So I listen to a lot of talk radio right now… it’s election season. I avoid Rush as much as possible. The other day he said something about how he knows Hillary as well as he knows every inch of his glorious naked body. I felt the need to puke. But he made a rather interesting statement today: liberals are liberals first, and then Jewish or whatever else they are second (he specifically said “Jewish”… perhaps a shot at Alan?). Very interesting thought.
Sure, you can do many good things and still be a rotten no good cheater. You can be a good father, a good politician, and a good man over all but there’s obviously something wrong when you lust, lust, lust all the time. Horny ass republicans.
Well it’s all relative. Because, really, it is. Look at Bush and Cheney. There’s people who think they’re just great. And there’s also people who think they’re possessed by Satan. Personally I think the truth may lay somewhere in between, but who knows? They could be buddies to the Anti-Christ.
I’d say it’s a lot easier to be a bad person all around, than to be seen as just perfectly good by everybody. Look at Jesus. Then look at Barabbas.
There are people who have never cheated and are not nice people in other ways. I’ve met some of them.
There are people who have cheated and have done wonderful things in life and have generously helped others. Met some of them too. Most people are neither good nor bad. It’s much more complex than that.
On the other hand, if that happened to me I would never be able to trust the other person again. And I would definately think less of them. Betrayal is a painful thing.
Epiphany hit the nail on the head (How I love cliches). On a personal level ‘chesting’ is one thing but on a public and/or political level it can be something else. It does demonstrate a persons willingness to do something wrong, for what?
Wow this question requires heavy critical thinking…
—
Of course, you can be a good person and still commit adultery! We’re only human beings. Anything goes.
Jeesh, don’t ever make me think so hard again.
Well what I was really aiming at was that Pontius Pilate is said to have offered to pardon either Jesus or Barabbas, and he let the crowd choose, and the crowd chose Barabbas. So from our modern perspective it appears that a man of questionable character won out over either a great prophet, or the Son of God, who is in any case generally regarded as being “good.”
So what were they thinking? Maybe to the ancient mind Jesus was just a presumptuous troublemaker. Maybe, compared to him, Barabbas didn’t seem so bad.
What I find interesting is that the left brings into question a persons “goodness” when it’s in reference to the indescretions of an individual on the right.
These same people are typically ardent secularists who adhere to the belief that “goodness” can’t be measured in absolutes,thus reflecting their anti-thiest ideologies.
In order for an act to be judged as a good act there must first be a moral code,and if there is a moral code then there must be an intelligence that put this code into effect. But then that gets in the way of their adgenda to rid society of all notions of a Creator which expects humanity to adhere to this code.
The left makes the error of violating the law of noncontradiction by,when in reference to their own,they don’t subscribe to there being moral absolutes,yet when in reference to their opponents they apply moral standards that,by their own beliefs,do not exist.
Craig, I don’t think you really know what the Left or liberals ALL stand for. I also don’t think someone on the Right gets to define the Left and vice versa.
Codes of conduct are established by societies, not deities.
Most of them make sense, a few don’t.
The conservatives claim the ‘high morals’ and ‘family values’ ground.
It’s the hypocrisy that gets peoples attention.
Sure, Clinton cheated on his wife, but I don’t recall one person who died because of his indiscretion. On the other hand, Bush didn’t cheat on his wife, but he managed to orchestrate the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi citizens.
I’m posting this question on a couple threads in the hopes of getting as much feedback as possible. If you’re going to weigh in, you may want to do so on the “Hey, Where’s My Invitation” thread.
I have a question for everyone, based on some books I’m reading. This question isn’t biased towards Christians or non-Christians.
Do you think that if our nation loses its association with Christianity, and its association with what most people think is our Christian history, that our society will degrade into an out of control state of selfishness? If we lose our so-called Christian principles, what principles and moral code would we use to decide between right and wrong?
Clinton adultery -> Bad moral example to children -> More out of wedlock sex -> Abortions galore!
FDR and Truman killed 300,000 US soldiers in WWII if you want to blame the President for war deaths. 47 million civilians died total. That’s staggering…but yet it still was a needed war.
As to the original question, I think it’s pretty obvious that we all have a pretty depraved nature. So nobody is a “good” person. Can a person do relatively good things in life despite moral failings? Of course. Should we hold people in power to high moral standards? Definitely.
Societal codes of conduct are ultimately worthless and contrived without a Deity establishing them somehow. Just because certain people don’t want to recognize the Deity is irrelevant.
OK, let’s say there’s a Creator and who gave us the 10 Commandments. And never mind Lib or Con. How are we doing as a society?
