# Reading > Religious Texts >  List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

## Jilvin

I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.

To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.

A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

4. A direct manifestation of the divine.

Have god simply talk to me in a state where I know it could not be a hallucination, preferably in the presence of as many reliable witnesses as possible.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book. 

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

2. A religion without internal disputes or factions.

Finding a religion where everybody agreed pretty consistently about it would be compelling.

3. A religion whose followers have never taken part in attrocities
4. If they did commit attrocities, then they should have a nearly flawless record in Jihads or Holy Wars. 

III. Completely uncompelling
1. Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles.

Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.

2. Conversion stories.
Any conversion stories are not compelling.

3. Subjective experiences.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS:
"I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences."

Good point. What I mean by subjective experience here is a stricter version than the formal definition. What I had in mind was the inability of other reliable observers to be subject to that experience, i.e being confined to a single or handful of individuals. That should be clarified.

"Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you."

I am deducing here that you think my propositions of experiencing direct divine manifestations as evidence is unreasonable because only a collective group of humans in all of history are capable of being subjected to divine insights. If this is the case, then I will remain an atheist unless I am one of those lucky individuals. My current beliefs have led me to conclude that nobody has ever been overwhelmed by an experience that has been a legitimately divine inspiration, as all cited cases are completely sketchy and easily contrived. Furthermore; there is no reason why a deity powerful enough to create the universe should be able to prove himself to EVERYBODY at the same time (especially prophecies

----------


## JBI

If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all. Time progresses in a linear fashion, therefore something must have been outside of time in order to jump start it. IF the universe was created by a big bang, what created the big bang. What created the creator of the big bang?

What was the first thing that happened? What caused that to happen?

Spinoza?

Why must someone convince you - I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.
> 
> To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.
> 
> I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.
> 
> 1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
> 
> I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling
> ...


I did not state categorically that you would refuse anything I said offhand. I am more than willing to continue discussion, but if you think I said or meant that then I must correct you, I don't think that you would necessarily do that at all.

I.
1. Don't have any of these, closest thing would be the I Ching, the book of changes. I didn't study this for divination, simply something to chew over.

2. Granted I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but what I've garnered from studies in Buddhism are intruigingly related to Quantum Physics. Basically, the different ways they've said that "there is no deep reality," or found that all phenomena are illusory in nature.

Psychology went through a great deal in modern times to be considered a science, yet practically it's not considered one by most people, I have discovered. But if you consider pscyhology a science, then there's great scientific knowledge in both Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism is called sometimes the science of self-realization, or the science of God-realization.

The process I understand to be true religion is God-realization, in stages. The ultimate goal is God-consciousness, which doesn't mean losing one's identity, or merging into an impersonal force; but rather it is always working for the satisfaction of the Whole. God is the root of existence, and just as watering the root of a tree is the only way to sustain the tree, so too when we work steadily to satisfy the root of existence, it is spread out and we are actually seving the parts as well. 

The religion I follow follows a different method of knowledge, a descending process, where knowledge is passed from teacher to disciple. I'll mention more of that later.

I realize this may not be convincing to you as you seem to have meant a person somehow getting a guidebook for creating an electric motor more than 2000 years ago or something like this. Again, I've never heard of anything like this, nor actually sought for it.

3. Don't know of these. I believe the power of prayer is greater than the power of thought, but it isn't designed to let us be demigods. God is present in His teachings, in His devotees, also in the heart of every living entity, no matter what his position. We have the power to heal but not to change the laws of nature.

4. I don't think this will ever happen.

II.
1. Bhagavad-Gita is called the "Song of the Lord." It's considered by devotees to be the actual words of God. It's a 700 verse, 18 chapter scripture, in which Krishna explains the roles of living entities, time, karma, the soul (atma), the living entities (jivas), and the supreme controller (isvara). It explains the modes of material nature, the Lord who is completely transcendental to material nature, and the living entities which are transcendental originally but have forgotten their spiritual identity.

2. Don't have one because I can't speak for others.

3. Similar to #2, don't know all the individuals in every religion.

III.
1. Don't know about this either.

2. Won't give you any.

3. Interesting question. The only way you can arrive at truth is by a long process. It takes a while to discover true ideas, to come to something you can be certain is true. We have come a long way from the beginning, with many twists and turns, and the question is if we remember all the places we made turns, ran into questions.




> Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.


I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences. Every person has within them the potentially for complete objectivity, complete understanding. This comes from understanding oneself, others, one's nature, the nature of the world. I can tell you completely objectively that the only thing which is important is the search for God. George Harrison said, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait." Why? Because the individual is less important than the whole. Or at least it's smaller. The only thing that is important is searching for truth, peace, transcendence, beauty, love, happiness; whatever you will call it, and then living, for whatever you wish to believe in. I believe truth is understanding the will of God, which is harmony, peace, love and evolution. First we have to deprogram ourselves of conceptions of God. Anyway the main thing I am driving at is the differences between individual consciousness and super or divine consciousness. Once the individual begins to awaken to the existence of the rest of the consciousness in which they exist; they realize this is the most important thing. You say it's subjective, or unintelligible, but why, exactly? It is the most truthful quest of philosophy: going to the beginning, to find out what we are, with the first conclusion being we are a part of a greater whole. It's actually the first objective fact there is.

I don't have a monopoly on God and I don't wish to do anything but discuss with you. I am not close minded to atheism, I have simply progressed beyond that view. I think we all have different views of God because we view Him through our own filters. However I've read some of the greatest or most revered contributors to human thought; and quite often they have some true or partly true ideas!

----------


## bazarov

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

----------


## Ohmyscience

Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you.

----------


## El Viejo

> I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.


Ah, but evangelicals do give a ****, and rightly so. From their perspective they are the ones carrying the flotation device that we all need. Christians with consciences are continually concerned about how to convince the non-believer. This is not to say they are responsible for the non-believer's decisions. Any religion or irreligion worth a **** teaches its practitioners to give a ****. Consider the Good Samaritan. This is where free market zealotry and objectivism fall flat.

----------


## Jilvin

Good points made by all. I will post my response to objections by editing my first post if you would like to see if I acknowledged your post.

----------


## Logos

> .... by editing my first post ....


Hopefully Nikolai quoted your OP in full because by editing it it now makes it really confusing as to who you're addressing and what your original statements were.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?



its an endless repetition....

_"wont you sign up your name..."_

----------


## teleios

> I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.
> 
> 1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
> 
> I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling


What are your thoughts about Ezekiel 37, and the re-formation of the nation of Israel?

The entire chapter talks about the prophecy, and while a couple parts of it are still in the process of being fulfilled, the majority of it has come to pass within the last 60 years. 

A small quote:
"Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land."

----------


## Jilvin

"I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling"

Read that last part. This prophecy and similar ones in the Old Testament are the sole reason that most Jewish people return to Israel. This self-fulfilment is prevalent through other religions, but this is the most prominent example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To Logos, its pretty clear that I add objections to THE END of my post in it's own subsection which is clearly distinguished from the original content. Look at the post before making accusations of flopping around my content to falsely make it appear as if it was in there all along.

----------


## hellsapoppin

''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''


Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.

Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.

----------


## West

Jilvin.


There is a good book you can read online by the title "The Bible, The Quran and the Science". "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE".


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...QS/default.htm


It was written by a doctor called Maurice Bucaille. He addresses your questions in both the Bible and the Quran. You can satisfy your curiousity. 


PS: In case someone would wonder where my religious affliation would be, I am a muslim.

----------


## 1n50mn14

These are pretty much the same things that would convince me, as well.

----------


## The Atheist

Jilvn, you're not far from my own position and I'm having the identical discussion on a christian board at the moment.




> If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all.


This is incorrect.

There is no need for anything "before" the big bang*

It's a difficult concept to work with and is counter-intuitive. But then again, so is most of quantum physics - the universe doesn't work like we expect it to. This been greatly beneficial to religion in the past, but the gaps are shrinking.

*I'm not saying that either the big bang theory or my comments on time are incorrect, but it's wrong to say that something *must* have been before the start of the universe.




> Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?


Nah, it's all in good fun most of the time.

----------


## andave_ya

Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.

However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.

You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.

----------


## JBI

Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.

There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable. Good luck - there is no theory to give anything substantial. That isn't proof in itself of a God, I will admit, but it is enough to cast doubt that science has all the answers, which even scientists agree.

The concept of a Spinoza type God has nothing to do with organized religion, but it is just as practical as any hypothesis given by the scientific community.

----------


## Etienne

> Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push.


Actually no, since Big Bang created matter, without matter (pre-Big Bang), no space, without space, no time. Therefore you cannot think about the Big Bang happening in some kind of temporal cause-effect way, there is in fact no "before" the Big Bang. Human is used to think everything in relation to time, unfortunately, time is is what is generally conceived, it is not some kind of universal measure. Merely a perspective.




> There is no answer as to where matter came from - which is unexplainable.


Yes, yes, energy. But actually it is all pointless arguing over these, as none of us (I might be mistaken) has the necesary knowledge for such question. Physics are thrown everywhere in such discussions, by both sides of the argument, but none of them really understand it, and even though they would understand a simple part of it, the simple fact that they miss the big picture is most likely to make it irrelevant.

Besides using what seems like logic or common sense is also useless when this logic is of human size, and when what is discussed about is chemical reactions, powers, sizes, spaces that escape mere human intellection and imagination and require this scientifical abstraction.

So when talking about such notions of physics, we are basically all talking through our hats. And then it all comes down to religious discussions on internet forums, something that, JBI, is far, far worse than any Wikipedia has or will ever be.

----------


## JBI

> Very well-put, eminently sensible list. I agree with you entirely, and in fact several of those things are what helped persuade me to become a Christian.
> 
> However it cannot be denied that at least in part, Christianity is a faith-based religion. Not necessarily empirical -- just faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, of things not yet seen. How would you address that? Your list only demands things of God but being a Christian is reciprocal.
> 
> You have to have faith: faith that He exists, faith that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again after three days. You have to have a relationship with Him; being a Christian is absolutely not just believing in a deity and that's the end of it. It is neither so dumb nor so easy to be a Christian as you seem to imply it is.


Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.

It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.

That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.

----------


## planet earth

JBI

My comments will tackle two points

First, I believe because Allah deserves to be worshipped, by his creations, not because it is easier than atheism. Imagine if you have a son, that refuses to admit that you are his father. And you as a father love Him and pray for Him and want him, but he does not want to admit, because you might punish him for a mistake he has done. But if he comes closer and knows you, he will know, that it was out of love and paternal wisdom that you knew his own good. Similarly, Allah, who is not our father, but even nearer, He is our creator, that made us with His Hands, and knows what is best for us, who could we search for except Him?

THe second point concerning the Big Bang. I don't know if a verse in the Quran would explain this phenomenon. Allah says in His Final Holy Scripture the Quran:

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe? 

In other words, the skies and earth were one unit and to be separated something similar to the Big Bang was ordered by Allah, who then made water the source of life to every living thing.

I really hope this explains anything at all.

