Originally posted by sonshipTo whom, if anyone, is a fish ultimately accountable? (Replace fish with any living organism of your choosing). - Humans are of course different from other creatures, but only in that we, as a species, are highly evolved with arguably unique intellectual capabilities. This may indeed give us a 'sense' of responsibility and accountability (whether that's to the planet, family, fellow man etc) but take away that unique intelligence and we are back to the same accountability of a fish. We're born, we die, no strings attached.
Finnegen, [b] who ultimately will hold me responsible ?
This is a simple question. I don't think it calls for a dazzling review of the history of philosophy.
To whom am I ultimately responsible ? Anyone? Someone with limited authority or unlimited authority ?
Just myself ?
Just society ?
Just man ?
Which man then ? Hegel or Hugh He ...[text shortened]... or Oprey ? googlefudge or Socrates ?
To whom, if anyone, will I ultimately be accountable ?[/b]
I get that 'accountability to God' would give a sense of justice to creation, but that doesn't make it factual. A Hindu could just as easily argue that it is 'reincarnation' that gives this sense of justice and that our accountability is tied up in our Karma.
Originally posted by sonshipDo you believe that, by asking the question "To whom am I ultimately responsible ?" you have established that there is, in fact, a person (or some such) to whom we are, in fact, "ultimately responsible" and that, if the answer is "no one", then you will have identified or uncovered some kind of ultimate irresponsibility?
To whom am I ultimately responsible ?
3 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour theory of truth seems to be contingent on what the truth claim rests on. If the truth claim (e.g. "The Higgs Boson exists in nature.".) rests on empirical evidence then you categorize it as relatively true - I think I prefer the term "contingently true" as the truth test is imperfect and the correctness of the truth claim is contingent on the truth test not failing. In the case of the Higgs the truth test is an event counting threshold - that the probability that the result could have come about by chance is 1 in 500 million does not mean that the result didn't come about by chance and that really the Higgs doesn't exist after all. In your model absolute truth depends on a perfect truth test.
relative truth --supported by observation or samples as evidence.
Absolute truth--an axiom, like "two points determine a straight line".
"In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context. The absolute in the term connotes one or more of: a quality of truth that cannot be exceeded; complete truth; unvarying ...[text shortened]... ie in this material world. Even the Star that powers our planet will die and there is no escape.
I think the problem with your position is that, as finnegan has noted this leaves us with nothing but logical tautologies and mathematical theorems as "absolutely true". Suppose God does exist and sets moral truth, we only have empirical or testamentary evidence of what "canonical morality" is. So even if we accept moral realism, when one could treat ethics as an empirical science and have theories of it compared with nature, then the theories would have the same status as other scientific theories and be contingent on a non-absolute truth test.
What I'm getting at is that even moral realism is true, our knowledge of what is moral is contingent on imperfect truth tests so we are left with what you term relative truth in that matter.
5 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
To whom, if anyone, is a fish ultimately accountable?
I was speaking of a human being. I was not referring to a fish or a caterpillar or another animal. What kind of escape hatch is this from considering the human question ?
(Replace fish with any living organism of your choosing).
Maybe we differ. I consider a MAN to be different in this regard from a fish or ANY OTHER animal. Are you going to draw me away now into a debate about the difference ?
Shouldn't it be easy to realize that the question pertains to HUMAN BEINGS ?
NO, I did not say animals are insignificant. I said the question of responsibility about is pertaining to a man, a human being - man or woman of course.
Humans are of course different from other creatures, but only in that we, as a species, are highly evolved with arguably unique intellectual capabilities.
To whom do you think I am ultimately responsible for the moral, ethically?
This may indeed give us a 'sense' of responsibility and accountability (whether that's to the planet, family, fellow man etc) but take away that unique intelligence and we are back to the same accountability of a fish. We're born, we die, no strings attached.
I think I've got your answer - No one.
I get that 'accountability to God' would give a sense of justice to creation, but that doesn't make it factual.
