|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted November 08, 2019 04:29 PM |
|
|
If you dig deep enough, all moral codes have some kind of beneficial motive behind them, not much different than "don't walk under a ladder, because things can fall on you." Sometimes, the conditions change, yet the moral code remains as taboo but no moral code evolves that had no benefit (or at least the assumption of benefit) in the first place.
And no, politheistic religions were not "personal" in that sense, they still had ceremonies, temples, rituals which were obviously social phenomenon. But unlike monotheism, just like you call different people to fix your car, paint your house, check your heart condition, and you dont mind if my plumber is different than yours, but there is still a moral context in which we treat all these people, Romans had different gods for different occasions. But all the soldiers prayed together to Mars before going to battle and there was a certain code of conduct, a dignified way a soldier should behave, which, if violated, would upset Mars. It's one thing to say they are less contractual, which they are, it's another thing to completely isolate them from normative patterns, which wasn't the case.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2019 05:12 PM |
|
|
Not only had they different gods, one and the same god had different names for different purposes. And it should be quite clear that you cannot follow any "morals" of them all.
No, you are simply wrong. No morals there. No normative force. Nothing. Sorry.
With Augustus things changed a bit in Rome, true, because he utilized religion for his own purposes. But that has nothing to do with the religion as such.
EDIT: And this Quote:
If you dig deep enough, all moral codes have some kind of beneficial motive behind them, not much different than "don't walk under a ladder, because things can fall on you."
is just ridiculous - walking under a ladder is supposed to bring bad luck (same as having a black cat crossing from this side to that in from of you). It's not the same thing because it has not the slightest normative social value. Social moral isn't "helpful".
My impression is that this is arguing for arguing's sake without proper facts. I've had enough of that, lately.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 07:45 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:55, 09 Nov 2019.
|
If you dig deep enough there is always a reason why people think this thing and not the other brings bad luck, that was too clear an implication, I didint even bother to elaborate. For instance, there are whole books on why it is considered “a sin” to eat pork in some cultures. Why are black cats considered bad luck and not white ones, probably because it was symbolism for darkness, which is night and it is dangerous and not benefical to go wander in the night. As I already said, you have a verry narrow perception of what would constitute morality, the very basic Greek notion that you should not tempt the Gods, not mess with the order of things and live in harmony with nature is clearly normative, it tells you HOW TO live your life. If the famous scale of Osiris, the Egyptian deity that puts your heart on a scale after you die, (and the heart weighs light if it is not full of “proper values”) isnt symbolism for moral code, I dont know what is. Once again Mars, how can you talk about to “bless and purify land” if there are no normative values, the very notion that something becomes “purified” is normative: Suovetaourilia. The very idea that “it is the right thing to offer sacrifice to gods” is a moral code. Right and wrong = moral code. Social moral is of course helpful, it may not seem instantly helpful in some cases but the golden rule in every culture is "do to others what you want done to you."
I’m the one giving you solid examples in my every post, yet somehow it is me who is not going by facts. It’s just funny how you think this is arguing for the sake of arguing because I was thinking like, “well, JJ never changes his mind anyway” and decided to drop it last night.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 09:59 AM |
|
|
Look, artu, in the Wikipedia article "Morality and Religion " reads: Quote:
Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong.
The keyword here is "many" which is definitely less than "all" which is what you said.
Even with the many, the difference between the Abrahamic religions and the others is, that their moral framework is A LOT less normative. Again - that's why Rome allowed conquered people to keep their religion. It should be obvious, that if a religious framework had RELEVANT social meaning, you couldn't do that (that's the circle drawn to today: religious freedom is something we have today as well, in some countries at least, and in these countries the morality bedded into the religions is, for society as a whole irrelevant, in that it becomes personal).
You can see that in the laws of a society. The Jewish law has been based on religion. The Roman - not so much.
The purpose of all this "morality" (that is, the advice) has been a completely different one. Keep in mind that religion was basically what Physics is today - it delivered an explanation what the world was, why it was what it was and what the governing forces were. So sacrifice and other cultic acts were more or less manuals of what to do. Today you STUDY agriculture and generally know what happens why. Then they didn't. They sacrificed stuff in order to sway the forces.
That has, for me, nothing to do with morality in the ethics sense. Religion was more like a "manual" on how to navigate life with the ruling (natural) forces.
