morality within evolution

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Actually, I enjoy difficult questions, it makes me consider my position. And I am not so set in my ways that I cannot see when I am mistaken, although it might take a little time to absorb.

Dear Juan,

I'm glad to hear that, as I think this thread has good chances to continue.

I took from the library some books (only 5 of about 300 pages each) and I need some time to see if I can find something interesting regarding the morality. One of them is about the two sources of the moral and religion, by Henri Bergson. The others are about shamanism, celt mithology, amerindiens religions and african's religions.They are all in French, so if I'll mix up the languages after, let me know.

Thanks. Uh, well...I wrote it, a long time ago.

"Oh, he's modest !", said Alexa. Do you have others ?

See you soon !

Regards,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

I took from the library some books (only 5 of about 300 pages each) and I need some time to see if I can find something interesting regarding the morality. One of them is about the two sources of the moral and religion, by Henri Bergson. The others are about shamanism, celt mithology, amerindiens religions and african's religions.

Wow! Sounds like you pulled quite a selection. I will look forward to what you find!

They are all in French, so if I'll mix up the languages after, let me know.

Uh-oh, sounds like an opportunity to learn a little French...I learned so little, and only of necessity, when I drove a big truck through Quebec a couple of times. (Had a blast, by the way! Enjoyed every minute of it! Very pretty country!)

"Oh, he's modest !", said Alexa.

Aw now, don't go and make me blush...

Do you have others ?

A few, but little worth sharing here.

See you soon !

And I will look for your return!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all! and apologies for my extended absence.

My power and telephone service only just came back on in the last couple of hours. The thought of a nice warm shower is comforting. As was the hot cup of coffee from my own coffee maker a little bit ago.

There are still a lot of people around here without services, so I am by no means complaining. Just thought I would let those who may be concerned know I made it through the storm OK.

I hope to be back participating as usual before long.

[Ciel]

Hi Juantoo3, glad to hear your okay.

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

I'm glad you are O.K. after Frances.
I have no idea how you can live with this stress there. I prefer 6 months of winter/year, than a hurricane.
One of my suppliers is in Florida and it's closed till next week. I decided to pay their invoices before I'll let the products on the market. This is the only way I can help them.
I didn't finish my book about morality, as I couldn't help myself and I read another 2 books meanwhile. As you are back, I'll continue my lecture ASAP.

Best regards,

Alexa

[alexa]

Juan,

On second thought, one of the books could me mentioned. The title is 'Saint and sinner', by Marcelle Bernstein.
The story was about an ex-nazi woman who had worked in a camp and had really killed people (there was a mention about a short film where she 'helped' a child to be hangged). This woman became a 'saint', after changing her name and had a clinical death. She was new by the name 'Mother', or Magda Lachowska. Her real name was Basia Krolak. The real Magda was killed by a sexual maniac. Both were Polisha and they knew eack other.
After the war, Basia hide herself in South America, where she initially worked in-house for one of the brothers of Magda. When she got sick of a skin illness, she was banned from the house and moved by herself in an appartement. Her ex-employer paid her bills. She became really ill and one stormy night she 'died'. But a thunder touched her. And all changed from this moment in her life. When this happened she was not alone. There was a single mother with her and her child who was suffering of asthma, and a guy, the boy-friend of the woman. When Basia (or Magda, as she was knew after with this name) was touched by the thunder, she levitated and the child was 'instantly' healed. There was a light ball near her body.
After this re-birth, Magda spent 7 years into the mountains with the young woman and her son (who became her friends and supportors till her death). When she got back into the city she did all her best to serve the others. She founded a new monastic order, The order of Calice and her first monk was the child healed during her re-birth. Her ex-employer (Josef Karms, after he changed his name, one of the administrative members of the Foundation
Krzysztof) took advantage of the fame of the new saint and got rich.There were several miracles attribuated to her. She died as a marthyre at 82 ans. She was lapidated when she tried to save the life of 2 children who were playing between two old enemies, the Palestinian and the Jews.
This is only the story of a life time. What can we say about the evolution of morality during the centuries ?
We change every day. The person I am today will be not the same tomorrow (Actually, I think somebody told this before me, but I don't remember who).

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you very much for your post!