----------


## andave_ya

> Is it now? Is it easier than being an atheist, knowing when you die you end up in oblivion, and knowing that everyone else who died is already in oblivion? OR knowing that you are shunned from most society (especially the united states, and other extremist religious countries). There's not just that though - Atheism doesn't have a church charity basket to turn to in trouble - who is there to give it? Atheism doesn't have any of the luxuries of religion - that's why people believe.
> 
> It may not be easy to believe in Christ, but I doubt it is easier than the alternative, especially if you live in a religious country.
> 
> That being said - if it was Sweden, I think most people simply just wouldn't care - a better lifestyle - and perhaps why such countries seem so idyllic in portrayal.


When you die you end up in oblivion...No, you're absolutely right, that is harder than believing you will go to Heaven. But why do you believe that you'll end up in oblivion? This is probably the most difficult aspect of your post for me to understand. All of life -- and you want to just die and have an end of it? No hope? No want to be able to understand everything? Life is short and there is so much to learn and do; don't you feel the same? I read a sermon once by somebody whose name I forgot, and he said that Heaven won't just be harps and wings, but ever so much more. Those who love knowledge will have the Creator of all things to learn from. Those who love music will have celestial choirs to listen to -- Kepler's musical dreams of old! Those who love art will have colors that don't even exist in our spectrum -- how then can one opt for "oblivion" when there is so much more to know?

Shunned from society...Christians are shunned too. That said, what do you want me to say? It is, in the end, your choice, whether atheist or Christian or theist or deist or whatever you like, and therefore up to you to stand up to opposition. There's opposition for anything and everything out of the norm, and Christians have long since relinquished the right to guide that norm. Too, what is the point of believing something that everyone else believes? Taking into consideration the wide variety of humanity there's something a bit unusual and indeed a bit eerie in the idea of everyone believing the same thing.

Church charity basketNot all churches are these benevolent, happy-making places you portray. Only the big churches can afford to have generous church charity baskets. The small unknowns, like my church, dont even have a building, much less money to hand out like largesse. Furthermore, Christians  and I speak as one of them  are humans, not automatons. We have pride too. Most Christian families I know would have to be in straits worse than dire before they asked for money. The Bible says that the man of the house is supposed to provide for his family, and as much as possible, Christians try to keep to that.

Where atheists are supposed to get church charity baskets I dont know. The government soon enough will be offering to all, and taking on the load of come to me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden.

A question: what are the luxuries of religion?

----------


## Jilvin

Um, the Big Bang theory isn't a theory about how the universe began, but a theory of the current development of the universe. What scientists mean when they tell laypersons that the Big Bang was "the beginning of time" really means that the conditions that occured before the rapid expansion of the universe would be inconsequential and undetectable.

----------


## 1n50mn14

> Actually, the big bang doesn't explain anything. Why did it happen? There needs to be a push. No one can answer that - the big bang doesn't explain what came before it, or why it happened when it happened. Time itself doesn't just start.


Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being. As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.

Time is a human invention and only relative to us.

----------


## bazarov

> 3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.
> 
> If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.


I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.





> II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion
> 
> 1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book. 
> 
> If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.



What's wrong with Bible?

----------


## Redzeppelin

The entire premise of this thread is pointless: one does not believe in God because God has been sufficiently "proven" enough to overcome human doubt. If you read the Bible, Paul makes it clear in the NT that the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God - not from some "show me" attitude. Honestly, if one is predisposed to disbelieve in God due to a lack of "empirical" evidence, providing said evidence wouldn't work. Even if God did actually decide to speak audibly to a nonbeliever, the odds are pretty good that the nonbeliever would concoct some alternative explanation (I was hallucinating, a dream, medication malfunctioned, etc). Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe.

----------


## billyjack

> the desire to know God comes from God - and that the clarity of vision necessary to believe comes from God - but that clarity comes only when the individual truly desires to know God -


So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it





> Seriously, both nonbelievers and believers choose what they believe, based upon "evidence" that they believe proves their case - but it only proves their case in that they have already decided what they wish to believe


truth

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So, the desire/drive to know x comes from x. similar to saying that the drive for food comes from food-- which it doesnt, it comes from hunger (just as the desire to know god comes from some people's hunger for meaning and purpose, not god). Now you could say that the desire for everything is rooted in god, but to say that everything is one-thing is basically saying nothing--you can't do anything with it


Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.

In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand.  Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.

God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.






> truth


Right - but non-believers will not go along with this; they will insist they have an empirical basis for their doubt - but that's not really true; just because God won't reveal Himself in a way that subjects Himself to our tools of measurement doesn't mean He doesn't exist - any more than we could definitively say that the man who doesn't send flowers or cards to his wife doesn't really love her. He may deeply love her, but he may choose to express that love in less "objectively" measurable ways. (Bad analogy, but I'm in a hurry.)

----------


## The Atheist

> Scientifically, and I am NOT a scientist, so this is the best way I can put it, but the Big Bang would actually prove the existance of a God, or a sentient being.


Nope. Nothing of the sort. Not only does it prove nothing, it suggests nothing either. "Big Bang" is a two word phrase to descibe an enormous number of likely theories as to what happened. 99.999999999% of it deals with the universe a nanosecond after its creation. 




> As far as we can tell, the Big Bang occurred because a single atom was condensed so densely that the energy within it was too great to contain. However, because it was only a single atom, there were no other influences, no other reasons for it to ... well... BANG. Leading us to beleive it had to make the choice to do so. Or something like that... there was a lot more string and particle theory in the actual discussion... Ummm... aha.


Not even close. Here's a good start to what "Big Bang" actually does mean.




> Time is a human invention and only relative to us.


Time, as in hours, days, minutes and years is certainly human construct, but the fact that the universe is expanding means that time as a concept does actually exist. The space a galaxy occupies now is different to the space it occupied 10,000 earth years ago, and while nobody cares what time it was, it has definitely moved and not instantaneously, so time does pass, whether you're wearing a watch or not.

----------


## Virgil

> Not quite the same. The presence of hunger does not prove the existence of food, but it does suggest that we were designed to be fueled in a certain way by certain substances. In the same way, the "hunger" for meaning and purpose comes from God in that God designed us to be in relationship with Him; that we can override that desire (via a stubborn insistence that God "prove" Himself to us before we'll believe) or misinterpret it (largely the explanation for our numerous addictive and self-destructive behaviors) doesn't diminish the fact that we were made to be in relationship with Him. He created us with that desire - and our attempt to fulfill that desire with drink, drugs, sex, food, etc, attests to our need to fill an emptiness in our hearts that only God can fill.
> 
> In other words, the desire for transcendance that we feel - whether it is transcendance through artistic expression, sex, mind-altering drugs, or whatever - is due to our desire for God (which is partly why GK Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase) that "every man knocking on the door of a brothel is really seeking God" (and ancient temples to Aphrodite bear this idea out). So - those who demand "proof" really don't want to know God at all - just as the man who demands proof that a woman loves him before he'll inter into relationship with her demands the impossible because such an attitude already says "I'm only interested in you so far as you confirm something to me that I feel I must have" - now how well would that work? Any woman subjected to that attitude would fail the man's "test" because she would refuse to open herself up to such a demand. Both partners undertake the equal risk of opening up and learning about each other, assuming that the other is just as genuinely interested as we are. God is no different. Since the Bible tells us that God IS love, I think the comparison valid.
> 
> God exists beyond our 4 dimensions - He is not subject to empirical proof any more than love is - they can only be experienced - and largely internally so.


Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.

----------


## The Atheist

> I've seen that, and believe me; it was shocking. And scienctificly unexplainable also.


I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.




> What's wrong with Bible?


Depends which version you're reading!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## NikolaiI

> Depends which version you're reading!


Really good point.

I know so little about things, I now realize. I haven't learned anything about the Big Bang for years, so I am for sure behind the curve. And I was trying to read about Quantum Mechanics, but it is so incredibly complicated. Still it's fascinating to me, and I love to read about it. My first thought when you mentioned it before was about the many-worlds interpretation, which I read more about, but I realize it might simply be too far beyond me for me to really understand it at all.

But when I first read about the many-worlds interpretation it was really intruiging. The idea, as I undrstand it, is that every possibility exists in a hypothetical universe. So there are infinite hypothetical universes, but only one main real one. Or there is an idea that all exist, but simply not to us. It's very fascinating to me. And the other thing I get from quantum mechanics is that at the smallest level, things cannot be measured linearally, things cannot be understood by phsyics which describe larger objects.

I could be misundrstanding it, since it seems like an incredibly complex process, but this reminds me of the buddhist idea that at the core, there is no deep essence or reality. It means that all things exist, but they are not actually things. Every form's natural state is emptiness, so therefore form equals emptiness, and emptiness equals form. This means that all things are alike, and that no thing exists independently of other things. Buddhists had these ideas philosophically, but actually Buddhists spoke of things like the atom, and even Hindus do, both, in scriptures, as far as I know long before the West ever knew of them.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Zep, that is exactly what I have believed and thought and never really formulated into a well thought process for the longest time. That was so well said that it needs to be copied and saved. I intend to copy that post and save it into my word files. Thanks.


It is an honor to have you speak so highly of something that I was afraid was phrased so poorly because I was composing in a hurry. Thank you so much for your kind words - they mean much. I have tremendous respect for you as a poster and such praise is not lightly taken.

Cheers

----------


## PierreGringoire

> For why I believe in God, I will simply say this, and it's the most important statement I'll ever make. I, as a limited, living entity, can recognize the existence of the infinite in my life. I can recognize that I am limited, and I exist between two poles, which I call the infinite, and nothingness. Now I know with everything in me that I am part of this infinite. I can turn towards it and become like it; yet even if I did not, I could not escape it, since it is my source. Thus, no one can or will ever die. Not that we will necessarily have memory of our past lives, so don't worry aobut perpetual torment. But in fact, everything dissolves into this infinite. It makes sense according to reason. There is reason, but reason exists in the same way. All things are forms, which have their Ideal and Perfection in the Infinite. 
> 
> This is the only tenable philosophy. And it's a joyous one. For when you truly understand this, then you'll get any philosophy that people can write about. There's nothing higher than this, simply recognizing the infinite in one's life, and turning toward it to try to understand it. We experience deja vu and coincidence, but there's no such thing as either; they are merely indications or clues to a higher plan. But we can turn toward the infinite and discover it within ourselves, discover that we are eternal; and this is basically the basis of all metaphysics or mysticism


1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at _entire unity_ with the spiritual realm? Or at _entire unity_ with the spiritual and a material realm?

Each one of these realms give off different energies  :Idea:  Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners? :Yawnb:

----------


## JBI

Actually, a while back a study was done to test the effects of praying on the sick, and the results showed that when someone was told they were being prayed for, their chances of recovery were worse. I know Dawkins mentions it in his book, though I haven't read his book from cover to cover, or much less chapter to chapter, but the citation of the experiment is still there.

