DescentBB

And why Education will never solve our social woes.

Click

This is a sermon given by a Scottish minister by the name of Alister Begg. He lives here in the US in Ohio but gives this message in Littleton. This isn't a \"hellfire and brimstone\" kinda sermon but rather examples of why simply educating the people will not fix things that are going on in the world today. It's about 20 minutes long.

I offer this in rebuttal to Flabby chick's link.

I don't expect most of you to listen to this. It is good listening however.

No, education isn't in itself a solution. But this isn't to say that we should reject the idea that better conditions produce better people. Look at murder rates by country. Why does Russia have ~5x the murder rate of the U.S.? Why does the U.S. have ~10x the murder rate of Japan? I don't know, but saying that the Russians are just more evil than us or that the Japanese are just much better people than us is a cop out answer.

What do you propose to solve our social woes? By looking at the countries that are doing it better than us, it doesn't look like Christianity is the solution either.

I suggest you listen to the link.

Jeff250 wrote:...Why does Russia have ~5x the murder rate of the U.S.? Why does the U.S. have ~10x the murder rate of Japan?....

Easy, the Russians are 5 times less tolerant than Americans who are 10 times less concerned with our families honor than the Japanese are.

You can call it education if you want because it is about what we are taught but it isn't the stuff school curriculum's are made of, it's the stuff we teach our children from within the family.
You know, the "family values" stuff that is ridiculed by too damn many people in this country, under the mis guided logic of being non-judgemental aka politically correct.

Bunch of freakin losers afraid to tell their friends and neighbors that their behavior is wrong!! Instead we've collectively decided to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator. Big mistake!!

There was a time when no kid would aspire to be a mass murderer because it wouldn't be something that would bring him the kind of notoriety that is in any way sympathetic to his plight. No matter how much he was picked on he wouldn't go there....

░

Wierd, I am full of peace. This is only broken when having to deal with religion and NJ drivers.

I also like the word sin. Means a lot of fun. Some of that fun is watching the religious get all Springer about it, even though it impacts on their life not a speck.

(Did you know the blessed book states that you should kill your wife if she's not a virgin on your wedding night?) Hmm...

No, Testi, it doesn't.

Testi, did you listen to it?

Also, please show where that is written in the bible. Show where Jesus said is to be the case.

First, I would like to say that I disagree with the notion that this is the worst of times, that seems to be a relative thing, where every generation thinks they live in the worst time ever.

With that being said, I agree with what the guy is saying, except for the Christ aspect…and that is the problem, because I can’t see religion ever solving the problems with the world. Because religion is provided by people, with all the faults of people.

The message is good, but most of the people delivering the message, are just as full of sin as the rest of us, so there in lies the problem.

What we need is a universal philosophy that gives people a way of living a good life, without being particularly religious, because religion is never going to reach the hearts and minds of all people. Way too much hypocrisy, etc for general acceptance.

I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s not education or religion, prolly just need to learn from our mistakes.

Spidey wrote:What we need is a universal philosophy that gives people a way of living a good life, without being particularly religious, because religion is never going to reach the hearts and minds of all people. Way too much hypocrisy, etc for general acceptance....

Spidey, I don't see the difference there.
Your complaint is the people delivering the religious message are not living up to their own standards therefore people won't buy it but then you suggest some "universal philosophy" as if people will be capable of living up to this new secular standard without failing the way they did when the standard is presented from a religious origin. What's the difference?

I'll tell you what your solution would lead to, a watered down morality, like the one we have been brewing for a long time. The standards are too tough so we relax them to reduce the failure rate. Well sure that works, take enough laws away and you can reduce crime too.....

I think people play the hypocrisy card as an excuse to rationalize their own desire to not live up to standards.
We should be able to decide if a rule is virtuous on it's own merit regardless of it's proponents ability to live up to it?
What is really hypocritical is knowing what is morally right but not being brave enough to tell someone when they are wrong.

Somewhere between the power hungry zealots and the wake of the anarchists we could plant our flag.

Please note the final sentence in my post.