Your story brings up a very good point, how our individual views of morality shift and change over time. What seems moral to us at one point in our life, that is, what we are comfortable with or can find ways to justify internally change as we gain wisdom and maturity (or degrade as our mental facilities degrade).

I haven't had the opportunity lately to give a lot of thought to this subject overall, between the storm and finals at school. I remember having a brilliant flash of insight (I thought, at least to me), wanting to post it, and be darned if I remember now what it was!!! (They say the first thing to go is the memory... ) I hope the thought will return, but they come and go sometimes, especially if I do nothing with them.

The thought that crossed my mind in reading your piece was that it seems to me to support the subjective nature of morality, the kind that whittles away at the concept of universal morality. Even though the example was a saint, it supports the insights Abogado brought up in the quote from "Karamozov" about morality being an invention.

I guess I could ask the question, is morality then just the "feel good" between individuals within the greater social structure? The more individuals "feel good" about you, the closer you get to sainthood (in your recent example)? Or, like Hitler, the more people you place on defensive against you, the more of a pariah you become, the more of a "devil?" In other words, is the essence of morality simply other's opinions of you? How you think others' view you? We are nice because we want others to think we are nice?

Oh boy, I can see this line of reasoning can easily get lost on a tangent...

And then I cannot help but wonder if this is something entirely different. Something I must remember to look for (and I believe part of what Vaj called emptyness of words) in that different people hold different definitions and meanings for words, even common words. Like here, in considering law as morality. On one hand, this is very true, law is formalized morality. But it is not what I have been speaking of. I have been speaking of the internal dialogue, the "instinctive" understanding of right and wrong (ought and ought not), the angel on the shoulder "conscience," that thing that all of us (who are still mentally rational, stable, and healthy) guides us in our everyday life.

I can see that this leaves room for individual interpretation, and a lot of room for subjectivity, but the universality is that it seems to exist in effectively everyone. If it does in fact exist in everyone, then there would seem to be a base core, an elemental root from which this sprang. Which brings us back to the beginning, is this a "natural" thing that arose out of environment and physiology?, or is it something that was handed to us deliberately from a source long forgotten (and alluded to in vague terms by every religion I can think of)? If it arose out of nature, is it valid to look to nature for moral example? If it was handed to us, is it valid to ignore natural morality? Are both paths valid? Is neither path valid? Or is the whole thing an illusion, a creation of our (Jungian) collective consciousness, a mass delusion covering the span of millenia and untold generations?

My head hurts, I'll stop for now.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

by the way.. good luck with Ivan... getting your fair share this season, to be sure.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Or is the whole thing an illusion, a creation of our (Jungian) collective consciousness, a mass delusion covering the span of millenia and untold generations?

the short answer is "yes".



the longer answer is also "yes" but there's lots of other stuff to explain the "why" of the "yes"... not the "y" but you see what i mean.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your insight. It is always welcome.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

by the way.. good luck with Ivan... getting your fair share this season, to be sure.

Thanks, we may need it.

the short answer is "yes".



the longer answer is also "yes" but there's lots of other stuff to explain the "why" of the "yes"... not the "y" but you see what i mean.

Indeed!

I would appreciate a longer answer if you are up to it, and when you have the time. I mentioned it (illusion) as it is something I have heard, but do not understand. My concern is that in the end, if there is no morality, if it is indeed illusion, then there is no reason or purpose, and life seems to me an exercise in futility.

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

I think you need to laugh and relax a little, so here you have two jokes :

Creationism or Evolution?



One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books-- the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species.

In surprise, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper, or my keeper's brother."



Scientists and God



One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a man-making contest." To which the Darwinian happily agreed.

God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!"

I hope you like them !

Regards,


Alexa

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Your story brings up a very good point, how our individual views of morality shift and change over time. What seems moral to us at one point in our life, that is, what we are comfortable with or can find ways to justify internally change as we gain wisdom and maturity (or degrade as our mental facilities degrade).

Juan,

I think we cannot speak about the morality of a 5 years child. Instead, we can speak about the morality of human being at his maturity age (more than 18 years or 21, depending of country). In other words, the age is an important factor.

The family, the friends, the school, the collective at work and the circle of life you have are included in another important factor : the influence on the individual by his closed relationships.

Another factor is the own experience of the individual which gives him, as you said, maturity and wisdom. The best teacher is said to be the error you can do. Sometime, the others can tell you you are wrong to do something, but as a naughty child you still do it. And then, you learn it's bad to do it again.

