Don't be insulting. Many of the things you listed are still hot-button issues over which there is no clear moral delineation for society at large.
Your response also betrays a severe lack of understanding about what religion actually is. It is not some powerful man dictating a series of orders to zombie followers. It is a relationship between a worshiper and the Divine.
The Catholic church has had good popes and bad popes throughout history. A pope is merely a man with a very special responsibility. He is not the sum total of all Christian attitudes and beliefs. The pope can commit sins and is not exempt from Divine punishment.
Your "witch trials" link is a joke. Some crazy people kill a kid and claim it was religiously motivated, so you use that as an example of all religious people. That's about as narrow-minded as racism. You might as well call all black people stupid because those involved in the drowning were black and couldn't tell that what they were doing was wrong.
You take aim at a pope for calling condoms more wicked than AIDS. The reason he said this is one of morality: The use of a condom is a deliberate sinful act, while the contraction of AIDS (a disease) is not a sin.
Your response suggests that you have an almost superstitious cynicism with regards to religion and religious people.
Animals don't write philosophical papers about morality or communicate about morals to us or each other. I don't have any inclination to suspect that they do, in fact, have morals.
You don't have to be condescending, you can simply ask me to support my points.
I find your condescending attitude insulting. I'm pretty sure you can find a way to be a little more respectful with your replies. "Sorry to break it to you."
I suppose we will simply have to disagree as to the nature of the soul and whether it exists.
Don't confuse emotions with rational thought. I'm also not convinced that morality (discerning between good and evil) is instinctive or behavioral. While it may seem that way, I think there's a lot more at play in our environment to create moral dispositions in a person. Ultimately though, when a person acts, he must decide that the action is morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral (or immaterial.) Animals, by contrast, don't go through this step. I strongly disagree with the notion that moral consciousness is genetic and/or hereditary.
Again, there is a disagreement on terms. I don't mean "will" in the basic sense that the brain tells the limbs what to do. Here, I'm going to be nice and just quote myself from an earlier post in case you somehow missed it:
A will, or at least the will which I am talking about, requires reason to choose between different courses of action (simplified as a good choice and an evil choice, although in reality there are varying degrees.)
By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
I think you're glorifying the human mind far too much. Good and evil is a human construct, first and foremost, which is seemingly why no other animal exhibits it. Humans don't exhibit the pack mentality of wolves (disregarding kinship), nor the formations of migrating birds. It's nothing more than a causailty of human evolution.
Now, to state that animals have no morals and then draw the conclusion that they, by extension, have no will, is a leap of faith.
"Good and evil" is a concept bred into us by evolution. Men who kill other men is generally not a favourable trait due to the penalty it inflicts on a populace's ability to reproduce. Naturally, if a population is made up of 10% murderers, that tribe will fair far worse than a tribe with 0% murderers. Note that I'm not suggesting that there's a "murder gene", more that evolution favours "good" morals because "bad" morals tend to be self-defeating.
There is a lot of literature on the evolution of morality and if you are going to attempt to refute this, you're going to need some very strong evidence.
Now, compare this to wolf pack mentality. Both morality and pack mentality are both outcomes of successful natural selection. A wolf in a pack will fair better than a lone wolf. A tribe of humans with "good morals" will be less self-defeating than one with "bad morals".
Finally, my point is that morality is a product of evolution, and not a product of will. Your human brain might be bigger than a dog's, but the fundamental basis behind it is identical.
This relies entirely on the subject having a fear of his/her own mortality. If you accept that you are finite, then why would that fear play on your mind?
I mean really, you've not existed for billions of years already, so you know exactly what it feels like.
I wouldn't say that I'm glorifying the human mind, but rather pointing out one of its unique capabilities. I disagree that good and evil is a human construct, though I have no way of verifying one way or the other. I also disagree that concepts can be the products of evolution. There are no concepts as complex as good and evil hard-wired into our brains from birth. In terms of social evolution, it's true that good morals help a civilization survive in the long run, but we are talking about a macro scale in terms of hundreds of years - beyond the interest of a single individual, which by his nature prefers to survive by whatever means possible. It seems a "leap of faith," as you say, to conclude that because people in society agree on certain moral issues now that those moral issues evolved from the beginning of human history. I don't think society itself is capable of producing conceptual evolution.