If you want to call that "morality" the word loses all meaning. I mean, it has nothing to do with morality when you book a holiday for next year and you make a travel cancellation insurance as well (instead of sacrificing a hen so that nothing untoward will happen and I can make the holiday).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 10:24 AM |
|
|
First of all, by your logic, only monotheistic theocracies can have moral relevance, does people being able to choose their religion, make those religions any less significant in their claim of moral guidance in today’s world. No. Politheistic means politheistic, it doesnt mean nihilistic.
And what I’m telling you is that morality is also a part of that navigation, the part regarding behavior. Is obeying the Christian god not to go to hell, really too different from sacrificing to Mars so that he wont curse you? Do you seriously believe moral codes develop the way they do, out of pure luck? Could they have been “dont wear purple pjamas“ instead of ”dont steal” by chance? Pagan gods are more arbitrary in their acts (only compared to Abrahamic ones), yes, in a way, you can say they reflect nature better, they are more like earthquakes and tsunamis, because they are not yet claimed to be omnibenevolent, they can get angry at you for being jealous of your wife’s beauty. Yet, it is still considered a moral act to obey them, just like it’s traditionally considered a moral act to obey your father even if you think his actions are not just. Obedience as loyalty, itself, is also a moral conduct and it is a moral conduct because people thought it was not wise to piss off “forces of nature.”
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 11:22 AM |
|
|
I think we agree that religion isn't given societies by the gods. As it's more or less stories told by members of societies, the moral lectures you are so keen on finding there, are obviously already part of the social structure starting to tell the story - it mirrors of what's already there.
As I said, religion is basically "natural science" (science not in today's meaning). Religion was a manual of "established knowledge".
Quote:
Do you seriously believe moral codes develop the way they do, out of pure luck?
Of course not. Moral codes have developed as soon as people started to live together in "communities", because a "code" was necessary to survive. You will have noticed, that the generalization of ethics for all humans or even beings is a fairly recent thing. Until not so long ago all moral codes were "ingroup codes", valid for the group only. You shouldn't steal from members of your own society/group (because that will lead to infighting which may lead to the death of the whole group), but stealing from other groups is perfectly ok, provided the group isn't stronger than yours or has no way to identify the stealer. In fact, stealing from others may even be considered good and right.
"Moral code" translated to teaching your children what they must know to survive and be part of the group. What was right and what was wrong.
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 11:37 AM |
|
|
It seems to me you're both arguing the same thing
The Count
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 01:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:22, 09 Nov 2019.
|
@JJ
That's why tribal societies have tribal religions with tribal moral codes. And the god of the Old Testament is no exception that. But tribal is not the same as "personal" in the modern sense. Individualism is rather a very new thing. That's why people saw nothing wrong with stories from the Bible or Quran in which God gets angry at "a sinner city" and destroys it with all the children and innocent in it. Now you see the relevance here, it is both an explanation of natural phenomenon; a volcano erruption or an epidemic, but also moral guidance: If you folks behave bad, God will burn down your city. You can not dissect myths from morality, they are the explanations of natural phenomenon and moral guides of their day. Because back then, people believed nature behaved the way it did for a reason. Earthquakes, epidemics, floods didn't "just happen." They were punishments, warning, threats.
Rome was an empire, jews were many of the tribes with their own moral codes and religion, hence internal laws regarding that within that empire. This goes for many other groups just as well.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 02:24 PM |
|
|
Individuality was recognized in the ancient world but it was reduced compared to today. Tribes carried joint responsibility for their actions. If you were a young man on the battlefield you were the enemy and if you were a young woman supplying food and clothing you were also the enemy. Each of them was fair game to be killed or enslaved after victory and this was acceptable conduct. It was also pragmatic. You don't kill the armed grown men and then leave the boys and girls to grow up into soldiers and mothers who will hate you and raise their children to hate you. You either cut them down or made them into a slave class.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 04:59 PM |
|
|
@ artu
That's where I balk: calling that "moral" or "morality". Survival tips are just NOT what I would call that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 07:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:45, 09 Nov 2019.
|
They may not be the most subtle or layered morality but as I said, morality always goes deeper into a practical layer. Do not have sex out of wedlock (so that there is no fatherless children around turning into potential punks and you dont catch disease.) Hence, when people had birth control + modern medicine, the taboo weakened to the point of disappearing in some cultures. Do not lie (so that we can trust each other and function as a whole, you can have your “white lies” for special occasions.) If you look at most societies, the biggest moral taboos are usually about harming children (but really harming, not beating up to educate and protect from danger like in old times) or hurting pregnant women, think that’s coincidence.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2019 09:16 PM |
|
|
No. I disagree.