I think I have obtained at least one man's opinion - yours. I am responsible ultimately to no one. Certain only an illusion or ulterior motive a good feeling is in play.
I am pretty much on the same level as a fish in terms of ultimate accountability.
The moral OUGHT for me is no more than that for a fish, in terms of answering for my actions in any final sense.
.
A Hindu could just as easily argue that it is 'reincarnation' that gives this sense of justice and that our accountability is tied up in our Karma.
So because of that, my conscience is pretty much some kind of extra baggage that need not be taken over seriously. i should just think of my moral accountability as virtually the same as that of a fish.
Certainly, according to you, differences of philosophy render the question just a matter of anyone's imagined preference.
Dasa is not here to speak up for Hinduism any more. But I recall again and again trying to get him to answer a simple question about his reincarnation.
I never got an answer as far as I remember. I asked in essence -
"If you or I come back as something or someone else, that has nothing to do with me now. The responsibility and whatever rewards to that soul are pertaining to THAT soul. The previous one is gone. How is it of any reward or other to ME if I am reincarnated as someone ELSE ? "
To the best of my recollection, Dasa never dealt with this question of mine.
So you point to the reincarnation and the matter of Karma. And you seem to be touting that that is the Hindu's sense of justice and I of course have my Christian view. There are about the same.
This is not a satisfying reply to me. If I am reincarnated as another being, soul, entity,whatever, I am GONE and someone / something ELSE is here. Any benefit that being enjoys or discipline it undergoes has nothing to do with the previous being.
None - whatsoever.
Whatever "Karma" is applied to THAT life pertains to THAT life and not some other.
But I get your basic reply.
Me and the fish - about the same kind of moral responsibility to a final moral authority.
Originally posted by sonshipIt is not a simple question.
Finnegen, [b] who ultimately will hold me responsible ?
This is a simple question. I don't think it calls for a dazzling review of the history of philosophy.
To whom am I ultimately responsible ? Anyone? Someone with limited authority or unlimited authority ?
Just myself ?
Just society ?
Just man ?
Which man then ? Hegel or Hugh He ...[text shortened]... or Oprey ? googlefudge or Socrates ?
To whom, if anyone, will I ultimately be accountable ?[/b]
Responsible for what?
Originally posted by FMFAnd do you consider yourself some kind of "forum enforcer" who remains silent until someone, somewhere crosses the invisible and arbitrary line you've set in your mind, only to come slamming in here so that you can dispense your particular brand of "forum justice", or even better, to confuse them long enough for them to admit their supposed "guilt"?
Do you believe that, by asking the question "To whom am I ultimately responsible ?" you have established that there is, in fact, a person (or some such) to whom we are, in fact, "ultimately responsible" and that, if the answer is "no one", then you will have identified or uncovered some kind of ultimate irresponsibility?
Originally posted by sonshipTo whom, if anyone, is a fish ultimately accountable?
"If you or I come back as something or someone else, that has nothing to do with me now. The responsibility and whatever rewards to that soul are pertaining to THAT soul. The previous one is gone. How is it of any reward or other to ME if I am reincarnated as someone ELSE ? "
So you point to the reincarnation and the matter of Karma. And you seem to be touting that that is the Hindu's sense of justice and I of course have my Christian view. There are about the same.
There is an irony in this remark. Arguably they are indeed much the same. What, in reality, is so different between "reincarnation" and "resurrection?" I could make very similar comments in either case. Admittedly, my main comment in either case would be that it is a fantasy and reflects a failure to deal with death.
But if resurrection is envisaged, I would see very little to connect my present life as a physical, embodied and social being in my specific historical and social context, with the promised afterlife in some weird and unspecified environment in the company of some but not all [and it is hard to predict which] of those connected with my life in diverse ways. It's all a bit mad to my mind. The idea that I can be reconstructed and resume my personal existence in an afterlife is too absurd to take seriously.