The thought that crossed my mind in reading your piece was that it seems to me to support the subjective nature of morality, the kind that whittles away at the concept of universal morality. Even though the example was a saint, it supports the insights Abogado brought up in the quote from "Karamozov" about morality being an invention.

I agree morality is subjective.
I do not agree to be an invention.

I guess I could ask the question, is morality then just the "feel good" between individuals within the greater social structure? The more individuals "feel good" about you, the closer you get to sainthood (in your recent example)? Or, like Hitler, the more people you place on defensive against you, the more of a pariah you become, the more of a "devil?" In other words, is the essence of morality simply other's opinions of you? How you think others' view you? We are nice because we want others to think we are nice?

Touché !

Something I must remember to look for (and I believe part of what Vaj called emptyness of words) in that different people hold different definitions and meanings for words, even common words.

The key words : "different people". I'll wait for Vaj comments on it.

I have been speaking of the internal dialogue, the "instinctive" understanding of right and wrong (ought and ought not), the angel on the shoulder "conscience," that thing that all of us (who are still mentally rational, stable, and healthy) guides us in our everyday life.

In my opinion, all the factors I mentioned above influence our "instinctive" behaviour. Maybe there are others, but they do not pass trough my mind in this moment.

... but the universality is that it seems to exist in effectively everyone. If it does in fact exist in everyone, then there would seem to be a base core, an elemental root from which this sprang. Which brings us back to the beginning, is this a "natural" thing that arose out of environment and physiology?, or is it something that was handed to us deliberately from a source long forgotten (and alluded to in vague terms by every religion I can think of)? If it arose out of nature, is it valid to look to nature for moral example? If it was handed to us, is it valid to ignore natural morality? Are both paths valid? Is neither path valid? Or is the whole thing an illusion, a creation of our (Jungian) collective consciousness, a mass delusion covering the span of millenia and untold generations?

At the beginning of the evolution, among the first human societies, people were more closed to the nature, so looking for moral guidence into the nature is not so odd, after all. Those who presently look back into nature for moral guidence, return at the base. Can we say this is a bad thing ? I rather say no. The diversity is so huge among people's beliefs, I cannot ask to a different person to behave exactly like me just to fit in my moral standard.

Maybe for a monk who lives far away from the others, morality is an illusion. For the rest of us, if you do not accept the "morality of the society" you live in, you became a paria.

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your posts, I enjoyed the jokes!

Originally Posted by alexa

I think we cannot speak about the morality of a 5 years child. Instead, we can speak about the morality of human being at his maturity age (more than 18 years or 21, depending of country). In other words, the age is an important factor.

I agree. But let us consider, a 5 year old child is closer to the spiritual base. The child's mind is less cluttered with the concerns of day to day living. A child is wrapped up in the moment, living life in the joy of the spirit. (I speak generally, of a child not consumed with want, hunger or disease, and even among those there is still a greater affinity with spirit) This is far closer to what I have been alluding to with the term universal morality, and I think it is to close what Abogado was alluding to with his comments about a lion becoming a camel becoming a child.

I agree with your initial comment in that as a person gains wisdom and maturity (the lion becoming the camel becoming the child), the moral guide that leads us becomes more distinct, more clearly defined and obvious to us as individuals. Some lessons are only made clear by experience. Some of us still find a certain thrill from being "naughty," or because of addiction cannot (seem to) break free of self-destructive habits.

The family, the friends, the school, the collective at work and the circle of life you have are included in another important factor : the influence on the individual by his closed relationships.

Yes, this is external reinforcement. Universal morality would be internal. That internality can be reinforced or influenced by external sources, but should still exist independently of them if such actually exists. Otherwise, how would we know how or when to say "no!"

I agree morality is subjective.
I do not agree to be an invention.

I am inclined to agree, but that agreement is based on personal experience, not rational persuasion. Morality as invention has not been shown to my satisfaction to include the elements of spirit and love.

In my opinion, all the factors I mentioned above influence our "instinctive" behaviour. Maybe there are others, but they do not pass trough my mind in this moment.

