The Spiritual Crisis in America

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Councils comprised of eminently fallible humans?

Yes. Theologians, bishops, deacons, etc.

Using what standard to determine "doctrinal correctness"?

The Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Either the Bible is their only standard, in which the entire exercise is hopelessly circular; or they are calling on some other source of knowledge, access to which should not be limited to them.

The Nous, Logos, Tradition, and of course The Old Promise. The New Promise was not yet compiled into a single work referred to as the "Bible" at the time of the Nicean council.

In what form does he exercise his oversight?

I don't know. I imagine they did an invocation preceding the council the same way Congress or city councils, etc. do today. I believe that He was with them, as He is with all of us now and ever, unto the ages of ages. Of course we could never know for sure.

The aim is to regain our likeness with God.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The Lord.

How's that working out?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

How's that working out?

Same worship, same theology, same challenges, same everything since the beginning of the faith. The gates of hell has not prevailed against His Church.

Kyrie, eleison.

 

[anticlimatic]

Do you think they are objective? If so, in what way? Who do you see no longer caring about them on account of their subjectivity

I do think spiritual needs are objective and universal, and it's something I've espoused for years in the face of the rising trend of individualistic morality. I'm collectivist, in this regard, and even if it's not entirely true it's important for standardization and thus education. If things are perceived as subjective, they lose their ability to be tought. If math for instance suddenly became accepted as such- if a four to one person was a three to another person and a two to yet another person, how would one go about teaching anything mathematically? I think spiritual affairs regard the subconscious and the unconscious, and provide people with a map on how to use their conscious minds in a counter intuitive fashion for the sake of their subconscious mental health. Take the issue of fidelity- if you're in a relationship with someone and another piques your attraction, and an oportunity presents itself to cheat on your partner with no apparent consequence (they won't find out) there's very little conscious reason not to satisfy that instinctual attraction. Nevermind the fact that you're opening the door to becoming a lair; to breaking up the bonds of intimacy you shared with your partner; to sabotaging your own ideas of trust. These consequences are not obvious to the conscious mind initially, but can be protected by objective moral and spiritual codes.

 

[Lark]

This is an awesome blog you got going here.

 

[deathwarmedup]

protected by objective moral and spiritual codes.

If you're protected by moral codes, how do you develop moral agency?

 

[anticlimatic]

If you're protected by moral codes, how do you develop moral agency?

The agency is in the decision to be or not be protected by those codes through behavior.

 

[deathwarmedup]

The agency is in the decision to be or not be protected by those codes through behavior.

That wouldn't be moral agency any more than the choice to accept welfare is economic agency.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

 

[anticlimatic]

That wouldn't be moral agency any more than the choice to accept welfare is economic agency.

Or refuse it. That's what agency is, yes.

I feel like you probably have a point somewhere, might I suggest using your words and stating it?

 

[deathwarmedup]

Or refuse it. That's what agency is, yes.

So we entrust our moral choices (and moral agency) to an outside party or we exercise our .....agency .... to reject that external morality and remain immoral?

You're not authentically moral if you're letting someone else decide your morality for you.

 

[anticlimatic]

So we entrust our moral choices (and moral agency) to an outside party or we exercise our .....agency .... to reject that external morality and remain immoral? You're not authentically moral if you're letting someone else decide your morality for you.

Ahhhh, thanks. I get what you're after now. Since I regard spiritual needs as objective, I believe that whether or not you accept pre constructed morality or strike out on your own to figure it out for yourself, in the end you will arrive at the same place. The problem with striking out on your own and learning through trial and error is that erring morally has consequences in the way of complexes and other unwanted psychological issues that most mortal individuals will not have enough time within their lifetimes to correct. In the context of logical efficiency, one path is objectively better than the other.

 

[deathwarmedup]

Ahhhh, thanks. I get what you're after now. Since I regard spiritual needs as objective, I believe that whether or not you accept pre constructed morality or strike out on your own to figure it out for yourself, in the end you will arrive at the same place. The problem with striking out on your own and learning through trial and error is that erring morally has consequences in the way of complexes and other unwanted psychological issues that most mortal individuals will not have enough time within their lifetimes to correct. In the context of logical efficiency, one path is objectively better than the other.

I see. That's logical. But I don't think spiritual matters are that logical, personally. I think morality inherently involves choice (excluding the choice whether to follow outside guidelines or not: if by implication you're not intrinsically moral, you can't morally evaluate them) and if no choice is exercised it's not a moral matter, inherently so. What, after all, is the spiritual value of someone who simply "followed the rules" and nothing else?

And where does "external" morality come from? Personally I think a reading of Darwin would be more instructive there than a reading of the Bible. Or the Koran...

