Some points from previous posts that I hadn't noticed until now:
Neznac:
Interestingly Steve3007, when I was researching enegue's previous concerning his STI and monogamous hetersexuality posts I read...
I'm sure this is probably an interesting insight, but I would be reluctant to try to draw many strong conclusions from it. If someone shares some personal information on here, particularly about family, I think it places them in a position of much more vulnerability than when we're all simply talking in impersonal, abstract terms. I'm inclined to respect the bravery of doing that by trying to tread very lightly and sensitively in analyzing it, and by trying to bring to bear as much as possible of my own experiences of family dis-chord.
In my experience, intra-family relationships are unique and personal and it's rarely possible for an outsider to be able to fully understand their complexities. I know you'll probably say that enegue
chose to publish this personal information on a public forum so should expect it to be examined. But I like to reply to posts in the spirit in which they appear to be written. I have particular respect for any statements that are self-critical or self-examining or which expose personal things to public scrutiny. If someone posts personal information, knowing of the danger that the subtlety and unique-ness might be lost on strangers, but hoping to communicate something anyway, I'm inclined to try extra hard to understand and not to judge.
enegue:
Sorry, Steve. I'm lacking the necessary time to address all this stuff at the moment. I will answer Neznac's last post because it also deals with a point you raised.
No worries. I know this whole philosophy forum thing can be terribly time-consuming so don't worry if you don't have time to explicitly address everything. The trouble with this kind of remote, written conversation is that it lacks the normal cues and clues of a face-to-face verbal conservation. In such a conversation, often when one person says something, the other can simply nod, or smile to show that they've heard and understood, but don't necessarily feel the need to reply. In this written environment that's not possible, except perhaps with the clumsy, artificial mechanism of "emoticons". So it can look as though large sections of what one says are being ignored. But hopefully we all understand that that's not true. enegue:
If you guys think poor leadership and faulty goals are the reason for opposition and rebellion, then you have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about life. Opposition is spawned by a heart that TREASURES DIFFERENT THINGS than the heart of the leader. A leader is always going somewhere, and a good leader will ALWAYS ARRIVE where he/she wants to go. Not always, though, with everyone who started out still in tow.
I guess I'm one of the "you guys" group! So I'll comment on this.
As I hope I've communicated, in the realm of morality I believe that opposition and rebellion can be caused by various things, but a major cause is what could be characterized as "going against the grain". Good leadership resonates with something that is already in the heart of the follower. I think, on that point, we agree.
Of course, this principle can work for good or ill. The classic example of it working for ill might be something like the expert skill of a leader like Hitler in knowing how to prompt and prod people down a path that he knows they will find it easy to take if he presents it in the right way - playing on various pre-existing fears and gently, gradually magnifying them.
This, I think, we both agree on. We simply disagree on specific points about specific moral issues regarding the future benefit, or otherwise, of various ways of living. The fact that you take your cues for these issues from the Bible and, therefore (you would claim) from God means that you would, I think, regard the disagreement as being about more than that. But, as I said, all that
I see is
your opinions. The thing that you claim them to be inspired by does not stop them from being
your opinions.
---
And back up to date:
Neznac:
My question to enegue would be, if you have picked through the bible and accepted only those words of God with which you agree and ignored or rejected those that rub you the wrong way, how is the moral authority by whom you abide so completely not really you rather than the more authentic version of God. You appear to shy away from directly or explicitly denigrating other lifestyles, which God did many times over, yet with your "polluted waters" analogy you impune those other lifestyles in a general or implicit sense. Can you explain how this happens? Does the moral perspective authored (second handedly) by Jesus trump some of the moral dictates authored by God (also second handedly)? Is your version of these dictates (second, second handedly) still authentic or can we just say that these are your own beliefs?
I think you're right to point out that enegue always tends to criticize these lifestyles in indirect, metaphorical ways. And, as you say, this does seem to suggest, on the face of it, an unwillingness to directly state clear opinions about them.
I suspect, though, that enegue would claim that he does not
selectively accept the moral authority of the Bible as you've suggested. I suspect that, unlike many other theists, he will say that he accepts all of it.
Neznac:
You are casting Steve's character in a negative light as if he is weakly overpowered by pride. Yet it is you and not he who is equating his own moral values with God's moral values, in fact Steve is trying to make the conversation between two humans, but you keep insisting that you are working through the authorization of God. So the pride you feel you might be hurting in Steve is of your own making and has nothing to do with his own personal feelings.
I think this is a good comment, and I agree with it. As you say, I am trying to draw from enegue a clear answer to the question of whether two different human beings, both of whom are motivated by a genuine desire to act for the future good of humanity, can have an honest disagreement about the actions and words that are most likely to achieve that goal. And both of whom have some genuinely good arguments to make.
Neznac:
You didn't really answer that superb question that Steve asked about two people with exactly the same motivations coming from very different foundations. You said:
"If your notion of what constitutes promoting and preserving the well-being of future generations (behaving as one ought) is contrary to God's, then I simply DON'T BELIEVE YOU."
(I think that an outright "no" would have proven the existence of that mental block that you didn't think existed, so you refrained. But it seems quite obvious that your answer is indeed "no.") Well what if Steve has said that he follows the Confucian principles on promoting and preserving the well being of future generations based on the ethic "Do no harm" or "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to you." Would you reject that ethic because it is contrary to your version of God's?
I agree that the curious wording of the reply to my question suggests a desire, on enegue's part, to obfuscate the answer. I can't think of any other reason why one would answer a
question with the statement: "I simply don't believe you."
Neznac:
I was waiting anxiously to see the solution you held for convincing others of the efficacy of your approach. Let me say that this was a huge disappointment engue. How's that working with your son?
As I said at the top, what you choose to say is up to you, but I personally want to tread sensitively on this, as I would hope others would do for me if I shared some information about the intricacies of my family relationships. But, on the general point I do agree that no convincing case has yet been made for the efficacy of the God-backed approach to moral leadership.
Did you pick this as the solution because it is working by all your evidence, or was it chosen because you know full well that non-believers have no one to pray to, thus it seemed like a solution they could not claim to possess? Is this your version of a kind of "sleight-of-hand" move; a fake out?
I think what we're talking about here is the classic case that is usually made for the strength of "moral absolutism" versus "moral relativism". In a nutshell, I think that the case falls down for this reason: When an absolutist tells a wrong-doer that his actions are absolutely wrong because they violate God's laws, he assumes that this gives them some absolute authority in the eyes of the wrong-doer as well as in his own eyes. But of course, there's no reason to believe this to be true. And, in fact, if the wrong-doer then simply makes a counter-claim about God's law, no further negotiation can be possible.
But this is a big subject that, I think, needs a more detailed treatment than I can post here.
Belinda:
Not so. Any prayer that includes an object of prayer risks being an idolatrous prayer. There is small difference between a mental object of prayer and a holy statue or relic.
Anybody can pray, silently if they prefer, without stipulating what or who is to be a recipient of the prayer.
The difference between prayer and day dreaming and so on is that when a man prays he is attending soberly and sincerely to a special concern without his mind wandering off into irrelevancies.
Enegue's claim that only believers can pray is like the similar claim that only believers can appreciate sacred music.
I think that's a good point, Belinda. I think that a prayer can simply be an act of hope, even in the absence of a God, just as respect for an old church can be an act of reverence for age and collected wisdom, in the absence of a God.