As far as my “universal philosophy\". That would have to be something grassroots, or “organic” rather that something taught. That is to say, it would have to be something obvious to people.

Spidey wrote:...What we need is a universal philosophy that gives people a way of living a good life, without being particularly religious, because religion is never going to reach the hearts and minds of all people...

Spidey, you pretty much described the humanist.

Bee

░

Duper wrote:Also, please show where that is written in the bible. Show where Jesus said is to be the case.

Deuteronomy 22:13-30, which means Jesus didn't say it.

Dakatsu wrote:

Duper wrote:Also, please show where that is written in the bible. Show where Jesus said is to be the case.

Deuteronomy 22:13-30, which means Jesus didn't say it.

Excellent! Thanks Dak. I was at work and didn't really have the time to look it up.

Ok, a bit of explanation.

First, I entreat you to read through verses 28. Couple of things going on here. Back then, capital punishment was a given when the offense was grievous.

Also I would like to point out this quote at the end of 22 and 23:

You must purge the evil from Israel. and .. You must purge the evil from among you.

While this might not make a lot of sense, and makes it seem like God is being "cruel", I'd like to point to Israel's history up to this point. They were very wayward and unruly. They'd fit into middle class America just fine in that respect. It's also mentioned earlier on (and later) that God wanted a Holy people for Himself. (and yes, he knew where this was all going to go)

The Law given to Israel was never meant to absolve the guilt of Sin. In fact it acutely pointed out the fact that they were sinful and unable to "be good".

Jesus offers grace and absolution from sin. This is why I asked if Jesus said that. The holiness that was demanded by the law and acts is offered by mercy via Christ. Thus, stoning to death is no longer a "duty" of the church. (I'm talking the invisible church not the Catholic church.. there's either for that matter)

Burning people at the stake and hanging so called witches comes from misunderstanding scripture and the lack of the internet where people can now just host sites that says "god hates fags"..


Spidey, thanks for listening through that. Just a couple of brief things and I'll sit down ... as you've been jumped on already

The pastor giving the message would be the first to admit that "..most of the people delivering the message, are just as full of sin as the rest of us.." and puts himself there too. I've heard enough of his stuff to actually hear that. We are all trying and we never reach "perfection". Paul mentions that in his letters.

What we need is a universal philosophy that gives people a way of living a good life, without being particularly religious, because religion is never going to reach the hearts and minds of all people. Way too much hypocrisy, etc for general acceptance.

There is a couple fundamental problems with this.

1) No one thinks the same and getting everyone to accept that simply won't work. Heck you've seen that here. You will also run into the same pitfalls of any philosophy or set of do's and dont's.

2) There is no one that is "worthy" to figurehead head such a thing. While I get the impression you mean something just kinda come into being, that too would not work because people aren't "just basically good" and thus would adhere to a set of rules or values that would really mean nothing. Like it was mentioned earlier... to the lowest common denominator. We're nearly at that now.

I know you've been burned by organized religion. Been there myself. So was Jesus for that matter. Look who sentenced him to death.. Church people!! So with that, Christianity isn't about do's and don'ts, it is about relationship with God. Restoring what was had between Him and Adam in the Garden of Eden. Really, Christianity is more about service and helping others and it is anything else.

oh one more thing.. the day that man learns from his mistakes long term??? That hasn't happened in over 2000 years of recorded history. It would be nice, but it's not in our nature.

Ok, not so brief. Sorry.

(thanks again Dak!!)

Will Robinson wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:...Why does Russia have ~5x the murder rate of the U.S.? Why does the U.S. have ~10x the murder rate of Japan?....

Easy, the Russians are 5 times less tolerant than Americans who are 10 times less concerned with our families honor than the Japanese are.

You can call it education if you want because it is about what we are taught but it isn't the stuff school curriculum's are made of, it's the stuff we teach our children from within the family.
You know, the "family values" stuff that is ridiculed by too damn many people in this country, under the mis guided logic of being non-judgemental aka politically correct.

Will, I very much like the way you said that. Thank you.

