How significant was Socrates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spock

**But I’m not sure Paul is not being sincerely serious when he says the moral commandments give birth to sin. **

He is being sincere, but in a metaphorical way. Moral commandments do not give birth to sin, but they give birth to the consciousness of our sins.

**Now I’m thinking he did covet before he was aware coveting was wrong. What do you think? **

Yes, he did before he was aware of the law. But he still sinned before he knew the law because God plants in us all the natural law, which complements the written commandments. We should not covet what is not ours to covet. That way, we have no excuse for not knowing the commandments as written on tablets of stone, because they are also written on our hearts. Whether one knows the written law or not, one is held accountable for the thoughts and deeds of one’s life, and everyone eventually destined for heaven or hell according to his own choosing.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
spock

**But I’m not sure Paul is not being sincerely serious when he says the moral commandments give birth to sin. **

He is being sincere, but in a metaphorical way. Moral commandments do not give birth to sin, but they give birth to the consciousness of our sins.
Click to expand...
So in what way was the sin of coveteousness metaphorically dead prior to his knowing the truth about coveting? It was not dead in that it was unthought thought, for he must have thought about how good it would be to have the riches or possessions or wife that his neighbor had. Should we say it was dead in the sense that it was not believed to be a living sinful act?
**Now I’m thinking he did covet before he was aware coveting was wrong. What do you think? **
Click to expand...
Yes, he did before he was aware of the law. But he still sinned before he knew the law because God plants in us all the natural law, which complements the written commandments. We should not covet what is not ours to covet. That way, we have no excuse for not knowing the commandments as written on tablets of stone, because they are also written on our hearts. Whether one knows the written law or not, one is held accountable for the thoughts and deeds of one’s life, and everyone eventually destined for heaven or hell according to his own choosing.
Click to expand...
So Paul had no excuse for not knowing the commandment?

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

(Exodus 20:17)
 
spockrates said:
As the ancient Greeks disputed about moral right and wrong, and the Greek gods fought about moral right and wrong, so too modern philosophers do not agree. What would be required for us all to agree would be some sort of way of accurately determining what is right and wrong in the way that an odometer accurately determines distance and a mathematical equation correctly calculates a result. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I think all our consequentialist and catagorical theories of ethics attempt to do this. Unlike the gods (perhaps) these systems are supposed to be completely rational and so should arrive at the same answers, but just like the gods they sometimes agree on what is right and what is wrong, and sometimes quarrel.

How come? What’s going on?

One possibility is that the various theories mirror different lines of reasoning competing within us. This may be Paul’s understanding: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

It’s worth remarking that he doesn’t say the law is written on their hearts, instead he says “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”. Perhaps he means that the requirements of the law are to weigh the issue carefully by having a debate inside our head rather than blindly follow any set theory. In which case, perhaps ultimately the law cannot be put into words.

What says Socrates (or his Vulcan namesake)?
 
spock

So Paul had no excuse for not knowing the commandment?

He had no excuse. But with the commandment in place, he could no longer excuse himself! 😃

** Should we say it was dead in the sense that it was not believed to be a living sinful act?**

Yes. More so in the sense that it was not acknowledged to be a sinful act since there was no commandment to require the acknowledgement. When the commandment was in place, it (sin) was dead in every sense of the word unless we wanted to spring it back to life.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
spock

So Paul had no excuse for not knowing the commandment?

He had no excuse. But with the commandment in place, he could no longer excuse himself! 😃

** Should we say it was dead in the sense that it was not believed to be a living sinful act?**

Yes. More so in the sense that it was not acknowledged to be a sinful act since there was no commandment to require the acknowledgement. When the commandment was in place, it (sin) was dead in every sense of the word unless we wanted to spring it back to life.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But since he could no longer excuse himself after he became wise to the commandment, he therefore could excuse himself before he became wise. Hence, he did have an excuse!

😛

Perhaps it is closer to the truth to say one has no excuse for being immoral or unethical (for everyone has a conscience that tells her so) but people do have an excuse for being ignorant about the morality or ethics of specific thoughts, words or deeds? Jesus said on the cross:

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

(Luke 23:34)

Was he praying that the Roman executioners who tortured and killed him not be held culpable for this sin, since they were ignorant as to the grave immorality of the act of harming the innocent and holy God incarnate?
 
spock

But since he could no longer excuse himself after he became wise to the commandment, he therefore could excuse himself before he became wise. Hence, he did have an excuse!

