still here. still working it through.

[kevin]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

sure.

the quaker answer is always to encourage reliance on faith.

that's always been my approach. but it has limits.

[kevin]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

Because that's what figments of your imagination do?

garja, you may be right. why might your answer be more reasonable than the one in the post just above this?

[kevin]

kiahanie, you have addressed important points. the following statement is the critical one:

if my measure of the Light tells me that throwing gay men off the rooftops is Good, then how can anyone else justifiably impose a different idea on me?

I don't capitalize Good, and I don't know how you would handle that situation, but I have no problem interfering with behavior that crosses the boundaries of my moral foundation.

(bolding mine)

what you are saying is that you don't have a problem with imposing your beliefs about right and wrong upon people who disagree. therefore your beliefs must be superior, in your mind, to theirs. you have established a universal measure of right and wrong by your actions.

That foundation is based on the experience and consequent belief that there is That Within each of us that is shared by all others. This is supplemented by the observation that this planet (I don't know about the rest of the universe) seems very life-friendly. A  life of harmony in the Light seems to require that I also support life, that I support those things that nurture life and oppose those things destructive to a fulfilling life.

i agree that your beliefs about living in harmony with the Light are what might be called Good. there is no difficulty with this until you try to impose your beliefs on other people, by interfering with the free practice of their own interpretation of the Light. people who disagree with what you and i might call good are everywhere. should we suppress them?

note that if you state that self-determination of one's own beliefs must be respected, that you have created a moral system that is universal, based on self-determination.

I wouldn't have any problem trying to prevent anyone from throwing anyone off a rooftop.  Would you?

d
yes.

i absolutely would not have a problem throwing someone off a rooftop, if i thought that it was right to do so. and i would help others to throw people off rooftops, and i would try to prevent anyone from interfering.

to do otherwise would be to do wrong, and my life is focused on doing right.

do you see that?

my question here is in determining right and wrong in the absence of god-given morality, and so far, i'm not seeing anything.

[Garja]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

Because that's what figments of your imagination do?

garja, you may be right. why might your answer be more reasonable than the one in the post just above this?

Because it requires no "faith", no leaps at shadows or interpreting tea leaves. It's just an objective look at reality. It's an acknowledgment that the "problem of evil" is only a problem if God exists- if he doesn't it's just a useless bit of mental gymnastics to attempt to justify a belief that APPEARS unjustifiable (in that it reacts and is subject to the same laws that seem to govern false claims about reality)

[kevin]

so you are saying that evil is not real?

or do you mean something else?

[kevin]

i absolutely would not have a problem throwing someone off a rooftop, if i thought that it was right to do so. and i would help others to throw people off rooftops, and i would try to prevent anyone from interfering.

kiahanie, when i answered your question i misunderstood the sense of its affirmation, and my response was unclear.

the statement above explains my beliefs about throwing people off rooftops.

[Case]

so kevin do you still consider yourself to be a Conservative Friend? Post-Conservative? Other?

[kevin]

there have always been atheists in my monthly meeting. plus, crystal-twiddlers, universalists, people who discount scripture, and so on. so i'm still part of the mainstream, and have no intention of leaving as of now.

the Conservatives are unique, in that they aren't conservative, and arguably reflect traditional quakerism better than the other branches.

[Case]

Hmmm, yes, if I became an atheist I would probably try to remain with my faith community as well.

[kevin]

lol

the gurneyites out here would throw you out

you have to sign a contract about what you believe to join an evangelical friends church

[Case]

I already made a public profession of faith, making me a member of the church. I'm not sure what would happen if I became an atheist. I don't think they would revoke my membership but probably would discourage me from leadership roles and participating in the Lord's Supper. Also I wouldn't be able to make the necessary affirmations to get another child baptized.

My wife is not a believer and she is welcomed and included there.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

sure.

the quaker answer is always to encourage reliance on faith.

that's always been my approach. but it has limits.

Faith is required, yes.  Sometimes faith may be all you have to see you through, but there are other considerations.  For example, what I am asking is are you making God wait on you?  Has he tried to lead you somewhere you are reluctant to go?  Has he tried to teach you something that you are reluctant to learn?  Are you living a sin?

Just don't give up Kevin.  Presevere in prayer.  Search the [Christian] scriptures for answers.  If I can help you in any way, I will, but I am no spiritual giant.  This is one of the times that I wish I were so that I would know exactly what to do.

Please consider some association with local Witnesses.  Perhaps have a Bible study with them or attend some of their meetings.  They have helped me through more than one tough time.
 

[kevin]

its not a problem, jst. quakerism is experiential, rather than revealed, so if nothing is happening then the possibility must be considered that nothing will.

im not in any distress about this. its simply the next chapter in my own life. maybe the last one, maybe not. but thank you for offering help.

on the witnesses, ive sat with them tbrough most of A home bible study program. i like the way they try to back up their beliefs with evidence from their preferred sources, but to my way of thinking theyre too selective about what they choose to ignore from them. their position on the christian canon is a good example of that.