Now, when you have a very influential religion existing for thousands of years, it seems plausible that society may model many of its moral agreements after many of the tenets of said religion... especially if the majority of the society's members practice said religion.
To be clear, it seems we simply disagree on terms. By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
Now, I suppose you can make a case that animals in fact DO have reason, but you have a lot of convincing to do to make me think it's not simply animal instinct. Reason cannot be based on instinct... it requires mental complexity beyond the capacity of any instinctual animal.
As far as accepting you are finite, I'm not entirely sure we can really comprehend what that means, so I don't really understand how someone could "accept" that they are finite. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Simply going back to the point where my memory gives out is not enough... I know intellectually that I existed before that point, though I have no way of actually demonstrating that to myself. As far as I know, I could have existed before birth, even before my conception became evident in my mother's womb.
By the way Eiviyn, thank you for not being the typical internet ass by actually coming up with reasonable arguments. I tip my hat to you :)
Animals have will you dumbass, clearly you know nothing about the brain.
-Makes blanket statement
-Refuses to back it up
-Calls other participant dumbass
Clearly you know nothing about intelligent conversation.
A will, or at least the will which I am talking about, requires reason to choose between different courses of action (simplified as a good choice and an evil choice, although in reality there are varying degrees.) Animals do not ponder whether the actions they take are good or evil, therefore they lack reason, and so they lack a will.
I think it's necessary to believe you have an eternal soul in order to have true happiness, as well as a mortal body. The combination of the two overcomes the fear of mortality and the need for mortal action to be impactful. When understood in the Christian context, it removes the guilt of past mistakes (which, with an eternal soul, would otherwise cripple a person indefinitely) and provides redemption from suffering (beyond a balancing of the scales.)
I disagree. A dog killing a child is a behavioral response, not an act of the will. Murder must be an act of the will - since animals lack any will whatsoever, they are therefore incapable of committing murder...
Not that this has anything to do with the topic. I'm just obsessed with precision...
I'm just saying we should maintain consistency in the terms we decide to use. Here are several definitions for the word "murder" which I found scattered around the internets:
My point is that the violence in Starcraft is far enough removed from reality that no real danger of actual sin comes into play - at least for me. It depends on the person though... if you're easily swayed by the kind of violence portrayed in Starcraft then you probably shouldn't be playing it. Extremely violent and realistic games like Grand Theft Auto I tend to stay away from (ok, maybe not so much realistic, but going around killing people in a city not unlike Miami is a bit closer to home then Tarsonis.) It's really about prudence... if doing anything causes you to sin, you should probably stop doing that thing.
Pornography, even animated pornography, obviously has the effect of causing a person to sin quite easily and gravely... so I don't go anywhere near that stuff.
Fun fact: The Papacy bears the diplomatic equivalent of a kingdom. World governments seem to acknowledge the Pope as the "ruler of Christianity."
I'm just being a smart-ass, of course :P
As to Pope Pius XII supporting Hitler, you may want to do some fact checking. While there is some dispute on the matter, it seems pretty evident that he wasn't going around torching Jews to appease Hitler. You should also consider the climate of the environment at the time. The Vatican has no effective army, and Hitler's God-State mentality gave him pretty much no reservations against rolling defenseless nations (since Hitler's state was pretty much "always right in everything.") That's not to say the good Pope was a coward - he just wasn't stupid enough to start throwing pebbles at Nazi soldiers.
As far as Jesus being in the room with me, I'm not sure what He would think about the game itself, but I don't think He would disapprove of me socializing with people online, treating them like human beings worthy of His love, and engaging in discussions such as this where I have the opportunity to be a real witness to my faith. You do make a good point though. We should always be conscious of what we are doing and whether that is pleasing to God.
Ehm, actually no. There's a distinction between murder and killing. Murder can only be done to a person, and I don't care how much you love Fido, animals are not people.
I'm not making any commentary on history. People fight wars for all manner of reasons. Religion is just another one of those reasons. That doesn't mean religion supports or encourages unjust warfare. I know from personal experience that clergymen don't go around saying "and make sure you kill that Muslim down the street before next Sunday or you'll have God to answer to."
