Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder why some people believe one has to abandon their religion to seek enlightenment!?
It could have something to do with the hostility of the Bible to intellect. "Trust in the Lord and lean not to your own understanding" is essentially "Do what you're told" using different words. So the question then becomes, is there a way to be enlightened without using your mind that god allegedly gave you? Can you Just Follow Orders and still have understanding? What is truth and how does one come by it? By divine command theory or by following evidence wherever it leads, even contrary to one's faith?
Hi,
I didn't do the best job describing it. Ben Franklin does not say that he 'doesn't believe in doctrine,' but rather that doctrine from church to church doesn't matter as long as they are doing good deeds to humankind. So he doesn't really care about doctrinal differences so long as good is being done.
For example, some churches back then would argue about whether or not to have ceremonies that resembled Catholic ceremonies or about baptism. Franklin donated to all religious organizations in Philadelphia, because they all did charity.
I am watching the PBS series on Franklin. A man of such intelligence and generosity, yet a determined slaver. What good was being done by him if he could not reconcile this evil act with good?
Hi,
I didn't do the best job describing it. Ben Franklin does not say that he 'doesn't believe in doctrine,' but rather that doctrine from church to church doesn't matter as long as they are doing good deeds to humankind. So he doesn't really care about doctrinal differences so long as good is being done.
For example, some churches back then would argue about whether or not to have ceremonies that resembled Catholic ceremonies or about baptism. Franklin donated to all religious organizations in Philadelphia, because they all did charity.
And that statement of his is a doctrinal statement. That is like trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
Hi,
I didn't do the best job describing it. Ben Franklin does not say that he 'doesn't believe in doctrine,' but rather that doctrine from church to church doesn't matter as long as they are doing good deeds to humankind. So he doesn't really care about doctrinal differences so long as good is being done.
For example, some churches back then would argue about whether or not to have ceremonies that resembled Catholic ceremonies or about baptism. Franklin donated to all religious organizations in Philadelphia, because they all did charity.
And that is what most religious people argue over.....
The best way to worship God is by doing good deeds among your fellow humans.
Doctrinal differences do not matter so long as you are doing good deeds among humans.
Ben Franklin donated to all of the churches in Philadelphia and was one of the biggest donors to the Jewish Synagogue despite not being Jewish. Back then there was no government social safety net and the churches made up that difference. Franklin wanted to support these civic institutions that eased the suffering of the poor with food and clothing and took in the homeless on cold winter nights.
Many churches still to this day do great feats of charity, because that is how you truly honor God.
I mentioned somewhere else in this forum, sometime before, that I am now reading J.F. Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage."
"A 1956 volume of short biographies describing acts of bravery and integrity by eight United States Senators."
If anyone wants to read more about this sort of thing going back to U.S. early history, this too is an interesting read.
As for the rest of what to make of such reading and learning, of course doing good deeds among fellow humans has merit and need not be anything having to do with religion. Back then, for many, a religious upbringing was rather common place. For many their religious beliefs guided their judgement about political matters. Perhaps none more challenging and conflicting than that of slavery.
Too bad in my opinion that "great feats of charity" are somehow tied to personal rewards or goals rather than simple empathy and goodness, but being charitable is an admirable trait regardless. Unfortunately, over time it became obvious charity could not do what was necessary to adequately help the poor, so government services began to be put in place in order to shore up the significant shortfall that all charities combined could not.
However, Franklin, as one of the messengers of the Enlightenment to America, abandoned his religion as an adult in favor of reason and science and the man-made ethics of that movement. https://hollowverse.com/benjamin-franklin
I wonder why some people believe one has to abandon their religion to seek enlightenment!?
But he never abandoned God and always donated to churches.
I am watching the PBS series on Franklin. A man of such intelligence and generosity, yet a determined slaver. What good was being done by him if he could not reconcile this evil act with good?
Franklin by the end of his life opposed slavery publicly, supported abolitionist societies, and advocated government money to free slaves and help slaves adjust to a free life.
And that statement of his is a doctrinal statement.
Yes. You are correct, it is a doctrinal belief to say that 'doctrine doesn't matter so long as the doctrine does good.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
And that is what most religious people argue over.....
Unfortunately people have any killed each other over trivial things.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also….You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." -Jesus in the book of Matthew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I mentioned somewhere else in this forum, sometime before, that I am now reading J.F. Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage."
"A 1956 volume of short biographies describing acts of bravery and integrity by eight United States Senators."
If anyone wants to read more about this sort of thing going back to U.S. early history, this too is an interesting read.
