| Whats the one thing? |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: james ® 10/03/2002, 06:49:59 Author Profile Mail author |
Questions for Mormons, others...
What is the one thing you would like people to know about what you believe? What is the one most confusing thing that people misunderstand about your religion/philosophy? What is the one least understood religion or philosophy to you? What is it that bothers you the most about strict followers of another religion that you disagree with? Thank you,
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Whats the one thing? Re: Whats the one thing? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/03/2002, 11:13:24
Author Profile Mail author
...that what I believe regarding the existence of God has nothing whatsoever to do with how I live my life and how I behave.
What is the one most confusing thing that people misunderstand about your religion/philosophy?
...that it isn't a religion...it's a lack there of.
What is the one least understood religion or philosophy to you?
Christianity. I know the most about that religion and understand the need for it the least.
What is it that bothers you the most about strict followers of another religion that you disagree with?
...their apparent inability to think for themselves...the need they seem to have, that their behavior should be spelled out for them by some outside authority. Their lack of autonomy.
Interesting questions James.
thanks,
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Interesting RDL Re: Re: Whats the one thing? -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/04/2002, 02:59:25
Author Profile Mail author
The most interesting response is perhaps the first one."...that what I believe regarding the existence of God has nothing whatsoever to do with how I live my life and how I behave."
You certainly have a different perspective than a lot of people. Whatever you believe seems to allow you to have a great deal of personal freedom, how refreshing. I would be interested in hearing more abou this.
Thank you,
James
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Interesting RDL Re: Interesting RDL -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/04/2002, 09:10:47
Author Profile Mail author
what's so interesting? I'm an a-theist. I have no belief in God (or god). The response was to your question regarding what I would like people to know about my beliefs. It seems that there are many people out there that automatically assume that one needs a belief in some kind of deity to behave in an ethical and considerate manner. I find that a bit offensive. I would like them to know that I can act ethically, considerately, kindly etc. and not have anything watching over me to ensure that I behave that way.I don't think my perspective is all that different from most people. The only difference is that I take full responsibility and credit for all of my behavior. IOW, if I'm a jerk, then I'm a jerk and nothing "evil" influenced me, and if I'm wonderful, then I get to take credit for that too...nothing inspired me to act that way except myself. It's really pretty simple and straightforward. The consequences of my actions are what they are. There are not going to be any additional ones after I pass on. (or die, or end, or cease to exist)
I really think that people who claim to need the rules of some religion to live a "good" life are deluding themselves. They are trying to abdicate their responsibility for their own actions. And ultimately, they will choose the rules they wish to follow anyway. I cut out the middle man ;-)
Does that explain it for you?rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sorry if you found my response offensive Re: Re: Interesting RDL -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/06/2002, 08:39:34
Author Profile Mail author
Sorry if you found my response offensive. I certainly wasn't trying to get a rise out of you, or offend you. I would agree with you that being atheist or agnostic doesn't equal lack of ethics.No, my response had to do with something that I found a little odd from my perspective. I tend to believe that ones convictions has a lot to do with how one conducts oneself. At least this is how it ought to be.
I would add that ethics is relative to ones experience. Kohlberg described 6 levels of ethical development. Most people do NOT rise above level 4.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
**sigh** Re: Sorry if you found my response offensive -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/06/2002, 11:30:10
Author Profile Mail author
you say:
No, my response had to do with something that I found a little odd from my perspective. I tend to believe that ones convictions has a lot to do with how one conducts oneself. At least this is how it ought to be.interesting. I don't disagree, but I would be interested to know how you equate a person's beliefs (I'm assuming in a god or not god) with their convictions and subsequent conduct.
I would add that ethics is relative to ones experience. Kohlberg described 6 levels of ethical development. Most people do NOT rise above level 4.
since I'm too lazy (and incompetent) to dig through the Internet for Kohlberg and don't wish to buy one more book that won't get read, could you describe the 6 levels for me? I'd appreciate it.