Your presumption seems to be that religion is inherently bad. You attempt to support this by citing famous wars throughout history in which religion played a major role. Yet you made no commentary on 1, whether those wars were just, 2, whether the tenets of the religions involved actively supported an unjust war, 3, what portion of all religions throughout history are represented by said involved religions, and 4, whether the leaders of the involved religions were acting in a way which was faithful to the tenets of their respective religions. I have yet to see conclusive information regarding a positive correlation between religious belief and the "bad" behavior of individuals, isolated from other significant factors.
Religion creates a mindset that allows you to believe you are right.
Most people already have the mindset that they are right. Moral relativism (a very modern construct of philosophy) can be nothing more than a curiosity because of its inherent flaws - namely, that it cannot sustain itself. Most relativists simply ignore the implications of their own philosophy... basically, it is not a mature and sustainable concept.
Two people who have irreconcilable beliefs don't necessarily have to start killing each other. Atheists and theists, for example.
I also find it interesting that people on the forums claim to be devout christians yet they enjoy playing blizzard games that have to do with murder, mayhem, and occultism. :D
I say believe whatever you want. You will find out who is right in the end. There is no sense in arguing with others over these matters.
I have been indoctrinated in believing in a Christian God like everything else. The way I see it existence had to be set into motion by intelligent design and not randomly regardless of the thousands of different religious beliefs on our planet and dogma created by men.
Point 1: I'm not sure anyone's claimed to be a "devout Christian."
Point 2: The murder/mayhem/occultism is fictional
Point 3: Playing the game doesn't necessarily mean the player loves murder/mayhem/occultism
Point 4: It's not a sin to play a video game (for most of Christianity.)
Not everyone who is Christian has been indoctrinated to be so. There is such a thing as a willing convert, and they aren't mindless zombies. Furthermore, it's a false assumption to claim that anyone who has been born into a Christian faith is strictly indoctrinated and never questions or owns his beliefs. This would be like me saying all atheists are selfish fornicators, liars, cheats, and all-around jerks. Point being, stereotyping either side is stupid because each person has his own unique perspective on the supernatural. Engaging in stereotyping adds nothing to the conversation and creates big emotional pissing matches (like what we've already seen.)
Also, wisp does have a point. Bad people can use religion to manipulate good people into doing bad things. I won't really comment on Islam since I'm no expert, but in Christianity war is unacceptable unless it meets certain very restrictive requirements:
"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
When Christians violate these conditions by engaging in an unjust war, they commit sin. This applies to popes, too.
Even if you want to take that as life's goal - isn't the reason for doing that to get a sense of accomplishment/fulfillment, which in turn makes you feel happy?
Anything one can come up with kind of harkens back to "we're doing it in an attempt to feel happy". Nobody does anything in an attempt to feel sad or neutral. Even deliberately trying to get sad just to experience the emotion is done out of a search for knowledge that we host to attain fulfillment and (with that) happiness.
It can be argued that happiness is always the prime motivator for human action, whether subconscious or not. However, I wouldn't equate the terms goal and motivator. A goal is more detached from the immediate concerns of our psyche or body and represents a greater purpose for which we direct future action. A motivator is on a much smaller scale, helping us to make quick decisions without requiring intense meditation and reasoning. I don't think there's anything wrong with having happiness as a motivator, but I don't think it's the necessary reward for achieving a goal. Especially when that goal is the total fulfillment of selfless love, a person may have to actually sacrifice happiness for the well-being of another with no expectation of return or personal reward. The reward, in this case, is the betterment of the other, curiously attributed away from the actor. It's so difficult precisely because of it's detachment from worldly sensibility.
While trying to be happy is fine, I don't think it's the greatest of goals. People can do horrible things in order to feel happy. I think a better goal would be to achieve one's greatest potential before death. I would say a person's greatest potential is the maximum amount of love they are able to give - the greatest form of love, that is, not eros (sensual) or even filios (family), but agape (self-giving) love. Maybe it sounds kind of cheesy, but it is the most difficult thing a person could ever do.
The following is a message that contains my personal thoughts and opinions. It is a reflection of the way I perceive reality. It is not me trying to shove something down your throat. It is not me telling you that all you believe in is wrong/a lie/stupid. If you are still offended by it, read it again in a silly voice and you'll be fine.
It's difficult to imagine a life beyond what we know as reality because of our attachment to that reality. That attachment makes death seem far more frightening than the physical pain associated with it. When a dying person "accepts death," they let go of their attachment to reality and "move on," resulting in a peaceful death.
