2ndRateMind

I like this idea of time to learn. I have had the majority of my life, and have, if I'm lucky, maybe another 20 or 30 years of useful life left to run. But there are so many books! And some books, you do not just read, but mull over, and contemplate, and inwardly digest, or you do them insult. I'm beginning, now, to prioritise, as I never thought to do as a young student. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I am basing my thinking solely on this life, rather than contentions about any previous life or after life, which we may or may not enjoy. The reason for this is quite simple; this life is the only one we know, and can be utterly certain of. The rest is speculation, or extrapolation, or just simple hope. Whatever, I think we do well to ground our philosophies (so far as we can) on things that are more certain, rather than less certain. And yes, I do think wealth is good, and an advantage. As far as this life is concerned, which is also good, one has more of it, and it is more comfortable, the more wealth one has. And, if wealth poses us moral problems, like how much we should support charitable causes, that is nothing to the issues poor people have, like whether to eat or heat their houses, or whether to eat today or tomorrow. Best wishes, 2RM.

Interesting, Backroads. Do you think then, that methods by which we allocate wealth in the world are more moral than any ethical theory justifying your method of coming by food if you were starving? I sincerely hope you never have any urgent reason to find this out, so let us discuss it now, while, I hope, you are well enough fed to be disposed towards the consideration of philosophy. My own belief is that the requirement of someone to maintain their life, or someone else's life, overrides property law, which is a man-made social construct, as opposed to avoiding starvation, which is basic, natural, animal imperative. Nevertheless, except in extremis, I think democratic laws are generally worth observing. I would not say, as the French anarchist Proudhon thought, that 'property is theft'. I would go further, and say that in the case of starvation, preventable disease and such, an excess of property is tantamount to murder. For me, a life comes before a bank balance; and when the two are to be weighed together, the reduction of the bank balance is no sin, by whatever means, if the morality of saving a life is bought by it. But that all may be too extreme a view for this forum to contemplate. Best wishes, 2RM.

Stealing is generally a bad idea. You might get caught, for one, and it does your conscience no good, either. That said, there may be extenuating circumstances. You might need food for your children, and have no money. Or medicine, to save someones life. Or any number of alternative scenarios where the world's way of distributing wealth and some moral imperative clash. Whatever, the best idea is not to steal, but to seek some resolution that allows you both the thing(s) you might need, and to keep your virtue. Best wishes, 2RM.

I am quite willing to admit that I have no evidence that there is no rule governing where which soul is born. Occam's Razor demands the simplest possible explanation for some phenomenon, and, to my mind, the simplest possible explanation for the deployment of our souls across time and space is that they are randomly disposed. Mere caprice of fate, I submit, is the simplest and most economic explanation for when and where a soul is born. Now, if you want to suggest something different than this null hypothesis default position, that there is some rule, presumably a just one, that determines when and where we are born, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. I am arguing that there is nothing to provide evidence of; so it is not surprising if no evidence is forthcoming. But you seem to be suggesting something different than this, that some rule exists, and so it is down to you to provide evidence of that, either in the form of empirical observation, or rational argument. Best wishes, 2RM.

I wonder if it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice. I agree that (potential) mothers have a vital interest in and as to whether they will carry and bear a child. I agree that each abortion is the death of one of our most vulnerable (and therefore deserving of protection). For my part, I think the discussion has to be had, and resolved, in each individual case, with each individual mother contemplating abortion. But, at the end of the day, I think the final decision should be left with the mother. And I do not favour laws that enforce any other situation. If we, who would prefer abortion to end, cannot find the arguments to win our case in each individual set of circumstances, then perhaps we do not deserve to win that case. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, are you guys suggesting that the wealthy are born into wealth, of a wealthy family, in a wealthy country, because they deserve to be? That the poor are born into poverty, want, squalor and disease, because they deserve to be? That is a contention that requires far more evidence to support it than my assumption of capriciousness, which after all, is only the situation left facing us once Occam's razor is applied, and we assume the notion that there is no rule governing which soul is born where, and we are randomly disposed. Best wishes, 2RM.

Seems to me, that if we all agree, we are all bound to be wrong! The management guru, Peter Drucker, in 'The Effective Executive' cites the case of a chairman of the board who refused to make a decision until the board had disagreed about the topic. Until then, he could not be sure that every avenue had been explored and evaluated. The philosopher JS Mill makes a similar point in his essay 'On Liberty', when he talks about 'dead dogma'. For Mill, discussion brings a subject to life, and ensures that it is understood, and the reasoning behind it is understood. For Mill, no discussion = dead dogma = no understanding. So, let's let our disagreements abound, and run loose, and resolve them individually according to our knowledge, reason and conscience, as seems to each of us to be the best of solutions to the problem at hand. Best wishes, 2RM.

You've died, and find yourself in Heaven. Maybe because you've done great things, maybe because you've believed the right thing, maybe because you just are a good person. Whatever, you got there. Now what? What keeps us from getting bored, with an entire eternity stretching before us to fill? Best wishes, 2RM.