Has nothing to do with religion. Children? In the old age?
Religion just didn't do what you say it does. With polytheism, there is a god for everything and no matter what you do, you can find a god you can turn to. Thief, beggar, snow, whatever.
No, artu. You are wrong.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 01:05 AM |
|
|
What has this got to do with religions having moral codes and moral codes, beneath their layers, having assumed benefical outcome? If there is a god for thieves, thieves got to apply a certain conduct to please that god, which would be then some sort of "honor among thieves." A moral code. All the dictionary definitions fit my description but since you like wiki quotes so much, I will add the definiton from there also:
Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 08:29 AM |
|
|
Yes. And this is something religions come with in more or less pronounced and more or less clearly phrased quantities, from zero to copious.
I don't even see your problem. If you take a society that allows everyone their own religion, than a SECULAR moral rule is, "allow everyone their own religion". If everyone is allowed their own religion, then it's quite obvious that the workings of the society in general cannot be dominated by "it" - because there is no "it", there are THEM. Which makes them personally more or less relevant in a subjective way, but not socially.
Festivities in the name of this or that god? Like Halloween for most: no idea what the heck this is all about, but, hey, let's party.
And don't forget - Rome was a secular state with a secular law that included how far personal religious practices could go (if necessary), since it was a law that favored societal benefit, not individual.
Religion was part of the everyday life, but not normative for society, which was organized quite worldly.
This is also one of the reasons why Christianity was persecuted after Augustus. Too "moral" - with lots of unwished consequences for the workings of the Roman Empire, a danger for the "system".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 02:23 PM |
|
|
Not exactly what we had been talking about but again, you are acting as if modern secular law and imperial pluralism are the same thing, they are not. The Ottomans took their model mostly from Romans in this regard, too: Communities within the empire were free to execute their (religion based) laws and moral customs in internal affairs, as long as they didnt rebel against the empire, it was okay. But that didnt mean individuals were free to reject religion or interpret it anyway they want. I mean, just think of the story of Jesus himself, he is a jew who interprets religion and morality in an unorthodox way, what do the jews do, do they say “hey, this is Rome, to each his own.” No, they accuse him with heresy. Yet, they cant kill him because their internal law (based on religious morals) forbids that. So they ask the Roman governor to do so.
I think you are having a problem associating morality and religion in some cases because the “moral” origin of customs can be buried deep in. Simple example again: we can all understand why it can be considered immoral to get drunk in some cultures, it alters the mind, people can do stupid things, get violent, get addicted and become alcoholics etc. So Islamic law completely forbids it, now it turns into a taboo. Wine can be used as an ingridient while cooking, and because of the heat, all the alcohol vaporizes away anyway. But Muslims dont even use wine while cooking, because it is now, taboo. And, if 2000 years from now, if drinking alcohol is no more a thing and wine is just a cooking ingridient, the custom may still survive. Somebody without historical perspective would then find it hard to give this custom a moral origin, but with proper tracking, it’s easy.
I mean, this is why morality shouldnt be left to religion anyway. Because once something becomes religion, it loses flexibility to a great deal. Especially, if the religion is as contractual as the Abrahamic ones.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 03:42 PM |
|
|
You cannot argue, claiming something valid generally and then coming up with an example from one specific religion.
Mind you, I already said that a book of laws that is supposedly given by god isn't moral, because it's not OUR moral. It's gods. GOD says, here are the laws you have to follow and here are the penalties if you don't. Not following the law will bring a penalty AND is immoral because you disobeyed God. That is the one immorality there is in that regard. Everything God says you shouldn't do but incurs no penalty is just "immoral" when you still do it, but not because of the thing, but because you disobeyed god.
That is true for the example with the alcohol as well.
And if you say now, but the laws are not given from god - you cannot have both. If the people involved didn't believe that they wouldn't follow that "moral" in the first place - they do.