A quick study of different cultures will easily demonstrate that anytime a higher percentage of the population adhere to stronger "family values" ... there is noticably lower crime/murder rates.

Sounds like better "family values" equals better peoples.

Spidey wrote:As far as my “universal philosophy". That would have to be something grassroots, or “organic” rather that something taught.

Yes, I may be misunderstanding you, but I think that there is something to this. We need to stop feeding people the same empty morality that says that sex is evil, homosexuality is evil, marijuana is evil, etc., and start explaining the true complexity of these and other issues. People know when they are being fed something bogus, and this damages the image of morality as a whole. Let's tell people what's really good and what's really bad, and when, and then give them the real reasons why. We need to stop appealing to invisible deities to do this, because, even if they do care what we are doing, most people just don't find them to be a compelling guide for their actions.

TechPro wrote:A quick study of different cultures will easily demonstrate that anytime a higher percentage of the population adhere to stronger "family values" ... there is noticably lower crime/murder rates.

Sounds like better "family values" equals better peoples.

People with stronger values will commit fewer crimes and be better people? Really? Perhaps I fail to see the insight.

Thanks, Dakatsu, I couldn't find the reference...I call all the religious texts \"the bible\" so nailing them down (pardon the pun) is difficult.

Spooks, you seem to have a very skewed sense of the word religion. Religion is a practice of irrationality. Drinking a cup of coffee every morning is not religious in any sense of the word at all. My playing guitar every day when I get home from work is not religious. It's obsessive. (Which is apparently a sin. Tough ★■◆●! ). The term is applied to such behaviour the opposite of the way you describe it.

Also, where in the world did you get a definition of 'fun' meaning to enjoy oneself at the expense of others? That is most definitely NOT the meaning of fun in any way, shape or form. I don't know what the actual term for that would be, (callous, inconsiderate are traits...) but it certainly isn't what you think it is.

░

If we all lived by the Golden Rule the world would be a much nicer place.

Testi, you are quite wrong. You can be a religious coffee drinker. Religion in the purest sense is how you live your life. You can be a religious golfer or gamer for that matter.

That doesn't mean its your god. It merely means that it is how you live your life. Now, in the examples (feeble as they are and intended that way) each one could indeed be someone's \"god\". Something they turn to in their hour of need.

And woody, the \"golden rule\" comes right out of Hebrew Law.

Last Link

Further discussion on Sin.

Oh yes, forgot about that one, Spooks. I never use the term, so it's inference slipped by. It's inaccurate at it's base, as that is slang, the proper wording would be to criticize, condescend, demean, humiliate, etc.. someone. That still does not make 'fun' a sin.

It is irrational. And illogical. Religion demands a waiver of logic and rationality (or reasoning) in order to achieve faith. At least, to have any faith that the stories in the bible are true (other than the historical references, which are all up for debate). Noah's Ark, anyone?

--

Duper, no, you're wrong! Habitual coffee drinker, not a religious coffee drinker. We're just arguing personal bias and wording, though. But, the use of religion in this context is again, slang.


Woody, a nice place, or a very masochistic one...

Duper wrote:And woody, the "golden rule" comes right out of Hebrew Law.

You can find it in all sorts of ancient philosophies. It's much more universal than that. Not that I'm endorsing it. Perhaps the "Platinum Rule" is closer to the mark: "Treat others the way they want to be treated."

Well of course.

If it's a principle that God created, it would have been in place from the very beginning. so naturally it would be present in some for or another through various cultures.

The way they want to be treated? lol glad you don't dictate foreign policy. (not that you would WANT to) That ideal is not possible. What do you think PCism is all about? bleck.

I think the point that Duper and Spooky are trying to make about religion is ridiculous. Daily habits are not necessarily religion, and I don't even see what is to be gained by trying to prove so. All you're doing is losing part of the meaning of \"religion,\" in trying for a blanket use.

Also, Spooky's use of the word \"fun,\" in claiming that it's a sin is an abuse of the dictionary definition (as may have already been mentioned). The dictionary is neither talking about that kind of fun, nor that kind of expense. The Bible says that \"sin is lawlessness\", and people do derive enjoyment (have \"fun\") from lawlessness.