1) There’s only one real God you should worship. [Problem: Some would say we worship money and every kind of material object under the sun.]
2) Don’t make bad use of God’s name. [Problem: this is done routinely by just about everybody. Priests included.]
3) Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. [Problem: stores open everywhere on Sunday. Bars too. Even strip joints.]
4) Honor your father and mother. [Well, OK, maybe some of us are down with this one. Go ahead, ask my mother.]
5) No killing and/or murdering, depending on the translation. [We drop bombs all over the world. You've heard of "collateral damage" right? That's like, "oops". And it's at least killing and maybe it's murder too.]
6) No screwing around on the side. [Well, there must be some reason for all those divorces.]
7) Don’t steal. [If God audited your tax return would you face any penalties?]
8) No lying. [Problem: everybody lies. Ask any lawyer. Ask any cop.]
9) Don’t lust after somebody’s wife. [Divorces everywhere, and lots of love triangle killings too.]
10) Don’t covet other people’s stuff. [So what are we doing in the Middle East? Well we want all this oil, right?]
So if we’re a Christian nation and we’ve got this absolute moral code then I guess we ain’t doing so good, and we may all be destined for Hell.
Flap~ is your position that Clinton’s adultery is the single cause of an increase in premarital sex and abortion?
Uh huh… so Clinton’s to blame, and not the easy sex/idolize the beautiful culture of Hollywood and MTV? What about the example of hypocrisy? Newt Gingrich was at the forefront of the campaign to impeach Clinton while he was having an extra-marital affair. How about lying? The University of Minnesota’s men’s basketball team was involved in a huge academic fraud scandal in 1999, and the evidence showed that those kids had been cheating in school prior to the Lewinski drama. Do you think that Tonya Harding’s orchestrated attack on Nancy Kerrigan had any impact on our youth? How about Susan Smith drowning her children and blaming it on a black man? The Heaven’s Gate mass suicide? The death of Princess Diana? What about HANSON, for God’s sake? That band drove the little girls CRAZY!
Oh, I know. Clinton was behind the scenes orchestrating all of this.
Now Flap, I’m not picking on you. I’m just not digging your argument at all.
Let me also comment on FDR and Truman~ Americans WANTED to fight in that war, especially after Pearl Harbor. I can’t think of anyone who wasn’t/isn’t a Nazi or Fascist who felt that our involvement in the war was unnecessary.
Regarding societal codes of conduct… I don’t have any sources that I can recall at this point to back this up, but I’m pretty sure that most societies agree on certain so-called codes of conduct, many on that list that RC provided above. It’s part of that Collective Unconscious that Carl Jung talked about.
RC~ I’m fixin’ to go to bed, but will reply to you tomorrow. All I’ll say for now is that I found your list entertaining.
Hmmm, “collective unconscious” sounds kind of iffy and metaphysical, and even a little science-fictional, but maybe I should read some Jung before I go spouting off, heh. (Which is the long way of saying what does that mean, exactly?)
Iffy and metaphysical???? Man, you have got to check out Carl Jung. He did for psychology what Einstein did for physics. His contributions are much more meaningful and endearing than anything Freud cooked up (pun definitely intended).
It’s basically born from the realization that ancient civilizations shared similar symbols in their art. So Jung was like, if this people never met each other how could they have such similar symbology?
Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology originally coined by Carl Jung. While Freud did not distinguish between an “individual psychology” and a “collective psychology”, Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious particular to each human being. The collective unconscious is also known as “a reservoir of the experiences of our species.”[1]
In his earlier writings, Jung called this aspect of the psyche the collective unconscious. He later changed the term to objective psyche. The objective psyche may be considered objective for two reasons: it is common to everyone; and it has a better sense of the self’s ideal than the ego or conscious self does. It thus directs the self, via archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose. In this way, it moves the psyche toward individuation, or self-actualization.
—————————
The significance of the Collective Unconscious where morality is concerned is b/c in a lot of societies common moral codes are shared. What we see in The Ten Commandments was written centuries before in Hammurabi’s Code, an ancient Babylonian text. The Code had almost 300 laws.
But then you find societies that don’t share what Western Civs consider acceptable moral attitudes. Take forced female circumcision in Africa and the Middle East. (only example I can really think of)
I’m so confused. (I look around at this world and feel just like Towely from South Park…”I have no idea what’s going on right now”. If only I had the weed to calm me down LOL)
No, the point was made that “no one died because of Clinton’s indiscretion,” somehow implying that moral bankruptcy doesn’t hurt anyone. Abortion is just ONE very strong example of how that’s wrong. I certainly don’t blame Clinton for our declining morals as a society, although he didn’t really help it much.