Yes, I think outside influence and reinforcement strengthen our moral inclinations. But as example, I think of when I was about 5 years old, before I understood the concept of "lie." At a time such as this, one sees all as truth, even if we think in pictures rather than words (or better stated, pictures more often than words. As our vocabulary grows, the pictures tend to wither and we think more in words.) I remember a time my Father was upset with me a said he would "knock my head off." I remember wondering what it would be like to walk around with no head, not realizing what that would actually mean.

In the innocent state of a child, unspoiled by cares, concerns and untruths, morality holds a greater or more different perspective than it does as an adult. A child is more apt to see things as they are, boldly and uncorrupted, where an adult is more apt to cover things and color them with prejudices and preconceptions in an attempt to make the unpleasant more pleasant.

At the beginning of the evolution, among the first human societies, people were more closed to the nature, so looking for moral guidence into the nature is not so odd, after all. Those who presently look back into nature for moral guidence, return at the base. Can we say this is a bad thing ? I rather say no. The diversity is so huge among people's beliefs, I cannot ask to a different person to behave exactly like me just to fit in my moral standard.

I agree in concept. Yet, the very nature of truth says there is only one truth. Anything less is not truth, but untruth. That others may see truth from their individual perspective I do not disagree. But I wonder, individual coloring of truth and distortion of truth is untruth, and so cannot be truely called "truth." So, we have what could be said to be many explanations of the unexplainable. And/or we have manipulations of the same explanations for the purpose of political control. This is the history of politics and religion. Neither of which fully accounts for spirit and love, let alone morality. Here, I think, may be the divergence of the term "morality" from conscience into law.

Maybe for a monk who lives far away from the others, morality is an illusion. For the rest of us, if you do not accept the "morality of the society" you live in, you became a paria.

Yes, indeed! I have thought about this, as a matter of practicality. But practicality does not imply truth in the philosophical, absolute sense.

At various times it has been "practical" to go along with the madness of the crowd just to survive. If authority said so, you either agreed or were hung/burned at the stake/tortured to death. That is a blessing available to us in this day and age, we are allowed to think for ourselves, and (in greater and lesser degree) allowed to disagree and dissent. I suppose that at no time since the earliest beginning has humanity had that opportunity to see things independently. (OH MY, I may be making Vaj's point about mass delusion!...) The comments earlier about being influenced by others, even if those people are worthy of respect (parents, clergy, teachers, etc), is still an
outside influence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it leads to an attempt to homogenize a society. Perhaps I should leave out the "but," it is not a bad thing, it leads to a homogenized society.

Yet, did not even Jesus teach that no man can achieve perfection of his own? Even under the influence of a society. Proof is all around us, for all of the lofty ideals we preach in the modern world, we still fall short. Way short. Which tells me that formalized morality is either incorrect, insufficient, and/or deliberately intended to set us up for failure.

While I have difficulty seeing morality strictly as an illusion, at least until I see something to better support that view, I do see where it could be a manipulated invention, at least in the more formalized version (law). But this (morality as invention) does not account for spirit and love, or the conscientious understanding of a 5 year old of "ought and ought not."

See my quandary?

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

I'm happy to see my jokes can make you at least smiling !

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But let us consider, a 5 year old child is closer to the spiritual base. The child's mind is less cluttered with the concerns of day to day living. A child is wrapped up in the moment, living life in the joy of the spirit.

If you mean, the child has the purity of the spirit, I agree. It's sad to loose this purity, only to transform ourselves in adults.
I cannot see the morality in the perception of a child. He needs to learn the "ought and ought not." This is the parents' job.

Yet, did not even Jesus teach that no man can achieve perfection of his own? Even under the influence of a society. Proof is all around us, for all of the lofty ideals we preach in the modern world, we still fall short. Way short. Which tells me that formalized morality is either incorrect, insufficient, and/or deliberately intended to set us up for failure.

I believe Jesus had achived perfection of his own, when he transformed himself in Christ. For Chistians, as you know, he is the way. We need only the same strength of character as Jesus and this is not an easy one, unfortunately.

I know I already gave the definition of the morality from wikipedia. I'll re-posted, but this time with the comments added as I think they are related to what you said earlier.

Morality : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.

Morality is a complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are generalized and codified in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation.