 

[anticlimatic]

I see. That's logical. But I don't think spiritual matters are that logical, personally. I think morality inherently involves choice (excluding the choice whether to follow outside guidelines or not: if by implication you're not intrinsically moral, you can't morally evaluate them) and if no choice is exercised it's not a moral matter, inherently so. What, after all, is the spiritual value of someone who simply "followed the rules" and nothing else? And where does "external" morality come from? Personally I think a reading of Darwin would be more instructive there than a reading of the Bible. Or the Koran...

I don't think anyone is or isn't moral. The desire to be moral I think really just means the desire to make decisions in the context of morality that yield objectively positive results as often as possible. Therefore the value in following the rules is to the self- more choices made per capita that yield objectively positive results. The origin of morality as a system I think comes from multiple lifetimes of learning experiences logged from our ancestors regarding which decisions, however counter intuitive and illogical they seem initially on the surface, yield objectively positive results.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I see. That's logical. But I don't think spiritual matters are that logical, personally. I think morality inherently involves choice (excluding the choice whether to follow outside guidelines or not: if by implication you're not intrinsically moral, you can't morally evaluate them) and if no choice is exercised it's not a moral matter, inherently so. What, after all, is the spiritual value of someone who simply "followed the rules" and nothing else?

It's that person's choice to "follow those rules." Tomorrow is a fast day. We don't have to fast, but we choose to. There's no rule saying that we must.

What is the value of fasting? If one can deny themselves the passion of hunger, one can also practice the discipline of denying more serious passions. It seems to be working, albeit a challenge, but it's a sacrifice we take on.

It's like weight training for the soul. We don't have to deadlift 250lbs, we choose to. Why? Because we want a stronger back and better posture and the ones who came through the gym before us tell us that's the way to develop a stronger back and better posture.

Same thing with spiritual disciplines. No one is putting a gun to our head to deny ourselves carnal pleasures.

And where does "external" morality come from? Personally I think a reading of Darwin would be more instructive there than a reading of the Bible. Or the Koran...

Not necessarily Darwin, but Evolutionary Psychology was a path I went down. It helped me understand people and still keep it in the back of my mind.

In the end, spirituality is what separates us from the rest of God's creation. Not language.

 

[deathwarmedup]

I don't think anyone is or isn't moral. The desire to be moral I think really just means the desire to make decisions in the context of morality that yield objectively positive results as often as possible. Therefore the value in following the rules is to the self- more choices made per capita that yield objectively positive results. The origin of morality as a system I think comes from multiple lifetimes of learning experiences logged from our ancestors regarding which decisions, however counter intuitive and illogical they seem initially on the surface, yield objectively positive results.

Hmmmm. It's a topic that's worth more time than I have right now but.....I suspect the origins of morality lie in our evolutionary roots -- collective survival impulses codified at a cognitive level. Then someone discovered farming, and property, and created a "morality" to suit his interests, and used the powerful vehicle of culture to codify it. If you really want to get people to do something, render it a moral imperative in their minds. That way you can leverage their sense of collective duty (guilt), and once you leverage guilt (essentially the fear of being shunned), the world is your little oyster... And people are moral for developmental reasons: manipulation of guilt is widespread in child-raising. And .. .apologies for a ramshackle response but you get the gist and I'm short on time...

 

[deathwarmedup]

It's that person's choice to "follow those rules." Tomorrow is a fast day. We don't have to fast, but we choose to. There's no rule saying that we must.

What is the value of fasting? If one can deny themselves the passion of hunger, one can also practice the discipline of denying more serious passions. It seems to be working, albeit a challenge, but it's a sacrifice we take on.

It's like weight training for the soul. We don't have to deadlift 250lbs, we choose to. Why? Because we want a stronger back and better posture and the ones who came through the gym before us tell us that's the way to develop a stronger back and better posture.

Same thing with spiritual disciplines. No one is putting a gun to our head to deny ourselves carnal pleasures.

That wouldn't be following the rules, that would be utilising them, as they were laid out for those who intelligently understood their spiritual value. I'm sure there are millions who have followed them - with little reflection - and consequently gained nothing of spiritual value.

It wasn't the sort of everyday religious morals I had in mind anyway.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

That wouldn't be following the rules, that would be utilising them, as they were laid out for those who intelligently understood their spiritual value. I'm sure there are millions who have followed them - with little reflection, and consequently gained nothing of spiritual value.

"I tire of the blood of rams" Isaiah.

Agreed. "Going through the motions." We're all guilty of it to some degree. Lord knows.

 

[citizen cane]

Jesus is a nice start, absolutely, but hardly a solution. Look at all the turmoil in the church. Lots of acrimony between people who study the same texts, pray to the same God, and hear the same scripture, but come to radically different conclusions. Or, summed up in more theological terms: Christ alone is enough for salvation...but not for coming to an understanding or agreement on any number of earthly matters.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It wasn't the sort of everyday religious morals I had in mind anyway.

Pray tell what's on your mind?