The Nehor wrote:I think that a life lived with nothing in it worth dying for is not a real life. Most people would die for their children and that doesn't cheapen their life it makes it more vibrant.
I agree with this. I just don't feel that religion fills the "nothing" you refer to above. I've actually found more meaning in life without the constraints of religion. I'd like to think that I'd sacrifice my life for my wife (if I had one) or children (if I had any) or country, if need be. To me, that's different than being willing to sacrifice oneself for a god-belief.
Why is it different? Remember to me God is not a belief. He is a person and so much more.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
My answer is this. Most born again Christians who would have any admiration at all for the author of this article would reject Jesus. My reasoning is that the majority of these Christians are very weak people, and possibly prone to the mild hypnosis that goes on at those big Christian stadium bashes. If a guy can go into a stadium filled with totally gay music and people closing their eyes and reaching their hands in the air, or worse, speaking in toungues, and honestly come out of the situation beliving in Jesus, then he would stand little chance under the pressure of bondage, the threat of torture and death, sleep deprival or nutritional deprevation, and all kinds of other manipulations. I know that, even as an athiest, q few situations, lets say no more than two, i've got myself into eroded my ability to to think clearly or really, even know who I am. Looking back, it's like recalling another person's experiences. I don't think I'm exceptionally strong when it comes to life pressures, but I know and work with many people much weaker than I am. And I know what I'm capable of, unfortunately, under the wrong set of pressures, and to deny Jesus and even semi-seriously convert to Islam for a believer who got saved on a whim is extremely easy for me to see.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Looking back, it's like recalling another person's experiences.
Scratch, I think you need to take up the subject of schizophrenia here.
Gadianton wrote:I don't think I'm exceptionally strong when it comes to life pressures, but I know and work with many people much weaker than I am.
Poor, pathetic human beings. Just as well you stand out in the species. No hope otherwise.
Gadianton wrote:And I know what I'm capable of, unfortunately, under the wrong set of pressures, and to deny Jesus and even semi-seriously convert to Islam for a believer who got saved on a whim is extremely easy for me to see.
hmm, Ray, not thinking you understood what I said. I said I don't think I'm exceptionally strong. That would mean, even given my further qualification, that I don't stand out in the species at all. I'd say I'm about average in that way or slightly above. Anyone who works a career as a doctor or lawyer or who can raise 5 kids - and remain high functioning without meds is clearly stronger than I am.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
guy sajer wrote:As a kind of aside, this is one of the things that irked me about Les Miserables. Val Jean could easily have partaken in Cossette's and Marius' happiness and become a part of their lives, living happily ever after.
Yet out of some strange sense of moral duty (motivated is appears by his devout religiosity), he could not. He just HAD to play the role of martyr. It was totally unecessary and I can think of no reasonable moral code that demanded it; only his hyper-active sense of religious moral duty.
I realize this is fiction, but it has parallels in the totally unecessary martyrdom of so many religious adherents. Religious martyrdom can be, I suppose, enobling, but it can also be unecessary. Is God really that big of a monster that he could condemn someone for putting the welfare of his/her loved ones over his/her own rigid sense of regligious obligation?
I am not sure why you may suppose that martyrdom, or willingness to die for one's faith, is about condemnation avoidance. It certainly doesn't factor into my religious consideration. Rather, I would be motivated morally by love and my devotion to such vital, religious principles as freedom, liberty, honor, valor, duty, etc.--the importance of which may, at times, exceed that of human life.
I view somewhat less simplistically the situation described in the OP. To me, the circumstance was about more than just converting to Islam or be shot. I believe it was also about loss of agency as well as what messages may be communicated to the world. I would decline conversion to Islam under those conditions, not just because it would contraven my religious beliefs and commitments, but also because I would not wish to communicate to the terrorist or the world that it was okay for Muslim extremist to violate civil liberties and religious freedoms in that way (how Guy Sajer missed these moral imparatives is beyond me). I would not wish to be a party to their propaganda efforts. In fact, I would hope that my subsequent death would outrage moral people throughout the world, and mobilize them against such immoral acts. in hopes that family members and loved ones and fellow countrymen would not have to be subjected to the same. I would do it, not just because I love my faith and my God, but also because I love freadom and liberty and safety for all. I believe my life would be worth that.
But, that may just be me.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
True, Val Jean perhaps (to the extent we can speculate given it's fiction) was not motivated by fear of condemnation, but his self-sacrifice was still unecessary and done so at the expense of the happiness of his beloved child.