Lying to oneself is never an excuse, whether or not you are wise to the commandment. 😃
**
Was he praying that the Roman executioners who tortured and killed him not be held culpable for this sin, since they were ignorant as to the grave immorality of the act of harming the innocent and holy God incarnate? **

Yes, the Romans had the excuse of ignorance as to the identity of Christ. The Jews did not have the same excuse since their own theology told them of the coming of a Messiah. Judas in particular had no excuse for taking money to betray his friend and the one he had believed to be the Messiah.
 
inocente said:
Yes, and I think all our consequentialist and catagorical theories of ethics attempt to do this. Unlike the gods (perhaps) these systems are supposed to be completely rational and so should arrive at the same answers, but just like the gods they sometimes agree on what is right and what is wrong, and sometimes quarrel.

How come? What’s going on?

One possibility is that the various theories mirror different lines of reasoning competing within us. This may be Paul’s understanding: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

It’s worth remarking that he doesn’t say the law is written on their hearts, instead he says “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”. Perhaps he means that the requirements of the law are to weigh the issue carefully by having a debate inside our head rather than blindly follow any set theory. In which case, perhaps ultimately the law cannot be put into words.

What says Socrates (or his Vulcan namesake)?
Click to expand...
Spockrates says, “Inocente might be onto something, and it would be foolish to fail to carefully consider the wisdom of his words.”

👍

I should start be making sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying both Paul and Jesus were advocating a morality of personal preference? That is, would they both agree that it matters not whether one chooses Mill’s Utilitatianism, or Katian Ethics, or Aristotle’s Morality of Virtue, or Ethical Egotism, so long as she remains true to herself by doing what she believes is right and by being logically consistent?
 
spockrates said:
Spockrates says, “Inocente might be onto something, and it would be foolish to fail to carefully consider the wisdom of his words.”

👍

I should start be making sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying both Paul and Jesus were advocating a morality of personal preference? That is, would they both agree that it matters not whether one chooses Mill’s Utilitatianism, or Katian Ethics, or Aristotle’s Morality of Virtue, or Ethical Egotism, so long as she remains true to herself by doing what she believes is right and by being logically consistent?
Click to expand...
Yes, with the proviso that we shouldn’t use any theory of ethics (or any other person’s opinion, etc.) as an excuse to avoid wrestling with the decision ourselves. We should use them as starting points not finishing points.

So not as much a morality of personal preference as a morality of never settling, never assuming, never resting on the familiar, if that makes sense.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
spock

But since he could no longer excuse himself after he became wise to the commandment, he therefore could excuse himself before he became wise. Hence, he did have an excuse!

Lying to oneself is never an excuse, whether or not you are wise to the commandment. 😃
Click to expand...
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...E0gOb_LsgalrWji63Umsxvq0RgWf8uh4iKkYmnVLsmKfw

Well, I’m unsure how one can possibly lie to oneself. Won’t the self to whom he tries to lie know he himself is lying? Did you instead mean there is no excuse for being self-deceived, or did you rather mean there is no excuse for failing to live according to the truth once the truth is known to be true?
**
Was he praying that the Roman executioners who tortured and killed him not be held culpable for this sin, since they were ignorant as to the grave immorality of the act of harming the innocent and holy God incarnate? **
Click to expand...
Yes, the Romans had the excuse of ignorance as to the identity of Christ. The Jews did not have the same excuse since their own theology told them of the coming of a Messiah. Judas in particular had no excuse for taking money to betray his friend and the one he had believed to be the Messiah.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I think you also might agree that Saint Paul–who was aligned with the Jewish religious leaders and who led death squads that hunted Christians and murdered them–was shown mercy by God because he did not have the wisdom to realize what he was doing was wrong.

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

(1 Timothy 1:13)

It seems, then that wisdom is a double-edged sword cutting right to the heart of our beliefs about our own behavior: On the one edge, wisdom opens our eye (but only one eye) to how wrong our beliefs were. You and I and Paul once were blind, but now we see. Such truth cuts deep, as it shows us on what shakey groud we are with God. The earth quakes, the mountain rumbles, those who get too close are consumed by the holy fire! We cup our hands over our ears and burry our faces in the dust and say, as the prophets of old, “I’m doomed! For I am a man of unworthy lips and my eyes have seen the glory of the Lord!” But the pain of Wisdom’s words are necessary to produce a desire to change.

