Contemptus mundi

Annie. :waiting:

[Sheherezade]

This is an interesting philosophical question, IMO. I've always wondered when beliefs held by many become abosolutes. As in "Thou shall not kill" - or in modern times "Pedophilia is bad". Who says? I think that when a belief is held by the vast majority of people in a culture, it becomes a moral law. When it's held by a smaller majority, it's just custom.

It's an interesting question. Where do our absolutes come from? And, how have they changed over time? Being a "witch" was once worthy of burning. Now, it's wicca cool. Is this normal change? Can any standard change?

I don't like others to force their beliefs on me, but I do respect that they feel they are doing the right thing. It's a conundrum. When a Jehovah's Witness comes to the door, I have trouble turning them away because I feel they have good intentions and good in their heart. Still.....I'm not buying right now. If they really are "saving" people (and I found this out later), would I re-evaluate their efforts? I might feel they should have tried even harder.

I'm not Catholic. I follow a religion of one, so I'm not sure I have any place in this debate. Still, I appreciate the thread. It should be fun to read. (With a glass of wine, of course....)

[pstone]

I just want to say I think witches are 'cool' now only because people as a giagantic majority don't believe in magic.

I think they used to be burned because magic was something still 'possible' Now they are just people who played to much Dungeons and Dragons because it really would be cool to cast lightning bolt on all these horrible moderates...

If you are looking for a debate intermission, have you seen the title by his daughter?

I edited my post from before. I largely agree with:

Yet I don't believe choices I don't agree with should be forced upon me. Tolerance and financially endorsing are two different beast. It swings both ways.

But I'm sure that as I read the responses, there will be situations this applies to that change my mind.

I don't think it takes away from the quote you posted, I thought it was an interesting aside. Going back to my cave at the foothills of Mt. Waffle.

Sorry for the hijack. Carry on.

Annie - it's a great topic / well-posed question. I've been trying to come up with an appropriately phrased response over the past couple of days ... to no avail.

I know what I think in my head, but I can't clearly get it out on the computer.

[Sheherezade]

The question is what dictates our private morality, thereby ruling the public morality. "What is good?" as Socrates asked.

I'm sorry no one else will play. I'm still in.

I'm not sure. I'd think it was a circular issue. I've acquired my values/morals from my own parents and culture. I participate in the current culture and pass on what I've learned to my children. Conversations like the one about gay marriage have the potential to change cultural standards -- and those what is considered "moral" over time. I think that's why the debates seem so threatening.

They are important. Even if we can't put our finger on why the issue gives us pause, we sense that the decisions have large ramifications in our society.

For me, I think that morality has "evolved" over time. I'm not sure that's what's supposed to happen....but I'm not privy to the plan. I do think that is what HAS happened and will continue to happen. We all play a part.

I'll play, don't hold it against me



"No, Tony dear, contemptus mundi, means 'detachment from the world,'
************************************************** **********


Well it depends on what one defines as "the world". I think to many Christians it means the degrading desires of each person that should not be embraced. Just because one "becomes a Christian" does not mean that they are not part of "the world", or contribute to it. The "degrading desires" affects all, alcoholism, drug addiction, thoughts of murder, deceitfulness.... I could go on but I think I made my point. So to not accept "the world" in this sense can make sense to even the non religous (guess I'll find out huh ) It's not good for society to accept murder if one doesn't like another person, as acceptable and ok. I think most people feel this way, but attribute where they get these values from differant places.

But as far as having an opinion about someone that God sustains, yes we are to have laws in place and can judge to a point. If we did not have laws, morals, ethics in place for a natural rule of society then we would have mayheim. I mean many people just don't care for the rules, and need to be forced to embrace them. Now how far do we carry this into another person's life, that certainly is debatable.

But I will say I frustrate at the extreme liberal thought of embracing everyones idea, except for the fundamentalist Christian for they are backwards. I'm a Christian, probably a moderate politically, and listen to NPR everyday, and I see this hypocrisy often, and wish it wasn't so. It's just as bad as the religous person who see's that one wearing pants as a woman is wrong and if you don them that hence makes you a fallen heathen. (as such was my middle school *insert shudder* )

[PrincessFiona]

Sadly...my brain is no longer functioning at a high enough level to join in on this debate

I will agree that our society has become more individualistic, and I think that as a result we are more socially isolated...hence the surge in message forum use *ahem*....at least for me. Actually (and this is so far off topic), I feel like I have to send my kids to KidStop after school just for them to have friends to play with anymore. Our playgrounds are empty, the swingsets in people's backyards remain unused...they just are there for decoration....

