What exactly is a good life? Consider, for instance, that at the time Marcus Aurelius lived infanticide was legal and common. Because boys were economically more valuable than girls, many people killed infant girls. It’s estimated that a quarter to a third of girls in ancient Greece and Rome were killed in this way. Now, doubtlessly many ancients Greeks and Romans, after they were done crushing their own child’s skull, went right on living what they viewed as a “good life”. So if we agree that it wasn’t actually good, then clearly the concept of good needs to be defined differently from how people at that time defined it.
I suspect that this thread is going to do quite a bit of wandering, but the specific topic of ritual is really a hijack to this thread. It needs to be dropped or opened in a new thread.
The OP has alreday noted that he is interested in the thought expressed in the quote on the OP, and not in the authenticity of the quote, so that line of discussion is also a hijack.
[/Moderating ]
That could sum up my philosophy as well, except that bit about living on in the memories of friends and loved ones. Don’t much care about leaving a mark, or whether the good I do (if any) is buried with my bones. While I’m here to watch, doing good is it’s own reward. Because I’m a narcissist 
This is Pascal’s Wager, but for actions rather than beliefs. And frankly, it sits better with me than Pascal’s because of the last line. Belief by itself means nothing except for you and a god who can read your thoughts, should one exist. Actions are what have effect.
That sounds an awful lot like Socrates in one of Plato’s books (Crito? The one where he’s dying…).
We are the custodians of life’s meaning.
Humans have a tendency to project our nature onto Nature. Deities, meanings etc are human concepts and only valid insofar as they pertain to the human experience.
The question of what constitutes a good life has probably been asked since the dawn of man and will continue to be so until the last man.
Then Marcus Aurelius was just another fool.
Amusing, considering the quote was by an emperor who murdered thousands simply for refusing to worship him.
[hijack] The quote is all over the internet. In google books, it is listed in a 2010 book of quotations by Sean Gallacher. It is also on page 298 of The Tale of the Last American, Part II (2010): a character in that work of fiction sources it to Marcus Aurelius. Amazon only lists reviews for Part I. Tate Publishing, who released both works, appears to be a Christian vanity house. But there are no cites before that. [/hijack]
The OP presents a variant of the Atheist’s Wager which shares some vulnerabilities with Pascal’s original. Neither are entirely robust to the full range of metaphysical possibilities. A mostly benevolent God might be a jealous one. It’s not clear whether a powerful creator who made the world isn’t due some respect, even if His views and morality don’t match perfectly with those creatures operating within an entirely different environment or context. Furthermore, to simply assume that virtue is its own reward is facile. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to applying decision theory to such metaphysical questions, provided it is done at a minimal level of detail.
Cite ?
Your subsequent post has done nothing to provide evidence that he “murdered” anyone for failing to worship him.
The law passed in his reign, (with no citation regarding his influence over the Senate’s decision), imposed exile, not death.
Nothing indicates that he sought to be worshipped.
I rate your quoted statement a failure.
Sigh. Qin. 1. It’s good form to retract or clarify when you find works that fail to back up your claims.
-
John J. Reilly, the book reviewer you linked to, is no expert. That’s ok, but he didn’t substantiate his claims, though they appear credible to me (who assuredly knows less about these matters than J.J. Reilly). Anyway, the accusation is that M.A. looked the other way, not that he signed warrents against Xtians himself.
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia thinks that “Marcus Aurelius was one of the best men of heathen antiquity”, although, “Christian blood flowed freely in all parts of the empire. The excited populace saw in the misery and bloodshed of the period a proof that the gods were angered by the toleration accorded to the Christians, consequently, they threw on the latter all blame for the incredible public calamities. Whether it was famine or pestilence, drought or floods, the cry was the same (Tertullian, “Apologeticum”, V, xli): Christianos ad leonem (Throw the Christians to the lion).” FWIW. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
-
M.A. didn’t write the OP anyway.
The new testament constantly tells Christians to do good works. The distinction is that you are not saved by them. You don’t go up to God and say, “sure, I hated you, I didn’t want to do good things, (really wanted to do the bad things,) but I did good, so you HAVE to reward me.” You do not save yourself. King David was a terrible father, an adulterer, and a murderer. But his attitude when shown his mistakes has him listed as “a man after God’s own heart.” Conversely, Jesus berated the Jewish leaders who felt self-righteous because they followed the letter of the commandments, calling them adulterers and murderers in their hearts.
Faith cause works.
Also David was not punished/disciplined by God for adultery, neither was Bathsheba as far as the scriptures state. Only for David’s murder of Bathsheba’s husband to cover up her pregnancy was David disciplined. For Bathsheba’s act of adultery God seemed to reward her by making her a queen and her son the wisest king ever to live. Yes the child by David and Bathsheba was lost but that was clearly stated from the bloodguilt of the murder, not the act of adultery. Bloodguilt was David’s only real infraction that prevented David from building the temple.
Also note that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery.
David showed great compassion for this child and for his son Absolon, so I would say that he was a great father under very difficult circumstances.
exactly, James 2:17
I only said he was an adulterer, not that he was punished for it.
But, he did tell her to go and sin no more. He confirmed sin. As when he said to look on a woman for the purpose of lust is still adultery in your heart. The point of David, and this woman, and his deriding the Jewish leaders, is that sin can be forgiven… if you don’t continue to entertain it in your heart.
And being compassionate is enough? Compassionate parents all know how to properly raise a child? You can look at the accounts and say that David had no fault in how any of his children turned out? My whole point really is not any particular sin of his, but that David was a flawed man who could be forgiven when people who never commited the same acts could be condemned for the same sins.
OK, my take is under the new covenant the act of physical act of adultery is not necessarily a sin, as God judges the heart, not the act. But under the old covenant, the law that leads to death, yes it would be a sin.
It is also my belief that the new convent was always available for those who sought God, and David was under the new covenant and knew God personally.
Yes, Jesus did not say to her don’t commit adultery, but not to sin. Jesus did not identify the adultery as the sin, only the pharisees did that. The sin may very well have been what lead to the outcome of what we call adultery. It is possible to violate the written Law and yet found not guilty by God.
What about looking at a woman for the purpose of Love?
When one sins they are a slave to the sin, only God can remove that. The entertaining it in your heart may have one try to stop doing that, but without God it is doomed to failure. The answer is Love of God, not trying to stop in your own efforts.
Yes part of the point is that we are all flawed, but Jesus promises, though Paul’s writing for one, to make everything we do turn out for the good if we are truly seeking Him, even with all David’s flaws he was perfect because God made it so.