Secondly, your Roman example Jesus is wrong. Jesus was given over to Pilate with the accusation of being a political agitator, inciting people to rebel against Rome. Pilate, however, didn't find anything and gave Jesus back to Herod. Like I said, Rome wasn't interested in religion, except when it might have repercussions for the Empire. I wrote that, so I don't see what point you are trying to make here.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:57, 10 Nov 2019.
|
Dude, you were the one bringing up Rome like religion was just "personal business" and that is historically wrong. The Jesus story is a fitting example of that. Why did the Jewish clergy see him as a "political agitator" in your words, because he was trying to run for senate? No, on religious grounds. They asked Pilates to kill him because THEIR LAW based on religion didnt allow them to, how does it matter if he was given back or not? Jews were under the rule of Rome and their law and morals were defined by religion.
If you want to talk about general, I already summed up to you four definitions of morality and how in all of them it is about normative definitions of right or wrong behaviour based on a conduct. And I also already gave almost a dozen examples from various religions about how they involve codes of normative behaviour and code of conduct. You started out by claiming things as absurd as "do not sleep with your neighbor's wife is not morals, it's law as if these two were mutually exclusive before secularism, you then confuse secularism with imperial pluralism, you look at things very anachronically. So, you jump from post to post, trying to "explain away" very obvious fact by examples because you simply can not handle being wrong and not having the last word. Well, I'm getting pretty tired of cleaning up the mass each time:
"Not following the law will bring a penalty AND is immoral because you disobeyed God. That is the one immorality there is in that regard. Everything God says you shouldn't do but incurs no penalty is just "immoral" when you still do it, but not because of the thing, but because you disobeyed god."
I already covered this: There was no such clear distinction before secular law and secular law is also based on a moral concept: human rights. Human Rights is something we invented. (Also keep in mind, in the beginning these rights were also defined as "god given.")
How can such a simple thing not get through you is beyond me but if a behavior is categorized as right or wrong, there is a moral claim. Cultures come up with moral codes, packages that define X behavior right or wrong. In ancient times, they did this with religion, the religions they created was explaining the world to them and they got their moral codes from what they understood from that explanation. Most also made their law according to that, imperial pluralism does not change this, because it is about having many customs and cultures under one authority. It will inevitably have a "higher law" not because morals had nothing to do with religion, because there were too many religions (and moralities) to rule. But each micro society still based their morals on their religion (a.k.a. how they explained the world.). They didnt care about the other group's religion and they had no intention to convert. This doesn't mean no morality, it just means politheism.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 08:25 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Dude, you were the one bringing up Rome like religion was just "personal business" and that is historically wrong. The Jesus story is a fitting example of that. Why did the Jewish clergy see him as a "political agitator" in your words, because he was trying to run for senate? No, on religious grounds. They asked Pilates to kill him because THEIR LAW based on religion didnt allow them to, how does it matter if he was given back or not? Jews were under the rule of Rome and their law and morals were defined by religion.
But we were talking about ROME here, and not once in that case you brought up MORAL is playing anyrole. LAW does. As you say yourself.
Quote:
If you want to talk about general, I already summed up to you four definitions of morality and how in all of them it is about normative definitions of right or wrong behaviour based on a conduct. And I also already gave almost a dozen examples from various religions about how they involve codes of normative behaviour and code of conduct. You started out by claiming things as absurd as "do not sleep with your neighbor's wife is not morals, it's law as if these two were mutually exclusive before secularism, you then confuse secularism with imperial pluralism, you look at things very anachronically. So, you jump from post to post, trying to "explain away" very obvious fact by examples because you simply can not handle being wrong and not having the last word.
It's the other way round - you claimed that all religions were about moral, and that's just wrong, was was already established. Now instead you saying, ok, not all then, but many, you are stubbornly trying to prove against every relevant quote, no ALL. As I said, if you make a 100% claim, examples won't do. Basic science.
Quote:
Quote:
"Not following the law will bring a penalty AND is immoral because you disobeyed God. That is the one immorality there is in that regard. Everything God says you shouldn't do but incurs no penalty is just "immoral" when you still do it, but not because of the thing, but because you disobeyed god."
I already covered this: There was no such clear distinction before secular law and secular law is also based on a moral concept: human rights. Human Rights is something we invented. (Also keep in mind, in the beginning these rights were also defined as "god given.")
There is no connection between your answer and what I said. What I said is that MORAL comes into play only when there is no law. Everything covered by a law isn't imMORAL, but ilLEGAL.