As a society, what we value is no longer really family or community..it is self. Self-gratification....individual happiness..individual wealth and health. We don't care if our neighbor lost his health insurance in the middle of his bone marrow transplant as long as it didn't happen to us...we don't want to sacrifice anything to have some type of universal healthcare. It doesn't matter if the divorced mom of 3 gets no alimony and minimal child support...we don't want there to be any type of social net that we have to pay for out of our tax dollars to help her train in a job that she can support herself at...as long as it doesn't happen to US.

We are not apathetic...we are willfully selfish.

Do people use religion as a tool to judge? Yes....but I dont' get how the concept of liberalism or progression can be seen as a means of not giving a damn...at least in the *liberal* point of view there would be basic health care for all.... The problem that I have with the *religious right* (which, btw I only use to include those who believe that God chose "W"...not every Christian who happens to be a republican...just for clarity) is that christianity espouses a love for fellow man...forgiveness, ministering to the sinners, putting people above things. Many of the republican ideas are not really compatible with a truly christian viewpoint. Would Jesus have advocated to end welfare, to punish with the electric chair, to deny healthcare coverage to the poor? Would he have valued stock profits over pension plans????

kris

[Sheherezade]

I think that the religious right is a political construct more than a theological one. Not all people that are religious are "religious right" - but sometimes the two get lumped together. Honestly, I think people are just too damn busy (or selfish with their time) to think about it. We all use shorthand to determing "who" a person is instead of getting to know --legitimately -- "who" they are. That takes too much time. SO.....if you are religious, I decide what assumptions I can make about you. It's not a good system. It's a form of prejudice.....and all our old forms are still active in many people's minds.

I also agree that liberalism can be seen as "lazy" because sometimes respecting other's viewpoints can mean that you don't want to take the time to turn them around to yours. (Of course, then you'd be forcing your beliefs on others -- but if it's what you believe and it's important, shouldn't you want to convince others?)

It's a conundrum. I see it this way: We all make judgements about the actions of others/ourselves based on our own belief system. When my Jehovah's Witness comes to the door, she believes she is inviting my to be saved. Through her mission, I will see the word of God and be saved. That's honorable. She believes it is right/good/necessary. I think she's misguided and tolerate her. Meanwhile......DH often works with Jehovah's Witness patients. They don't believe in receiving blood products during surgery. He does "bloodless surgery" with them, but if something horrible happened, he'd give them blood because he believes that is the right/good/necessary thing. They tolerate this belief in him -- and think that he is misguided. So.....it depends on your stance. Absolute right? We all know what we think to be true -- or we don't. None of us can truly know the absolute. We just believe. If our truths require us to interfere with the free will of others, then the problem is intractable. There is no good answer.

Annie, you've raised this forum to a new standard.

[PrincessFiona]

Unrestricted abortions, embryonic stem cell research, erasing the ideal of both a mother and father. I think all these liberal ideals devalue life. Someone's life. Someone's life is not worth a damn. That's what I was getting at. I don't think Christ would vote for any of these either.

And I guess this is where I also think that the idea that these are liberal ideals is what pushes christians into the democratic party.

Would it be great if we had a world without abortions? yes...but what about cases of rape, incest or terrible deformity to the child? Republicans don't want abortion to be an option but they also don't want to earmark tax dollars to families who by no guilt of their own have a child who is completely dependent on them for all healthcare, physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc. Embryonic Stem Cell Research may be an ethical quagmire, BUT then we would have to basically put an end to in vitro etc. I certainly would not be willing to propose that...but the republicans on the side of no stem cell research are ok with throwing a clump of cells (a life) into an incinerator/garbage but not with using those cells for research. Let's not get carried away by assuming that they are advocating the ending of a life that isn't already over.

This is a common misconception...that liberals don't care about life. That's not true...but until the republicans come up with other solutions then this divide will always exist.

I'm not excited about the idea of a college student partying it up, getting pregnant and having an abortion...but it should be safe and legal for the mom carrying a baby with a fatal deformity, for a mom who gets cancer while she's pregnant and doesn't want to risk inflicting serious harm (that could potentially result in a life not really worth living) to a baby or whose chances of survival depend on getting treatment and not being pregnant. I think that many republicans like to act like abortion is a filppant decision that peopke take lightly. I don't think it is.

