Have We Lost the Common Good?

HenningKOsays...

It would be nice if such existed and we had access to it. Fortunately, science-based pragmatism and democratic polling of deeply-held values offer a way to approach it.

shinyblurrysaid:

Without objective morality as a foundation, there is no common good.

entr0pysays...

I think a largely shared agreement on what we value is enough. That's sort of like saying, "Without an objective ideal of health that everyone on earth subscribes to, medicine can't exist".

shinyblurrysaid:

Without objective morality as a foundation, there is no common good.

ChaosEnginesays...

I, for one, am glad it doesn’t exist. What has been perceived as “objectively moral” for most of human history has resulted in the oppression of vast swathes of humanity (basically anyone who wasn’t a straight white rich dude).

I would prefer to think that morality evolves with our knowledge of the world.

HenningKOsaid:

It would be nice if such existed and we had access to it. Fortunately, science-based pragmatism and democratic polling of deeply-held values offer a way to approach it.

shinyblurrysays...

Well, that's the reason I mentioned it, because there is an objective morality which we all have access to. God has given us moral requirements which we are measured against, and ultimately judged for. God has also provided a Savior to save us from that judgment by providing forgiveness for our transgressions and abundant life which will empower us to live up to His standards.

HenningKOsaid:

It would be nice if such existed and we had access to it. Fortunately, science-based pragmatism and democratic polling of deeply-held values offer a way to approach it.

shinyblurrysays...

Well if you have 5 people in a room and 3 of them decide its morally acceptable to kill the other 2, that action would be moral under this theory. This is what some call a herd morality. If morality is by consensus then anything goes..you just need the correct number of people to believe it.

entr0pysaid:

I think a largely shared agreement on what we value is enough. That's sort of like saying, "Without an objective ideal of health that everyone on earth subscribes to, medicine can't exist".

ChaosEnginesays...

Hate to break it to ya shiny, but that’s EXACTLY how morality has worked for most of human history, except it’s one guy killing the other 4 ‘cos he’s got the pointiest stick and he figures that god gave him the stick so he could teach those heathen buggers a lesson...

shinyblurrysaid:

Well if you have 5 people in a room and 3 of them decide its morally acceptable to kill the other 2, that action would be moral under this theory. This is what some call a herd morality. If morality is by consensus then anything goes..you just need the correct number of people to believe it.

HenningKOsays...

By all historical evidence, that appears to be what we have and all we'll ever get: an ever-evolving draft. But... eh... it would be nice if we just found the final draft one day! Not gonna deny that...

ChaosEnginesaid:

I, for one, am glad it doesn’t exist. What has been perceived as “objectively moral” for most of human history has resulted in the oppression of vast swathes of humanity (basically anyone who wasn’t a straight white rich dude).

I would prefer to think that morality evolves with our knowledge of the world.

newtboysays...

Well, then you must find slavery moral, as well as the murder of any non Christians, while those who wear cotton poly blends or eat at red lobster or mow on Sunday are clearly irredeemably immoral.
Those are the moral requirements your God gave you, and which you believe you are judged on.

How many infidels have you stoned to death. If it's zero, you're also totally immoral and going to hell, right?

If not, because Jesus erased your sin, then there is nothing immoral for Christians and abortion and child rape are totally fine?

shinyblurrysaid:

Well, that's the reason I mentioned it, because there is an objective morality which we all have access to. God has given us moral requirements which we are measured against, and ultimately judged for. God has also provided a Savior to save us from that judgment by providing forgiveness for our transgressions and abundant life which will empower us to live up to His standards.

shinyblurrysays...

I agree with you here that much has been done in the name of God that was actually immoral, but that is kind of my point; human beings are adrift in a sea of moral relativism. You could literally invent any reason to do what you want to do, and without any objective standard, how could anyone say what you're doing is wrong?

ChaosEnginesaid:

Hate to break it to ya shiny, but that’s EXACTLY how morality has worked for most of human history, except it’s one guy killing the other 4 ‘cos he’s got the pointiest stick and he figures that god gave him the stick so he could teach those heathen buggers a lesson...

newtboysays...