Quote:
How can such a simple thing not get through you is beyond me but if a behavior is categorized as right or wrong, there is a moral claim. Cultures come up with moral codes, packages that define X behavior right or wrong. In ancient times, they did this with religion.
They didn't. Not in the way you seem to assume. There IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG in ancient religions, because there are no real rules. The gods do what they want, this god wants this, that god wants that, nothing is really defined, and it depends on which god the individual is leaning to, probably because of their profession, what is right or wrong. And I can't understand why this doesn't get through you. Everything goes, for everything there is a god - but there is also a law, and in Rome it's a secular law. It is, even if you claim we invented that. In practise it is.
Quote:
the religions they created was explaining the world to them and they got their moral codes from what they understood from that explanation. Most also made their law according to that, imperial pluralism does not change this, because it is about having many customs and cultures under one authority. It will inevitably have a "higher law" not because morals had nothing to do with religion, because there were too many religions (and moralities) to rule. But each micro society still based their morals on their religion (a.k.a. how they explained the world.). They didnt care about the other group's religion and they had no intention to convert. This doesn't mean no morality, it just means politheism.
See that last quote. And "How they explain the world" is no moral.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:44, 10 Nov 2019.
|
JJ said:
But we were talking about ROME here, and not once in that case you brought up MORAL is playing anyrole. LAW does. As you say yourself.
Once again, what you claim is pagan Roman religion(s) are isolated from morality, they are just explanations. What I’m saying is, and this is like basic anthropology, that they are not; Ancient Rome has no central religious authority such as the Catholic Church. But it consists of many social groups with many religions that ALL have various moral codes. What Roman authority doesn’t care about is, which group believes in what religion. Now, in the beginning, what I said was, word by word, this:
- Yes, religions are basically stories that try to explain things and make sense of the world but they are stories that suggest moral codes.
Which you replied to:
- That's where I disagree: religion isn't moral at all. Gods are doing all kinds of immoral crap, Egyptian, Greek, you name it. Even the good ones (Zeus siring lots of children...)
Now, anybody who is aware of the fact that there is not an actual eternal and singular morality that is sent by some super-natural entity (and you say you are aware), knows that doesn’t mean “Gods are doing all kinds of immoral crap.” That means, those people had a different moral code about what is “okay” for gods to do or not. At this point, I even gave you the very obvious example of the Biblical god, destroying cities and again, “killing lots of children.” By today’s standards, a typical person will see such destruction as a wrong act, even an evil act, cities don’t get punished, individuals do. But in the times of Old Testament, obviously this was not the moral norm, so, the stories of gods were also told accordingly. There are lots of stories in any religion which doesnt fit our modern moral standards and part of today's theology is to come up with creative excuses for them. Yet, people who believe in the Biblical god, still base their morality on the explanation of the cosmos by the Biblical god and there were indeed moral implications about how people should behave in those explanations. In other words, what gods did wasn’t only about the explanation of natural phenomenon, it was also about the consequences of people’s actions.
JJ said:
There is no connection between your answer and what I said. What I said is that MORAL comes into play only when there is no law. Everything covered by a law isn't imMORAL, but ilLEGAL.
This is not even true by today’s secular standards, where as child porn is considered both immoral and illegal, having a barn in your yard that doesn’t match city regulations will be considered only illegal by most. I am astonished to find myself in a situation where I need to explain that immoral and illegal are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This was more the case before the separation of state and religion, and do not confuse imperial pluralism with modern secularism, this is again what you do here:
JJ said:
They didn't. Not in the way you seem to assume. There IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG in ancient religions, because there are no real rules. The gods do what they want, this god wants this, that god wants that, nothing is really defined, and it depends on which god the individual is leaning to, probably because of their profession, what is right or wrong. And I can't understand why this doesn't get through you. Everything goes, for everything there is a god - but there is also a law, and in Rome it's a secular law. It is, even if you claim we invented that. In practise it is.
There are rights and wrongs. It is not identical to the contractual Abrahamic gods' but it is still wrong to behave in a way that would upset the gods, the pagan gods are a little more (but really just a little more) anthropomorphic in the sense that they can get upset or jealous of a mortal’s beauty or strength, but they still curse and punish behaviour that is considered “not wise” and naturally, wrong. It’s just that those wrongs aren’t the traditional Victorian values that flash in your mind when you think of right & wrong.