The effects of prayers had only psychological results, resulting in a lesser rate of recovery, because of the patients fear of the seriousness of his illness. The phenomenon of praying for someone helping them recover is mere rhetoric - it doesn't help. If we pray for someone, and they recover, chances are they recover because of a scientific reason - their body accepted the treatment, or the surgeon cut out all the cancer with his knife, or some other convenience. Not because of religious reasons.

----------


## JBI

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

----------


## bazarov

> I'd love to hear more details. I've investigated lots of allegedly miraculous medical cures and none of them have been very convincing.


You'll get PM shortly.




> Depends which version you're reading!


You're kidding me...again.

----------


## NikolaiI

> 1) If a soul is stuck between two polar opposite, one containing infinite essence and the other containing nothingness won't some go up and others go down?
> 2) Your Philosophy of Oneness sometimes can seem a little vague. According to your philosophy, there are different realms. I can only recognize two -- the spirtual -- and then the material. When an individual says "I am one" as he would in meditation would he picture himself at _entire unity_ with the spiritual realm? Or at _entire unity_ with the spiritual and a material realm?
> 
> Each one of these realms give off different energies  Its a deep philosophy and a very attractive one. Your general consistency in these forums makes it even more so. But sometimes it seems so elusive. Is there any good books you can recommend for beginners?


I wouldn't say the individual is ever at entire unity with the spiritual or material realm. The spiritual realm is all about God. From the top to the bottom it is full of God, revealed, known and praised by all. The material world is more covered. Some people believe in God but many questions are unanswered. Many people don't believe in God. But we have been here for so long. Every one of us has committed crimes, but also not one of us has not been a saint. The only way we can discontinue our existence here is to surrender wholly to God. God is the only one who can take us out of here. Once we go back to God, however we never fall down again into desires.

----------


## The Atheist

> You'll get PM shortly.


Thanks!




> You're kidding me...again.


I wish I were.

The differences between different editions of the bible is quite stark, even though lots of times the changes are subtle. Some churches still swear the KJV is the only correct version of the bible, while others seem to have made stuff up completely. I usually use the RCC version for accuracy as they've got by miles the largest biblical scholarship and have a much longer history than all the others (barring Orthodox), but even then there's disagreement from scholars and historians - and that's before you get to the Apocrypha...

----------


## togre

Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages. The two critical editions (editions that check all manuscript evidence, examine any differences and evaluate which are more likely to be original) of the Greek New Testament are in virtual agreement on what the original text is. The scholarship of these two editions (one edited by Nestle`& Aland and United Bible Societies 4th Ed.) is without equal and have verified the text of the autographs with an accuracy unequaled with any other ancient writings. The standard critical edition of the Hebrew Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuitgartensia (BHS) has a less impressive manuscript selection to choose from (many Hebrew manuscripts were burned by Romans, Christians and Muslims) yet also provides an incredible accurate manuscript. It's accuracy has been demostrated and strengthened with the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts.

So all translations start with the same things.

Yes, translation is in some part interpretation. Yes there are different schools of thought as to whether a translation should strive to preserve the verbage of the original at the expense of readabilty or go for flowing prose with more interpretation/sacrifice of accuracy. But (and I belong to as by-the-Book group as you could find) the majority of translations even with weaknesses say exactly the same thing 99% of the time. If you found someone without a dog in the fight you could have them determine the accuracy of a translation. We are not reduced to "does it say this or that?" ever because of uncertainty caused by a poor text or translation issues.

Now agreeing whether or not the original is true/God's Word is another matter, one that transcends scholarship.

----------


## The Atheist

> Just a quick fact check-- There is a vast degree of scholarly certainty as to the text of the Bible in the original languages.


I think treatment of the Apocrypha alone refutes that.

Even with a 95-99% commonality, there is still lots of room to move, and as far as scholarly agreement goes, I suggest you need to look at some secular work on the bible which tends to show that some parts have been mistranslated.

Huge subject, and not one which I'm an expert on, but I'm relying on the evidence presented by a historian member of the Royal Society and a couple of other bible scholars. If you want to pursue the idea that the differences are negligible, here's a good place to start.

----------


## togre

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible. A look at the history of it, the manner in which Jerome and other early translator included with their translations of Scripture but not as Scripture only as other "good writings" as well as the exclusion of Apocrypha from lists of canonical books in the early church, not even to mention the contents of the Apocrypha, which I agree are not entirely harmonious with the Bible.

As far as the 99% commonality--I have studied the entirety of the Gospels in Greek and a majority of the Epistles in Greek, my studies in Hebrew are not as extensive, but I would estimate I have read 30-60% of the Old Testament in the original. I have found maybe 2 cases where the manuscript evidence was not clearly in favor of a specific reading of the original and where the difference changed the meaning of the passage (99% of differences are 1 letter, a past tense or present tense, the word 'said' vs the word 'speak' or other minuscule things that in a less important document would be totally ignored). _Even in these cases, where the meaning of the specific passage could be changed, the unified teaching of Scripture was not affected by either possible text._

Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind. But usually the difference isn't the translation of the _text itself_ but rather the idea that there is a different, older text that we don't have that we have to get at through cutting and pasting the existing text. If I have missed your point, please provide specifics and I will be happy to respond to them.

Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Bravo, togre. I don't read those languages, so I'm stuck reading other commentators, but what I've read verifies what you say. The number of extant NT texts in the original languages is exceeding large (either 1500 or 5500 - not near my source) and covering a short length of time (something like 50-100 years); whereas something like The Odyssey has far fewer texts over a much longer span of time. The larger the number over the shorter time span the more accurately a text can be checked and verified. As well, scholars have indicated that the texts agree 99.5% of the time, and the areas that do not agree have zero effect on the actual theology (i.e. minor variants in spelling, etc).

The OT is in just as good a shape: the rules for translating texts are exceedingly strict in the Jewish community - and the Dead Sea scrolls confirmed that the OT is also extremely accurate in its transmission through the centuries.

Secular scholars definitely have an agenda and axe to grind when it comes to criticizing the Bible - but it's cohesion and integrity stand up.

----------


## The Atheist

> Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.


Don't the Orthodox and RC churches have differing treatment of Apocrypha? I'll gladly retract that if I'm wrong, but I'm operating on memory of many years ago when I looked into it myself.

In terms of the harmony with the rest of the bible, I've seen arguments for and against what you're saying, but I have no idea, having only read translations.




> Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind.


And religious ones don't?




> Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?


You'd need to talk to some of the people there - start a thread. When it comes to translations, I can only go with what I'm told.

I've probably muddied the waters with the Apocrypha comment, but the main issue with the bible is not what it says in the original texts, or even which texts are used, but how it's interpreted and re-written for 21st century readers & audiences. Even whether it's taken literally or figuratively isn't agreed on by any kind of consensus that I can see. (in number of churches, because the biggest by far - the RCC - is not biblically literalist)

Christianity's views on the same book range from liberal Anglicanism - which several Anglican bishops agree comes under the broad heading of agnosticism - through the RCC to fundamental bible literalists who insist the earth is 6012 (or some equally-absurd number) of years old to Fred Phelps to Jehovah's Witnesses and everything inbetween.

It interests me that you feel there's great consensus on the book. That being so, why isn't that consensus apparent? Different sects teach entirely different things about identical passages. Even whether Jesus own ressurrection was corporeal or not doesn't have a consensus, which I find a little surprising, him being god and all.

That's the problem, not what Josephus was rumoured to have said in 36 AD, or whether the Jews were really slaves in Egypt. The past is long gone, but the way the bible is interpreted by various churches often bears no relation to other sects, today.

----------


## islandclimber

> Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.


I'm confused here.. How does the apocrypha change nothing?? Of course it is not regarded in the same way as the canonical books of the bible.. but many versions of the bible contain different apocryphal texts... Secondly, some of the books Eastern Orthodox Christians accept as Canonical, Roman Catholics and Protestants consider to be Pseudepigraphical... and the apocrypha varies by branch as well.. so I am not sure how you qualify your above statement that everyone agrees on what is canonical and what is apocryphal in the Scriptures... that is a completely unfounded statement...

Second, the New Testament took quite some time to take the form it has taken today.. It wasn't even the first set of Christian scriptures to appear... That distinction would belong to _Marcion's Canon_ from the supposed heretic and gnostic Marcion of Sinope... and he entirely rejected the old testament, claiming it was not in the slightest compatible with the teachings of Christ (and I must say I agree to an extent)... It was emerging Proto-Orthodoxy that took a position againts Marcion and the other developing gnostic Christian branches...

I don't feel like spending too much time on this but you have the Muratorian Canon, the Diatessaron (which came from the syrian church and was the first real proto-orthodox development of a canon), the canons of those famed Christian scholars Origen and Irenaeus... Irenaeus' argument for a 4 gospel canon included the statement that because the world they lived in was divided into 4 zones it only made sense that there were 4 gospels, no more, no less... how compelling  :Tongue:  Clement of Alexandria freely accepted apocryphal gospels as scripture.. he practically made use of an open canon... and so on and so forth (Eusebius, The Synod of Laodicea, Amphilochius, Jerome, Augustine), and this doesn't even mention the development of the Eastern Canon, The Pe****ta, the Armenian Canon, the East African canon... also it wasn't even until the protestant reformation that the Roman Catholic Church even really officially defined the biblical canon... and I have only barely touched upon it all... I took several courses on this in University as I find it quite interesting to see how this incredible work(for the bible really is quite incredible) was developed, how it was molded and shaped and transformed over the centuries into what is commonly accepted today... 

So, even neglecting translation issues which I find to be a much smaller fish to fry, there are huge differences between branches of Christianity on what is accepted as Canonical and what is not, and there is an immensely long progression of changes to the New Testament throughout the history of Christianity,.,

----------


## JBI

There's the translation issue, and the text issue. The text of the Old Testament was pastiched from various texts, and oral components over many years. there is no doubt some sort of "textual corruption" from the original. In fact, various books have been discovered containing older variations or older versions of the texts. The definitive Hebrew only exists because of, I would argue, Jewish Scholarship insisting it exists. We can thank Rabbi Akiva for the whole Torah fencing, insisting it be studied in the original. 

The new Testament is stranger. I don't think you can get any serious theologian or historian to agree that the apostles were actually written by people who knew Jesus. The simple proof is that they aren't written in Aramaic, rendering any claims of "original words" unlikely, as Aramaic was the tongue of the land of Judah at the time.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The new Testament is stranger. I don't think you can get any serious theologian or historian to agree that the apostles were actually written by people who knew Jesus. The simple proof is that they aren't written in Aramaic, rendering any claims of "original words" unlikely, as Aramaic was the tongue of the land of Judah at the time.


I'm not quite sure it's so simple as this. During the medieval time-period in Europe, for example, Latin was the language of the educated/clerical people, and the vernacular the language of the "peasant" class. King Edward III of England spoke French to his advisors, not English. The original writers need not use the language of those they write about - they merely need be accurate in their portrayal of events/ideas. The issue is not that we have "original words" in terms of Aramaic, but that the writers who are writing had first-hand knowledge of their topic. Language is not the definitive argument against apostolic authority in the gospels.