And we fail as a society and individuals as far as respecting God’s laws. Christians firmly believe we have a “way out” through Jesus Christ and God’s grace. But my point was not to preach, but to say that these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.
I mean, even simple things like stealing or murder… Why are those things wrong? The best thing Christopher Hitchens can come up with is “human solidarity.” THAT is our basis for morality. Laughable, especially when viewing the evils of the 20th century (or today).
Budda~ I can post whatever I want. And if you actually read the comment in full, you’d see why I felt it had bearing on the topic under this thread.
Flap~ I didn’t think you were preaching. I think that we should just remember that the poor moral examples come from both sides of the fence, you know?
my point was not to preach, but to say that these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.
I think that the advantage to deriving laws from a Supreme source is that it makes the laws absolute… no need for confusion or discussion. But theocracies don’t work. Inevitably there will be revolt by those who do not agree with the majority position.
I mean, even simple things like stealing or murder… Why are those things wrong?
I refer you back to my post on the Collective Unconscious. I’m starting to think that the basic laws of nature, what we consider right and wrong, are a result of this Unconscious and of learned societal behaviour. We have learned together what works and what doesn’t work, resulting in “do not steal, do not murder”, etc.
And you’re right, Clinton’s adultery added to the collection of fallen role models that hurt the developing morality of not just our youth, but our nation as a whole. So did Newt, and the Republicans chasing his impeachment for something he did personally (rather than politically). They spent more time impeaching him than they did on legislating.
“Can you commit adultery and still be a good person” was the question. The answer, if there is one, doesn’t require preaching your “Christianity”, it doesn’t require long and tedious ramblings on existentialism or questions about the metaphysics. Simpicity is desirable in both questions and answers. Loaded questions (a Hannity specialty) can go off on all kinds of tangents to attempt an answer. Again, adultery shows a willingness of the person to do what they know is wrong. And again, define a “bad person”, or for that matter a “good person”.
There are a lot of universal “goods” and “bads” but a lot of grey in the middle.
Budda~ How dare you come on a LIBERAL blog and tell someone what the can and cannot say? How dare you restrict the train of thought to little confines that it should remain in. No one is preaching Christianity, and if you’re not interested in my “long and tedious rambling on existentialism or questions about the metaphysics” then SKIP THEM. Furthermore, your description of the question if just plain wrong.
You’re a fucking ASSHOLE. I don’t know why you’re so uptight about religion, or why you feel it necessary to be an ass, but keep your nasty pseudo-intelligent comments to yourself.
Budda If you want to call me “touchy” fine, and it’s for every reason already stated. And if you don’t want people to misunderstand you, then write exactly who you’re talking to.
You got tedious and metaphysical yourself:
And again, define a “bad person”, or for that matter a “good person”.
There are a lot of universal “goods” and “bads” but a lot of grey in the middle.
I don’t have to keep my train of thought where you think it should be. This is supposed to be a good place for people to come together and communicate different ideas. I wasn’t preaching, and neither was Flap or anyone else who was nice enough to just give an opinion. Alan posted a question about morality on a BLOG, not on some damned multiple choice quiz restricting users to an A, B, or C answer.
I’ll post whatever I want until Alan or someone on his staff tells me otherwise. It doesn’t have to be MY blog for me to be able to express myself. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the question I asked, or with any of the responses that people chose to post. You fail to follow your own advice: if YOU didn’t like the “tedious” direction of the comments, you should have ignored them. You’re not the LiberalLand Sheriff.
As for my supposed immaturity, I’ve never failed to substantiate my opinions, including those that entail “calling names”, with a fact. Fact: You behaved like an asshole, therefore I called you one.
The whole reason I asked the initial question is b/c I just finished Alan’s book. Towards the end he spends a good amount of time discussing how Conservatives view religion, and even asks the following:
Why is it so important for some Americans to insist this is a Christian nation? Are they so insecure in their beliefs that they need government sanction for their faith? They decry the lack of religious imagery around us, as though our country would be better served if there were crosses, pictures of Jesus, and plaques of the Ten Commandments everywhere we turn.
He goes on:
Everyone should believe what they believe, and think like they think, but don’t insist that I believe what you believe or think like you think in order to justify your own beliefs.
Verbal and electonic discussions help people shape and refine their beliefs. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my question. Those who didn’t want to answer it DIDN’T. And no one was preaching. Not ONE PERSON was preaching! You went off half-cocked, and the collective input was good for the intellect of all chosing to participate in what was a LOGICAL off shoot of the original posted topic.