[Meat]

Welcome to the team Kevin. :D

[Garja]

so you are saying that evil is not real?

or do you mean something else?

Something else. "Evil" exists certainly, even though I'm pretty sure most people think they are doing the right thing when thy do things most people think are evil. Hell, I think Hitler probably believed most of what he was saying- but I doubt he saw himself or his legacy as the 20th century's boogeyman.

But in a naturalistic world evil makes sense. In a world that doesn't have an overarching architect that is supposedly instilling an objective morality into our conciencness- the fact that people are selfish is no surprise. The fact that children die horribly is no surprise, that people are tortured, brutalized, and taken advantage of makes sense. In a world without a creator flesh eating bacteria makes perfect sense. Parasites that exist in waterways purely for their need to swim up another animals urethra where it can then eat it's way out- makes sense.

These things existing in a world where an all-powerful loving God exists.... Makes that God either non existent or criminally negligent.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Evil would also exist if the god of this world is evil.  The bible calls this god Satan. 

[Case]

Yet Garja's point remains. Even if the god of this world were evil, the more powerful God above them still permits them to reign.

[Garja]

Yet Garja's point remains. Even if the god of this world were evil, the more powerful God above them still permits them to reign.

^that

And that's why it's the "problem" of evil in theology. It's not a problem in non-theism because there's no presumption of an all powerful all-good deity, it's just that sometimes people are assholes, and sometimes things develop into an ecological niche that happens to cause others pain.

[Kiahanie]

"Evil" really should be used only as an adjective. In that sense I believe evil processes exist. As a stand-alone entity? Nope.

[Garja]

"Evil" really should be used only as an adjective. In that sense I believe evil processes exist. As a stand-alone entity? Nope.

Yeah, I mean it's an attribute we ascribe to people's actions or to circumstances if I'm feeling.... More poetic

[Kiahanie]

kiahanie, you have addressed important points. the following statement is the critical one:

if my measure of the Light tells me that throwing gay men off the rooftops is Good, then how can anyone else justifiably impose a different idea on me?

I don't capitalize Good, and I don't know how you would handle that situation, but I have no problem interfering with behavior that crosses the boundaries of my moral foundation.

(italics mine)

Thank you. I had intended to italicize it myself.

what you are saying is that you don't have a problem with imposing your beliefs about right and wrong upon people who disagree.

Again, I disagree that I am imposing my beliefs on anyone. Just trying to adjust their behavior. Nonviolently. Using appropriate available personal, social, political, economic, educational tools and processes.

therefore your beliefs must be superior, in your mind, to theirs.

"Therefore my beliefs must be superior"????? No, not at all. It's just they're the only ones I have. If I find potentially better candidates I would check them out, but in the meantime I'm not going to be morally paralyzed.

you have established a universal measure of right and wrong by your actions.

My beliefs are what they are, what Light I may have access to is what it is. My lit path is all I have to walk on (well, all I should be walking on). My actions do not determine right or wrong for anybody else. I have not established any universal measure: I guide myself by my own beliefs, and acknowledge the right of others to do it too. The differences I hope to work out in negotiation.

i agree that your beliefs about living in harmony with the Light are what might be called Good. there is no difficulty with this until you try to impose your beliefs on other people, by interfering with the free practice of their own interpretation of the Light. people who disagree with what you and i might call good are everywhere. should we suppress them?

No, I do not suggest "suppressing" people, although I regard some behaviors as needing suppression (murder an extreme example, war being another). We can, however, work to change behavior through peer pressure, social consensus, the economic/political system.

note that if you state that self-determination on one's own beliefs must be respected, that you have created a moral system that is universal, based on self-determination.

"Must be respected"???? "Must" as in "required"??? Not at all. All I said is what my own values are, how I behave. The world can respect them or not.

i absolutely would not have a problem throwing someone off a rooftop, if i thought that it was right to do so. and i would help others to throw people off rooftops, and i would try to prevent anyone from interfering.

kiahanie, when i answered your question i misunderstood the sense of its affirmation, and my response was unclear.

the statement above explains my beliefs about throwing people off rooftops.

Thank you. I think I understand now. I also think I may have overspoke. In the unlikely event I should think it the right thing that particular individual be extecumated, I also would not interfere; and if in the even less likely event I thought it right to do so, I would help you do it. There was a time when I thought summary execution was an appropriate activity. Nowadays we may need to negotiate the implementations of our different moral values there on the rooftop.

my question here is in determining right and wrong in the absence of god-given morality, and so far, i'm not seeing anything.