----------


## JBI

They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.

On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.

Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.
> 
> On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.
> 
> Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.


1. If the Gospels were not written by those who either were a) apostles, or b) close associates of apostles, then the original apostles and their followers would have challenged those writings; although the Gospels did not contain the names of their writers, all of them were accepted very early on as the teachings of the apostles. The authorship of the Gospels is attested to by Irenaeus (AD 180) who was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) who had personally been a disciple of John. Here's what Irenaeus says:

"Matthew published his Gospel among Hebrews in their own language,while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia" (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, second series, _The Church History of Eusebius_, by Eusebius [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 222.)

2. That Jesus' Aramaic words were recorded in another language does not do irreparable violence to them; if that were so, no information could be passed from one language to another at all. That, we know, is absurd. While translation alters everything to a degree, it is specifically poetry where translation does the most "violence" to meaning.

3. Since the Gospels were written as - essentially - evangelistic tools - it makes perfect sense that they would be written in languages suited to their audience; hence Matthew written in Hebrew (who was writting primarily to Jews) and Luke writing in Greek (his primary audience Greeks/gentiles). I see no problem with that.

----------


## Pendragon

> ''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''
> 
> 
> Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.
> 
> Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.


If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith. I risk everything upon things I cannot prove. Why would I do this? You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

----------


## The Atheist

> If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith.


Now I remember what it is about you I like so much - honesty.

 :Biggrin: 

I dunno whether you're familiar with Rowan Williams, but I am a huge fan of the man. When theologians can combine common sense, honesty and faith, the result is a pretty damn good argument in favour of religion on its own right.

I suspect you and Rowan are kindred spirits.

In the end, if religionistas would stick to that kind of sentiment, and this kind of sentiment, I doubt many atheists would attack religion at all. 




> You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.


C S Lewis? Who was it said that?

I don't agree with this at all - it's just scare tactics. It suggests that a vacuum of ideology creates a blank page for other, worse ideology.

It might do that, just as worship can encourage religious mania, but it isn't necessarily the case.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?
> 
> What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?
> 
> What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?
> 
> What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?
> 
> The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
> ...


awsesome, this.

_"suppose for a second one of us could have created an ephemeral being, and that "he" (that one of us) could have told him (the ephemeral being): creature of mine, adore-me! the poor little animal then ventured some thoughtless flights, died at the end of the day and a necromancer said to him : pour a drop of your own blood and i'll ressurect you. 
the man pricks himself - we would all do the same thing in his place - and he is ressurected. what will the creator do? - what "he" will do, i'll tell you - says a faithful fanatic. since the ephemeral being, in his first life, didnt have the cleverness or foolishness to adore "him", "he" would light an incredible bonfire and in it "he" will throw the ephemeral one, lamenting not being able to keep him alive in the midst of the flames, so that "he" could burn him eternally! - well, then, everyone will say, there isnt such furious madness that could be so cowardly or evil as this! - i beg you pardon, vulgar christians, the creator in question couldn't have existed, i agree; however, he does, in your imagination only, you who are so cowardly and cruel. this is your god, just as you explain it to me, and is of him that proudhon was a million times correct to profess: god is evil."_

----------


## JBI

Or one could take it from the other side, and take the Leopardi approach.

Leopardi writes in his Zibaldone on the Christian morality of the after life, and how it relates to the role of the mother. The mother, if she wants her children to be good Christians, and to go to the afterlife, naturally must want her Children to die quickly. Sickness becomes a blessing, as it enables her Children to die quickly, and therefore lose any chance of sinning, and not making the cut to heaven. Naturally she will wish them to die, but realizes they cannot kill themselves. When they die, naturally she must rejoice, as they are then in paradise. If they recover, she must be saddened to an extent, because they are offered a chance at sinning again.


In other words, once you dunk em in the water, hope they die.

Morality - yeah right. To what extent can we push this? If a man is having an affair, does it become a blessing to the man if the woman dies, thereby relieving him of his desire for sin? If someone is rich, are they naturally less sinful, because they have no desire for their poor person's status? To what extent can we pursue these questions? To what extent is Christian morality moral?

God may not be evil, but according to Christianity, Evil is Good, and man is Evil.

----------


## weltanschauung

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

----------


## The Atheist

> good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")


Can't argue with that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")


Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

----------


## JBI

Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.


My friend, do you really want to get into a discussion of the accuracy of language and the conventions of language we use in daily communication? Really? Who in this world says "Honey, let's go watch the earth rotation this evening?"? How utterly romantic. Come on - do you really wish to split this kind of hair with me? 

The obvious: The term "sun rise" is an convention we use to describe what we see - it's not meant to be a scientific term. Relative to our position on earth, the sun appears to rise (are we really having this discussion?) and it's a convention of our language to refer to it thusly. Technically, since the earth is revolving at roughly 1000 MPH, I'm never really "standing still" either - right?

As such - though it makes me sound like a humorless bore (which I suspect I am), I will contend that Lewis's usage is non-ironic.

Thanks for noticing...

----------


## JBI

I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.


All this simply means that you bypassed everything I said about language. Lewis's line is only ironic if he actually _believes_ the "sun rises" as opposed to knowing that the phrase "sun rise" is a convention. Your point is only ironic because you've decided to split hairs on how our language conventions work. 

Glad you got a laugh out of it.

----------


## NikolaiI

> good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")


As far as I can tell the basis of morality is empathy. I know it's painful to be insulted, and so I don't insult- I know the pain of being pricked with a pin, so I don't want anyone else to be pricked either. Someone who's never been pricked doesn't know what the feeling is.

----------


## PierreGringoire

> Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?


First of all, there are different degrees one can take in every single one of those commandments. From there, a leader can use many tactics to scare his "flock."
Three words: Pope Innocent III. 
They may not be negative in nature, but I would agree that they are vague in nature.
I like you defence of religion, I think you do a very good job of it.

However, if I were to discredit Bible based religions I would have to start with the Bible. I believe I can discredit it a great deal. I would gladly elaborate on how much of the Old Testament is a derivative of the Mesopotamian religion which the Sumerians practiced before the Israelites even had a relgion.

Then, I would talk about the Council of Nicea in 400 CE. Which banned certain books from the Bible in order to make Christianity more appealing for the declaration that Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. This declaration was made sometime after Constantine died.

Next, I would explain why the Middle East needed a national identity. Historically before the coming of the Prophet Muhammed in 650 CE (I might be a little off here) they had been pushed around by whatever empire occupied the region, and needed a solid unifying religon. Isllam provided that. (I would go into more detail).

I couldn't forget to mention the 4th lateran council called into session in the 13th century by Pope Inncent III. Which I would highly urge you to wikipedia if nothing else. Here is where Christianity first got its notion of transubstantiation (the wine transforming into blood). And many other silly (I need to use this word in order for emphasis, I greatly apologize if anyone here is offended) technicalities. You must be aware that Innocent III was a mad man and was in desperate straits to sustain the power of the church. He did it through (yes it was him who delcared it) the Inquisition and the Albergincian Crusade.

I could go into even more detail. But I don't know if it calls for it.
I brought this to your attention because I know your sick of baseless attacks on Christianity specifically. I just thought I'd provide a historical backbone and as scholarly an argument I can put fourth.

----------


## Petronius

> don't steal


Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.




> don't lie


But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.




> don't sleep with your neighbor's wife


There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch? 




> give to charity


And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.




> take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned


In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.




> lay down your life for your fellow man


...and he would do the same, not letting me sacrifice my life for his. Where does that lead? Coin flipping?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.
> 
> But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.
> 
> There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch? 
> 
> And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.
> 
> In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.
> ...


Do you just wish to argue for the sake of arguing? What exactly is your list of objections supposed to do? Suggest that the commands of scripture aren't good? That you can create exceptions only proves that exceptions exist - but they don't negate one bit the positive aspects of the scriptural injunctions to act in a way that benefits one's community - which all of these commands, obeyed, do. Could you please find a point worth protesting?

----------


## planet earth

> Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?
> 
> What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?
> 
> What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?
> 
> What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?
> 
> The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
> ...


Paradise or heaven has its different rules. We are judged by the deeds of heart, not by the color not by age. Hearts are the only means of judgement. Hearts who manage to see God here, will see Him there, if the Heart is blind here it will be blind there and so on. 

As for marriage, everyone will be given the choice who to marry, you will not just bump into anyone.

Oblivion is not much more reasonable, because, you cannot bear the heat of a hot day, how will you ever bear the heat of hell, or of a volcano or of the sun that does not rise, but emerges or let me translate to you Quranically. In Arabic the sun(rise) is called shoroq and sun(set) means ghorob, and very very precisely that would be translate, the sun easts and the sun wests if I would change the east and west into verbs.

when the sun comes from the east then, it appears, and when it goes to the west in disappears, but still exists somewhere else.

THis was a very important point and you asserted to me how accurate Quranic terminolgy is.

Back to Paradise, it is the eternal final phase of our life. Before we came here we were in our mom's wombs where we lived another phase and had other characteristics as well, like swimming not breathing and so on. Before delivery we did not know how we would live with lungs and breathe and so on. But when we arrived we knew how it works. 

THere are mysterious facts about heaven, but that is what it makes it very appealing. It is the place of ecstacy, and the utmost is that we will be meeting our Creator, and only and only then will we understand what everything was all about.

----------


## Petronius

> ...all of these commands, *obeyed*...


Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.


1. What point?
2. If what "thing" is possible?

Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?

----------


## Pendragon

> 1. What point?
> 2. If what "thing" is possible?
> 
> Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?


I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments *can be obeyed*. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Petronius

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.  :Wink:

----------


## NikolaiI

> Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.


If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?

----------


## weltanschauung

> Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?



well, i see it as this, man:
if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.
the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.

i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.

----------


## Petronius

> If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?


You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) _community_ benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical. 

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

----------


## NikolaiI

> You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) _community_ benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical. 
> 
> Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.


There is individual benefit to be gained from not stealing.

There is spiritual benefit to be gained from following some rules. And great individual benefit to be gained from things like not smoking. That was my take on the issue. Of course there's community benefit from some of these as well, but individual was my first gist of it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments *can be obeyed*. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


Of course they _can_ be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.




> Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects.


That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so. 

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.





> well, i see it as this, man:
> if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.


A stunningly arrogant statement - one that can only be made by one who assumes his/her clarity to be beyond question. Might you condescend to make yourself clear instead of assuming that you are - since there is a chance [if only a slight one] that you _think_ you're clear and really aren't?





> the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.


A cynical assertion that sounds poetic and visionary but is merely cynicism. All rules are not arbitrary. All societies the world around accept certain values (courage, loyalty, generosity, love) and reject others (murder, lying, cowardice, rape). Laws are only arbitrary if they are based upon nothing higher than human will. 

Saying all rules are arbitrary simply means that no law has any meaning whatsoever. Sounds cooly nihilist, but essentially such statements themselves become meaningless.





> i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.