If resurrection does take place, it cannot infuse life into any of the actual bones let alone organs of the deceased, all having been reduced to atoms and reconstituted in other forms long before. If a bodily resurrection is envisaged, we are necessarily talking about constructing a new body and inserting into it - presumably - a psychological structure with an identiy identical to that of my previous living self. [I will set aside for another post the question of where we are to locate this resurrected body]
What age will be selected? We will presumably not be resurrected with an average age of 83 or whatever. Old age is already too much like an eternity to tolerate resuming that struggle afresh. Imagine someone who sinned greatly but was saved and then led a saintly life, perhaps becoming a martyr to the one true faith and earning instant salvation. Clearly, care would be required to resurrect the saved and not the fallen version of that person. Imagine one who lived a blameless life until, in great age, temptation led to a terrible fall and merited the worst penalties. Had he died sooner he would have been saved! Would it not seem most just to resurrect the earlier version of that person, who has a long and blameless life, and discard the later section as not worth saving and not necessary anyway? Or must the long and blameless life end with damnation in light of the disastrous circumstances at the end? But of course we will all have seen many versions of our personality through our long lives. Will we be reborn as lustful adolescents or as laughing young innocents? As aggressive young adults ready to make our mark, or as tired old philosophers? What a quandary to know which version to resurrect!
Even if it were conceivable that the resurrected being could be me in any meaningful sense, and we solve the question of what it even means to be me, that process can have no possible relevance to my life now and it certainly does not alter the inevitablility of my death. Alas poor Yorick will be an empty skull in the ground within a brief period of time and that skull will lack any personality whatsoever. If you disagree, go argue with a skull sometime.
The concept of resurrection, like that of reincarnation, refers to a different person in a different world and not to a continuation of the person I am in this life.
We die. Deal with it.
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAgreed. This thread was doomed at the start by fethcmyjunk for labelling it "Absolute Truth" .
Truth is a value we associate with statements if they describe the real world sufficiently accurately. I'm left wondering what an absolute truth is. What is a non-absolute truth?
You see, while I agree that the sentence: "There are no true sentences." is self-contradictory, I do not necessarily agree that the sentence: "There are no absolutely true sentences." is self-contradictory because I don't know what the qualifier "absolutely" is doing.
If anything akin to absolute truth exists it resides in the primordial "cave" of our mind,buzzing away doing it's own thing. As soon as we try to tap into that understanding and try to dress it up with words and "ethics" we immediately lose any meaningful description of the eternal.
The best I have seen the very intelligent come up with is art and poetry. These devices can point a bit more directly and wholistically at "the moon"*. Regardless of this words do fall short in whichever way we would like to imagine.
* in this case 'moon' refers to the zen Buddhist idea that pointing to the moon is not the same as understanding the moon's significance.
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganSome brief reply only I can offer at bed time here.
There is an irony in this remark. Arguably they are indeed much the same. What, in reality, is so different between "reincarnation" and "resurrection?"
I could make very similar comments in either case. Admittedly, my main comment in either case would be that it is a fantasy and reflects a failure to deal with death.
I expect no person "reincarnated" to have the slightest id of their identity in the previous life. I ASKED Dasa about this. He never gave me any impression that he had any rememberance of a past life.
That person of creature, in reincarnation, to GONE. But since you asked, resurrection is YOU coming back. It is absolutely YOU coming up again to settle some unfinished business with God.
Can you see the difference here ?
But if resurrection is envisaged, I would see very little to connect my present life as a physical, embodied and social being in my specific historical and social context, with the promised afterlife in some weird and unspecified environment in the company of some but not all [and it is hard to predict which] of those connected with my life in diverse ways. It's all a bit mad to my mind. The idea that I can be reconstructed and resume my personal existence in an afterlife is too absurd to take seriously.
This is just saying to me "The words of Jesus ? I don't believe that."