"Right and wrong" only makes sense when used in reference to a value system (or ethical/legalistic structure). There are non-theists who see a "moral structure" to the universe, and seek to hang their hat on that. I am not one of those. I don't see any of that, I don't see a god around providing morality tips, I do not see moral structure in the universe. I have to do it "on my own" through guidance from the Light and with the help of my communities, particularly Friends, and the experiences of those in the past who have walked paths of Light.

I have nothing to offer a person who wants a universal or absolute moral framework. We all create our own, either actively or passively. My moral framework is:

x-axis:  the experience of shared access to That Within which not only connects us to each other, but also offers Light to examine the dark corners within, external processes without, and the interplay between the two.

(My discomfort right now is that while I can still participate in that connection, I am no longer receiving leadings from it. As you note, running on autopilot or old maps can last only so long. Aimless blundering about the landscape is dangerous for all concerned.)

y-axis: the observation that this is a life-nurturing and life-affirming planet.

z-axis: acceptance of sole responsibility and accountability for my actions.

I choose my morality and freely choose to bind myself to it. Should another person choose my version? Or even accept my world-view? I can't say. As you mentioned, an unqualified "should" kinda implies an absolute (or "locally absolute") morality. I can only offer the descriptive bromide that we all work with what we've got. What else can we do?

That may be a harsh transition for someone who has become accustomed to living in a world where moral absolutes exist. I have never made that transition, and I do not envy those who must.

Traveler, there is no path.
The path is made by walking.
Traveler, the path is your tracks
And nothing more.
Traveler, there is no path
The path is made by walking.
By walking you make a path
And turning, you look back
At a way you will never tread again
Traveler, there is no road
Only wakes in the sea.?

--- Antonio Machado, Border of a Dream: Selected Poems[/size]

[kevin]

Something else. "Evil" exists certainly, even though I'm pretty sure most people think they are doing the right thing when thy do things most people think are evil. Hell, I think Hitler probably believed most of what he was saying- but I doubt he saw himself or his legacy as the 20th century's boogeyman.

garja, you say that hitler was evil, but probably didn't know it. is it possible that hitler was actually good, and it's you that is evil but don't know it?

[kevin]

kiahanie, you provided an excellent and comprehensive answer. i don't want to complicate the exchange of ideas, so i'll just point out some things and then ask a question at the end.

Again, I disagree that I am imposing my beliefs on anyone. Just trying to adjust their behavior. Nonviolently. Using appropriate available personal, social, political, economic, educational tools and processes.

i misspoke. you're not trying to impose your beliefs, rather, you're trying to conform their lives to your beliefs.

No, I do not suggest "suppressing" people, although I regard some behaviors as needing suppression (murder an extreme example, war being another). We can, however, work to change behavior through peer pressure, social consensus, the economic/political system.

but you are suppressing their ability to follow their moral imperatives without explaining what gives you the right or obligation to do so. why change them at all? what's the problem? why do some behaviors "need suppression?" on what basis do they need it?

I have nothing to offer a person who wants a universal or absolute moral framework. We all create our own, either actively or passively.

kiahanie, you have already said that you would impose your own moral framework on someone who didn't agree with it. that requires a universal moral framework-- you have decided that yours is the one that should be in effect, not his, whether he agrees or not.

I choose my morality and freely choose to bind myself to it. Should another person choose my version? Or even accept my world-view? I can't say. As you mentioned, an unqualified "should" kinda implies an absolute (or "locally absolute") morality. I can only offer the descriptive bromide that we all work with what we've got. What else can we do?

That may be a harsh transition for someone who has become accustomed to living in a world where moral absolutes exist. I have never made that transition, and I do not envy those who must.

but you live that transition, kiahanie, and have asserted so in your post, over and over. you believe in moral absolutes, because you are willing to invoke them on other people who do not see them as you do. you believe that it is Right to interfere with another person's free exercise of their moral beliefs, when they don't correspond to your own.

if you are willing to stop an act performed by another acting under their moral imperative, in order to conform the situation to your own moral views, then you have established a universal framework of morality, by definition. if morality is the structure that provides for the discernment  of good and evil, then you have necessarily established their existence and partly defined what good and evil are.

do you see where i'm coming from? i find throwing people off rooftops repugnant, but i have no logical way to reason out my rejection unless i assert that my beliefs can take precedence over those of someone else who disagrees. if i do that, i am implicitly stating that all beliefs are not equal, but that the consequences of mine are better, and the consequences of theirs are worse. i have established a moral system that transcends individual belief, and i have identified good and evil.

this doesn't work for me in the absence of a moral framework superior to the human point of view. how does it work for you?

[Shnozzola]

To interject, this line of reasoning is what you were getting at, Kevin, when you asked me about Nazis, and whether "love of dominance"  is OK.

I disagree with the view that there is a universal morality.