The other edge of wisdom is that it opens our other eye so that we are able to see the way out, the escape from God’s judgment. Wisdom then speaks to us not in loud blasts evoking terror in the hearts of men, but in gentle whispers of sound reasoning:

“Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the Lord. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

(Isaiah 1:18)

Do you think it wise to say that this is what godly wisdom is?
 
spock

Well, I’m unsure how one can possibly lie to oneself. Won’t the self to whom he tries to lie know he himself is lying?

Not if he is a fool. :rolleyes:
**
I think you also might agree that Saint Paul–who was aligned with the Jewish religious leaders and who led death squads that hunted Christians and murdered them–was shown mercy by God because he did not have the wisdom to realize what he was doing was wrong.**

Yes. Paul’s eyes were opened when he was blinded in the presence of Christ.

Judas, however, could not plead ignorance.

**Do you think it wise to say that this is what godly wisdom is? **

Yes, godly wisdom is opening our hearts as well as our minds to God’s love.

The metaphor of the two eyes of wisdom is a very good one.! 👍
 
inocente said:
Yes, with the proviso that we shouldn’t use any theory of ethics (or any other person’s opinion, etc.) as an excuse to avoid wrestling with the decision ourselves. We should use them as starting points not finishing points.

So not as much a morality of personal preference as a morality of never settling, never assuming, never resting on the familiar, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...


I agree with the proviso.

👍

Does wisdom then tell you and I that given the scenario of The Road, both Paul and Jesus would look down from heaven on an earth gone mad and see sound reason, rather than madness? For they would approve of the wisdom of those who hunt, kill and eat human beings, as long as they were logically consistent in following the moral precepts of Ethical Egotism?

Would the saint and Christ also wisely tell us that there is no moral difference between the canibals who eat the scavengers and the scavengers who refuse to eat? Would they tell us this is because the scavengers are also following the precepts of their ethical systems of morality, which show them it is unwise to ever eat a fellow human being? Would they tell us both the eaters and the eaten are equally wise, as long as both are equally, logically consistent in their ethical decisions?
 
inocente

So not as much a morality of personal preference as a morality of never settling, never assuming, never resting on the familiar, if that makes sense.

It does not make sense.

Here is a familiar saying.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Should I never rest on that familiar saying? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
spock

Well, I’m unsure how one can possibly lie to oneself. Won’t the self to whom he tries to lie know he himself is lying?

Not if he is a fool. :rolleyes:
**
I think you also might agree that Saint Paul–who was aligned with the Jewish religious leaders and who led death squads that hunted Christians and murdered them–was shown mercy by God because he did not have the wisdom to realize what he was doing was wrong.**

Yes. Paul’s eyes were opened when he was blinded in the presence of Christ.

Judas, however, could not plead ignorance.

**Do you think it wise to say that this is what godly wisdom is? **

Yes, godly wisdom is opening our hearts as well as our minds to God’s love.

The metaphor of the two eyes of wisdom is a very good one.! 👍
Click to expand...
So who was the greater fool–Judas who knew the truth about Jesus but refused to obey it, or Paul who was at first ignorant of the truth about Jesus and so did not know he should obey it?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente

So not as much a morality of personal preference as a morality of never settling, never assuming, never resting on the familiar, if that makes sense.

It does not make sense.

Here is a familiar saying.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Should I never rest on that familiar saying? :confused:
Click to expand...
Perhaps, my friend, inocente is saying he should not assume he knows best how you yourself would want to be treated?

SPOILER ALERT: Do not read the rest of this post if you have not seen The Road but intend to see it.
In the movie, the father, thinking he might become injured and unable to protect his young son from the canibals, shows his son how (if the time comes) to use their pistol to shoot his father in the head and then shoot himself in the head. The father thinks that–by showing his son how to commit suicide to escape being tortured and murdered–he himself is teaching his son to treat his father the way his father wants to be treated. But the son pleads with his father to never kill himself and says he will never give up and commit suicide the way his mother did at the beginning of the movie.
Do you see that the idea of treating people the way we ourselves want to be treated does not guarantee we will treat them the way they, or perhaps God wants us to treat them?