I think this is one of the major flaws of looking at eternal life through the mortal lens. It can only really be appreciated if you can detach yourself from the world. For someone who has never attempted this, it sounds completely crazy. It's why many of the saints are sometimes looked at as nutcases. It's kind of true, in a way: Insanity is the separation of one's perception of reality with reality as it actually is. The difference with the saints, however, is they see reality as it actually is, while the rest of us are caught up in illusive worldliness. In other words, they think "normal" people like us are crazy. Even if you think this is utter nonsense, I recommend you read about the saints. Lots of interesting stories.
Myself, I'm terrified of death. There's so much I want to do. But I also acknowledge that I can't really be happy unless I'm willing to let all of that go... so I try a little bit at a time to forget the world. Works for me so far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Eiviyn: Go
Don't be insulting. Many of the things you listed are still hot-button issues over which there is no clear moral delineation for society at large.
Your response also betrays a severe lack of understanding about what religion actually is. It is not some powerful man dictating a series of orders to zombie followers. It is a relationship between a worshiper and the Divine.
The Catholic church has had good popes and bad popes throughout history. A pope is merely a man with a very special responsibility. He is not the sum total of all Christian attitudes and beliefs. The pope can commit sins and is not exempt from Divine punishment.
Your "witch trials" link is a joke. Some crazy people kill a kid and claim it was religiously motivated, so you use that as an example of all religious people. That's about as narrow-minded as racism. You might as well call all black people stupid because those involved in the drowning were black and couldn't tell that what they were doing was wrong.
You take aim at a pope for calling condoms more wicked than AIDS. The reason he said this is one of morality: The use of a condom is a deliberate sinful act, while the contraction of AIDS (a disease) is not a sin.
Your response suggests that you have an almost superstitious cynicism with regards to religion and religious people.
@Nebuli2: Go
Animals don't write philosophical papers about morality or communicate about morals to us or each other. I don't have any inclination to suspect that they do, in fact, have morals.
You don't have to be condescending, you can simply ask me to support my points.
@Nebuli2: Go
I find your condescending attitude insulting. I'm pretty sure you can find a way to be a little more respectful with your replies. "Sorry to break it to you."
I suppose we will simply have to disagree as to the nature of the soul and whether it exists.
Don't confuse emotions with rational thought. I'm also not convinced that morality (discerning between good and evil) is instinctive or behavioral. While it may seem that way, I think there's a lot more at play in our environment to create moral dispositions in a person. Ultimately though, when a person acts, he must decide that the action is morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral (or immaterial.) Animals, by contrast, don't go through this step. I strongly disagree with the notion that moral consciousness is genetic and/or hereditary.
Again, there is a disagreement on terms. I don't mean "will" in the basic sense that the brain tells the limbs what to do. Here, I'm going to be nice and just quote myself from an earlier post in case you somehow missed it:
I wouldn't say that I'm glorifying the human mind, but rather pointing out one of its unique capabilities. I disagree that good and evil is a human construct, though I have no way of verifying one way or the other. I also disagree that concepts can be the products of evolution. There are no concepts as complex as good and evil hard-wired into our brains from birth. In terms of social evolution, it's true that good morals help a civilization survive in the long run, but we are talking about a macro scale in terms of hundreds of years - beyond the interest of a single individual, which by his nature prefers to survive by whatever means possible. It seems a "leap of faith," as you say, to conclude that because people in society agree on certain moral issues now that those moral issues evolved from the beginning of human history. I don't think society itself is capable of producing conceptual evolution.
Now, when you have a very influential religion existing for thousands of years, it seems plausible that society may model many of its moral agreements after many of the tenets of said religion... especially if the majority of the society's members practice said religion.
To be clear, it seems we simply disagree on terms. By will, I mean the ability to act based on reason. By reason, I mean the ability to distinguish between good and evil actions. Murder requires malicious (evil) intent. An aggressor cannot have malicious intent if it cannot distinguish between good and evil. Animals lack reason (they cannot distinguish between good and evil,) therefore even disregarding whether animals have a will (they don't because they lack reason) animals cannot have malicious intent, and therefore animals cannot commit murder.
Now, I suppose you can make a case that animals in fact DO have reason, but you have a lot of convincing to do to make me think it's not simply animal instinct. Reason cannot be based on instinct... it requires mental complexity beyond the capacity of any instinctual animal.