No, not really. We’re actually trying to think about stuff a little, rather than just spout off. But if you mean, ha ha, we’re getting a little weird and philosophical then you may be right.
“…these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.”
I disagree. Killing is wrong because we say it is. Because we’re not animals. Because we’ve spent an eon or two developing our minds and our society to a point where we now appreciate that certain truths are self-evident: that killing is wrong, and all people have inalienable rights.
CC: I’m puzzled because this collective unconscious or “reservoir of the experiences of our species” sounds a little like “genetic memory” or some kind of odd telepathic thing we’ve got going on. Would it be right to say that Jung is using these concepts to divide the psyche into two parts: that which is common to all humans (integral to the human template?), and that which distinguishes each of us as individuals?
Budda~ My comments are hardly malicious. I don’t take kindly to people coming here or anywhere and criticizing others, which is exactly what you did. And again, whether it’s my blog or not I will speak up against jerks and post what I want. The only person bitching about the topic was you. I’ve already said everything I have to say about the relevance of the topical off shoot.
Now, if you’re just wanting to get the last word in to appease your tiny little mind, let me know and I’ll give it to you. Otherwise, bug off.
RC~ sorry for the delay in response to your latest post.
There’s no need to defend the topic against Budda or anyone, b/c it is absolutely relevant to this post. Even if it wasn’t WHO CARES, we all go off topic sometimes and no one whines about it. John David Prince will come on any thread and leave a thesis statement about our privacy rights and the 2nd amendment! :-)
Did you read the quote from Alan’s book?
I think that Jung does divide into the collective and personal. Do you know who he was? He was a psychologist who lived from 1875-1961. He’s required study in any college level psychology course, so his theories have merit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
I don’t know, RC… I’m basically just thinking more and more about how much religion influences politics. I read in the paper this morning that W had a limestone cross built on his ranch some years ago, and that’s the cross Jenna was married in front of. I just don’t understand how Christianity is so important to Americans, but then those who specifically associate themselves with that religion fail to live up to it. Like my phone call to Alan last night about the Woods Foundation, the conservatives are attacking Obama through Ayers… so why not attack everyone else on the board for their connection to Ayers? (see my comment under ‘Monday’s Radio Show’ for info on the other board members)
Take Vito and his ‘family values’ platform. Now, he may not actually be Christian (I haven’t read anywhere that he is or isn’t) but using the phrase ‘family values’ associates you with conservative Christian principles. So why did he deny his sister his love? Why break his marriage vows and betray his wife and children?
All of these questions just lead me right back to the above quote from the book.
CC: Only took one course in psych (a long time ago) and frankly the instructor seemed more in need of therapy and some good medication than anyone I’ve ever met, so while I’ve heard Jung’s name I haven’t done any reading on the theories. Guess I should add it to my list, heh.
cheryl, my dear, I think you need a vacation. It apparently looks as though your laptop is your siamese twin. Might too much blogging be making you touchy? Wait, are you Alan?
Alexa~ from what I understand this is a place for everyone, not just liberals. However, some people attack others and then start whining when they’re shown it won’t be allowed.
Adultery is just a cruel, rude and unpardonable behavior. It makes me sick. Im pushing 30, been married for 5 years and never been unfaithful, —never will be to my husband.
Or, put it another way:
Can you NOT commit adultery and still be a good person.
Names like Nixon, G.W. Bush pop into mind.
If you are a conservative you are forgiven by God, but if you are a liberal, you will rot in hell.
Didn’t Mrs Harriman sleep her way around England?
First a Churchill, then Averil Harriman?
Didn’t do her any harm and she was a liberal. God bless her.
So I listen to a lot of talk radio right now… it’s election season. I avoid Rush as much as possible. The other day he said something about how he knows Hillary as well as he knows every inch of his glorious naked body. I felt the need to puke. But he made a rather interesting statement today: liberals are liberals first, and then Jewish or whatever else they are second (he specifically said “Jewish”… perhaps a shot at Alan?). Very interesting thought.
Sure, you can do many good things and still be a rotten no good cheater. You can be a good father, a good politician, and a good man over all but there’s obviously something wrong when you lust, lust, lust all the time. Horny ass republicans.
Other than being a piece of crap, yeah, sure.
Well it’s all relative. Because, really, it is. Look at Bush and Cheney. There’s people who think they’re just great. And there’s also people who think they’re possessed by Satan. Personally I think the truth may lay somewhere in between, but who knows? They could be buddies to the Anti-Christ.
I’d say it’s a lot easier to be a bad person all around, than to be seen as just perfectly good by everybody. Look at Jesus. Then look at Barabbas.