thanks (and sorry for the miscommunication and my lamentable flippant tone that caused it)
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I can if you like, rdl Re: **sigh** -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/06/2002, 11:46:57
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Sun, Oct 06, 2002, 11:50:18
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
that would be fine Re: I can if you like, rdl -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/07/2002, 01:00:22
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Kohlberg (I live to serve you ,rdl ;) Re: that would be fine -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/07/2002, 02:04:38
Author Profile Mail author
I pulled this off the net for you:Preconventional Level
Stage 1: The Stage of Punishment and Obedience
Stage 2: The Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose and ExchangeConventional Level
Stage 3: The Stage of Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships and Conformity
Stage 4: The Stage of Social System and Conscience MaintenancePostconventional Level
Stage 5: The Stage of Prior Rights and Social Contract or Utility
Stage 6: The Stage of Universal Ethical Principles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level A. Preconventional Level
Stage 1. The Stage of Punishment and Obedience
Content
Right is literal obedience to rules and authority, avoiding punishment, and not doing physical harm.What is right is to avoid breaking rules, to obey for obedience’s sake, and to avoid doing physical damage to people and property.
The reasons for doing right are avoidance of punishment and the superior power of authorities.
Social Perspective
This stage takes an egocentric point of view. A person at this stage doesn’t consider the interests of others or recognize they differ from actor’s, and doesn’t relate two points of view. Actions are judged in terms of physical consequences rather than in terms of psychological interests of others. Authority’s perspective is confused with one’s own.
Stage 2. The Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange
Content
Right is serving one’s own or other’s needs and making fair deals in terms of concrete exchange.What is right is following rules when it is to someone’s immediate interest. Right is acting to meet one’s own interests and needs and letting others do the same. Right is also what is fair; that is, what is an equal exchange, a deal, an agreement.
The reason for doing right is to serve one’s own needs or interests in a world where one must recognize that other people have their interests, too.
Social Perspective
This stage takes a concrete individualistic perspective. A person at this stage separates his own interests and points of view from those of authorities and others. He or she is aware that everybody has individual interests to pursue and these conflict, so that right is relative (in the concrete individualistic sense). The person integrates or relates conflicting individual interests to one another through instrumental exchange of services, through instrumental need for the other and the other’s goodwill, or through fairness giving each person the same amount.
Level B. Conventional Level
Stage 3. The Stage of Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity
Content
The right is playing a good (nice) role, being concerned about the other people and their feelings, keeping loyalty and trust with partners, and being motivated to follow rules and expectations.What is right is living up to what is expected by people close to one or what people generally expect of people in one’s role as son, sister, friend, and so on. "Being good" is important and means having good motives, showing concern about others. It also means keeping mutual relationships, maintaining trust, loyalty, respect, gratitude.
Reasons for doing right are needing to be good in one’s own eyes and those of others, caring for others, and because if one puts oneself in the person’s place one would want good behavior from the self (Golden Rule).
Social Perspective
This stage takes the perspective of the individual in relationship to other individuals. A person at this stage is aware of shared feelings, agreements, and expectations, which take primacy over individual interests. The person relates points of view through the "concrete Golden Rule," putting oneself in the other person’s shoes. He or she does not consider generalized "system" perspective.
Stage 4. The Stage of Social System and Conscience Maintenance
Content
The right is doing one’s duty in society, upholding the social order, and maintaining the welfare of society or group.What is right is fulfilling the actual duties to which one has agreed. Laws are to be upheld except in extreme cases where they conflict with other fixed social duties and rights. Right is also contributing to society, the group, or institution.
The reasons for doing right are to keep the institution going as a whole, self-respect or conscience as meeting one’s defined obligations, or the consequences: "What if everyone did it?"
Social Perspective
This stage differentiates societal point of view from interpersonal agreement or motives. A person at this stage takes the viewpoint of the system, which defines roles and rules. He or she considers individual relations in terms of place in the system.
Level B/C. Transitional Level
This level is postconventional but not yet principled.
Content of Transition
At Stage 4 ½, choice is personal and subjective. It is based on emotions, conscience is seen as arbitrary and relative, as are ideas such as "duty" and "morally right."Transitional Social Perspective
At this stage, the perspective is that of an individual standing outside of his own society and considering himself as an individual making decisions without a generalized commitment or contract with society. One can pick and choose obligations, which are defined by particular societies, but one has no principles for such choice.
Level C. Postconventional and Principled Level
Moral decisions are generated from rights, values, or principles that are (or could be) agreeable to all individuals composing or creating a society designed to have fair and beneficial practices.