As far as accepting you are finite, I'm not entirely sure we can really comprehend what that means, so I don't really understand how someone could "accept" that they are finite. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Simply going back to the point where my memory gives out is not enough... I know intellectually that I existed before that point, though I have no way of actually demonstrating that to myself. As far as I know, I could have existed before birth, even before my conception became evident in my mother's womb.
By the way Eiviyn, thank you for not being the typical internet ass by actually coming up with reasonable arguments. I tip my hat to you :)
-Makes blanket statement
-Refuses to back it up
-Calls other participant dumbass
Clearly you know nothing about intelligent conversation.
A will, or at least the will which I am talking about, requires reason to choose between different courses of action (simplified as a good choice and an evil choice, although in reality there are varying degrees.) Animals do not ponder whether the actions they take are good or evil, therefore they lack reason, and so they lack a will.
I think it's necessary to believe you have an eternal soul in order to have true happiness, as well as a mortal body. The combination of the two overcomes the fear of mortality and the need for mortal action to be impactful. When understood in the Christian context, it removes the guilt of past mistakes (which, with an eternal soul, would otherwise cripple a person indefinitely) and provides redemption from suffering (beyond a balancing of the scales.)
I disagree. A dog killing a child is a behavioral response, not an act of the will. Murder must be an act of the will - since animals lack any will whatsoever, they are therefore incapable of committing murder...
Not that this has anything to do with the topic. I'm just obsessed with precision...
@Taintedwisp: Go
I'm just saying we should maintain consistency in the terms we decide to use. Here are several definitions for the word "murder" which I found scattered around the internets:
Wikipedia
free dictionary
free dictionary legal
Merriam-Webster
None of these say "the unlawful killing of human or animal."
@michaelknives: Go
My point is that the violence in Starcraft is far enough removed from reality that no real danger of actual sin comes into play - at least for me. It depends on the person though... if you're easily swayed by the kind of violence portrayed in Starcraft then you probably shouldn't be playing it. Extremely violent and realistic games like Grand Theft Auto I tend to stay away from (ok, maybe not so much realistic, but going around killing people in a city not unlike Miami is a bit closer to home then Tarsonis.) It's really about prudence... if doing anything causes you to sin, you should probably stop doing that thing.
Pornography, even animated pornography, obviously has the effect of causing a person to sin quite easily and gravely... so I don't go anywhere near that stuff.
Fun fact: The Papacy bears the diplomatic equivalent of a kingdom. World governments seem to acknowledge the Pope as the "ruler of Christianity." I'm just being a smart-ass, of course :P
As to Pope Pius XII supporting Hitler, you may want to do some fact checking. While there is some dispute on the matter, it seems pretty evident that he wasn't going around torching Jews to appease Hitler. You should also consider the climate of the environment at the time. The Vatican has no effective army, and Hitler's God-State mentality gave him pretty much no reservations against rolling defenseless nations (since Hitler's state was pretty much "always right in everything.") That's not to say the good Pope was a coward - he just wasn't stupid enough to start throwing pebbles at Nazi soldiers.
As far as Jesus being in the room with me, I'm not sure what He would think about the game itself, but I don't think He would disapprove of me socializing with people online, treating them like human beings worthy of His love, and engaging in discussions such as this where I have the opportunity to be a real witness to my faith. You do make a good point though. We should always be conscious of what we are doing and whether that is pleasing to God.
@Taintedwisp: Go
Ehm, actually no. There's a distinction between murder and killing. Murder can only be done to a person, and I don't care how much you love Fido, animals are not people.
@Nebuli2: Go
Religion provides no excuses. That's what sinful people do. Religion is a way of life, not a politician.
@Eiviyn: Go
I'm not making any commentary on history. People fight wars for all manner of reasons. Religion is just another one of those reasons. That doesn't mean religion supports or encourages unjust warfare. I know from personal experience that clergymen don't go around saying "and make sure you kill that Muslim down the street before next Sunday or you'll have God to answer to."