I know this is conventional wisdom; I am simply wondering if conventional wisdom necessarily reflects truth. It does seem to me to be the case that those born into a Christian family, in a Christian culture, tend to remain Christian. Ditto Jews, remaining true to their identity, and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs, not to mention Pagans and Druids and, for all I know, witches and satanists. It does seem to me to be the case that accident of birth is probably the most significant factor in our choice of religion, and, given that accident of birth is capricious, and outside our volition, then so most be the disposal of our eternal souls, if that is to be way they are to be deployed. And this capriciousness of disposal is not one I find I can countenance. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hi Vort Just so. I am not sure our belief system determines our actions, just has a significant influence on them, and that is why I said that I believe a Christian world-view is conducive to salvation. But I am sure that Christians do not have a monopoly on virtue, so, by any measure, other religions must have something of God's goodness about them. Yes, I see the direction you are taking. Nevertheless, it seems to me that (to put in simplified terms) admission to heaven must either be a gift given to all, or a just reward. Or some combination of both. The gift must be universal, or else capricious, and unjust. Or the reward must be just, or else capricious. Either way, I reject the idea of a capricious disposal of our souls, because that would be inconsistent with any notion of God's goodness. Now, I admit (somewhat reluctantly ) that I am not God. But I think our notions of justice, while necessarily incomplete and partially inaccurate, must nevertheless reflect, however imperfectly, God's idea of justice. Otherwise we are saying 'God is just, but His justice is not like our justice'. That is like saying 'God is red, but His redness is not like our redness', and carries just as much lack of meaning. If we are to assert that God is just, we must simultaneously assert that our own notions of justice have traction on the universe, or we are involved in the propagation of nonsense. I like the way you have put this. The idea of 'who someone might become' is entirely consistent with my idea of their 'way of being', in that we are not discussing their beliefs or works, just their nature. Best wishes, 2RM.

OK. Now I'm going to take a leap of supposition, which you are quite free to criticise. My supposition is that it is the level of virtue of our characters, and not our belief system, that is rewarded come Judgment Day. This idea seems to me to deal with two issues I find problematic about the conventional wisdom of salvation. 1. Heaven gets to be open to any good person, rather than just Christians, however sin-ridden they might be. There is an issue of ordinary, transparent justice, here. 2. The very idea that only Christians get to go to heaven is so obviously self-serving to an elite that preach Christianity, and so obviously dismissive of other cultures that may have much wisdom to offer, that I truly believe a multi-cultural world needs and deserves a less partisan message. I realise this seems to contradict Biblical ideas about whether it be faith or works that get us past St Peter, but I am not talking salvation by works, but salvation by 'way of being', by quality of character. It may well be, and I believe it to be the case, that a Christian belief system is conducive to the required quality of character, but, in the end, I think it quality of character that will count, (and not the culture we are lucky enough to be born into, or unlucky enough not to be born into), and be decisive. Your opinions, and an LDS perspective, are, as always, most welcome. Best wishes, 2RM.

Sort of, Anatess. I think there are vicious spirals of decline, when one first decides to sin, and virtuous spirals of ascent, when one puts sin aside, and climbs a more righteous path. In other words, the more one sins, the more easy to sin. The more one avoids sin, the more easy not to sin. And these choices have consequence for the level of virtue of our characters, Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, PolarVortex, I do approve of the current Pope. He seems to me to be a thoroughly good man. If I was the praying type, I would be praying for him, as he confronts the byzantine politics, reactionary conservatism, vested interests and institutional sinfulness of the Vatican. Best wishes, 2RM.

As usual Vort, a thoughtful and pertinent response. I am not persuaded yet, however. You seem to have a rules based, deontological conception of sin; mine is an ontological, 'way of being' conception, consistent with a virtue ethics approach to morality. I do not think either of us is necessarily wrong in outcome; the question is more a matter of economy of approach, and fecundity of consequence. Whereas I can look at an action, and decide it was selfishly motivated, and therefore loveless, and therefore Godless, and therefore sinful, you need a new rule for each new occasion and circumstance, with no real justification for that rule beyond some unaccountable 'revelation'. Sooner or later there are going to be so many rules, it will be impossible to keep up with them! Or have I misconstrued you, in some way? Best wishes, 2RM

This is a perceptive comment. One can, indeed, be 'a slave to sin.' Whereas virtue involves freedom; the freedom to sin, if one chooses, or not sin, if one chooses. To be 'sunk in sin' implies the opposite of this freedom. One's options are limited, and those to sinning. Best wishes, 2RM.

