Baha'i Totalitarian Oligarchy?

[firedragon]

I asked you a question. If you think this is a conversation between us, please do me the courtesy of answering it. If you think this is merely your interrogation, go find someone else.

What was the question you asked me?

 

[firedragon]

When you say morality is based on consensus do you mean What morality is, or whether the given action is moral. They aren't the same thing.

You made a statement

"I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings."

So my question is based on your statement. A counter question on morality and action simply means you are not sure about your own statement. So lets be sarcastic about things since you love it so much.

Lets say you decide on morality based on your statement of metrics of fairness, reciprocity etc, is that done alone or by consensus? Simple question.

 

[ppp]

What was the question you asked me?

No, thanks.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What morality is, or whether the given action is moral. They aren't the same thing.

I see they are intertwined. Morality starts in Mind and is shown in actions. As a child we must be taught a moral standard, as without education, morality becomes ill defined, it reverts to anamalistic tenancies. The sexual impulse is one such action that a learnt morality will define.

A moral mind will not produce immoral actions as a moral mind can overcome immoral impulses.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

I see they are intertwined. Morality starts in Mind and is shown in actions. As a child we must be taught a moral standard, as without education, morality becomes ill defined, it reverts to anamalistic tenancies. The sexual impulse is one such action that a learnt morality will define.

A moral mind will not produce immoral actions as a moral mind can overcome immoral impulses.

Regards Tony

So anyone that has sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is immoral? And anyone that has sex with anyone of the same sex is immoral? So the problem is they haven't been properly educated about morality?

And how many truly "moral" people do think are in the world? How many do you think are truly moral within the different religions? How many are truly moral with in your religion, the Baha'i Faith? All of them? Most of them? Half of them? A few of them? And, supposing you do find some, who enforces the law and what do they do? They tell them to stop? They impose sanctions, like taking their voting rights away? How successful are Baha'is in "educating" and changing these law breakers behavior? And if they don't stop then what? Are they kicked out of the religion?

 

[ppp]

I see they are intertwined. Morality starts in Mind and is shown in actions. As a child we must be taught a moral standard, as without education, morality becomes ill defined, it reverts to anamalistic tenancies. The sexual impulse is one such action that a learnt morality will define.

I don't disagree. They are connected. Most people get stuck at morality being decisions about what is right or wrong. Some people say that it is obedience to what their god wants. Some say that it is some supernatural component of self. Some say that morality is the set of behavioral tendencies that allow us to function as a social species. Some say that it is the set of actions in a given situation that represent the pinnacle of well-being for that situation.

I tend towards some combination of the last two.

What do you say? Can you define what you think morality is without resorting to examples?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So anyone that has sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is immoral? And anyone that has sex with anyone of the same sex is immoral? So the problem is they haven't been properly educated about morality?

And how many truly "moral" people do think are in the world? How many do you think are truly moral within the different religions? How many are truly moral with in your religion, the Baha'i Faith? All of them? Most of them? Half of them? A few of them? And, supposing you do find some, who enforces the law and what do they do? They tell them to stop? They impose sanctions, like taking their voting rights away? How successful are Baha'is in "educating" and changing these law breakers behavior? And if they don't stop then what? Are they kicked out to the religion?

I don't disagree. They are connected. Most people get stuck at morality being decisions about what is right or wrong. Some people say that it is obedience to what their god wants. Some say that it is some supernatural component of self. Some say that morality is the set of behavioral tendencies that allow us to function as a social species. Some say that it is the set of actions in a given situation that represent the pinnacle of well-being for that situation.

I tend towards some combination of the last two.

What do you say? Can you define what you think morality is without resorting to examples?

I see morality is the possibilities within us that foster a fruitful growth of the human species.

I see that our foundation in morality comes from God and shows up in the world when those that aim for those moral possibilities and goals, put them Into practice.

As such, one does not have to have accepted God to have those aspirations and put them into practice, they just have to find that morality within.

But I see finding the source gives us a framework of morality to work within, gives a meaning and a reason to life, that transcends this life.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't disagree. They are connected. Most people get stuck at morality being decisions about what is right or wrong. Some people say that it is obedience to what their god wants. Some say that it is some supernatural component of self. Some say that morality is the set of behavioral tendencies that allow us to function as a social species. Some say that it is the set of actions in a given situation that represent the pinnacle of well-being for that situation.

I tend towards some combination of the last two.

What do you say? Can you define what you think morality is without resorting to examples?

I'd just like to add that it varies ... a lot.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see morality is the possibilities within us that foster a fruitful growth of the human species.

I see that our foundation in morality comes from God and shows up in the world when those that aim for those moral possibilities and goals, put them Into practice.

As such, one does not have to have accepted God to have those aspirations and put them into practice, they just have to find that morality within.

But I see finding the source gives us a framework of morality to work within, gives a meaning and a reason to life, that transcends this life.

Regards Tony

Well, in religion God gives us laws to live by. The newest message from God, according to the Baha'is, is what Baha'u'llah has said. How will Baha'is enforce these laws that he says are from God, especially the ones dealing with sexual behavior? All I've ever heard Baha'is say is things like, "It is between the God and the individual." Or, "That the person can have their voting rights taken away." Have people actually been kicked out of the religion for continuing to break the moral laws? In the future, what will Baha'is do to enforce their religious moral laws?

 

[ppp]

I see morality is the possibilities within us that foster a fruitful growth of the human species.

I appreciate that. But that is what morality you think morality does. Not a definition of what it is.