🙂
 
spock

**In the movie, the father, thinking he might become injured and unable to protect his young son from the canibals, shows his son how (if the time comes) to use their pistol to shoot his father in the head and then shoot himself in the head. The father thinks that–by showing his son how to commit suicide to escape being tortured and murdered–he himself is teaching his son to treat his father the way his father wants to be treated. But the son pleads with his father to never kill himself and says he will never give up and commit suicide the way his mother did at the beginning of the movie.
Do you see that the idea of treating people the way we ourselves want to be treated does not guarantee we will treat them the way they, or perhaps God wants us to treat them?**

This is clearly not an instance of what Jesus was talking about when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

If it were, the father would first plan to shoot the son, and then turn the gun on himself. But he does the reverse. He instructs the son to do what apparently he himself was not willing to do.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
spock

**In the movie, the father, thinking he might become injured and unable to protect his young son from the canibals, shows his son how (if the time comes) to use their pistol to shoot his father in the head and then shoot himself in the head. The father thinks that–by showing his son how to commit suicide to escape being tortured and murdered–he himself is teaching his son to treat his father the way his father wants to be treated. But the son pleads with his father to never kill himself and says he will never give up and commit suicide the way his mother did at the beginning of the movie.
Do you see that the idea of treating people the way we ourselves want to be treated does not guarantee we will treat them the way they, or perhaps God wants us to treat them?**

This is clearly not an instance of what Jesus was talking about when he said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

If it were, the father would first plan to shoot the son, and then turn the gun on himself. But he does the reverse. He instructs the son to do what apparently he himself was not willing to do.
Click to expand...
I believe the father told his son that if the father was unconscious and the canibles were closing in on them, the son should put the pistol in his father’s mouth and pull the trigger first, and then do the same to himself, after. If he was still conscious, he explained, he would kill his son before killing himself. There were only two bullets left, so he reasoned this was the only option. The son had another option in mind. Don’t kill each other, no matter what.

But the question remains: Since I should treat others the way I want to be treated, how should I *want *to be treated? The son and father had different ideas about how they themselves wanted to be treated. How should we determine who was wise, and who was the fool?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
inocente

So not as much a morality of personal preference as a morality of never settling, never assuming, never resting on the familiar, if that makes sense.

It does not make sense.

Here is a familiar saying.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Should I never rest on that familiar saying? :confused:
Click to expand...
As another example, every so often there’s a sad news report of a man so clinically depressed that before committing suicide, he kills his children and spouse out of love to save them from suffering as he has suffered, doing unto his family as he would have them do unto him.

We don’t always know when we’re thinking straight, and we don’t always know what others want.
 
spockrates said:
http://www.garret-dillahunt.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-road.bmp

I agree with the proviso.

👍

Does wisdom then tell you and I that given the scenario of The Road, both Paul and Jesus would look down from heaven on an earth gone mad and see sound reason, rather than madness? For they would approve of the wisdom of those who hunt, kill and eat human beings, as long as they were logically consistent in following the moral precepts of Ethical Egotism?

Would the saint and Christ also wisely tell us that there is no moral difference between the canibals who eat the scavengers and the scavengers who refuse to eat? Would they tell us this is because the scavengers are also following the precepts of their ethical systems of morality, which show them it is unwise to ever eat a fellow human being? Would they tell us both the eaters and the eaten are equally wise, as long as both are equally, logically consistent in their ethical decisions?
Click to expand...
Yikes. You take no prisoners then. 😃

Sitting here eating popcorn it’s easy to say cannibalism is categorically wrong. But suppose a stranded group can’t reach a place with food until many days after they know they will die from hunger. Then one of them is killed in an accident. Suddenly there’s an opportunity for the others to live. Not such an easy decision then.

The dictionary defines a dilemma as a situation in which a choice has to be made between possibilities that will all have results we do not want. Is it better to die needlessly or to live knowing what we did to stay alive?

When we’re between a rock and a hard place I think Jesus looks at us and thinks “what would Jesus do?” 🙂 And if He sees us wrestling with it, trying our very best, our thoughts sometimes accusing us and at other times even defending us, He thinks yes, well done, that’s what Jesus would do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top