But His raising Lazarus calls for me to take Him as someone who knows something about this subject matter. There is with Jesus Christ the evidence that, maybe I should listen more closely.
If resurrection does take place, it cannot infuse life into any of the actual bones let alone organs of the deceased, all having been reduced to atoms and reconstituted in other forms long before.
Technical problems like this we may imagine I consider as "child's play" to God.
We're dealing with God whose knowledge of every single atom in the universe as to its history, is clearly remembered. The fact that we are dealing with God, I think, renders proposed technical difficulties as statements on OUR limitations, but not the Creator's.
If a bodily resurrection is envisaged, we are necessarily talking about constructing a new body and inserting into it - presumably - a psychological structure with an identiy identical to that of my previous living self. [I will set aside for another post the question of where we are to locate this resurrected body]
Jesus raised Lazarus. Do not demand that I explain how. I cannot. But He raised Lazarus. And then Lazarus was with Him and his two sisters having a meal together.
The enemies of Jesus were so incensed that they wanted not only to kill Jesus but to kill Lazarus as well. The testimony of his being resurrected they could not stand.
" Then a great crowd of the Jews found out that He was there, and they came, not because of Jesus only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead.
And the chief priests took counsel to kill Lazarus also, Because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed into Jesus." ( John 12:9-11)
There seemed to be no identity problems with Lazarus. What he remembered about being dead, I utterly do not know. We are not told. But it was the same man. And there was no confusion of identity involved as you seem to predict.
What age will be selected? We will presumably not be resurrected with an average age of 83 or whatever.
I don't know. But we have the testimony of Jesus demonstrating that He had authority to raise men from the dead - on more than one occasion, let alone His OWN resurrection.
The demonstration outweighs to me the concerns for the technical issues we may imagine will present obstacles to God.
Old age is already too much like an eternity to tolerate resuming that struggle afresh. Imagine someone who sinned greatly but was saved and then led a saintly life, perhaps becoming a martyr to the one true faith and earning instant salvation. Clearly, care would be required to resurrect the saved and not the fallen version of that person. Imagine one who lived a blameless life until, in great age, temptation led to a terrible fall and merited the worst penalties. Had he died sooner he would have been saved! Would it not seem most just to resurrect the earlier version of that person, who has a long and blameless life, and discard the later section as not worth saving and not necessary anyway? Or must the long and blameless life end with damnation in light of the disastrous circumstances at the end? But of course we will all have seen many versions of our personality through our long lives. Will we be reborn as lustful adolescents or as laughing young innocents? As aggressive young adults ready to make our mark, or as tired old philosophers? What a quandary to know which version to resurrect!
3 edits
I put no stock in issues which I think will be too difficult for God.
The hope of God being stumped as to how and what to do, holds no promise for me.
I would not put any confidence in our imagination that some issue will be too difficult for God.
This, of necessity though, renders the Christian's response "I don't know" on many things. But if you think about it for a moment, we are dealing with One who called into being a universe out of nothing the limits of which are far beyond our detection.
Should I expect that for such a Creator a technicality will impede His will ? Jesus said "marvel not".
" Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth: those who have done good, to the resurrection
of life, and those who have practiced evil, to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:29)
The "do[ing] good" here is firstly to believe in the Son of God and not reject Him.
Do I have questions about details of a technical nature ? Of course I do.
But I believe that we have a preview of His authority already in the raising of Lazarus, and a few other people in the New Testament. And of course the testimony exists in the resurrection of Christ Himself.
Are there unknowns of a procedural nature? Yes indeed. But we have a demonstration of the power and authority of the Son of God.
Even if it were conceivable that the resurrected being could be me in any meaningful sense,
I see no problem why it could not be.
and we solve the question of what it even means to be me, that process can have no possible relevance to my life now and it certainly does not alter the inevitablility of my death.
I see no issues here.
I see unbelief that God is not able to do this or that.
I believe He remembers, and He is able.