Go figure.
There are people who have never cheated and are not nice people in other ways. I’ve met some of them.
There are people who have cheated and have done wonderful things in life and have generously helped others. Met some of them too. Most people are neither good nor bad. It’s much more complex than that.
On the other hand, if that happened to me I would never be able to trust the other person again. And I would definately think less of them. Betrayal is a painful thing.
Well, Dr. King was a pretty good guy.
Epiphany hit the nail on the head (How I love cliches). On a personal level ‘chesting’ is one thing but on a public and/or political level it can be something else. It does demonstrate a persons willingness to do something wrong, for what?
Wow this question requires heavy critical thinking…
—
Of course, you can be a good person and still commit adultery! We’re only human beings. Anything goes.
Jeesh, don’t ever make me think so hard again.
What defines a person as good?
http://www.wwco.com/~dda/criminals.php
why not? criminal records are ok in congress
Jesus and Barabbas may well be the same person; Started out as a crook and a rebel and then ‘got religion’.
Well what I was really aiming at was that Pontius Pilate is said to have offered to pardon either Jesus or Barabbas, and he let the crowd choose, and the crowd chose Barabbas. So from our modern perspective it appears that a man of questionable character won out over either a great prophet, or the Son of God, who is in any case generally regarded as being “good.”
So what were they thinking? Maybe to the ancient mind Jesus was just a presumptuous troublemaker. Maybe, compared to him, Barabbas didn’t seem so bad.
ask Jessy Jackson. Better yet ask his WIFE !
Sure you can. You can even kill someone and still be a good person. The devil is in the details. It’s a crazy, crazy world.
Open relationships would solve this problem… not that i want one….
What I find interesting is that the left brings into question a persons “goodness” when it’s in reference to the indescretions of an individual on the right.
These same people are typically ardent secularists who adhere to the belief that “goodness” can’t be measured in absolutes,thus reflecting their anti-thiest ideologies.
In order for an act to be judged as a good act there must first be a moral code,and if there is a moral code then there must be an intelligence that put this code into effect. But then that gets in the way of their adgenda to rid society of all notions of a Creator which expects humanity to adhere to this code.
The left makes the error of violating the law of noncontradiction by,when in reference to their own,they don’t subscribe to there being moral absolutes,yet when in reference to their opponents they apply moral standards that,by their own beliefs,do not exist.
Craig, I don’t think you really know what the Left or liberals ALL stand for. I also don’t think someone on the Right gets to define the Left and vice versa.
Codes of conduct are established by societies, not deities.
Most of them make sense, a few don’t.
The conservatives claim the ‘high morals’ and ‘family values’ ground.
It’s the hypocrisy that gets peoples attention.
Sure, Clinton cheated on his wife, but I don’t recall one person who died because of his indiscretion. On the other hand, Bush didn’t cheat on his wife, but he managed to orchestrate the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi citizens.
I’m posting this question on a couple threads in the hopes of getting as much feedback as possible. If you’re going to weigh in, you may want to do so on the “Hey, Where’s My Invitation” thread.
I have a question for everyone, based on some books I’m reading. This question isn’t biased towards Christians or non-Christians.
Do you think that if our nation loses its association with Christianity, and its association with what most people think is our Christian history, that our society will degrade into an out of control state of selfishness? If we lose our so-called Christian principles, what principles and moral code would we use to decide between right and wrong?
Thanks homies.
I meant the “McCain’s first appointee..” thread
Clinton adultery -> Bad moral example to children -> More out of wedlock sex -> Abortions galore!
FDR and Truman killed 300,000 US soldiers in WWII if you want to blame the President for war deaths. 47 million civilians died total. That’s staggering…but yet it still was a needed war.
As to the original question, I think it’s pretty obvious that we all have a pretty depraved nature. So nobody is a “good” person. Can a person do relatively good things in life despite moral failings? Of course. Should we hold people in power to high moral standards? Definitely.
Societal codes of conduct are ultimately worthless and contrived without a Deity establishing them somehow. Just because certain people don’t want to recognize the Deity is irrelevant.
OK, let’s say there’s a Creator and who gave us the 10 Commandments. And never mind Lib or Con. How are we doing as a society?
1) There’s only one real God you should worship. [Problem: Some would say we worship money and every kind of material object under the sun.]
2) Don’t make bad use of God’s name. [Problem: this is done routinely by just about everybody. Priests included.]
3) Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. [Problem: stores open everywhere on Sunday. Bars too. Even strip joints.]