Believe as you wish; there is not much historical precedence to support the idea that living without guidelines, rules, or laws have benefitted humanity much. Societies/communities cannot function properly without rules and laws because unfettered freedom involves me stepping on others in the act of living out my freedom - the only way to guarantee the freedom of all is for all of us to _limit_ our freedom enough so that others can live as freely as I without being oppressed by my use of freedom. That's basic political theory - something I'm sure you understand.

----------


## Petronius

> That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so. 
> 
> You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?
> 
> If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.
> 
> I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.


Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:




> don't sleep with your neighbor's wife


This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like:




> do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man


This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.

You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, _if obeyed_ by the majority.

This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.

Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:[don't sleep with your neighbor's wife]
> 
> This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like: [do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man]
> 
> This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.


I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?




> You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, _if obeyed_ by the majority.


Example, please.




> This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.


I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect _relationship_ - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."

It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth? 

Moral behavior improves society - argue against _that_ one.




> Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.


But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?

----------


## andave_ya

> You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) _community_ benefit.


How is that? Being a Christian is all about having a personal relationship with God--why else would I fetter myself to all these rules and regulations unless I really believed in them?




> Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.


How would they be better off if they don't obey them? If you are referring to Old Testament laws for sacrifice and the stuff inside the Temple, one of the reasons Jesus died was to make those obsolete. Other than that I do not see how not following scriptural laws can actually be good.

I concede your parallel to a dictatorship -- most Christians/religious people can be trusted to follow the principles of their beliefs, and yet it's not a dumb adherence to idiot rules here; we may be idealistic yet we believe in them and thus, we actually try to follow them from a sense of love, not necessity.

----------


## JBI

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral". 

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

----------


## andave_ya

> Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral". 
> 
> You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.


Yes, polygamy has existed for thousands of years. Why else would there be a commandment against it?

Furthermore, just because something wrong is being done openly and on a grand scale today means that the Bible is "silly," "dated," and "relative to the case?"

----------


## JBI

There isn't one! There is only one against women having more than one partner. The standard Christian doctrine used to condemn men marrying many women, actually comes from Saint Augustine, and from interpretations, and not from scripture. The Jewish Equivalent comes from the teachings of Gershom Ben Yehudah, in the 11th century. In other words, men can have more than one wife, but if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.

By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.

----------


## Petronius

> I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?


And we're also wired to be aroused and want to breed, regardless of social masquerades such as marriage. Why control one impulse and not the other? Jealousy is _not_ a reasonable emotion. It's an ugly, bitter, harmful one. Much like hate and spite. What you don't seem to understand is that there would be no betrayal involved if sex outside marriage would be accepted by society and practiced in the open. You would know about it, not care about it or even delight in the idea. We are only jealous because we think we're etitled to.
Relationship is not a contract of ownership over one's body. It's a manifestation of trust. Can you explain to me how trust is broken if both parties agree to accept adultery?
Can you consider the situation when a man imerses himself in his career or some other activity after marriage, and becomes quite a different person from the attentive, lovingly obsessive guy he was before? If he feels safe with the rights of propriety given by the contract of marriage and starts to ignore his mate's needs so much that she is driven to seek love from another man, who truly betrayed the relationship's trust? No doubt the adulterous whore, nope?




> Example, please.


Utopian communism, of course. If all wealth is shared, there is no idea of private ownership, and everyone respects this precept, the concept of theft becomes utterly nonsensical.




> I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect relationship - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."
> 
> It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth? 
> 
> Moral behavior improves society - argue against that one.


Your problem is that you put God and your/my relationship with him to the forefront. I don't believe in God, and even if I did, the very idea that an entity more profound than our entire Universe would need to be pimped to us pathetic lifeforms by an organized institution and a dusty philosophy is at best amusing. If God truly existed, religion would be as absurd as the Church of Walking that preaches the word of Gravity. 
As human-made philosophy, christianity becomes more interesting, and I can accept a great deal of wisdom and good intentions were, and still are, placed into it. But it is, after all, thousands of years old, and it is painfully obvious for some of us that we can do better.

How does being a moral authority help the church? Well, it gives its members acknowledgement (very treasured by humans, we all want to be right and be praised), respect, protection and means of survival for being nothing more than a billboard with principles. 

Moral behavior can help, but it all depends how you define morals. Prejudice for example isn't moral. Ignorant, absolutist, "divine laws" that pretend us to obey and blame us if we're not happy with it are actually detrimental... they may not cause conflict, but will still prevent us from thinking through and finding better ways of life.




> But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?


There is nothing more destructive than not thinking, and that's what you seem to expect people to do... just accept stuff that are "good for them". Are you saying that trying to shape morals that are more acceptant and less possesive is a bad thing?



Andave, see my points about sexuality. Also, if people are kind and naive, some oportunistic elements of the society will take advantage of that: people may seek charity although they could work, for example. Also, there are people like me who would not "lay their life for their fellow man" unless they truly cared for that life, which would put me in the situation of either dying for some random person or being considered a bad guy, which could hurt my feelings.  :Wink:

----------


## andave_ya

> There isn't one! There is only one against women having more than one partner. The standard Christian doctrine used to condemn men marrying many women, actually comes from Saint Augustine, and from interpretations, and not from scripture. The Jewish Equivalent comes from the teachings of Gershom Ben Yehudah, in the 11th century. In other words, men can have more than one wife, but if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.


Mea culpa; not a commandment, you're right. But careful; it still is in Scripture. 1 Corinthians 7:2-4, Mark 10:6-8, and Genesis 2:24.




> By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.


It breaks up marriages -- that's not bad?? Exchanging a life together for a few hours, days, weeks of passion? Then what? Is it really worth it?And, there are no absolutes? All's fair in love and war? 

Granted, there are times when a marriage doesn't work. Yet a woman having an affair because she's oversexed or her husband is impotent is rarely ever the answer. What does it solve? 

And, "a general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture??" Really? What then is the basis of any morality or principle at all? Some sort of inner enlightenment? So just because the Bible says do not kill doesn't mean it's wrong to kill?

----------


## The Atheist

Expressing the hope that the discussion doesn't become heated and lose an entertaining thread.

Interesting that so many theists are posting in a thread on what would convince *atheists* of a god's existence, while realising that being told what theists believe isn't going to be it.

 :Wink: 

_______________________________________





> Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.


This is what encouraged me to join in - excellent point!

And excellent yet again, because I started a thread on this very subject in a christian forum a fortnight ago and had a great discussion. I had asked why their god was so interested in people's sex lives.

I find it incredible that priests, pastors and other church leaders don't just stick to adultery and leave out the following as being "sinful":

Sex between consenting, non-married people of legal age. Such obviously including all GLBT and heterosexual sexual relationships/acts etc.

The christians I was discussing it with were unable to come up with any kind of reason why it's bad, other than "god says so, so it must be bad".

There's no emoticon capable of displaying the absurdity of that kind of thinking.

And if christian thinking on sex doesn't scare you, islamic thinking bloody well ought to!

So, sorry - but I'd go further with religious commandments on sex being utterly ridiculous. On what grounds does one human being think he (and they are all "he") can tell someone else with whom and in what manner he or she may want. Talk about your victimless crime!





> There is spiritual benefit to be gained from following some rules.


That is only true if one accepts that "spiritual benefit" is something able to be gained, and it's desirable to do so. I could program a computer to think that way.




> How is that? Being a Christian is all about having a personal relationship with God--why else would I fetter myself to all these rules and regulations unless I really believed in them?


Good point.

That said, in what way is your personal relationship going to convince me to have the same? 




> Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so.


It is actually, unless it has been pretty well agreed fidelity isn't required. Thanks to thousands of years of religious interference in morality, we have fidelity as the default position for most societies.

Adultery is usually a reliable sign that a relationship is in deep trouble anyway, so having rules against it are self-defeating.

----------


## JBI

No, a general rule cannot be arrived at because everything needs to be taken at a case by case basis. Scripture tries to create a general rule, and religious people try to create a law based on that general rule, but in truth there is no general rule, because everything is relative to the case, or the society.


Look, a marraige failing is only bad to you because of your thoughts on marriage. Personally, I don't think failures of marriages are so bad. It's the lesser demon, if it can even be called that, than the people remaining together.

The myth of the sacredness of marriage again is a construct from your religious belief. The answer to the question of what does it solve is a) her wants. Quit imposing an artificial morality when one is dated to society. Divorce is a good thing, not a bad one, remember that.

And adultery isn't a bad thing either, it is just a thing. You only consider it bad because you value the relationship, yet the relationship clearly isn't valued by the person in it, if they step out, making your interpretation pointless. Clearly they want something more than the other, and they take it. Therefore they are making their own conscious choice, and your imposition of scripture to justify them being wrong is simply an attack on their freedom of choice. They aren't wrong, they are within the grounds of their moral code, and within the law of many countries.

----------


## JBI

> It is actually, unless it has been pretty well agreed fidelity isn't required. Thanks to thousands of years of religious interference in morality, we have fidelity as the default position for most societies.
> 
> Adultery is usually a reliable sign that a relationship is in deep trouble anyway, so having rules against it are self-defeating.


The point I was making, is it isn't a general rule. Either way open relationships are gaining in popularity, and quite frankly, the term fidelity doesn't really apply. There are functional open or polygamous relationships out there. Simply our western conceptions of right and wrong, fueled with our obsession with material possession, create a situation where people think it is sinful to have sex with whom they want. Fidelity is honoring the agreed contract, and if the contract doesn't involve exclusive sex, then there is no breach in the relationship.

There are, for instance, pornographic actors who are married, and have families. Are we to assume they are all in bad marriages? Or they simply don't give a **** for the perceived taboos of society. Either way, I was just trying to destroy the general rule. If someone wants to engage in sexual acts with someone who isn't their spouse, I don't see why God should have any say in the matter.

----------


## andave_ya

> Good point.
> 
> That said, in what way is your personal relationship going to convince me to have the same?


In no way at all. My personal relationship is between me and God -- all I can do is show you what God has done in my life and leave the rest to Him. There's a verse in the Bible that says "Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."

JBI:
...No matter what, I cannot see divorce as a 'good thing.' 

A case by case basis. How is that possible?? Why is it that something considered wrong once is now considered right? What changed to make it so? Upon what basis? Society? And why did it change? 

Yes, I think a marriage failing is bad. I think it's horrendous. 
Adultery isn't a wrong thing, it's just a thing? So it's just sex, no holds barred. 

Okay, forget about the "myth of the sacredness of marriage." Take it in a bigger context. So whatever choices one makes, are the right choices? What are we, to be so sure of that? What about discipline? I KNOW some of the things I really really want are not good for me and I've learned to discipline myself when it comes to those. Is it always good to get what you want? 

Furthermore I am forcing no one to do anything; it's the principle of the thing. 

If the body is a temple...If the body is a gift...how is there no breach in the relationship? There is a bigger picture here than just denying yourself sex because God said so.