Since ISIS thinks morality is killing homosexuals, and many in the west think it is repugnant, that tells me there is no universal morality. One can see this in society vs society all over the world.   ISIS's sincere considered morality, doing what I look at as 180 degrees opposite of my morality, says it right there.  They hope human society adopts their morality.

Actually, floating outside the earth and watching, eating popcorn perhaps, an objective watcher would think, hmmm, I wonder which evolving human morality society will adopt?   

The only reason one group's view can be thought to take precedence over another groups view is that evolving sense of right and wrong.  Drawing and quartering human beings was once thought to be respected, just morality.

[kevin]

. . . and if i believe that drawing and quartering your children for my amusement is entertaining, do you have grounds for objecting?

if so, on what basis?

added

my point to you is to enquire as to whether a moral rule has been abrogated when i draw and quarter y
our children.

is it okay with you thst i do that?

if you object, why should i, or anybody, care?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yet Garja's point remains. Even if the god of this world were evil, the more powerful God above them still permits them to reign.

But noone has shown that means, and can only mean, there is no God.

Consider an anology.  In the story of the prodigal son, was the father unloving for permitting his son to leave his loving care?

[Garja]

Something else. "Evil" exists certainly, even though I'm pretty sure most people think they are doing the right thing when thy do things most people think are evil. Hell, I think Hitler probably believed most of what he was saying- but I doubt he saw himself or his legacy as the 20th century's boogeyman.

garja, you say that hitler was evil, but probably didn't know it. is it possible that hitler was actually good, and it's you that is evil but don't know it?

I don't think so. I base morality on a principle of harm. Do your actions cause harm or through your inaction allow harm to befall someone else? Then there's a good chance the thing you are doing isn't a "good" thing. There are of course situations where causing harm is the moral thing, but those are rare- and are USUALLY preventing harm elsewhere- so it's a question of doing the least harm to the fewest people.

[Garja]

Yet Garja's point remains. Even if the god of this world were evil, the more powerful God above them still permits them to reign.

But noone has shown that means, and can only mean, there is no God.

Consider an anology.  In the story of the prodigal son, was the father unloving for permitting his son to leave his loving care?

That doesn't hold though, and I've always said that the options are 1. God doesn't exist, 2. God is an asshole. I just tried not to do it in this thread because calling God an asshole tends to derail conversation. Further, I'd wager there's nothing else in your life you base on a precept of "well this hasn't been disproven therefore this will be the most important thing in my life". It's a pretty fallacious argument JST

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yet Garja's point remains. Even if the god of this world were evil, the more powerful God above them still permits them to reign.

But noone has shown that means, and can only mean, there is no God.

Consider an anology.  In the story of the prodigal son, was the father unloving for permitting his son to leave his loving care?

That doesn't hold though, and I've always said that the options are 1. God doesn't exist, 2. God is an asshole. I just tried not to do it in this thread because calling God an asshole tends to derail conversation. Further, I'd wager there's nothing else in your life you base on a precept of "well this hasn't been disproven therefore this will be the most important thing in my life". It's a pretty fallacious argument JST

You did not answer the question and made a strawman about why I believe in God.  I admit, if that is why I believed in God that would be fallacious.  It is a good thing that is not why I believe in God then.  Can you show me anywhere I have said that I believe in God because he's not been disproven, as if that's even a possibility?

Isn't it fallacious reasoning to reject the existense of God simply because you don't know him?

 

[Shnozzola]

. . . and if i believe that drawing and quartering your children for my amusement is entertaining, do you have grounds for objecting?

Yes, based on the rules current society has evolved to.

if so, on what basis?

Only the rules current society has evolved to.

added

my point to you is to enquire as to whether a moral rule has been abrogated when i draw and quarter y
our children.

only the moral rule society has adopted about drawing and quartering children

is it okay with you thst i do that?

not with society's current rules.

if you object, why should i, or anybody, care?

because we live by the current rules of society.

First, there is no rule throughout the universe that drawing and quartering children is forbidden.  Furthermore, let's say the wise, just, and courteous presidential candidate Donald Trump, wins the day.  He hires an army to enforce his plans.  And the first rule he gets congress to pass, is the drawing and quartering of all children at the age of 4.  Many people object, according to society's current mores, but that becomes the law, enforced by the D and Q army.  But one by one, countries around the world agree, or are forced to agree, and ALL children at the age of 4 are drawn and quartered.

As people age, and no children worldwide survive pass the age of 4, and surviving adults get past the age of child-bearing, and, with the new strict morality, no new human beings are produced.  Finally, the last people die.  The earth is quiet from any morality involving humans.  Evolution has removed us.  There never was a god to show up, or a morality from the galaxies to forbid the law that Donald Trump put into place.  But, after several million more years, surviving chimps, gorillas, whatever, continue to evolve into a type of intelligence that can begin to do things like consider morality.