Hell I could cuss god out right now…would "god"be “ANGRY”…no. but a hell of alot of people would be offended. [p]
Is it "right"to show TRUTH or "right"to show Unity. Hmmm that is a great question.
Very true, Dierson.
What the people taking offense at Guinastasia being mad at God for her kitten’s fatal illness reminded me of was an incident a year ago when Esprix took offense at FriendofGod’s comment that “nobody can be gay and Christian.”
It didn’t offend Esprix as regards himself – he’s a UUist who does not consider himself Christian (though most of his acts are far more in keeping with Christ’s than those of many self-righteous churchgoers). But it totally angered him that FoG could slander Esprix’s Christian gay friends.
God is not insulted by someone expressing honest emotion. He loves them and hurts with them. But His “friends” feel like they have to come to His defense.
Define “truth” and “unity” as you’re using them, and we may have an interesting discussion. The version of reality that I’m running at present would find it a meaningless question, since the ultimate truth conduces to the ultimate unity. And anything in between is from misidentifying something else as the ultimate in one or the other, and offending against the Law of Love in the process. (I know that statement was foggy as the scene of a Gothic novel, but working with your absolutes without definitions, it’s the best I can do.)
Oh, yeah, God’s a libertarian. I keep forgetting.
Well, try to keep your wits about you, will you?
Hey, Lib?
If God was a Democrat, could you forgive Him?
Just wondering.
Tris
“The ephemeral and the eternal are the same.” ~ Gordon Dickson
You’re equivocating, Tris. There is the Libertarian political party, and there is the libertarian philosophy. They are not the same. However, you might have asked, were God a conservative, could you forgive Him. And that answer would be that He would then not be God. It is not possible to give free-will and coerce simultaneously.
OK, back to ethics and where they come from etc. because that’s what I like to talk about.
Important question
Do the Christians here agree that everyone should at some point thoroughly question the ethics and beliefs they have been taught as a child?
I think that every atheist/agnostic I know would agree.
Substitute “examine” for “question” and you would have agreement from me. (My cavil is simply a matter of connotation – “question” seems to imply “and reject” where “examine” is more objective. But that’s my taste in words; YMMV.)
I am, in general, a humanist in my ethics, and mildly libertarian in my political philosophy. (I think that I disagree with Lib. himself on some significant points, simply because I see us as social creatures necessarily intermeshed in a culture, and believe that that corporate identity has some ethical responsibility. My impression is that in general Lib. disagrees, limiting “the corporate identity” (which he denies any separate existence to, a strange stance for an Idealist!;)) to simply enforcing the basic rights of individuals as against other individuals’ rights to deprive them of them.)
But I am a humanist because of the Second Commandment (of the Two, not the Ten). As well as because, and this is key to my own understanding of my philosophy, it fits my psyche as it has evolved over the last ten years far better than an Objectivist, legalist, theocentrist, or other social ethic would.
While as a believer in a theistic God, I feel that all persons should come to accept the Two Commandments as the operative principles of their ethics, I do not think that I have any grounds for demanding this of anyone, with two exceptions: (1) All Christians, who are by their own words committed to following the mandate of Him Who propounded them as their Lord, and (2) thoroughgoing Hillelist Jews, Hillel having summarized the Torah with those two commandments some years before Jesus gave them the force of fundamental Law to us Jeezers. For us, it’s specific instruction from an authority we acknowledge, and anybody (in those groups) who fails to do it deserves to be taken to task for failing to do his duty.
I would encourage Muslims, Baha’is, deists, Vedantic Hindus, urtheist Neopagans, and other theists to follow them. And agnostics, atheists, hedonists, polytheists, and others to follow the Second Law. But I have no right, by the application of the law to myself, to expect it of them.
Without exception.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Eep! Wording error crept into my post.
In the passage on political philosophy, the line “as against other persons’ rights to deprive them of them” should have been “as against other persons’ attempts…” What I said, as opposed to what I meant, was a total misnomer that would no doubt have led us down a fascinating hijack.
“Truth” as in pointing out errors or non-sequitors in [a particular] religion’s “word” OR any other logical deconstruction of [that] religion. “Unity” as in not pointing The NEGATIVE EVIDENCE out so the social group could have cohesion.
Example: Suppose a social group formed a religion today. Then I came along in 1000 years and found evidence that the religion was just made up. However, because of this religion, people are actually nice to one another and have strong community ties. Would it be “right” to disclose the fakery of the founders of this religion or would it be “right” to, for the sake of social unity, keep that information private?
Poly I don’t have objections to the word examine as long as it includes seriously considering the possibilty that your beliefs could be incorrect.
That’s what I mean by ‘question’. It doesn’t mean you decide that they are definitely wrong, just that you seriously consider the possiblity.
I’m thinking that this question might be a good test to see if people are the sort of Christians who I can respect. It’s, at least, an indicator.
Strangely, I did this twice. I guess that makes me a boomerang! 
Just because you question your beliefs doesn’t mean the answer will always be, “They are wrong.”
Only twice? Admittedly, I only questioned the beliefs I had been raised with three or four times. But then I decided they were false and came up with new beliefs. I then questioned THOSE beliefs repeatedly, changing them and refining them on a regular basis.
Are you saying you decided the beliefs you were raised with were false and then eventually decided that they were right? And then never questioned them again?
I think both Lib and Poly need to rethink the meaning of the word “question”.
Well, since I am a Christian and other Christians tell me what I believe several times a month, at least, I must admit I question my beliefs fairly frequently. I ask for understanding often. I pray for insight, and think long and hard about the right thing to do, to be true to my faith. Becoming a Christian didn’t give me all the answers for living a life. But I do not doubt my faith.
Tris
" It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure." ~ Horace ~
Nah. That’s what you said, not what I said. I thought you meant major, epochal periods of questioning and discovery, where you’re consumed by the task, not the day-to-day stuff that we all do.
I go through periods of time where I’m consumed by the task of questioning and discovery three or four times a year. I often have to take some time off work. I also get involved with debates like this one mostly for the opportunity to closely examine some small aspect of my philosophy. Before I discovered these debates on line, I used to have to do the questioning and discovery thing much more often. These periods of self involvement only take a few days unless I actually make a significant change in my worldview at which point I have to go on autopilot at work for sometimes months.
JAB: Point taken.
I agree that one should question one’s beliefs. There’s an old adage that “any god that can be killed should be,” and (apart from the Crucifixion implication) I tend to agree.
I objected to the term only since for me it had a negative connotation – which I now see exists only for me (and perhaps Lib., considering where we’ve gone with this.)
All of which illuminates the Truth/Unity question, and I would have to stand wholeheartedly on the side of Truth – noting that simplistic literalism (in any faith) is not a requirement except in the construction of straw men. Contemplate haggadistic teachings in Judaism – even Gaudere has used it to illustrate a point.