----------


## Joreads

> In no way at all. My personal relationship is between me and God -- all I can do is show you what God has done in my life and leave the rest to Him. There's a verse in the Bible that says "Paul planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."
> 
> JBI:
> ...No matter what, I cannot see divorce as a 'good thing.' 
> 
> .


andave_ya just interested if you mean divorce is a bad thing when Adultery is involved? What about when the there is domestic violence involved for example? Sometime divorce is the sane choice for everyone involved

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - ... As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".


You cannot be serious - only someone who has not had the "pleasure" of such a betrayal could be so cavalier about it. The anger and bitterness at betrayal is not a learned response - humans are social creatures and there is no culture in the world where betrayal (especially sexual) is seen as a positive (or even neutral) thing. Human nature establishes this - not social convention. 

If by "close-minded" you mean that there are certain things that I do not accept as valid, then sure. If it's just because I advocate some standard of morality, nah - you're wrong.




> You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.


Evidence, example, illlustration please. Claims without these are fairly insubstantial.




> if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.


Perhaps you should take a casual read through the New Testament - the two times Jesus had interactions with "fallen women" (the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman caught in the act of adultery) he was compassionate, non-judgmental, and loving.




> By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.


Nobody who has experienced the betrayal of adultery would agree with your assessment. As well, your justifications listed above are all weak. The "impotence" and "nymphomaniac" excuses suggest that the bond of marriage only exists for sexual satisfaction - no need to get married if that's all marriage boils down to; as well, I would think that an abused woman's first priority would be safety and security - not sexual expression. If those are the best you can offer, then your position is indeed weak. Most marriages are accompanied by vows - adultery violates those vows - and they violate a trust that is tacit in most relationships. The only time adultery does not do so is when the partners explicitly agree up front to have an "open marriage" - but I question exactly how happy and fulfilling such relationships truly are.

As well, scripture may not establish morality so much as describe the "instruction manual" for humanity; if we accept that God created us and then inspired scripture, it makes sense that what He's doing is telling us how we best operate.




> And we're also wired to be aroused and want to breed, regardless of social masquerades such as marriage.


Not all impulses we humans feel ought to be indulged; morality helps us in that it tells us which impulses ought to be resisted for the good of my relationships - both personal and communal.





> Why control one impulse and not the other? Jealousy is _not_ a reasonable emotion. It's an ugly, bitter, harmful one. Much like hate and spite.


The obvious answer is that some impulses are less destructive than others. Jealousy in and of itself is harmful if I choose to act destructively in response to it (I assault or victimize someone) - by itself it will hurt me if I nurse or revel in it - but it is our _action as a result of an impulse_ that is wrong. THere are times when jealousy or hate is an appropriate response.





> What you don't seem to understand is that there would be no betrayal involved if sex outside marriage would be accepted by society and practiced in the open. You would know about it, not care about it or even delight in the idea. We are only jealous because we think we're etitled to.


You are only correct if our feelings and emotional responses are nothing more than social conditioning. By your reasoning, our reactions to murder, rape, torture and theft could also be a mere by-product of social conditioning - right?




> Relationship is not a contract of ownership over one's body. It's a manifestation of trust. Can you explain to me how trust is broken if both parties agree to accept adultery?


Sex is a bonding act - science has established that bonding chemicals are released during sex (especially orgasm) - that suggests an intention that a couple be bonded together. If both parties agree, then there was no trust to be broken - but that is not the norm - that is an unusual exception - and I would challenge that such a mutual agreement is not always mutual (a needy partner might accept the arrangement in order to not lose the other partner), nor would I accept that such arrangements contribute to a healthy, satisfying existence.




> Can you consider the situation when a man imerses himself in his career or some other activity after marriage, and becomes quite a different person from the attentive, lovingly obsessive guy he was before? If he feels safe with the rights of propriety given by the contract of marriage and starts to ignore his mate's needs so much that she is driven to seek love from another man, who truly betrayed the relationship's trust? No doubt the adulterous whore, nope?


I would expect the dissatisfied spouse to have enough respect to end the relationship and seek satisfaction elsewhere. Betrayal is not justified - especially because of "unhappiness." Nobody is "driven" to be unfaithful - I have more confidence in the human ability to control the sexual appetite. A lack of satisfaction does not entitle one to betray a mate - even an unloving, inconsiderate one. 




> Utopian communism, of course. If all wealth is shared, there is no idea of private ownership, and everyone respects this precept, the concept of theft becomes utterly nonsensical.


Using a failed ideology as support isn't very convicing.




> Your problem is that you put God and your/my relationship with him to the forefront. I don't believe in God, and even if I did, the very idea that an entity more profound than our entire Universe would need to be pimped to us pathetic lifeforms by an organized institution and a dusty philosophy is at best amusing. If God truly existed, religion would be as absurd as the Church of Walking that preaches the word of Gravity.


Sorry - just as you are predisposed to ignore God, I am predisposed to put Him in the forefront - I do not expect you to do as I, nor should you expect me to do as you.

God does not need humanity to teach the world about Him -but He has chosen, for whatever reason, to let us participate; that we sometimes do it badly, apparently, is not reason enough for Him to deny us the privilege. This is especailly true in that we often respond more to things that are right in front of us.





> How does being a moral authority help the church? Well, it gives its members acknowledgement (very treasured by humans, we all want to be right and be praised), respect, protection and means of survival for being nothing more than a billboard with principles.


You do not understand the church even a little bit. 




> Moral behavior can help, but it all depends how you define morals. Prejudice for example isn't moral. Ignorant, absolutist, "divine laws" that pretend us to obey and blame us if we're not happy with it are actually detrimental... they may not cause conflict, but will still prevent us from thinking through and finding better ways of life.


To open up morality to personal definition is to make it meaningless. If the word "dog" can mean a rock, pencil, car, tree, star, or dog - it really has become a meaningless word. Morality is no different.

Your establishment of happiness as the highest good is disturbing to say the least - personal happiness is used as a justification to break-up marriages, abandon children, abort children, and all manner of selfish decisions. Those who have chosen to serve our country in the military did not choose to do so because it makes them "happy" - and they do not face death daily because it makes them "happy." 

Unfettered freedom - freedom without the morals of scripture is not freedom - it is simply bondage to the vice of your choice. Few who embrace such freedom are truly happy.





> There is nothing more destructive than not thinking, and that's what you seem to expect people to do... just accept stuff that are "good for them". Are you saying that trying to shape morals that are more acceptant and less possesive is a bad thing?


Far from it - does it sound like I'm not thinking here? What makes you think I've not tried living an amoral life and discovered that it doesn't work - that it doesn't bring the happiness it promises? You have no way of knowing how I've arrived at my beliefs - you assume (wrongly like many nonbelievers) that those of us who hold strong beliefs just sat in church and swallowed that stuff without question - and that generalization couldn't be more wrong. Many of us arrived at our convictions through experience - and we realized that there was merit in what the Bible said.





> No, a general rule cannot be arrived at because everything needs to be taken at a case by case basis. Scripture tries to create a general rule, and religious people try to create a law based on that general rule, but in truth there is no general rule, because everything is relative to the case, or the society.


Everything is not relative; there must be a stable "ground" from which we evaluate the rightness or wrongness of things; once everything is "relative" we can now not have anything known as "right" and "wrong" and all becomes little more than personal preference (which you cannot morally judge).




> Look, a marraige failing is only bad to you because of your thoughts on marriage. Personally, I don't think failures of marriages are so bad. It's the lesser demon, if it can even be called that, than the people remaining together.


Beyond absurd; studies show that a) children who experience divorce suffer lifetime consequences; spouses still experience anger and bitterness even into 10-15 years after the fact. Even though divorce might be preferable, it is not without serious ramifications.




> Quit imposing an artificial morality when one is dated to society. Divorce is a good thing, not a bad one, remember that.


Spoken again by someone who assumedly has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child. I could be wrong, but I've run into few people who have gone through divorce and would honesty speak as you have.




> And adultery isn't a bad thing either, it is just a thing. You only consider it bad because you value the relationship, yet the relationship clearly isn't valued by the person in it, if they step out, making your interpretation pointless.


No - that you think the bad behavior of one person justifies the bad behavior of another speaks to the kind of character you think is acceptable. I prefer to think that it's still better to take the high road than to drop down to someone else's level. There is a classy way to respond and a trashy way - you have chosen the trashy way as a legitimate response.

----------


## andave_ya

> andave_ya just interested if you mean divorce is a bad thing when Adultery is involved? What about when the there is domestic violence involved for example? Sometime divorce is the sane choice for everyone involved


I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.

By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name  :Smile: .

----------


## Joreads

> I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.
> 
> By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name .


Andya thanks for clearing that up I just wasn't sure where you were coming from. That being said I did not read back all that far. 

And you are right if you are unhappy leave with out the adultery. I agree with Redzeppelin on this one. Adultery is the one betrayal I don't think I could ever forgive. Let's hope that none of us ever need to find out.


Jo is fine for me by the way. 


thanks again.

----------


## JBI

> I should restate that, Joreads, you're right. When there is abuse divorce is indeed the sensible choice -- it's just going the way of adultery to get out of a marriage or to be spiteful that's wrong.
> 
> By the way, call me andave or andya. It's easier than the full name .


And hence, we have a case by case, relative way of understanding the morality, or immorality of divorce, since all is relative to a) the judge, and b) the circumstance.

----------


## andave_ya

> And hence, we have a case by case, relative way of understanding the morality, or immorality of divorce, since all is relative to a) the judge, and b) the circumstance.


Beg pardon? How is that? I split it into two: divorce because of abuse and divorce because of adultery. Both harm the other spouse, although you may not think so. What does the judge have to do with anything?

----------


## Etienne

"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
-Immanuel Kant

----------


## JBI

> Beg pardon? How is that? I split it into two: divorce because of abuse and divorce because of adultery. Both harm the other spouse, although you may not think so. What does the judge have to do with anything?


The point is, you mentioned before how divorce was bad, now we are saying perhaps it was good, given different reasons for it. What happens if we take adultery, and break that down further, creating cases where it is not so immoral. The point is, we cannot create a general rule. For instance, stealing is condemned by scripture (see the ten commandments) yet Hugo seems to have shown us that that too isn't as black and white, as did people before him. 

By that notion, each case, each act, must be evaluated separately, and not against a broad statement.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What happens if we take adultery, and break that down further, creating cases where it is not so immoral.


I love that: "not so immoral." Like there's _degrees_ of immorality I guess?





> The point is, we cannot create a general rule. For instance, stealing is condemned by scripture (see the ten commandments) yet Hugo seems to have shown us that that too isn't as black and white, as did people before him. 
> 
> By that notion, each case, each act, must be evaluated separately, and not against a broad statement.


We _can_ create a general rule - with the understanding that when moral injunctions collide (the standard lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hiding in my cellar) that the _higher_ moral command (preserve life from harm) overrides the lesser command (tell the truth) - especially when obeying the lesser command facilitates a greater evil; both actions are immoral (lying and surrenderin the innocent into the hands of the evil), but there is a greater sin in allowing the lesser command to take priority over the greater command. In a sinful world, it is not always possible to have moral commands avoid potential collisions - this, however, does not invalidate the need for a general rule.