When your "objective standard for what's moral" includes rape, slavery, and murder, and your "objective standard for what's immoral" includes yard work on the wrong day and wearing certain shirts, how on earth do you convince yourself it's an objective standard at all?

shinyblurrysaid:

I agree with you here that much has been done in the name of God that was actually immoral, but that is kind of my point; human beings are adrift in a sea of moral relativism. You could literally invent any reason to do what you want to do, and without any objective standard, how could anyone say what you're doing is wrong?

shinyblurrysays...

Newtboy, this is simply a strawman argument. What you've got is a list of (inaccurate and biased) gotcha arguments but they are not tethered to a framework of understanding of what is in the bible. There are atheists out there who have studied the bible (not saying you haven't) and could tell you the difference between the Old and New Covenants for example. There is an intellectual honesty that comes to table which allows you to have a substantive discussion. You're free to have opinions about what God has done and why He has done it but at least let's get our facts straight so we can have a honest conservation.

Let's say you're right and everything you said is true. On what basis are the things you brought up like slavery or murder objectively wrong?

newtboysaid:

Well, then you must find slavery moral, as well as the murder of any non Christians, while those who wear cotton poly blends or eat at red lobster or mow on Sunday are clearly irredeemably immoral.
Those are the moral requirements your God gave you, and which you believe you are judged on.

How many infidels have you stoned to death. If it's zero, you're also totally immoral and going to hell, right?

If not, because Jesus erased your sin, then there is nothing immoral for Christians and abortion and child rape are totally fine?

newtboysays...

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.
If old testament morality and laws were out the window, then everything is permitted because new testament essentially says Jesus made sin obsolete....but he also said clearly that ALL previous religious laws stand and anyone telling you different is an evil liar.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Sure sounds clear to me, wear blended fabrics, get stoned to death as an infidel, refuse to stone them, your an infidel too, now you get stoned.

You need me to tell you why slavery and murder are wrong? I guess so, since your moral guide says they are proper, even required.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.
Do you want to be raped, sold into slavery, stoned to death, or even just told constantly that you're immoral, evil, and going to hell? If not, stop doing it, and definitely stop pretending that not what the bible commands of you.
That covers it, and covers why trying to impose your narrow idea of religious morality on others is wrong, according to your own moral code.

shinyblurrysaid:

Newtboy, this is simply a strawman argument. What you've got is a list of (inaccurate and biased) gotcha arguments but they are not tethered to a framework of understanding of what is in the bible. There are atheists out there who have studied the bible (not saying you haven't) and could tell you the difference between the Old and New Covenants for example. There is an intellectual honesty that comes to table which allows you to have a substantive discussion. You're free to have opinions about what God has done and why He has done it but at least let's get our facts straight so we can have a honest conservation.

Let's say you're right and everything you said is true. On what basis are the things you brought up like slavery or murder objectively wrong?

shinyblurrysays...

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

newtboysaid:

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

newtboysays...

That's certainly not how I read....
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," that is clearly not meaning "until I die and resurrect, then you can just forget those laws and go by some new ones to be determined later."
I don't know about heaven, but earth has definitely not yet passed away. That means you jumped the gun on abandoning the Law, and are now considered the least in heaven as you've told others to do so as well. It's 100% clear, no mental gymnastics or labyrinthian decryption needed to understand it.

Your second answer is hard to follow....he didn't say 'treat others as I would', it's 'as you would have them treat you'. Because most people fail to live up to it has no bearing on the instruction, neither does our moral imperfection. I would have them try to treat me fairly, honestly, and civilly, so I try to do the same, and not because Jesus said to, but because that's the best way to get others to treat me that way.

To answer your question...Aesop.

shinyblurrysaid:

^
When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished....

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. ...

Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals?

vilsays...

We havent lost it, we are just not looking for it hard enough sometimes. Too damn distracted by cell phones and religious books.

Please do not use religion to excuse you for being immoral.

shinyblurrysays...

You're right, it is 100 percent clear:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

In verse 17 Jesus says He has come to fulfill the law. In verse 18 He says nothing shall pass from the law until it is fulfilled. So, if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the only reason we would have to follow the Old Covenant law is if He failed to fulfill it. He came to fulfill it and fulfill it He did by living a perfect life and satisfying all of its requirements. He became the sacrifice for all sin, which is why the sacrificial system was done away with and the veil in the temple was torn asunder. God did away with that system and now everything is through His Son. This is why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him. This is also why He said on the cross "it is finished".