And Rome is not secular law, a jew can still sue another jew by religious dogma in their local court, just like a shaman would punish a shaman according to their custom, Rome wont care as long as it's some local disturbance. That's not secular law in the sense that the state protects an individual's right not to believe.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2019 11:06 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Now, anybody who is aware of the fact that there is not an actual eternal and singular morality that is sent by some super-natural entity (and you say you are aware), knows that doesn’t mean “Gods are doing all kinds of immoral crap.” That means, those people had a different moral code about what is “okay” for gods to do or not. At this point, I even gave you the very obvious example of the Biblical god, destroying cities and again, “killing lots of children.” By today’s standards, a typical person will see such destruction as a wrong act, even an evil act, cities don’t get punished, individuals do. But in the times of Old Testament, obviously this was not the moral norm, so, the stories of gods were also told accordingly. There are lots of stories in any religion which doesnt fit our modern moral standards and part of today's theology is to come up with creative excuses for them. Yet, people who believe in the Biblical god, still base their morality on the explanation of the cosmos by the Biblical god and there were indeed moral implications about how people should behave in those explanations. In other words, what gods did wasn’t only about the explanation of natural phenomenon, it was also about the consequences of people’s actions.
I'm a bit perplexed by that one, because I have no idea what this is actually supposed to show. I may not fully understand what you want to say, but to me it looks like THERE WAS NO MORAL, whereas you say, then it was moral to destroy cities. Now it's not. I think that is nonsense - THEN there simply WAS NO "moral" the way we define it now, just SURVIVAL. That's what I try to tell you. SURVIVAL (and survival tips) don't waste time on moral.
Quote:
JJ said:
There is no connection between your answer and what I said. What I said is that MORAL comes into play only when there is no law. Everything covered by a law isn't imMORAL, but ilLEGAL.
This is not even true by today’s secular standards, where as child porn is considered both immoral and illegal, having a barn in your yard that doesn’t match city regulations will be considered only illegal by most. I am astonished to find myself in a situation where I need to explain that immoral and illegal are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
That isn't what I meant. When something is illegal IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it's immoral or not. However, when something is immoral it's of no consequence, except when it's also illegal. Cheating on your spouse is immoral, but not illegal. Did anyone ever care? Having a barn in your card and so on isn't immoral - but people DO care.
Quote:
This was more the case before the separation of state and religion, and do not confuse imperial pluralism with modern secularism, this is again what you do here:
JJ said:
They didn't. Not in the way you seem to assume. There IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG in ancient religions, because there are no real rules. The gods do what they want, this god wants this, that god wants that, nothing is really defined, and it depends on which god the individual is leaning to, probably because of their profession, what is right or wrong. And I can't understand why this doesn't get through you. Everything goes, for everything there is a god - but there is also a law, and in Rome it's a secular law. It is, even if you claim we invented that. In practise it is.
There are rights and wrongs. It is not identical to the contractual Abrahamic gods' but it is still wrong to behave in a way that would upset the gods, the pagan gods are a little more (but really just a little more) anthropomorphic in the sense that they can get upset or jealous of a mortal’s beauty or strength, but they still curse and punish behaviour that is considered “not wise” and naturally, wrong. It’s just that those wrongs aren’t the traditional Victorian values that flash in your mind when you think of right & wrong.
No, you are absolutely and utterly wrong. Because in the ancient times all the stories are based around individuals who DO upset the gods. Who "rebel" or do something AGAINST the will of the gods. Yes, they are punished. But they are the real thing. Prometheus? Right? Wrong? He brought humans the fire AGAINST Zeus's will suffered for it and got absolved. And so on.
Quote:
And Rome is not secular law, a jew can still sue another jew by religious dogma in their local court, just like a shaman would punish a shaman according to their custom, Rome wont care as long as it's some local disturbance. That's not secular law in the sense that the state protects an individual's right not to believe.
What kind of a point is that supposed to be? The same thing is true today. There isn't just ONE court, you always go to a local court, and if someone isn't satisfied AND FINDS REASON they can appeal and go to a higher court. Every Jew sued by another Jew and dissatisfied with the outcome could still appeal to ROMAN jurisdiction, provided they found an angle. Same practise as today.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