----------


## JBI

No, I'm of the belief that there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm merely putting things in words you will understand, as your assumption of the actual existence of morality, good and bad in general, obscures any argument, given that you feed your assumption, rather than choose to ignore them, for the sake of arriving at somewhat of a conclusion that would perhaps be different than your already assumed "truths" you've been spending countless points defending.

----------


## JBI

> I love that: "not so immoral." Like there's _degrees_ of immorality I guess?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _can_ create a general rule - with the understanding that when moral injunctions collide (the standard lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hiding in my cellar) that the _higher_ moral command (preserve life from harm) overrides the lesser command (tell the truth) - especially when obeying the lesser command facilitates a greater evil; both actions are immoral (lying and surrenderin the innocent into the hands of the evil), but there is a greater sin in allowing the lesser command to take priority over the greater command. In a sinful world, it is not always possible to have moral commands avoid potential collisions - this, however, does not invalidate the need for a general rule.


Why do we need a general rule? So that people who believe in a set of rules can impose them on others? General rules only give those who benefit from them more stance. Do not steal only benefits people who have something to steal. Do not commit adultery only benefits the spouse of someone in a "bad" marriage agreement with their spouse. Do not be jealous is a) contrary to the standard impulses of our society, and b) would end with the death of competition, and the slow decline of any market economy. 

Do not murder is fine, but what if, for instance, someone assassinates a fascist dictator? Either way though, the American government in the forties decided that murdering Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb was less evil than sending in their soldiers, and perhaps losing some. Where do we draw the line?

Now that you see your argument crumble, you insist on creating a hierarchy. What goes on top then? Preserving life? So should we have a fascist police state, keeping people in line everywhere, and not letting people outside? Seems like something out of a bad sci-fi novel to me.

----------


## andave_ya

> The point is, you mentioned before how divorce was bad, now we are saying perhaps it was good, given different reasons for it. What happens if we take adultery, and break that down further, creating cases where it is not so immoral. The point is, we cannot create a general rule. For instance, stealing is condemned by scripture (see the ten commandments) yet Hugo seems to have shown us that that too isn't as black and white, as did people before him. 
> 
> By that notion, each case, each act, must be evaluated separately, and not against a broad statement.


I never said it was 'good.' I said 'sensible.' In matters of abuse, it's either be hurt physically or, in matters of adultery, it's be hurt mentally and spiritually.

----------


## andave_ya

> Why do we need a general rule? So that people who believe in a set of rules can impose them on others? General rules only give those who benefit from them more stance. Do not steal only benefits people who have something to steal. Do not commit adultery only benefits the spouse of someone in a "bad" marriage agreement with their spouse. Do not be jealous is a) contrary to the standard impulses of our society, and b) would end with the death of competition, and the slow decline of any market economy. 
> 
> Do not murder is fine, but what if, for instance, someone assassinates a fascist dictator? Either way though, the American government in the forties decided that murdering Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb was less evil than sending in their soldiers, and perhaps losing some. Where do we draw the line?
> 
> Now that you see your argument crumble, you insist on creating a hierarchy. What goes on top then? Preserving life? So should we have a fascist police state, keeping people in line everywhere, and not letting people outside? Seems like something out of a bad sci-fi novel to me.


That is bizarre. Doesn't everybody have something to steal? As to not being jealous being contrary to standard impulses: IMPULSES AREN'T ALWAYS GOOD. We've been through that already. We are also talking about people here, not economic policies, although competition is different than jealousy.

Assassination, even of a fascist dictator, is wrong. Trial by panel and being sentenced to death is better--an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Just be careful you can judge rightly. 

The argument hasn't crumbled, far from it. And the "hierarcy" existed long before you posted -- the Bible says that we are to follow our government in everything unless it controverts the Bible. Following the Bible, then, goes on top. Preserving life is important, but for the most part adults can be entrusted with their own lives, I presume. In any event life is fleeting -- what's important is to stand up for what you believe in. That's why missionaries have risked their lives "so that a man can stand up."

What does fascism have to do with protecting life? I do not understand why you brought it up. Where is the parallel?

----------


## PierreGringoire

> Why do we need a general rule? So that people who believe in a set of rules can impose them on others? General rules only give those who benefit from them more stance. Do not steal only benefits people who have something to steal. Do not commit adultery only benefits the spouse of someone in a "bad" marriage agreement with their spouse. Do not be jealous is a) contrary to the standard impulses of our society, and b) would end with the death of competition, and the slow decline of any market economy. 
> 
> Do not murder is fine, but what if, for instance, someone assassinates a fascist dictator? Either way though, the American government in the forties decided that murdering Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb was less evil than sending in their soldiers, and perhaps losing some. Where do we draw the line?
> 
> Now that you see your argument crumble, you insist on creating a hierarchy. What goes on top then? Preserving life? So should we have a fascist police state, keeping people in line everywhere, and not letting people outside? Seems like something out of a bad sci-fi novel to me.


I think that just because morality varies from case to case, it doesn't necesarrily mean that there is no objective morality. Each case could have its own objective *way*, (that may be too elusive for a set of rules to control).

I think laws in general are inadequate. But its a good thing that we have laws because it prevents decadence and a world that lacked laws would make everyone more on the defensive in their daily life which would be anti-productive.

In a way I think codifying moral rules is a good thing, because it acknowledges that there ARE rules out there. It is an attempt, and a provocation of thought. But it should not be imposed via force. 

As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.

----------


## Joreads

> As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.


That is a really good point. How many people would change their views on the morality of certain things if there was no such thing as religion. Is the thought of religion and going to hell enough to keep some people in check?

----------


## PierreGringoire

> Assassination, even of a fascist dictator, is wrong. Trial by panel and being sentenced to death is better--an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Just be careful you can judge rightly.


Killing is always wrong. But sometimes it could be better than not killing. If you were just some Valkeyrie during the times of the nazis. Trial by jury against Hitler wouldn't have done any good.

This may sound silly but I believe there is right and wrong. But we *never* live up to TOTAL RIGHT or TOTAL WRONG in any given situation

----------


## Pendragon

> Of course they _can_ be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.
> 
> .


And I won't disagree with you, I just asked you to be honest about how we go about doing thing. Repenting daily is required because we don't do things like we would like to say we do, we do them even though we know we are wrong for doing them. Paul makes this clear in Romans. If you are not honest with people, they will never listen to you, for they see you as you are, not how you think or believe you are. Some might call this view cynical, but it is the truth in reality.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I'm of the belief that there is no such thing as objective morality.


Obviously. You are free to believe so, but if I took out a gun and robbed you - claiming that your indignant reaction was merely your subjective idea of right and wrong - would you tolerate my subjective morality for very long? If you get angry that I'm robbing you, aren't you responding to some idea that you and I should share about what _right_ and _wrong_ is? Or would you accept my view as "mine" and let me be?




> I'm merely putting things in words you will understand, as your assumption of the actual existence of morality, good and bad in general, obscures any argument, given that you feed your assumption, rather than choose to ignore them, for the sake of arriving at somewhat of a conclusion that would perhaps be different than your already assumed "truths" you've been spending countless points defending.


The irony here is that I can't follow any of what you said here. If you could simplify your ideas here, this humble man would be appreciative.




> Why do we need a general rule? So that people who believe in a set of rules can impose them on others?


Who's doing the "imposing" that you speak of? Certainly not the church. You - clearly a nonbeliever - may act as you wish and do as you like in this world. The church claims no authority over you. The church cannot impose anything upon you against your will. The general rule gives us a "ground" upon which to establish consistency among people and communities. General rules allow us to solve problems by appealing to a standard.




> General rules only give those who benefit from them more stance. Do not steal only benefits people who have something to steal. Do not commit adultery only benefits the spouse of someone in a "bad" marriage agreement with their spouse. Do not be jealous is a) contrary to the standard impulses of our society, and b) would end with the death of competition, and the slow decline of any market economy.


There is no commandment against jealousy.

The general rules against theft and adultery protect everybody. That there are people that break those rules doesn't invalidate their intrinsic value.




> Do not murder is fine, but what if, for instance, someone assassinates a fascist dictator? Either way though, the American government in the forties decided that murdering Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb was less evil than sending in their soldiers, and perhaps losing some. Where do we draw the line?


I addressed your first point above with the idea of the "greater moral command." In terms of assassinating a dictator, that's a difficult decision. But the existence of dilemma's doesn't make the _general_ rule invalid - it means that there are times that the rule may be tested, or - for a good reason - violated.




> Now that you see your argument crumble, you insist on creating a hierarchy. What goes on top then? Preserving life? So should we have a fascist police state, keeping people in line everywhere, and not letting people outside? Seems like something out of a bad sci-fi novel to me.


My argument's crumbling? Where? 

Apparently, there is no answer that will satisfy you. Ultimately, we must take responsiblity for the choices we make. I think that it's fairly clear that saving a human life far outweighs a lie - I think most people would choose to lie to the Nazis; and I'm pretty sure that you would have harsh condemnation for any Christian who "outed" the Jews in the cellar because "the Bible says not to lie." There is no set heirarchy - but God has given us all reason and the principles in the Bible to help us make such decisions. 

I don't get the "fascist police state" comment - I'd need a little more to be clear on the point you're making.

The real sci-fi novel in the making is "Relativity World" where nothing has any meaning because all meaning, all morality, all rules are self-defined. Can you imagine a worse hell? Once we lose the stable "ground" of morality, you give a free pass to those who are the strongest to do whatever they wish because you now have no moral ground from which to condemn their behaviors. Poof! Immorality disappears because there's no standard by which to identify it (except your own subjective morality - but what claim would that have upon me and my stronger will, my higher caliber gun?).

----------


## The Atheist

> As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.


The only problem with that premise is that if there were any truth in it, the highest crime rates would be in countries with the lowest theistic belief.

Alas, the opposite is true.

I believe there is net societal benefit in religion, but that one isn't part of it.

----------


## JBI

Honestly, I'm just going to avoid that rubbish you posted, and slap you with one wrong - what is the tenth commandment - is it not against jealousy? Or perhaps you can come up with a better translation of Loh Tach Modd. Thou shalt not covet seems the standard, but to not covet would imply not to be jealous. 

Either way, you are unable to, as you stated, understand what I am saying. Perhaps the sun doesn't rise for you. Bam! irony.

----------


## JBI

AS for the stole from me, yes you are right, I would be angry, but would you? No, you would probably be happy. That's the point. The act effects us differently. I am angry, you are happy. The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?

I think the closest anyone has come to an actual practical moral equation were the utilitarianists. But their hypothesis ran into troubles to, when deciding what the factor of utility should be, and how to accurately measure things, and whether or not such a thing can be measured objectively, which I think it eventually became rejected as just another subjective form.

To say there are clear rights and wrongs is to say that only your rights and wrongs, as you see them are right and wrong. That is simple egotism.

----------


## JBI

> As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.