Your presumption seems to be that religion is inherently bad. You attempt to support this by citing famous wars throughout history in which religion played a major role. Yet you made no commentary on 1, whether those wars were just, 2, whether the tenets of the religions involved actively supported an unjust war, 3, what portion of all religions throughout history are represented by said involved religions, and 4, whether the leaders of the involved religions were acting in a way which was faithful to the tenets of their respective religions. I have yet to see conclusive information regarding a positive correlation between religious belief and the "bad" behavior of individuals, isolated from other significant factors.
Most people already have the mindset that they are right. Moral relativism (a very modern construct of philosophy) can be nothing more than a curiosity because of its inherent flaws - namely, that it cannot sustain itself. Most relativists simply ignore the implications of their own philosophy... basically, it is not a mature and sustainable concept.
Two people who have irreconcilable beliefs don't necessarily have to start killing each other. Atheists and theists, for example.
Point 1: I'm not sure anyone's claimed to be a "devout Christian."
Point 2: The murder/mayhem/occultism is fictional
Point 3: Playing the game doesn't necessarily mean the player loves murder/mayhem/occultism
Point 4: It's not a sin to play a video game (for most of Christianity.)
Not everyone who is Christian has been indoctrinated to be so. There is such a thing as a willing convert, and they aren't mindless zombies. Furthermore, it's a false assumption to claim that anyone who has been born into a Christian faith is strictly indoctrinated and never questions or owns his beliefs. This would be like me saying all atheists are selfish fornicators, liars, cheats, and all-around jerks. Point being, stereotyping either side is stupid because each person has his own unique perspective on the supernatural. Engaging in stereotyping adds nothing to the conversation and creates big emotional pissing matches (like what we've already seen.)
Also, wisp does have a point. Bad people can use religion to manipulate good people into doing bad things. I won't really comment on Islam since I'm no expert, but in Christianity war is unacceptable unless it meets certain very restrictive requirements:
"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."
When Christians violate these conditions by engaging in an unjust war, they commit sin. This applies to popes, too.
It can be argued that happiness is always the prime motivator for human action, whether subconscious or not. However, I wouldn't equate the terms goal and motivator. A goal is more detached from the immediate concerns of our psyche or body and represents a greater purpose for which we direct future action. A motivator is on a much smaller scale, helping us to make quick decisions without requiring intense meditation and reasoning. I don't think there's anything wrong with having happiness as a motivator, but I don't think it's the necessary reward for achieving a goal. Especially when that goal is the total fulfillment of selfless love, a person may have to actually sacrifice happiness for the well-being of another with no expectation of return or personal reward. The reward, in this case, is the betterment of the other, curiously attributed away from the actor. It's so difficult precisely because of it's detachment from worldly sensibility.
@Mozared: Go
While trying to be happy is fine, I don't think it's the greatest of goals. People can do horrible things in order to feel happy. I think a better goal would be to achieve one's greatest potential before death. I would say a person's greatest potential is the maximum amount of love they are able to give - the greatest form of love, that is, not eros (sensual) or even filios (family), but agape (self-giving) love. Maybe it sounds kind of cheesy, but it is the most difficult thing a person could ever do.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Is there a sufficient correlation between thoughts on the state of mortality and happiness?
DISCLAIMER
The following is a message that contains my personal thoughts and opinions. It is a reflection of the way I perceive reality. It is not me trying to shove something down your throat. It is not me telling you that all you believe in is wrong/a lie/stupid. If you are still offended by it, read it again in a silly voice and you'll be fine.
@BorgDragon: Go
It's difficult to imagine a life beyond what we know as reality because of our attachment to that reality. That attachment makes death seem far more frightening than the physical pain associated with it. When a dying person "accepts death," they let go of their attachment to reality and "move on," resulting in a peaceful death.
I think this is one of the major flaws of looking at eternal life through the mortal lens. It can only really be appreciated if you can detach yourself from the world. For someone who has never attempted this, it sounds completely crazy. It's why many of the saints are sometimes looked at as nutcases. It's kind of true, in a way: Insanity is the separation of one's perception of reality with reality as it actually is. The difference with the saints, however, is they see reality as it actually is, while the rest of us are caught up in illusive worldliness. In other words, they think "normal" people like us are crazy. Even if you think this is utter nonsense, I recommend you read about the saints. Lots of interesting stories.
Myself, I'm terrified of death. There's so much I want to do. But I also acknowledge that I can't really be happy unless I'm willing to let all of that go... so I try a little bit at a time to forget the world. Works for me so far.