Testi, the whole thing, old and new testament, is \"The Bible,\" as you ought to know, but there is an important separation, for a Christian, between the old covenant (the law, etc), and the new covenant (the gospel). The Bible does not command me to kill my wife or anyone else. You don't know what you're talking about. Even in the story of Jesus: \"18b before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.\" (Matthew 1) Jesus (the mediator of the new covenant) said to a woman who was caught in the act of adultery, \"neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.\" (John 18:11) Paul preached: \"30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.\"

The old covenant, and the law, is an important picture of the seriousness of sin, and a picture of God's standards, which don't change, but the Bible says that the new covenant is better. (Hebrews 8:6)

Jeff: am I to understand that you think that the golden rule can be improved upon?

Duper wrote:Well of course.

If it's a principle that God created, it would have been in place from the very beginning. so naturally it would be present in some for or another through various cultures.

Isn't that a form of Godwin?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Bee

Godwin?

Thorne. It's not ridiculous. You're not understanding what we're trying in vain to describe. the point is moot at any rate.

Duper wrote:Thorne. It's not ridiculous. You're not understanding what we're trying in vain to describe. ...

Well maybe that's true. Feel free to take another crack at it, either here or by PM.

I'll pm later when I get a bit mroe time (ha ha)

Bet, please elaborate, I'm a bit clueless as to your response.

THIS is rather interesting. It's the next in a different set of messages by the same pastor. It's about Judgment.

This give very appropriate definitions of judgment in a very practical sense. And Spidey, this is one of those where he points the finger at himself.

I posted this her as it's active and I didn't feel like Necroing the old Judgement thread. If ya'll think it would be more appropriate there and don't mind the bump, i'll do that and minimalize this post .. or insert a commercial.

Duper wrote:Well of course.

If it's a principle that God created, it would have been in place from the very beginning. so naturally it would be present in some for or another through various cultures.

It just looks bad when other cultures beat the ones God talks to to the punch.

Duper wrote:The way they want to be treated? lol glad you don't dictate foreign policy. (not that you would WANT to) That ideal is not possible. What do you think PCism is all about? bleck.

I don't know what you mean here. You want to be treated how I want to be treated instead of how you want to be treated? Err, I guess that question answers itself!

Thorne wrote:Jeff: am I to understand that you think that the golden rule can be improved upon?

If one rule can be better than another, then we need to establish better at what. Both the golden rule and the platinum rule fail at being categorical imperatives, i.e. we would not want to live in a world where everyone always followed either rule in every action. Where they seem to be useful is as general rules of thumb, perhaps if you have to make a quick ethical decision or if you are otherwise unsure of what to do. So if one rule is better than another, let's say it is better at being a general rule of thumb for making ethical decisions. Does this sound fair?

So which is better, the golden rule or the platinum rule? To restate each, the golden rule says, "Treat others the way you want to be treated," and the platinum rule says, "Treat others the way they want to be treated."

Both rules seem to run into problems, namely when people's desires are bad. But the rules tend to fail equally in this respect. For example, if I desire something bad to be done to me, according to the platinum rule, you should do something bad to me. But according to the golden rule, I should do something bad to you!

Where the platinum rule has an advantage is in cases where people's desires aren't necessarily bad but there is a difference in taste. For example, if you are deciding what you should do for me for my birthday, I might want to stay in, even though you would want to go out if it were your birthday. But it seems best to do what I want to do, not what you want to do. The golden rule runs into issues because not everyone wants to be treated the same way you do.

You might say that these issues only occur when we are looking at particulars, but they disappear when you look at things on a more general level. For example, although we might want to do different things on our birthday, what we really want is to do what we want on our birthday, so we have that in common. But this seems to just be an attempt to reduce the golden rule to the platinum rule. So in selecting a general rule of thumb, the platinum rule still seems like a better choice here.