As for the rest of what to make of such reading and learning, of course doing good deeds among fellow humans has merit and need not be anything having to do with religion. Back then, for many, a religious upbringing was rather common place. For many their religious beliefs guided their judgement about political matters. Perhaps none more challenging and conflicting than that of slavery.
Too bad in my opinion that "great feats of charity" are somehow tied to personal rewards or goals rather than simple empathy and goodness, but being charitable is an admirable trait regardless. Unfortunately, over time it became obvious charity could not do what was necessary to adequately help the poor, so government services began to be put in place in order to shore up the significant shortfall that all charities combined could not.
I hope that is a good book. I like learning history from home when I can.
Some people say that no one can be truly altruistic, that everything comes from self-motivation. That if the motive is you will feel bad not doing good, then you are doing it for yourself in the end.
Franklin by the end of his life opposed slavery publicly, supported abolitionist societies, and advocated government money to free slaves and help slaves adjust to a free life.
Yes. You are correct, it is a doctrinal belief to say that 'doctrine doesn't matter so long as the doctrine does good.'
Unfortunately people have any killed each other over trivial things.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also….You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." -Jesus in the book of Matthew.
I hope that is a good book. I like learning history from home when I can.
Some people say that no one can be truly altruistic, that everything comes from self-motivation. That if the motive is you will feel bad not doing good, then you are doing it for yourself in the end.
Franklin is an interesting person. No doubt about that.
But here's my question: I guess you put Franklin out there as an example of why one should believe in god (?). What if Franklin had said the opposite. Would you then conclude you shouldn't believe in god?
We all do this...look for famous people who think like we do and then use them as examples. I've been particularly convinced that it's a wise thought process.
Some people say that no one can be truly altruistic, that everything comes from self-motivation. That if the motive is you will feel bad not doing good, then you are doing it for yourself in the end.
I'm not sure what the motivation is when people point this kind of thing out -- it seems either to say "you're not truly selfless like me" or else "you're just as selfish as I am".
I look at it this way: that which is ethical and moral is beneficial on balance for everyone, and therefore ultimately for me. In addition, there's a nonzero chance that what's good for me is good for others as well. So let's quit questioning my personal rational self-interest as any sort of input into good decisions. It's absolutely an input. It shouldn't be the only one, and the emphasis should not be on instant gratification and SHOULD be on whether / how it applies to society generally -- but it's not something to be avoided as a corrupting influence on good thinking, either. I think this comes from the belief of some in utter depravity -- it teaches you that you never have anything but malignant intent or something.
Another point here is that empathy begins with how YOU feel about a thing. You then imagine that others feel that also. The ability to visualize how others (or your future self) experience things is the basis of both empathy and delayed gratification. Without being able to say "I think this would be helpful or harmful to me" we can't make the leap to "I think this would be helpful or harmful to others, or to society as a whole".
The PBS. Series on Franklin, like all of Ken Burn’s productions is quite good. He does not come across, at least in this production, as particularly religious. He sort of just abandoned his wife and daughter to their own devices and indulged his own interests and activities as he pleased in Europe. His wife had to manage their affairs on her own, died alone, and his daughter never knew him. That was extraordinarily selfish and self centered.
On the other hand he was brilliant and generous, never patented his scientific ideas from which he could have created a lot of wealth, and believed knowledge should be free and available to everyone. That he changed his mind about owning human beings came very late, when civil war was near, seems more expedience than actual change in character.
I would like to find put more about his thoughts and writing regarding slavery and abolition and religion. Many who did become abolitionists had to be persuaded.
I hope that is a good book. I like learning history from home when I can.
Some people say that no one can be truly altruistic, that everything comes from self-motivation. That if the motive is you will feel bad not doing good, then you are doing it for yourself in the end.
I've got a little problem with what "some people say" about being altruistic as well...
Or perhaps there is some truth about the fact that everything we do is a result of some motivation. Of course, and as such perhaps it's more a question or issue about the motivation. If the motivation is to achieve a goal (like get into heaven or avoid hell), then that's a motivation I don't respect much. If the motivation is to get a personal "return on the investment," as in "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" then that's hardly an admirable act either. Also if to impress others with one's altruism, to be viewed in a positive light, then to me that's a matter of vanity that I also don't respect too much.
If, on the other hand, the result of doing good is strictly to feel good, I am not aware of any real way to avoid that feeling or that anyone should try. Especially with respect to those who give without anyone knowing about their charity, anonymously, those are the people I respect the most. That for me is the real deal when it comes to being altruistic. For whatever any of that is worth.
The book has been a good read for me on many levels, but then I am a big fan of biographies and history. A Pulitzer prize winner anyone can judge by way of a quick summary that's easy to look up. Cheers.
Last edited by LearnMe; 10-10-2022 at 10:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