4) Honor your father and mother. [Well, OK, maybe some of us are down with this one. Go ahead, ask my mother.]
5) No killing and/or murdering, depending on the translation. [We drop bombs all over the world. You've heard of "collateral damage" right? That's like, "oops". And it's at least killing and maybe it's murder too.]
6) No screwing around on the side. [Well, there must be some reason for all those divorces.]
7) Don’t steal. [If God audited your tax return would you face any penalties?]
8) No lying. [Problem: everybody lies. Ask any lawyer. Ask any cop.]
9) Don’t lust after somebody’s wife. [Divorces everywhere, and lots of love triangle killings too.]
10) Don’t covet other people’s stuff. [So what are we doing in the Middle East? Well we want all this oil, right?]
So if we’re a Christian nation and we’ve got this absolute moral code then I guess we ain’t doing so good, and we may all be destined for Hell.
Flap~ is your position that Clinton’s adultery is the single cause of an increase in premarital sex and abortion?
Uh huh… so Clinton’s to blame, and not the easy sex/idolize the beautiful culture of Hollywood and MTV? What about the example of hypocrisy? Newt Gingrich was at the forefront of the campaign to impeach Clinton while he was having an extra-marital affair. How about lying? The University of Minnesota’s men’s basketball team was involved in a huge academic fraud scandal in 1999, and the evidence showed that those kids had been cheating in school prior to the Lewinski drama. Do you think that Tonya Harding’s orchestrated attack on Nancy Kerrigan had any impact on our youth? How about Susan Smith drowning her children and blaming it on a black man? The Heaven’s Gate mass suicide? The death of Princess Diana? What about HANSON, for God’s sake? That band drove the little girls CRAZY!
Oh, I know. Clinton was behind the scenes orchestrating all of this.
My bad. You were right.
Now Flap, I’m not picking on you. I’m just not digging your argument at all.
Let me also comment on FDR and Truman~ Americans WANTED to fight in that war, especially after Pearl Harbor. I can’t think of anyone who wasn’t/isn’t a Nazi or Fascist who felt that our involvement in the war was unnecessary.
Regarding societal codes of conduct… I don’t have any sources that I can recall at this point to back this up, but I’m pretty sure that most societies agree on certain so-called codes of conduct, many on that list that RC provided above. It’s part of that Collective Unconscious that Carl Jung talked about.
RC~ I’m fixin’ to go to bed, but will reply to you tomorrow. All I’ll say for now is that I found your list entertaining.
Hmmm, “collective unconscious” sounds kind of iffy and metaphysical, and even a little science-fictional, but maybe I should read some Jung before I go spouting off, heh. (Which is the long way of saying what does that mean, exactly?)
Iffy and metaphysical???? Man, you have got to check out Carl Jung. He did for psychology what Einstein did for physics. His contributions are much more meaningful and endearing than anything Freud cooked up (pun definitely intended).
It’s basically born from the realization that ancient civilizations shared similar symbols in their art. So Jung was like, if this people never met each other how could they have such similar symbology?
————————-
From Wikipedia…
Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology originally coined by Carl Jung. While Freud did not distinguish between an “individual psychology” and a “collective psychology”, Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious particular to each human being. The collective unconscious is also known as “a reservoir of the experiences of our species.”[1]
In his earlier writings, Jung called this aspect of the psyche the collective unconscious. He later changed the term to objective psyche. The objective psyche may be considered objective for two reasons: it is common to everyone; and it has a better sense of the self’s ideal than the ego or conscious self does. It thus directs the self, via archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose. In this way, it moves the psyche toward individuation, or self-actualization.
—————————
The significance of the Collective Unconscious where morality is concerned is b/c in a lot of societies common moral codes are shared. What we see in The Ten Commandments was written centuries before in Hammurabi’s Code, an ancient Babylonian text. The Code had almost 300 laws.
But then you find societies that don’t share what Western Civs consider acceptable moral attitudes. Take forced female circumcision in Africa and the Middle East. (only example I can really think of)
I’m so confused. (I look around at this world and feel just like Towely from South Park…”I have no idea what’s going on right now”. If only I had the weed to calm me down LOL)
Gone a little off topic here haven’t we folks?
No, the point was made that “no one died because of Clinton’s indiscretion,” somehow implying that moral bankruptcy doesn’t hurt anyone. Abortion is just ONE very strong example of how that’s wrong. I certainly don’t blame Clinton for our declining morals as a society, although he didn’t really help it much.
And we fail as a society and individuals as far as respecting God’s laws. Christians firmly believe we have a “way out” through Jesus Christ and God’s grace. But my point was not to preach, but to say that these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.