If it's so critical for you to tell Islamacists that they cannot violate our civil liberties this way, I assume then that you stood up and protested the whole Danish Cartoon thing? If you want to make a statement, there are often other ways to do so than to die for it; particulalry when the point you make will soon be forgotten and will have no impact on anything. As for the moral imperative, I don't see one demanding that one give one's life to make a statement about freedom of religiou to Islamacists. You may internalize it that way, that that's your choice. I prefer a more pracmatic approach in this case. Not every decision need be driven by overriding moral imperatives. One can legimitately opt for a utilitarian solution at times too.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote: True, Val Jean perhaps (to the extent we can speculate given it's fiction) was not motivated by fear of condemnation, but his self-sacrifice was still unecessary and done so at the expense of the happiness of his beloved child.
If it's so critical for you to tell Islamacists that they cannot violate our civil liberties this way, I assume then that you stood up and protested the whole Danish Cartoon thing? If you want to make a statement, there are often other ways to do so than to die for it; particulalry when the point you make will soon be forgotten and will have no impact on anything. As for the moral imperative, I don't see one demanding that one give one's life to make a statement about freedom of religiou to Islamacists. You may internalize it that way, that that's your choice. I prefer a more pracmatic approach in this case. Not every decision need be driven by overriding moral imperatives. One can legimitately opt for a utilitarian solution at times too.
Of course there will be times and occasions where death may not be the preferred option, and perhaps even where it may be morally imparative not to sacrifice one's life. However, were I faced with the same circumstances as mentioned in the OP, I would view it as not only morally imparative (as previously described) to take the death option, but also preferred for utilitarian reasons as well.
And, sure, I could have walked down State Street, SLC, during lunch hour carrying a sign protesting the Danish cartoon thing. But, I am not sure how many Muslim extremist I would be reach, nor do I believe it would have but a microscopic fraction of the impact that broadcasting, via Al Jazeer and the internet, the mortal violation of my civil rights by terrorists. Do you?
The Nehor wrote:Remember to me God is not a belief. He is a person and so much more.
I can't dispute that using your definitions of evidence. Now that we've established that you're willing to die for your god, would you be willing to kill for him, like Nephi? Sorry if that is slightly off-topic.
wenglund wrote:And, sure, I could have walked down State Street, SLC, during lunch hour carrying a sign protesting the Danish cartoon thing. But, I am not sure how many Muslim extremist I would be reach, nor do I believe it would have but a microscopic fraction of the impact that broadcasting, via Al Jazeer and the internet, the mortal violation of my civil rights by terrorists. Do you?
Depends; if there's thousands of protestors like yourself, then it could have a tremendous impact.
A microscopic fraction of a microscopic fraction vs. a microscopic faction; it's a microscopic fraction in either case.
You may choose to die to make a point that few people will get (probably as many people would think you foolish as think you heroic), but I see virtue in living to fight another day without making hollow and rather ineffective grand gestures.
But, as you say, to each their own.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
The Nehor wrote:Remember to me God is not a belief. He is a person and so much more.
I can't dispute that using your definitions of evidence. Now that we've established that you're willing to die for your god, would you be willing to kill for him, like Nephi? Sorry if that is slightly off-topic.
I don't know. Situation has never come up and I've never thought about it.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
wenglund wrote:And, sure, I could have walked down State Street, SLC, during lunch hour carrying a sign protesting the Danish cartoon thing. But, I am not sure how many Muslim extremist I would be reach, nor do I believe it would have but a microscopic fraction of the impact that broadcasting, via Al Jazeer and the internet, the mortal violation of my civil rights by terrorists. Do you?
Depends; if there's thousands of protestors like yourself, then it could have a tremendous impact.
A microscopic fraction of a microscopic fraction vs. a microscopic faction; it's a microscopic fraction in either case.
You may choose to die to make a point that few people will get (probably as many people would think you foolish as think you heroic), but I see virtue in living to fight another day without making hollow and rather ineffective grand gestures.
But, as you say, to each their own.
I suppose if I were to wildly over estimate the coverage and impact I may have as a single protestor (even among imagined thousands here in SLC) of a relatively meaningless cartoon in a foriegn newspaper that I heard about months after publication, and wildly under estimate the coverage and impact that my horrific death may have when likely broadcast on TV and cable networks and the internet world wide, then there is a chance I might see things your way. ;-)