Does treating someone \"how you want to be treated\" mean you should get them your favorite flavor of ice cream, or does it mean that since you would want your favorite flavor of ice cream you should get them THEIR favorite flavor? As wikipedia states it, \"if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in [naive] ways, the answer would typically be no.\" Applying the rule with a little bit of sophistication covers \"cases where... there is a difference in taste\" as well as allowing room to look toward long-term benefit even if someone's short-term desires won't be met.

You may claim this as an attempt to redefine the Golden Rule into the Platinum Rule; I claim the rules are both attempts to state the same underlying moral principle, with each phraseology bringing out a slightly different aspect. The underlying principle is that you should love other people; both \"rules\" are simply attempts to state it in a more practical way.

Jeff:

What I mean is something like you touched on: "When they want something bad".

We can only consistently reference others as to our selves. It's not possible to please every person all the time as the "platinum rule" implies. That's just silly. Good grief, can you imagine what that would do to our legal and judicial system? You think people are sue happy now? yikes! Tell people that they are entitled to anything they want? I don't think so. (I'm not including monetarily here)

The "golden rule" that most folks in general are familiar with has its roots in the Bible. We're a western culture and western culture was dominated by Christian doctrine and Catholic rule for over 1000 years. (like it or not)
The actual goes like this:

Luke 10:25-29 wrote: 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

So it's not just "treat" but love. That's a tall order. And one, I'm afraid that most Christians do miserably at. .. well.. at least the bulk that call themselves Christians. But being imperfect to begin with (and to end with) we will all blow it on this one. That is one thing discussed in that link I posted at the top of this page. (There are a number of passages in the Bible that deal with this.)

So to sum up. Treating everyone the way They want is a mushy and double minded principle.

Oh, about what I said about "PC'ism". It's all about treating others under the presumption of how they want to be treated/talked about. you wind up with this wishy washy, tail chasing and back pedaling way of living. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it. I believe you should extend common courtesy and respect, but the last 20 years has gotten stupid.

Time for me to shuffle in and give my two cents' worth.

Good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, black and white. These all have one thing in common, and that thing is this:

They are all relative. There's no set benchmarks for these sorts of things. Everyone's opinion is different. What may be right for one person may be wrong for another. As I've been so fond of saying for nigh on to a decade now, \"There is no black and white - only shades of grey\".

The problem here isn't so much that there are good and bad people... it's that all these different people have different opinions as to the \"moral quality\" of everyone else. Religious prejudice, if you will. I myself try not to get involved in such things, mostly because I have better things to do than squabble about who's going to get a shiny golden crown and 70 virgins, and who's going to rot in Hell for all eternity. Me? I go through my own personal hell every night. I look forward to death. I don't fear it. I also don't have any particular beliefs. After I muddled out solipsism on my own, I kinda quit caring about such things.

Ultimately, what any decides to do or believe or whatever is their responsibility and their choice. I won't tell you how to live your life because you're just going to do whatever you were going to do in the first place. Maybe if people weren't so damned nosy and uppity and whatever else you think describes that person you argued religion with yesterday afternoon, we might actually be able to turn this planet around and improve it and ourselves. Of course, whether or not you consider that to be a good thing or a bad thing is entirely up to you.

Me? I'm happy just to sit in my little corner of the world all alone. So long as no one messes with me, I'm good.

The basic moral rules I live by:

1. Do no harm.
2. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

The first one covers most things like Murder, Theft, etc.
The second one covers things like Respect, Kindness, etc.

And, I try to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not because of any punishment.

As far as a Platinum Rule…well, if someone wants to be treated like a king…well that’s just too damn bad! (the best I can do is use myself as a basis)

Lothar wrote:You may claim this as an attempt to redefine the Golden Rule into the Platinum Rule;

And indeed I have. When selecting a rule of thumb, don't you want to select the rule that arrives to the behavior more simply, that doesn't require the extra "sophistication" as you call it?

Duper wrote:It's not possible to please every person all the time as the "platinum rule" implies. That's just silly. Goof grief, can you imagine what that would do to our legal and judicial system? You think people are sue happy now? yikes! Tell people that they are entitled to anything they want? I don't think so.