Stage 5. The Stage of Prior Rights and Social Contract or Utility
Content
The right is upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of a society, even when they conflict with the concrete rules and laws of the group.What is right is being aware of the fact that people hold a variety of values and opinions, that most values and rules are relative to one’s group. These "relative" rules should usually be upheld, however, in the interest of impartiality and because they are the social contract. Some nonrelative values and rights such as life and liberty, however, must be upheld in any society and regardless of majority opinion.
Reasons for doing right are, in general, feeling obligated to obey the law because one has made a social contract to make and abide by laws for the good of all and to protect their own rights and the rights of others. Family, friendship, trust, and work obligations are also commitments or contracts freely entered into and entail respect for the rights of others. One is concerned that laws and duties be based on rational calculation of overall utility: "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Social Perspective
This stage takes a prior-to-society perspective – that of a rational individual aware of values and rights prior to social attachments and contracts. The person integrates perspectives by formal mechanisms of agreement, contract, objective impartiality, and due process. He or she considers the moral point of view and the legal point of view, recognizes they conflict, and finds it difficult to integrate them.
Stage 6. The Stage of Universal Ethical Principles
Content
This stage assumes guidance by universal ethical principles that all humanity should follow.Regarding what is right, Stage 6 is guided by universal ethical principles. Particular laws or social agreements are usually valid because they rest on such principles. When laws violate these principles, one acts in accordance with the principle. Principles are universal principles of justice: the equality of human rights and respect for the dignity ofhuman beings as individuals. These are not merely values that are recognized, but are also principles used to generate particular decisions.
The reason for doing right is that, as a rational person, one has seen the validity of principles and has become committed to them.
Social Perspective
This stage takes the perspective of a moral point of view from which social arrangements derive or on which they are grounded. The perspective is that of any rational individual recognizing the nature of morality or the basic moral premise of respect for other persons as ends, not means.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A little Piaget to go with that Kohlberg Re: Kohlberg (I live to serve you ,rdl ;) -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/07/2002, 02:09:32
Author Profile Mail author
This is an old post I wrote (yes, I can write a coherent post when I'm not blithering ;). A little Piaget to go with that Kohlberg...
Piaget Anyone?
Author: Vicki (IP Logged)
Date: 08-07-01 02:43My turn Darr and Craig C.
Jean Piaget's stage theory of moral development identifies 3 stages and one transitional stage as follows:
1. Premoral (0-6 years): Characterized as an unawareness of rules, reasons and consequences.
2. Moral Realism (6-8 yrs): Characterized by a focus on rules and the seriousness of consequences of an act rather than on the intentions behind the act.
3. Heteronomous (transition): morality that is governed by OTHERS rather than by oneself.
4. Moral Relativism (8yrs+): morality that focuses on the judgment of situations and underlying intentions of the individual's behavior rather than focusing only on the consequences of the act in question.
The 8 year old is in a precarious situation as while they are in moral reasoning mid shift they are simultaneously transitioning cognitive stages from preoperations to concrete operations. (Concrete operations are followed by Formal Operations....I hover between Concrete Op's and Formal Op's while Craig C. has made the leap to Formal Op's)
The typical peer 8 year old child displays "rule bound" thinking and behavior characterized by a belief that:
1. Rules are rules, regardless of intentions.
2. Rules cannot be changed.
3. Rules have been set by an ALL-KNOWING and POWERFUL authority figure.
(God, parents, teachers)
4. The importance of a rule is in direct proportion to the severity of the
punishment it illicits.
5. Obedience to rules means that one is GOOD; disobedience means that one is
BAD.
6. Punishment is a NECESSARY RESULT of breaking a rule.In plain English, a child of 8 who has been raised up in a religious environment of any kind, is acutely vulnerable to "buying into" religious dogma, doctrine, beliefs and practices. Once they have accepted the "rules and consequences" of their own religious doctrine there they will stay until they begin to engage in moral relativism. During the adolescent period children will begin to use moral relativism to justify their rebellion, as we grow into adulthood we begin to view our behavior in terms of realistic outcomes and adjust our behavior and choices as needed in order to participate cooperatively,positively and successfully (sociopaths not withstanding) within the parameters of society as a greater whole in order to meet our life goals and, if we remain believers, goals for spiritual growth.
How'd I do? Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Oct 07, 2002, 02:11:06
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
my thanks Re: Kohlberg (I live to serve you ,rdl ;) -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/07/2002, 02:39:13
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Kohlberg link Re: **sigh** -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: James ®
10/07/2002, 05:09:47
Author Profile Mail author
Yes, here is a link to Kohlberg.
