowledge that we actually don’t have all the answers.
[quote]pat wrote:
Really? I never looked at the King James version, I must admit, but I have looked at various translations and never seen the word “charity” in place of “love”.
Recently, a bunch of scholars and experts in the translations of Aramaic, Hebrew, greek and Latin, painstakingly revisited the original texts in their original languages and translated as close as they could, in to English. I really like how they did it. Where there was confusion on a word or phrase, they noted the other phrasing in the footnotes.
It’s actually quite interesting how passages read differently in the more literal translation of the original text.
I don’t know much about the King James version, but if that passage you pasted is an example, I’d say they took some liberties.
I know there are “intent” translations, vs. literal ones. I wonder if King James was one of them?
That passage as you pasted means nothing to me, and I think it one of the most profound things a hard ass like Paul has ever written. Love matters a whole lot more than charity. Charity is a component of love.[/quote]
I agree that some of the newer translations can be clearer, and in some cases, more accurate. I like the KJV for the beauty of the language, but I can see how someone that wasn’t raised with it would find it obscure.