But there is no such implication. The platinum rule doesn't imply that you can treat everyone how they want to be treated, just like the golden rule doesn't imply that you can treat everyone how you want to be treated. The platinum rule doesn't say that everyone is entitled to be treated the way they want to be treated, just like the golden rule doesn't say that everyone is entitled to be treated the way you want to be treated. Let's be fair here!

Duper wrote:The actual goes like this:
. . .
So it's not just "treat" but love.

I think most people actually refer to the one given during the Sermon on the Mount:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_the_ ... _the_Bible

I'll give some thoughts here, too.

I think Lothar is on the right page, by stateing that the \"golden rule\" and the \"platinum rule\" are, at their heart, one and the same.

First, look at the context of Jesus' usage of the golden rule: he's just finished talking about examples of how to treat other is the best of ways, even if they don't \"deserve\" it, for the last 2 chapters. More immediately, he states that the golden rule \"sums up the Law and the Prophets.\" Later, in Matt. 22, Jesus states that the Law and the Prophets \"hang on these two commands\" when referring to \"Love the Lord your God....\" and \"Love your Neighbor as yourself.\"

I think that establishes the Jesus understood both the Golden rule, and the \"Love the Lord your God\" \"Love your neighbor as yourself\" pair to be a quick summary of the sum total of the Law. That's the first reason why a naive, extremely literal interpretation of the golden rule probably isn't what Jesus had in mind.

Secondly, Jesus is constantly getting on the Pharisees because they had taken lots of parts of the law, interpreted them very literally, and come up with a whole set of very specific prescriptions that could be followed regardless of the motives lying within the actions. A proposed understanding of the golden rule that allows one to follow a strict set of prescriptions without attention to the motives of the heart would be inconsistent with the life-long teachings of Jesus.

Thus, it's clear that Jesus is speaking about motives & attitudes more than he is about literal actions. He is stating that action should be performed, but that actions should flow as a result of motives & attitudes, not be entities in-and-of themselves. So, the premise is that we want what's best for ourselves, we want to be happy, content, etc. Thus, if we're to follow the golden rule at its heart, we'll genuinely want & seek to provide what's best for others. It isn't a micro command, where you're providing for them what your mind is thinking about wanting at that instant, or even what their mind is thinking about wanting at that instant.

Jeff250 wrote:When selecting a rule of thumb, don't you want to select the rule that arrives to the behavior more simply

There are a number of criteria involved in selecting a rule of thumb.

One of the biggest advantages of the "golden rule" is that it brings things to a personal level. It creates an association with your own emotions. It's common to ask little kids "would you want someone to do that to you?" (not "did they want that done to them?") when they do something mean to someone else, because it makes them think about how they would feel -- it triggers empathy. It makes it very clear that you should treat other people well, because you understand what it's like when other people do or don't treat YOU well.

The "platinum rule" requires you to already have a level of moral sophistication. It requires you to already think in terms of other peoples' emotions, to already have that level of empathy. As such, it's less rhetorically powerful -- it's only persuasive if you already agree that other people should be treated well. It only "arrives to the behavior more simply" if you're already most of the way there, while the golden rule can get you there from scratch.

The "golden rule" works OK without added sophistication, and better with it. The "platinum rule" doesn't work at all unless you've already got that level of sophistication.

If you're looking for a rule of thumb to not just tell you what to do but also give you compulsion to do it, the golden rule does have an advantage here. As you say, the platinum rule requires more moral sophistication, since you have to already be committed to doing the right thing before it will be useful. This is not the same sort of sophistication that the golden rule requires--the golden rule requires an intellectual sophistication. If a person is already committed to doing the right thing but unsure of what it is, he has to do more \"figuring out\" under the golden rule and can stumble into more pitfalls than under the platinum rule in attempting to reach the best decision.

The way I originally framed the problem was to determine the better rule of thumb for making ethical decisions, i.e. strictly figuring out the best behavior. I still think that this problem favors the platinum rule. But if you're looking for a rule that provides compulsion, the golden rule does have an advantage here.