Now, what is the difference between sin and virtue? Do they lie on a greyscale, with hideous atrocities at one end, and sublime merit at the other? Is a sin a wrong action, and how should we know what wrong actions are? Is a virtue a right action, and how should we know it is right? There is a clue there, I think. We are normally quite clear that virtues are not actions, but character attributes, and this is the intended theme of this thread. So, the early church fathers, after some considerable deliberation, came to the view that there are seven deadly sins. They are, in alphabetical order, avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth and wrath. To my mind, none of these are actions, but all 'ways of being'. They are all selfish ways of being, all loveless ways of being. They may lead to actions, but none of them actually are actions. Rather, they are the state of mind that causes an immoral action. Rape, say, in the case of lust, or the useless accumulation of wealth in the case of avarice. So, it seems to me, that it is the state of mind that is thing that is wrong about sin; Godless, because loveless, loveless, because selfish. And that, I find, is the real definition of sin - a Godless way of being. This view has consequences. I will describe two of them. Firstly, one does not need to be a believer, to live a Godly life. It helps, but the important thing is to love. To love is to make God, who is love, manifest in the world, by the material expression of all those love motivated activities. And this is true whether one realises that this is the result of one's love, because one has an explicit faith, or does not realise it, because one doubts and disbelieves. Secondly, the idea that the sexual expression of a loving relationship is the thing that is wrong about homosexuality, while the same-sex-attraction that leads to it is acceptable, is entirely the wrong way around. Either the state of same-sex-attraction is necessarily selfish, loveless and Godless, and therefore sinful, or it is not. If it is, then so necessarily is the sexual expression of it. If it isn't, then neither necessarily is the sexual expression of it. Now, I didn't start this thread to debate homosexuality. I just wanted to cite this as an example of a conventional wisdom that looks different when viewed from the perspective I have described. I could have chosen other activities that are alleged sins, but this one will do for now. As always, I am interested in the LDS perspective. Do you have a nutshell definition of sin? Is your conception of sin different to the view I have described, and if so, in what ways? Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear The Folk Prophet. I have no interest in tearing things down. Only in constructive comment. If the idea of debating revelations is a difficult one for you, I am quite content to leave it alone and move on to a less controversial area, Best wishes, 2RM.

Absolutely no insult intended. Absolutely not. I have said before, and will say it again, that I like this forum particularly for it's willingness to debate, for it's openness to discussion. It is far and away the best religious forum I have so far discovered, for a seeker such as me. If I have touched a raw nerve, I apologise. I merely suggest that sometimes nerves are raw, because they are important. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear Vort, again, I think (that is, I hope) we are all engaged in the pursuit of truth. And I think that any truth, however small, is 'divine truth'. Even if all our philosophical meanderings serve only to inform us how ignorant we are, as Socrates thought, then that is not an insignificant finding. It leads to a certain humility of attitude that is refreshing to find after one has spent one's time discussing with those who think they have immediate access to big 'divine truth'. I suggest to you that revelation is capricious, and varies from recipient to recipient, and that this idea is affirmed by all the various religions, schisms, denominations, sects and cults that exist in the world, all convinced they have access to divine truth. I have far more faith in the Great Debate, as a democratic process that, however gradually, converges on truth, whether that be divine, or otherwise. If revelation feeds into the Debate, that's fine by me. But I think revelation needs to be tested by being debated. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear Vort, by the Great Debate I simply mean the ongoing dialog (should that be multilog?) that occurs between and within societies, in literature, drama, and other arts, in colleges and universities, in politics and commerce, and, not least, between ourselves in interweb formats, where we can all get to understand, and, hopefully, appreciate, each other's points of view. Best wishes, 2RM

Well, despite the obviously good intentions of this post, I have to submit two possible objections for your considerations. 1. Our prayers may not all meet with the same answers. How are we to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' answers? Whose answers should prevail? 2. I am suspicious of any attempt to close down 'the Great Debate', the debate in which we may all take part, all contribute to, and all learn from. I am particularly suspicious of such attempts when they suggest there are divinely approved answers to which only a select few are privy. I'm not suggesting this was the motive of the OP, only that we should guard against such a temptation. So, I suggest we pray, if we want to, and discuss, if we want to, and let reason and conscience be our guides. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think this is so, and well put. Nevertheless, I am looking to explore the relationship between the will and belief, rather than the truth and belief. In other words, I am not looking, necessarily, at an idea about knowledge (justified, true, belief, as philosophers would have it) but the way our beliefs may or may not reflect reality, according to the influence of our will. And the implications that relationship might have for popular theology. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. It seems I have caused offence. That was not my intention, and I apologise. When I said this, I was not saying that these are my own considered opinions. And even if they were, I hope I would never be so impolite as to express them in such a way. I meant that these are the kind of things a non-believer might say. And I am sure that those of you who have been on missions have confronted such opinions, and far worse. Nevertheless, even the idea that we believe what we want to believe has it's problems, too. Would we really want to say that our beliefs are independent of any truth value they might possess, and solely down to what we want to be true? So, we have a dilemma. If our beliefs are independent of our volition, we are not accountable for them. And if they are solely dependent on our volition, truth has no relevance to our beliefs. Somewhere between these extremes, must lie the reality. Best wishes, 2RM.

No, I think there is a significant difference. No one is claiming that weight loss is a simple, instant matter of mind-control. But some people do seem to think that about beliefs. The idea I am questioning is the idea that we can will what we believe. I just don't think we can, though I'm open to contrary arguments. Best wishes, 2RM.