I mean, even simple things like stealing or murder… Why are those things wrong? The best thing Christopher Hitchens can come up with is “human solidarity.” THAT is our basis for morality. Laughable, especially when viewing the evils of the 20th century (or today).
Budda~ I can post whatever I want. And if you actually read the comment in full, you’d see why I felt it had bearing on the topic under this thread.
Flap~ I didn’t think you were preaching. I think that we should just remember that the poor moral examples come from both sides of the fence, you know?
my point was not to preach, but to say that these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.
I think that the advantage to deriving laws from a Supreme source is that it makes the laws absolute… no need for confusion or discussion. But theocracies don’t work. Inevitably there will be revolt by those who do not agree with the majority position.
I mean, even simple things like stealing or murder… Why are those things wrong?
I refer you back to my post on the Collective Unconscious. I’m starting to think that the basic laws of nature, what we consider right and wrong, are a result of this Unconscious and of learned societal behaviour. We have learned together what works and what doesn’t work, resulting in “do not steal, do not murder”, etc.
And you’re right, Clinton’s adultery added to the collection of fallen role models that hurt the developing morality of not just our youth, but our nation as a whole. So did Newt, and the Republicans chasing his impeachment for something he did personally (rather than politically). They spent more time impeaching him than they did on legislating.
“Can you commit adultery and still be a good person” was the question. The answer, if there is one, doesn’t require preaching your “Christianity”, it doesn’t require long and tedious ramblings on existentialism or questions about the metaphysics. Simpicity is desirable in both questions and answers. Loaded questions (a Hannity specialty) can go off on all kinds of tangents to attempt an answer. Again, adultery shows a willingness of the person to do what they know is wrong. And again, define a “bad person”, or for that matter a “good person”.
There are a lot of universal “goods” and “bads” but a lot of grey in the middle.
Budda~ How dare you come on a LIBERAL blog and tell someone what the can and cannot say? How dare you restrict the train of thought to little confines that it should remain in. No one is preaching Christianity, and if you’re not interested in my “long and tedious rambling on existentialism or questions about the metaphysics” then SKIP THEM. Furthermore, your description of the question if just plain wrong.
You’re a fucking ASSHOLE. I don’t know why you’re so uptight about religion, or why you feel it necessary to be an ass, but keep your nasty pseudo-intelligent comments to yourself.
I’m so pissed I didn’t edit.
What a jerk.
Touchy, aren’t we? And what makes you think I was refering to you?
Budda If you want to call me “touchy” fine, and it’s for every reason already stated. And if you don’t want people to misunderstand you, then write exactly who you’re talking to.
You got tedious and metaphysical yourself:
And again, define a “bad person”, or for that matter a “good person”.
There are a lot of universal “goods” and “bads” but a lot of grey in the middle.
I don’t have to keep my train of thought where you think it should be. This is supposed to be a good place for people to come together and communicate different ideas. I wasn’t preaching, and neither was Flap or anyone else who was nice enough to just give an opinion. Alan posted a question about morality on a BLOG, not on some damned multiple choice quiz restricting users to an A, B, or C answer.
If you don’t like what I write just ignore it…and by the way, it isn’t YOUR blog.
And the name calling, please show some maturity.
GO FUCK YOURSELF. How’s that for immaturity???
I’ll post whatever I want until Alan or someone on his staff tells me otherwise. It doesn’t have to be MY blog for me to be able to express myself. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the question I asked, or with any of the responses that people chose to post. You fail to follow your own advice: if YOU didn’t like the “tedious” direction of the comments, you should have ignored them. You’re not the LiberalLand Sheriff.
As for my supposed immaturity, I’ve never failed to substantiate my opinions, including those that entail “calling names”, with a fact. Fact: You behaved like an asshole, therefore I called you one.
The whole reason I asked the initial question is b/c I just finished Alan’s book. Towards the end he spends a good amount of time discussing how Conservatives view religion, and even asks the following:
Why is it so important for some Americans to insist this is a Christian nation? Are they so insecure in their beliefs that they need government sanction for their faith? They decry the lack of religious imagery around us, as though our country would be better served if there were crosses, pictures of Jesus, and plaques of the Ten Commandments everywhere we turn.
He goes on:
Everyone should believe what they believe, and think like they think, but don’t insist that I believe what you believe or think like you think in order to justify your own beliefs.
Verbal and electonic discussions help people shape and refine their beliefs. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my question. Those who didn’t want to answer it DIDN’T. And no one was preaching. Not ONE PERSON was preaching! You went off half-cocked, and the collective input was good for the intellect of all chosing to participate in what was a LOGICAL off shoot of the original posted topic.