I think His record is infallible and His power is unlimited as that which caused Him to call forth creation to begin with.
The Good News is He is also able to make provision for our Justification.
I think we are dealing with two awesome limitless attributes of God - to redeem eternally and also to recollect with an infallible review the life of one of His creatures.
Alas poor Yorick will be an empty skull in the ground within a brief period of time and that skull will lack any personality whatsoever. If you disagree, go argue with a skull sometime.
Resurrection is after any skull is found in the dirt. It is also after any skull has decomposed or dissolved into dust. These are not problems to God.
David said that God observed all his elements in the ground scattered around even before he was formed in the womb of his mother.
" My frame was not hidden from Yu when I was made in secret, Skillfully fashioned in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; And in your book all of them were written." (Psalm 139:16,17)
We're dealing with God. And before we were born He observed all our substances in the earth. and kept track of them all. We all physically came out of the burning of stars. I expect that every atom of my being God has a complete knowledge of the history thereof.
So in resurrection God has the authority and the power to re-assemble whatever He needs to cause me to stand before Him at the desired time. And every other human being who has ever lived or will live also.
The concept of resurrection, like that of reincarnation, refers to a different person in a different world and not to a continuation of the person I am in this life.
Different world may be involved but not a entirely different thing of soul as I understand reincarnation to mean.
Again. we have the heads up of Christ raising Lazarus, the widow's son, the little girl, and Himself.
We die. Deal with it.
YOU assume ... that by believing the New Testament I am not dealing with it.
From my angle, the one not dealing with it is you.
You're hoping God will be stumped by this or that issue.
You're hoping that after your skull lies in the dust and decomposes, you're absolutely gone.
You're hoping that it is impossible for you to have to give an account of yourself in some distance point in time.
You're hoping that differences with the world at that time render any such meeting irrelevant and meaningless.
And your're hoping that the extent to which this Jesus went for your justification and redemption was unnecessary and superstitious at best.
I don't see Jesus Christ as a man given to self deception or delusion. I feel to take Him seriously. Doing so I fine much, much good news about this final accountability matter.
As for "Deal with it" I think the realism does not lie with disbelief in His words but in belief.
i might add at this late point that I don't think every occurrence of responsibility is the same. Some die as children. And some unknowns certainly are there in the whole matter. I am concerned about the part we have been told of.
Originally posted by sonshipYou didn't quite get my point. I don't think man has the same moral accountability as a fish 'due' to mans ability to reason, empathize etc. Man would only have the same moral accountability of a fish if you took away this ability to reason and empathize. From an atheist's point of view, clearly, I do not see any external source we are accountable to beyond than intellectually based responsibility.To whom, if anyone, is a fish ultimately accountable?
I was speaking of a human being. I was not referring to a fish or a caterpillar or another animal. What kind of escape hatch is this from considering the human question ?
(Replace fish with any living organism of your choosing).
Maybe we differ. I consider a MA ...[text shortened]... ply.
Me and the fish - about the same kind of moral responsibility to a final moral authority.
In regards to the Hindu issue, I recall the thread where you asked Dasa and he failed to answer you. However 'I did' answer you in detail. (Perhaps you never read that reply?) - As a non Hindu I am not greatly inspired to defend or explain the concept of reincarnation, but I will say again here that you really have misunderstood the idea of reincarnation and would urge you to go read up on it a little, if only to prevent future posts of misunderstanding. (I honestly do not mean that as an insult, but if you are going to make comments on reincarnation you should at least understand how the process is meant to work, even if you think the idea itself is nonsense).
For example, more than once you have stated 'If I am reincarnated as another being, soul, entity,whatever, I am GONE and someone / something ELSE is here.' - This is a complete misrepresentation of how a Hindu would explain reincarnation. It is 'THE SAME' soul that is reincarnated. You are not reincarnated as a different being or soul. You are 'NOT GONE' even if you have no memory of your previous life.