An overview of Morality

Views on morality have varied greatly over time, and from culture to culture. Usually, a morality applies to fields in which the choices made by individuals express an intention relative to other individuals (even non-members of the society). Thus, there exists an academic dispute about whether morality can exist only in the presence of a society (meaning a plurality of few individuals), or also in a hypothetical individual with no relationships with others.
A concept of morality may tend toward any of the possible directions in a given field, and moralities exist that recommend heavy restrictions on behaviours, as well as moralities that recommend totally free self-determination, as well as a variety of intermediate positions.

The efficacy of a morality depends on the social position and political representativeness of the group that espouses it, and on its relationship with the norms of the related society. A morality is put into effect through its influence on the society's general rules and formal codes—especially penal codes and the determination of juridically correct conduct. The fields in which the influence of morality is most commonly appreciated are sex-related matters, financial and professional conduct (with the notable example of deontology), and human relationships in general.
A morality can be derived from many sources. For many individuals, morality is influenced, to large degree, by religion or theology, but other, secular, ethical codes are also followed. Religions typically hold that morality is not a human construct, but is the work of God. For example, in Judeo-Christian religions, one or another version of the

Ten Commandments is held to have been issued directly to mankind by God. Moreover, religions often hold that the human conscience, the internal mechanism through which one senses the moral aspect of actions, is infused in mankind by God. Non-religious individuals may justify morality on the basis of that improving the human condition or helping humanity is itself fundamentally 'good': they may aspire to base morality on humanitarian principles of reciprocal behaviour and prevention of suffering or through 'objective' approaches, such as utilitarianism.

For moral relativists, morality is viewed as a system of personal ethical conduct that the individual imposes on himself or herself. With this view, it is more concerned with individual choices, as a personal effect of free will, rather than with dispute resolution or conflict, and does not seem to imply a relationship with other individuals or groups. This subjective self-regulation can also sometimes be derived from religion or theology, but is also often seen as totally personal, unsharable, intuitive, creative and aesthetic (a "moral core").

Changes in morality

Moralities often include rules and regulations that do not have obvious reasons for existing, i.e., no immediate harmful results of transgression are apparent. This is sometimes because the harmful effects of such actions are largely indirect, but real nonetheless. Alternatively, the morality may derives from historical circumstances no longer common or relevant in society. Either way, the need for the particular aspect of morality may be questioned. It is not unusual for widescale changes in views on morality to occur, especially by younger generations in society. At times, this questioning extends to the society in general, even to the extent of liberalising laws which prohibited certain behaviours.

Morality and Darwinism

Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that human morality originated from evolutionary processes. An innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong helps an individual to survive and reproduce in a species with complex social interactions. Selected behaviours, seen in abstraction as moral codes, are seen to be common to all human cultures, and reflect, in their development, similarities to natural selection and these aspects of morality can be seen in as the basis of some religious doctrine. From this, some also argue that there may be a simple Darwinian explanation for the existence of religion: that, regardless of the validity of religious beliefs, religion tends to encourage behaviour beneficial to the species, as a code of morality tends to encourage communality, and communality tends to assist survival.

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species")? Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of emprical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate--more than recorded history could demonstrate. Ergo, they claim, sensible people would behave with morality knowing subconsciously that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ought to hold these views.

Morality in Juridical Systems

In some juridical systems, the word morality concretely means a requirement for the access to certain charges or careers, or for the obtaining of certain licenses or concessions, and generally consists of the absence of previous records on (e.g.) crimes, bankruptcy, political or commercial irregularities.

In some systems, the lack of morality of the individual can also be a sufficient cause for punishment, or can be an element for the grading of the punishment.

Especially in the systems where modesty (i.e., with reference to sexual crimes) is legally protected or otherwise regulated, the definition of morality as a legal element and in order to determine the cases of infringement, is usually left to the vision and appreciation of the single judge and hardly ever precisely specified. In such cases, it is common to verify an application of the prevalent common morality of theinterested community, that consequently becomes enforced by the law for further reference.

The Moral - in Story

A moral is a one sentence remark made at the end of many children's stories that expresses the intended meaning, or the moral message, of the tale. For example, at the end of Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare, in which the plodding and determined tortoise wins a race against the much-faster yet debilitatingly arrogant hare, the moral is "slow and steady wins the race." Morals have long been included in children's literature, perhaps because many of the stories written for children have been written for the purpose of teaching and guiding children, as opposed to entertaining them. Many morals are even introduced with the phrase, "The moral of the story is..." to emphasize to the reader what the point of the episode was. Morals have grown increasingly out of fashion in modern storytelling, and are now usually only included for ironic purposes.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

If you mean, the child has the purity of the spirit, I agree. It's sad to loose this purity, only to transform ourselves in adults.
I cannot see the morality in the perception of a child. He needs to learn the "ought and ought not." This is the parents' job.