Now, leave me alone.
quote take from page 218.
The book was actually very good. I got it used for less than $10 on Amazon.
“Gone a little off topic here…?”
No, not really. We’re actually trying to think about stuff a little, rather than just spout off. But if you mean, ha ha, we’re getting a little weird and philosophical then you may be right.
“…these societal norms are pretty much worthless without being derived from a Supreme Deity.”
I disagree. Killing is wrong because we say it is. Because we’re not animals. Because we’ve spent an eon or two developing our minds and our society to a point where we now appreciate that certain truths are self-evident: that killing is wrong, and all people have inalienable rights.
CC: I’m puzzled because this collective unconscious or “reservoir of the experiences of our species” sounds a little like “genetic memory” or some kind of odd telepathic thing we’ve got going on. Would it be right to say that Jung is using these concepts to divide the psyche into two parts: that which is common to all humans (integral to the human template?), and that which distinguishes each of us as individuals?
Thank you for the photo of Elizabeth Taylor but she and JFK don’t belong on the same page as those other two idiots.
“Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”/Taylor/all natural vs. “Beverly Hills 90210″/Spelling/implants?
Puleeze. No contest.
Yes, cc your virulent comments are so constructive to any discussion.
Budda~ My comments are hardly malicious. I don’t take kindly to people coming here or anywhere and criticizing others, which is exactly what you did. And again, whether it’s my blog or not I will speak up against jerks and post what I want. The only person bitching about the topic was you. I’ve already said everything I have to say about the relevance of the topical off shoot.
Now, if you’re just wanting to get the last word in to appease your tiny little mind, let me know and I’ll give it to you. Otherwise, bug off.
RC~ sorry for the delay in response to your latest post.
There’s no need to defend the topic against Budda or anyone, b/c it is absolutely relevant to this post. Even if it wasn’t WHO CARES, we all go off topic sometimes and no one whines about it. John David Prince will come on any thread and leave a thesis statement about our privacy rights and the 2nd amendment! :-)
Did you read the quote from Alan’s book?
I think that Jung does divide into the collective and personal. Do you know who he was? He was a psychologist who lived from 1875-1961. He’s required study in any college level psychology course, so his theories have merit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
I don’t know, RC… I’m basically just thinking more and more about how much religion influences politics. I read in the paper this morning that W had a limestone cross built on his ranch some years ago, and that’s the cross Jenna was married in front of. I just don’t understand how Christianity is so important to Americans, but then those who specifically associate themselves with that religion fail to live up to it. Like my phone call to Alan last night about the Woods Foundation, the conservatives are attacking Obama through Ayers… so why not attack everyone else on the board for their connection to Ayers? (see my comment under ‘Monday’s Radio Show’ for info on the other board members)
Take Vito and his ‘family values’ platform. Now, he may not actually be Christian (I haven’t read anywhere that he is or isn’t) but using the phrase ‘family values’ associates you with conservative Christian principles. So why did he deny his sister his love? Why break his marriage vows and betray his wife and children?
All of these questions just lead me right back to the above quote from the book.
btw, WFG has a post on his blog about secularism:
http://introspectivebore.wordpress.com/
Flap:
So, according to your logic:
Kill the child - okay (in the war in Iraq/Afganistan)
Kill the fetus - bad
Your logic is a bit warped.
CC: Only took one course in psych (a long time ago) and frankly the instructor seemed more in need of therapy and some good medication than anyone I’ve ever met, so while I’ve heard Jung’s name I haven’t done any reading on the theories. Guess I should add it to my list, heh.
ha ha, lol. Your poor professor. Shoot, his students might have drawn him to his unbalanced mind! I’ve added his in-depth works to my reading list.
cheryl, my dear, I think you need a vacation. It apparently looks as though your laptop is your siamese twin. Might too much blogging be making you touchy? Wait, are you Alan?
um, is this the place where I can comment on “Committing adultery and still being a good person”…..nevermind.
Why is everybody growling at each other? I thought this was a place for liberals?
I work from home, on the computer. And I’m a 400 lb agoraphobic. I didn’t realize I was only allowed to post during certain hours of the day?
Anyway, Epiphany has promised to fly me to Barbados so my vaca plans are set!
Alexa~ from what I understand this is a place for everyone, not just liberals. However, some people attack others and then start whining when they’re shown it won’t be allowed.
Adultery is just a cruel, rude and unpardonable behavior. It makes me sick. Im pushing 30, been married for 5 years and never been unfaithful, —never will be to my husband.