EDIT: I take that back. It is a definition of what it is. It just need ssome firming up.

I see that our foundation in morality comes from God and shows up in the world when those that aim for those moral possibilities and goals, put them Into practice.

As your depiction of God has several immoral pillars in his foundation, even if I believed that being existed, I would not agree.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I appreciate that. But that is what morality you think morality does. Not a definition of what it is.

EDIT: I take that back. It is a definition of what it is. It just need ssome firming up.

I think morality is humanities strongest foundation, it makes us more than an animal, that does not have the choices we have.

We can choose to be good to all people.

As your depiction of God has several immoral pillars in his foundation, even if I believed that being existed, I would not agree

I see you are free to see that is the case. I see that an all knowing God, knows what is best for us, even if we are yet to understand why.

Faith gives me the ability to submit to a given law, even when I am yet to fully understand why. In doing this, I have found that over time, the wisdom of the Law is shown in many ways I had not yet considered.

We are told, this is the way of God since time began, and this will not change. This is what enables us to grow morally. God sets the standard and how we react to it either builds civilization, or if we neglect it, brings civilization down.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

I think morality is humanities strongest foundation, it makes us more than an animal, that does not have the choices we have.

Social species have morality. Members of such species can recognize each other as being like them, understand and support social rules, and work together. Fairness, empathy, reciprocity and compassion. Different degrees and different implementations. Same foundation.

I see you are free to see that is the case. I see that an all knowing God, knows what is best for us, even if we are yet to understand why.

You are free to think that you can "see" such a thing. I know that you are not rationally justified in saying so.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't. And if I believed that a god existed, his standard would mean nothing to me unless he could demonstrate to my satisfaction that they should.

How could God demonstrate that to you?
If God's standards, when followed, produced good people, would that be enough?

To paraphrase Plato (perhaps) paraphrasing Socrates, "Is an action good and just because God says it is good, or does God will the action because it is good and just." Seems like you are going with the first.

It is not an either/or. I am going with both.

 

[ppp]

How could God demonstrate that to you?

I don't know.

If God's standards, when followed, produced good people, would that be enough?

That questions attempts to force me to start with the assumption that the standards are from a God. And it implicitly assumes that I think the standards are good. Unload your questions before handing them to me. Please.

Try this. If presented with a set of standards that a) I consider to be good, and b) produce people who I consider to exhibit moral behaviors, would I consider that evidence that the standards came from God.

No. I would first need evidence that a god exists before I could attribute actions and products to that being.

It is not an either/or. I am going with both.

They are logically exclusive. But you can certainly try.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So anyone that has sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is immoral? And anyone that has sex with anyone of the same sex is immoral? So the problem is they haven't been properly educated about morality?

And how many truly "moral" people do think are in the world? How many do you think are truly moral within the different religions? How many are truly moral with in your religion, the Baha'i Faith? All of them? Most of them? Half of them? A few of them? And, supposing you do find some, who enforces the law and what do they do? They tell them to stop? They impose sanctions, like taking their voting rights away? How successful are Baha'is in "educating" and changing these law breakers behavior? And if they don't stop then what? Are they kicked out of the religion?

I see God gives Laws and each person will define how they will implement them in their lives. As each person chooses this path, then a collective morality is built based upon those laws. As this grows to a majority, these laws are reflected in the way Nations form their laws and then throughout the world.

Those that choose not to partake of the Law, keep themselves outside this collective morality and face any penalty that the majority has seen fit to set. It could be, that is the gratest penalty, and no other penalty is needed.

How the future will see our current issues and what laws they will decide to implement, can not yet be known in detail.

The greatest advice is to be concerned with the issues we face in the age we live. How we react to what God has given now, helps build the future of tomorrow, that our children in turn will build for the next generation.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Social species have morality. Members of such species can recognize each other as being like them, understand and support social rules, and work together. Fairness, empathy, reciprocity and compassion. Different degrees and different implementations. Same foundation.

I see all animals portray some or a few virtues, we are after all also animal.

The difference is Rational thought that can discover the secret of all things, human can thus trancend nature, we are not bound to it as the animal is.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are free to think that you can "see" such a thing. I know that you are not rationally justified in saying so.

It could be it is the most rational thing to conclude and that not to is not rationally justified.

To me God is the Most logical and Rational explanation to the intelligence we think we have.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

Rational thought that can discover the secret of all things

Rational thinking requires that one be able to explain one's process of ratiocination, provide ways to falsify one's position, and demonstrate that ones premises are true in the real world. Not merely in one's dogma.

The claim, "Rational thought that can discover the secret of all things" does not meet the last two criteria.

 

[Trailblazer]

Try this. If presented with a set of standards that a) I consider to be good, and b) produce people who I consider to exhibit moral behaviors, would I consider that evidence that the standards came from God.

Why would what you consider good be the criteria by which to determine what is good?

Why would what you consider moral behaviors be the criteria by which to determine what moral behaviors are?

In other words, if God existed, why would God’s standards for “good” and “moral behaviors” necessarily align with your standards?

No. I would first need evidence that a god exists before I could attribute actions and products to that being.

That makes sense but I guess you are out of luck then since there is no evidence that is acceptable to you.

They are logically exclusive. But you can certainly try.

Sorry, I did not see the word just, my mistake.

If you omit the word just, then they are not logically exclusive.

An action can be good because God says it is good AND God can will the action because it is good and just.

 

[ppp]

To me

"To me" tells me how you feel. Nothing about what actually is.