Now this doesn't mean that there aren't any commands for us to follow. However, we follow them under the New Covenant and we are justified by our faith rather than our obedience. This is called the law of Christ.

I went pretty in depth with my answer so it's a little bit disappointing to see you breezed right over it. If you study that more closely you'll understand the particulars of the hows and whys.

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

newtboysaid:

That's certainly not how I read....
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," that is clearly not meaning "until I die and resurrect, then you can just forget those laws and go by some new ones to be determined later."
I don't know about heaven, but earth has definitely not yet passed away. That means you jumped the gun on abandoning the Law, and are now considered the least in heaven as you've told others to do so as well. It's 100% clear, no mental gymnastics or labyrinthian decryption needed to understand it.

Your second answer is hard to follow....he didn't say 'treat others as I would', it's 'as you would have them treat you'. Because most people fail to live up to it has no bearing on the instruction, neither does our moral imperfection. I would have them try to treat me fairly, honestly, and civilly, so I try to do the same, and not because Jesus said to, but because that's the best way to get others to treat me that way.

To answer your question...Aesop.

newtboysays...

I didn't breeze over it, just pointed out that's not all it said. I addressed the labyrinthine decryption.
However, you breeze over the part that contradicts you that I went in depth on...."till earth passes". Heaven must pass, earth must pass, AND all must be fulfilled, not OR. That didn't happen. Law on. Ignore that at your peril, or do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that doesn't mean till earth passes, I think it's all nonsense so not my problem.

But...you said Jesus was perfectly moral, so he must have followed the Law, so how many heathens did Jesus stone? Even by your measure, he was obligated to murder infidels until he died or he would be immoral, so how many murders did Jesus perform?

I think that of Aesop because he did it. One need not be perfectly moral to recognize morality, imo.

shinyblurrysaid:

You're right, it is 100 percent clear:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

In verse 17 Jesus says He has come to fulfill the law. In verse 18 He says nothing shall pass from the law until it is fulfilled. So, if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the only reason we would have to follow the Old Covenant law is if He failed to fulfill it. He came to fulfill it and fulfill it He did by living a perfect life and satisfying all of its requirements. He became the sacrifice for all sin, which is why the sacrificial system was done away with and the veil in the temple was torn asunder. God did away with that system and now everything is through His Son. This is why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him. This is also why He said on the cross "it is finished".

Now this doesn't mean that there aren't any commands for us to follow. However, we follow them under the New Covenant and we are justified by our faith rather than our obedience. This is called the law of Christ.

I went pretty in depth with my answer so it's a little bit disappointing to see you breezed right over it. If you study that more closely you'll understand the particulars of the hows and whys.

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

shinyblurrysays...

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

newtboysaid:

I didn't breeze over it, just pointed out that's not what it said at all.
However, you breeze over the part that contradicts you that I went in depth on...."till earth passes". That didn't happen. Law on. Ignore that at your peril, or do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that doesn't mean till earth passes, I think it's all nonsense so not my problem.

But...you said Jesus was perfectly moral, so he must have followed the Law, so how many heathens did Jesus stone? Even by your measure, he was obligated to murder infidels until he died or he would be immoral, so how many murders did Jesus perform?

newtboysays...

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

shinyblurrysaid:

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

shinyblurrysays...

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.


It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

newtboysaid:

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

newtboysays...

Aesop may be a myth, not a real person but a compilation of other storytellers and fabelists. It's not clear either way apparently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop
I believe it's likely a man named Jesus existed, largely as described, I just discount all the supernatural and religious stuff. Minus that, I agree with his basic teachings as I understand them.

What makes Aesop's fables objectively good imo is (as I remember them, it's been decades) they aren't self serving or selfish lessons, they are altruistic and civic minded lessons mostly, explaining how doing right for others is beneficial to all, including ones self in the long term even when not in the short term. To be sure, they aren't all about morality, but those that were (as I recall them) were good lessons all.

shinyblurrysaid:

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More