Good point. I find it interesting that a human child takes so long to mature, at least to a point of autonomy. So many animals, including apes, are mobile and can at least grasp within hours of birth. Some animals run, quite well, within hours of birth. Human infants cannot, and require intense attention for a long time after birth. So, the scale of maturity is considerably different when considering humans contrasted with animals.

My point being, that a human child is not fully autonomically functional until around the age of 5, at least mentally. For some a little sooner, some a little later, but there are sources that consider the age of 7 the boundary, "bring them to us by age 7, and they will be ours for life." I have heard this in reference to monastic disciplines from Christianity and Buddhism, although I would be hard pressed to directly quote. Somewhere between the age of 5 and 7, the child reaches the "age of accountability," at which point they are believed to be aware of "right and wrong" or "ought and ought not." Prior to this, at least in Christian teaching, they are considered innocent of their actions. In other words, human infants are born innocent, and remain so until the age of accountability. This may seem dogmatic teaching, but I see a corelation in human psycho-social development.

An infant in the age of innocence should be taught, of course. After the age of accountability, the child is reminded of what they already know, the "external reinforcement" I mentioned. The age of accountability I would think to be the threshhold of universal morality, the point at which the child intuitively understands, the point at which the child gains communion with his/her conscience.

I believe Jesus had achived perfection of his own, when he transformed himself in Christ. For Chistians, as you know, he is the way. We need only the same strength of character as Jesus and this is not an easy one, unfortunately.

Yes, but a great deal hinges on whether Jesus was human, or "super-human." Christians believe Jesus to be God incarnate in flesh, so there is no way a regular human could possibly live fully in accord with the example set. We are even told we will not, setting the foundation for grace and repentance/forgiveness. I do not wish to seem to dismiss these important teachings, but if Jesus was merely a mortal human like the rest of us (and I might include such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, etc) the example given might seem easier to follow. I think this is an important distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism seems to me to say "you are human, you will fail, but you should try," whereas Christianity seems to me to say "you should be perfect because you have a perfect example, and if you are not perfect, just ask and all will be forgiven, and you can be perfect in your continued imperfection." This is a problem I have with my own faith, how can someone go to church and be the pious altruistic outstanding citizen on Sunday, and turn around Monday and be a ruthless, heartless, unforgiving braggart given to excess, only to repeat the same cycle over and over?

Both the Jew and the Christian intuitively know right from wrong, they just deal with it differently. The question has been from the beginning as to whether or not that intuitive knowledge has been simply taught as tradition, or whether it has been given, instinctively, from outside or beyond our collective experience? At least in these two faiths, the teaching is that the initial knowledge came from outside of our collective selves, the tree of knowledge (of Good and Evil!) in the garden of Eden.

Morality

is a complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are generalized and codified in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members.

Understood. This is why I have made it a point, once I realized there was a distinction and confusion in the conversation between "law" and "conscience." Had I understood that and realized it at the beginning, I probably would have titled my question(s) "conscience in evolution." But thank you for the reminder.

I guess the question is whether or not conscience is an invention or illusion? Or whether it is the product of evolutionary development?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,


thank you for the interesting posts...

hopefully, you don't have to worry about Ivan this time around...

you raise an interesting point in your previous post:

"Judaism seems to me to say "you are human, you will fail, but you should try," whereas Christianity seems to me to say "you should be perfect because you have a perfect example, and if you are not perfect, just ask and all will be forgiven, and you can be perfect in your continued imperfection." "

there is a subtle difference here that you may be overlooking due to being unfamiliar with the topic.

the the Jewish tradition, remember, there is the teaching of reincarnation. so, though you may fail, ultimately, you will have another opportunity to get it right. Whereas with Christianity, you don't have another chance at the apple, so to speak.

this is a vast difference between the two traditions, in my view. and whilst it's true enough that the general adheren't isn't taught about Gilgul Neshamot, that does not mean that the teaching isn't present.