Wanting to do Stem Cell Research to help find cures and treatments for horrible diseases is something that should be considered *christian*. It is absolutely in the "caring about life" category......Somehow the twisted logic has become "it is better to throw the fertilized eggs that will never be implanted into the trash than to use them as a cell line to pontentially find a cure for a horrible degenerative disease...." And really, let's be honest...if Bush were to develop Parkinsons and thought that a cure might be found in stem cells, he'd find a way to make it a republican issue...it's human nature.

None of these issues are black and white and drawing a line in the sand and proclaiming them "radical right" or "lefty liberal" only intensifies the struggle.

kris

ps...obviously if I've said anything that offends anyone or steps on anyone's individual issues it was completely unintentional as I would never want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[Sheherezade]

I think the problems that Kris mentions are the type of problems that led the founding fathers to leave religion out of government. These are tough calls that differ across different faiths. Better to leave some things between man and God instead of man and court?

Of course, clearly some "morals" are laws as well. Murder is illegal - and immoral. Adultery used to be illegal as well as immoral (still is in some countries). This takes us back to the evolution of morality question. Right or wrong, morality as law has changed and will change over time. Morality within the church may stay the same, but the law in a country of many faiths will alter over time.

Yes I totally agree with many points above. I *HATE* that if I tell someone I'm a strong Christian, that many think my view points are because loud mouth Dr. Dobson, and the like told me to have that view point. Not that because I've thought them out myself and actually come to my point all on my own and from a differant point anyway. I hate that liberals are called progressive. I got seriously offended a few months back about this as I see myself as a progressive person, but not liberal per say. Just to find out liberal = progressive because of politcal history (i.e. the progessive party), not because someone was putting me down. Talk about embarressing But seriously isn't this totally stupid. I don't believe in abortion unless the mom's life is at risk. I believe that God still has control of life and if someone was born via rape that that child conceived has a purpose in life that I can't imagine and was allowed by God for a reason. But I believe it's the Republican's biggest sin to not get universal health coverage for all, to not help unwed mothers more, to educate mothers better ( breast is best, not breast is best here's your free formula now that your baby is here, formula is a choice for women but many uneducated women don't see how much better BF is vs FF, and then make the choice on what works for them, AND to support the BF mom who goes back to work at Wal-Mart at 4 weeks pp, so she can pump....argh....SO not fair, AND the bathroom is NOT a sutable plan to pump babies next feeding!!! total rant I'm coming back to my point really) I think it's HORRIBLE that there is not a formal champain for adoption to bring down the abortion numbers further, and help infertile couples who don't want to adopt abroad.

Sigh....as I get older I realize I'm not liberal or right winged, I'm in the middle, and there is not politcal show for my type. If I hear Diane Rehm have yet another anti Bush show I'm gonna go crazy, if you are going to be a political show then call it up front.... another rant

Ok>>> I'm done, I think

Another rant, on another long debate about hot topic issues I found that people who called me intollerant and other such names, in another post said that they could never marry a person who thought differantly than them and respect them So just exactly how is the world sappose to grow and learn if you won't even love someone differant than you. Say's the woman married to a non-Christian and fairly liberal man.

[Bluejay]

This debate has raised alot of good questions. I think it's so important to acknowledge that the answer could be "I don't know."

As religious people it's so easy to believe that you DO know, or that you SHOULD know, or that somehow, something is wrong if you DON'T know. I like how we've brought out lots of stereotypes toward religion. Some of the negative stereotypes could have been perpetuated by people just giving kneejerk answers to what are really multi-faceted situations. Anyways, it's lots of good food for thought.

[mommax3]

Again quoting goofy:

Absolute right? We all know what we think to be true -- or we don't. None of us can truly know the absolute. We just believe.

I thought this was so interesting because I truly believe I know the absolute, in that I seek to know God, who is absolute by definition.....at least *my* definition. But in seeking to know God better, you run up against some hard things! "What would Jesus do?" is almost a cliche, at least in circles I am familiar with, with WWJD on wristbands, etc. But if you read the Bible and really look at what he said and did, there isn't a politician out there who can claim he's got the inside track, and there never will be, because Jesus did not seek political change, he was about changing people from the inside out. I guess that is why (although I definitely have my opinions ) I don't get too excited about politics......I don't see any real answers for the ills of society in a politician's platform.

Sally