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.htmlMy understanding of behavior related to a belief in God is probably pretty close to level 4 thinking. Although I can see that even atheists can have level 4 thinking as well. With most organized religion seeking approval of others is a major factor in what behavior is realized. Civic duty and general lawful behavior is also very characteristic of this level. The only problem is if you place strict law (religious or civil) above genuine concern for others.
Higher ethical behavior is not quite so clear cut or simple as keeping or breaking any particular law or social convention. People often have a fear or concern about not applying 'rules' evenly or consistiently. Mutualism is the major characteristic.
Behavior on this level is very poorly understood and is often misjudged by other levels of ethical developement.Level six is even more confusing, as as this little article states, even Kohlberg had a difficult time finding people with level 6 development to clearly study level 6 attributes. It could all just be a fiction, but it certainly is worth investigating more if you are interested.
James
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
From another point of view Re: Sorry if you found my response offensive -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: James ®
10/07/2002, 05:25:07
Author Profile Mail author
Another interesting set of remarks on Kohlberg, somewhat at varience, but enough in common to lead to understanding.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
many thanks Re: From another point of view -- James Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/07/2002, 06:38:37
Author Profile Mail author
Guess I better go study some more and figure out why this is so difficult.Thank you much for your efforts on my behalf.
rdl
Modified by rdl at Mon, Oct 07, 2002, 06:44:01
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
More... Re: many thanks -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/08/2002, 00:06:56
Author Profile Mail author
Here is one person's commentary upon individual conscious.
http://www.awa.com/w2/erotic_computing/sharpless.html
I suppose the difficult part is making a choice outside of the influence of your social circle, religious or cultural upbringing, political affiliation or any other influence outside of your realm of knowledge. Very difficult, and very intellectually demanding. I suppose that a level 6 person could be a person who is a leader of a country, or perhaps a Nobel scientist. I suppose that level 6 ethics need not be so visible, but I get the idea that level 6 ethics comes from a position where there is the potential for a large influence of other people, and perhaps where there are also a lot of unknowns.
I also I think that high ethics demands mastery of ones own personal issues, and is tolerant and skilled in dealing with people who haven't mastered their emotional issues. There are a number of systems which attempts to classify people according to disposition and emotional issues.
http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/index.html
I like this site because it recognizes that there is a distinction between being of a particular personality type that can be very functional and beneficial to ones own well being, and that of society. It also recognizes that there are also pathological representations for each particular type.
I am trying to think of an example of higher ethics. Perhaps a certain leader of a country visits another leader or group of leaders. Suppose someone spills something during the dinner, or perhaps trips and falls down the flight of stairs. To me it is folly to focus on these types of things. But, the media usually covers every single faulty movement, every misspelling, and every fall. The wise leader will know to focus on the serious matters at hand and seek to establish peace, or focus on coming to some desired outcome that is mutually beneficial to each country. If not, at least something that is mutually agreeable by contract.
Maybe higher ethics can also be realized on more subtle levels, and on the one to one level. Last night I sampled some vitamins at a health food store. One contained trace minerals. I mentioned that these were only required in micrograms or even picograms per day, which are extremely small amounts. The woman very quickly interrupted and stated that these elements were in small particle form, and stressed again the importance of getting these minerals, as current farming techniques did not make them available in food. After hearing her comment I realized that she wasn't technically knowledgeable, or at least did not want to discuss this issue with me, but rather she was only concerned about selling me the product. I decided to save my breath, as she obviously didn't adequately respond to my inquiry, or even let me complete my comments. So I got a free sample, and I didn't buy the bottle she was trying to sell. I just quietly said thank you and went on my way. Higher ethics? Common sense? I would be curious to see things from her perspective. Maybe she just thought I was just being a technical know-it-all jerk, who just likes to try and shoot down perfectly good products. who knows…
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Whats the one thing? Re: Whats the one thing? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: RC ®
10/04/2002, 05:06:57
Author Profile Mail author
That they can believe whatever they want. That is an important part of what I believe - freedom of religious belief. I may not agree with it and sometimes I may even consider other people's beliefs to be a bit obtuse, but they are welcome to their beliefs.
What is the one most confusing thing that people misunderstand about your religion/philosophy?