Reincarnation is the journey of the 'same soul' as it strives to achieve enlightenment and escape the cycle of rebirth. Reincarnation and karma would be illogical if you simply came back each time as a different soul. Please consider that as you do Hindus a disservice in repeating your misunderstanding.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, I'm just a regular contributor with views and ideas to share with which you often seem to disagree very strongly although you rarely say why exactly.
And do you consider yourself some kind of "forum enforcer" who remains silent until someone, somewhere crosses the invisible and arbitrary line you've set in your mind, only to come slamming in here so that you can dispense your particular brand of "forum justice", or even better, to confuse them long enough for them to admit their supposed "guilt"?
Originally posted by FMFWould you care to share your beliefs? Are you a theist, atheist, agnostic? I may have assumed incorrectly that you are an atheist. Or do you just prefer to attack everyone else's beliefs without trying to defend your own?
No, I'm just a regular contributor with views and ideas to share with which you often seem to disagree very strongly although you rarely say why exactly.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship
Some brief reply only I can offer at bed time here.There is an irony in this remark. Arguably they are indeed much the same. What, in reality, is so different between "reincarnation" and "resurrection?"
I could make very similar comments in either case. Admittedly, my main comment in either case would be that it is a fantasy and r ...[text shortened]... mark, or as tired old philosophers? What a quandary to know which version to resurrect! [/quote]
I expect no person "reincarnated" to have the slightest id of their identity in the previous life. I ASKED Dasa about this. He never gave me any impression that he had any rememberance of a past life.
That person of creature, in reincarnation, to GONE. But since you asked, resurrection is YOU coming back. It is absolutely YOU coming up again to settle some unfinished business with God.
Can you see the difference here ?
No I can't see the difference between being reincarnated and being reborn or resurrected.
Arguably, Hindus see reincarnation as the start of a quite different life albeit for the same soul, while Christians see us reincarnated in the same body and supposedly the same life. However, the apparent differences dissolve when you ask what on earth they mean. For example, I have discussed the impossibility of simply continuing the same life and identity..
This is not because of some limitation on God's ability to keep track of atoms and reassemble them like components of a broken machine. It is because my identity is not a machine with interchanegable components - it is not something that can be pinned down and defined in such a way as to reconstruct it. But it is something that is heavily "contingent." That means, my identity is a product of not only who I am but also where I am and what is my history and what is my situation in relation to a vast range of other identities. As a minimum, if I am resurrected in a place where all sinners have been eliminated and only good prospers, then that environment will be so profoundly unlike anything I have experienced [even on the Spiritualiity forum!] that my likely responses and behaviours and feelings are utterly unpredictable. I would have to construct an entirely fresh personality and way of being in that new world. It would not be a viable proposition to try living and thinking and feeling as I have done in the past.
Let us imagine someone who lives with a longstanding, painful and incurable, life limiting disability. Their life is dominated by pain, exclusion from the life that others experience and awareness that there is no escape other than death. Plenty of such people exist. In the absence of that disability and its attendant suffering and deprivation, a quite different person would exist - you just cannot make sense of the one without the other because the one defines the other. Without the disability, an entirely fresh personality would have to emerge.
But over a lifetime, I am an illusion - the consistency that carries my life from childhood to old age is an imaginative story that I tell myself. In reality, I live through massive transformations, notably the infusion of sex hormones in adolescence. I dffer over time but also in different contexts. My professional identity, my social identity, my family life identity, are probably related to each other but they are profoundly dissimilar identities in important and consistent ways. For example, I am unlikely to display my inner feelings in my professional capacity - that would incapacitate me and make me unsuited for my role.
So I am not really talking about God's ability to do what moves Him today or tomorrow. I am talking about the meaningless nature of the claims you keep making - they are just confused and inconsistent. That does not make God confused and inconsistent, since by definition you can attirubute to God whatever magical qualities you wish or find convenient, but it makes the claims made about God by religious people confused and inconsistent.