At the present, I consider myself agnostic. Is that confusing?
What is the one least understood religion or philosophy to you?
I think most religions have a pretty good rationale for their existence, which means I can understand why people believe what they believe. I am naive about some religions, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Jainism in particular, but I can understand why people believe what they believe. Not sure if that answers your question.
What is it that bothers you the most about strict followers of another religion that you disagree with?
I don't know that I necessarily disagree with any religion. The one belief that bothers me the most is exclusivity of truth or the idea that one religion is right and everyone else is wrong. Not all religions have that, but the ones that do kind of bother me. I understand why they think that way, but it still makes me feel uncomfortable.
I like the questions. Kind of make ya' think.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you for your response Re: Re: Whats the one thing? -- RC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/09/2002, 05:57:26
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your response! That was pretty direct, nothing confusing. This post hasn't generated as much responses as I thought it might. I guess it was too friendly. I thought it would be good to just talk about things and not attack. You know gather information.I was hoping this would stimulate more discussion, but its not as effective as posting something totally off the wall or controversial.
Thank you!
James
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Thank you for your response Re: Thank you for your response -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: RC ®
10/09/2002, 10:03:47
Author Profile Mail author
Anyway, I appreciate your posts. From what I can tell, you seem to be more interested in learning than convincing everyone you know something. You also don't seem to be interested in fighting and bickering. Good for you! I think the board could use more people like that.
Thank you!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What I learned! Re: Re: Thank you for your response -- RC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/10/2002, 03:22:13
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Whats the one thing? Re: Whats the one thing? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/09/2002, 10:52:51
Author Profile Mail author
I just re-read your post and felt bad because I'd prepared a post and then got busy. Real busy! Here's what I'd want people to know about me...
That I don't think my "religion" is more "perfect" than other religions for all religion is man-made and all contain elements of altruism and compassion (which appeal to me) and all groups of people (religious or otherwise) contain certain types of people (depending on their psychological make up, their personality and their life experiences and teaching) who are prone to bigotry and ethnocentricsm (which does NOT appeal to me) that fuel religious fervor and makes them do harm to others.
That while I do believe that the Bible was God inspired I dont think we have to believe it is inerrant for it was written by human authors. Example: Do believers ever misread what God is showing them? Yes. Do we sometimes "read" our own desires into what we believe God is showing us? Yes. Do we sometimes substitute our own will for God's? Yes. I leave myself open to the idea that the authors of the Bible were human like me, subject to the same kinds of human failings as I am and the only difference between them and me is that their works are published based on the decisions of OTHER human beings who most likely had their own human agenda for choosing them. Example: Do believers believe that humans can interfere with God's will? I sure do! Could the humans who chose the scripts to be published have interfered? Of course they could.
That because I'm open to considering new ideas and perspectives (like investigating the theology of the church fathers) doesn't mean my spiritual walk isn't sturdy or that I'm easily influenced. It means that I care to learn about the roots of my faith and consider that the contemporary church has placed it's own societal and spiritual bent on scripture and it's meanings. Just as the authors of scripture and those who chose them.
That "cafeteria" Christians aren't indecisive. They are anti-dogmatic independent thinkers. If I hadn't the capacity to think and act independently and consider alternative interpretations of scripture and to keep digging at it, I would be a card carrying fundamentalist who thought that the unsure and homosexuals didn't have a chance in hell of seeing heaven.I believe strongly in mercy, grace, and love.
In terms of this board. That because I honor and respect the non-believers on this board it doesn't mean that I'm putty in their hands! I haven't stayed here for near on two years by sucking up! LOL! I consider that in many areas, they are more knowledgeable than I and have something to offer us. I intend to PRY it out of them! I'm rather stubborn, confident and while I'm teachable, I'm by no means maleable! LOL!
In terms of this board. That because I sometimes go nose to nose with non-believers AND believers on this board doesn't mean I disrespect them or that I'm simply contentious. Okay, scratch that! I AM contentious! LOL!
Religions I know little about: Eastern Religions.
What bothers me most about strict followers of other religions that I disagree with? Not much. Only the bigots illicit the slow burn!
Thanks for the great questions!
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sounds great Re: Re: Whats the one thing? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/10/2002, 03:26:38
Author Profile Mail author
Sounds great! That sounds like a realistic self-evaluation.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