The mystical experience, to some extent, doesn't need a God. If I, for instance, go hiking in the woods, and see something beautiful, and I am moved, that isn't necessarily because of a God, but more because of a natural occurrence. In that sense, one can be mystified in seeing that which is, without looking to scriptures which claim to tell the truth, and without coughing up money to some religious leader, so he can build the biggest church, or whatever.


On that notion, one can give to charity without believing in God. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world, yet is the least religious country. I think it is safe to say morality is better off fluctuating with society, as other factors change, than having some stupid book written thousands of years ago saying "kill he who does this" or "this is wrong, and that is right."

----------


## Joreads

[QUOTE=JBI;648527] The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?


,QUOTE]

JBI I had never thought of it that way you make a really interesting point. Thou shall not kill - simple enough to understand. But what if I kill someone with my car in an accident have I still committed a sin? I will have to give this a little more thought I think.

----------


## JBI

[QUOTE=Joreads;648533]


> The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?
> 
> 
> ,QUOTE]
> 
> JBI I had never thought of it that way you make a really interesting point. Thou shall not kill - simple enough to understand. But what if I kill someone with my car in an accident have I still committed a sin? I will have to give this a little more thought I think.


Technically, that is a mistranslation of the commandment. It reads more like Thou shall not murder, using the verb Harog. Either way though, murder isn't necessarily bad, that's where the problem comes from when trying to establish a general rule, which I argue cannot be established.

----------


## PierreGringoire

> The mystical experience, to some extent, doesn't need a God. If I, for instance, go hiking in the woods, and see something beautiful, and I am moved, that isn't necessarily because of a God, but more because of a natural occurrence. In that sense, one can be mystified in seeing that which is, without looking to scriptures which claim to tell the truth, and without coughing up money to some religious leader, so he can build the biggest church, or whatever.
> 
> 
> On that notion, one can give to charity without believing in God. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world, yet is the least religious country. I think it is safe to say morality is better off fluctuating with society, as other factors change, than having some stupid book written thousands of years ago saying "kill he who does this" or "this is wrong, and that is right."


You are right. But its malevolent to try and disprove older people who seem to live a _peaceful_ life with their given religion -- I think the withdrawal of that belief would be like 90 percent more devestating than when I discovered Santa Clause wasn't real. Some people believe in religion in a responsible way, others do not.

I cannot put my philosophy in a superior position to that of a right-hearted religious person. Because in the end-- I'm really just guessing what reality is myself

Debating things like contents (the ten commandments) of a certain holy book in a philosophical exchange is just as easily misinterpreted as the contents themselves. Person A keeps throwing wood to try and form a dam on to person's B side of the river in attempt to make a bridge, while person B keeps digging ditches on their side, thwarting a common ground.

I think if you really want to make someone "see the light" things can only be understood by History. Those theists who come onto forums like these can withstand a real challenge of their beliefs. And perhaps a common ground would be found.

----------


## NikolaiI

erm...nevermind, sorry.

----------


## The Atheist

> The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?


Just a little aside on this subject. 110 years ago, my great uncle was caught stealing a pie to feed his family with - we've always been a poor family! - and he was whipped at the post for his sins, being marked with scars he carried until death.

Morality's a funny old thing.

----------


## Petronius

Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts. If those are deemed incomprehensible, I doubt I'll be more successfull in making my points accepted, but here I go anyway...

Red, allow me to borrow one of your techniques and say you have no way of knowing wether I, or JBI, were ever betrayed in a relationship or if either of us witnessed the effects of divorce. I hope you haven't, given the way you seem prone to react. 

Now, why do we dislike being cheated so much? Because of fear; fear of abandonment, fear of loss, which is a bit twisted because, again, no matter the depth of the relationship we do not own another's body, and fear of humility - the other is better, society will laugh at us, and will laugh even more if we don't victimize. I'd say the former is the most legit, but the less likely, while the latter is pure social fabrication. 

Please don't bring the bonding chemicals again; we do not mark eachother for life during sex. When we talk about sexual bonding, the context refers to "something that brings closer" (temporarily) rather than "creation of an engagement" or "shackling". 




> You are only correct if our feelings and emotional responses are nothing more than social conditioning. By your reasoning, our reactions to murder, rape, torture and theft could also be a mere by-product of social conditioning - right?


They are. One who is in the social context of a soldier at war, especially when very young and bereft of previously inoculated moral views, will value life a lot less than I do right now... including his own to some extent.




> To open up morality to personal definition is to make it meaningless. If the word "dog" can mean a rock, pencil, car, tree, star, or dog - it really has become a meaningless word. Morality is no different.
> 
> Your establishment of happiness as the highest good is disturbing to say the least - personal happiness is used as a justification to break-up marriages, abandon children, abort children, and all manner of selfish decisions. Those who have chosen to serve our country in the military did not choose to do so because it makes them "happy" - and they do not face death daily because it makes them "happy." 
> 
> Unfettered freedom - freedom without the morals of scripture is not freedom - it is simply bondage to the vice of your choice. Few who embrace such freedom are truly happy.


First of all, words have meaning because we give them meaning. If we all start refering to rocks as "dogs", this definition will end up being added to the dictionary. Words, and moral perception, are not more valuable than reality and they can all crumble to dust when the latter demands it. You can't waver some ancient, written comandments from some invisible, silent entity in front of a woman, when she only experiences pleasure from double penetration.

And to me, it is disturbing that you would deny humans the freedom to seek happiness, in the name of religion and propriety. Since you are happy being a christian, and others claim not to be, is it not a selfish act to judge from the light that suits you? 
I will refrain from commenting on the brave soldiers who chose to serve your country in its mighty wars.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts.


Wait-- "You're so closeminded" is now eloquent and educated?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Honestly, I'm just going to avoid that rubbish you posted, and slap you with one wrong - what is the tenth commandment - is it not against jealousy? Or perhaps you can come up with a better translation of Loh Tach Modd. Thou shalt not covet seems the standard, but to not covet would imply not to be jealous.


Covetousness: the great desire for another's possessions.
Jealousy:resentful of rivalry in love; envious; fiercely protective 

The difference between the two is that coveting is the desire for that which I have no right to desire; jealousy may be a response to someone I do have a "right" to (my wife) behaving flirtatiously with another man - which would be her giving to another what is rightfully (by our marriage vows) mine. The difference may be subtle, but it's there nonetheless.




> Either way, you are unable to, as you stated, understand what I am saying. Perhaps the sun doesn't rise for you. Bam! irony.


Perhaps you are right. And yet, someone, I soldier on doggedly...





> AS for the stole from me, yes you are right, I would be angry, but would you? No, you would probably be happy. That's the point. The act effects us differently. I am angry, you are happy. The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?


Clever, but the thief's happiness does not change the fact that he too would be angry if another thief came and stole from _him_. The point is that the minute you take issue with the behavior/actions of another, you are suggesting that there is some standard that both you and the other should acknowledge. If I pull a gun on you and you are truly a relativist (believe that morality is self-defined) then all you can do is smile and happily hand me your wallet and commend me to living the authentic moral life that I've chosen for myself. To argue with me, resist me, or condemn my actions would be to suggest that there's something wrong with my self-defined morality - and what gives you the right to judge that?




> To say there are clear rights and wrongs is to say that only your rights and wrongs, as you see them are right and wrong. That is simple egotism.


They're not MY "rights" and "wrongs" - they are the _rights_ and _wrongs_ that both natural law and the Bible recognize. Throughout the world, throughout history, certain values have always been consistent - murder, rape, cowardice, selfishness, betrayal, and such have never been admired by any culture; as well, things such as love, loyalty, generosity, compassion, mercy, charity, courage, self-sacrifice for a worthy cause - all these have been admired. The fact that those things are consistend throughout history and throughout the world suggest a stable ground for _right_ and _wrong_.




> Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts. If those are deemed incomprehensible, I doubt I'll be more successfull in making my points accepted, but here I go anyway...


Make your arguments clearer with better support (instead of shifting ground or giving unsound arguments) and perhaps I'll make better progress.




> Red, allow me to borrow one of your techniques and say you have no way of knowing wether I, or JBI, were ever betrayed in a relationship or if either of us witnessed the effects of divorce. I hope you haven't, given the way you seem prone to react.


You're right - I don't know - that's why I qualified my statements (here's what I said about divorce: "Spoken again by someone who *assumedly* has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child.") So feel free to correct me and tell me that you both have gone through such an experience (I have been through both - divorce as a child and as an adult, and I have had an unfaithful partner).

And spare me your shuddering concern over how I "react" - you know next to nothing about how I react to the circumstances of life. Rather than unfounded assumptions, I'd prefer you stick to a real argument.




> Now, why do we dislike being cheated so much? Because of fear; fear of abandonment, fear of loss, which is a bit twisted because, again, no matter the depth of the relationship we do not own another's body, and fear of humility - the other is better, society will laugh at us, and will laugh even more if we don't victimize. I'd say the former is the most legit, but the less likely, while the latter is pure social fabrication.


Betrayal hurts us because it is a violation of a relationship - and a relationship is more than just some social arrangement by which we agreeably pass the time. Our hearts, our feelings, our very sense of who we are is wrapped up in our romantic relationships. We will probably not agree as to what relationships are, how they are formulated, and how they function - but anybody who has been in one understands the pain of no longer being the object of your lover's love.




> Please don't bring the bonding chemicals again; we do not mark eachother for life during sex. When we talk about sexual bonding, the context refers to "something that brings closer" (temporarily) rather than "creation of an engagement" or "shackling".


I did not suggest anything like "marked for life" by sex - I suggested that things happen during the sex act that raise it above a simple merging of "plumbing" - that psychological/emotional things happen during it as well, and these things contribute to the bonding of the couple thusly engaged.





> They are. One who is in the social context of a soldier at war, especially when very young and bereft of previously inoculated moral views, will value life a lot less than I do right now... including his own to some extent.


Like JBI you fabricate an argument based on a special exception in order to disprove the general rule I suggest. Won't work. War puts killing in a different context than civil homocide. That some individuals can be _trained_ to see life as less valuable does not mean that our reaction to murder is simple social conditioning. You'll need a better argument than that, my friend.





> First of all, words have meaning because we give them meaning. If we all start refering to rocks as "dogs", this definition will end up being added to the dictionary. Words, and moral perception, are not more valuable than reality and they can all crumble to dust when the latter demands it. You can't waver some ancient, written comandments from some invisible, silent entity in front of a woman, when she only experiences pleasure from double penetration.


But the point wasn't changing the definition of "dog" - it was the idea that if everybody had his/her own definition for the word "dog" that it would cease to have any meaning as a word. The reason it is meaningful is that we all understand that "dog" has a certain, unalterable meaning. I don't understand the difference you draw between words, morality, and reality; words are what we use to describe reality; morality is the "ought" of how we behave in reality. In reality, there are conflicts that are bound to occur between people - specifically in the areas of equality, liberty, and justice; morality helps us navigate those conflicts by either a) preventing them, or b) helping us adjudicate them.

That individuals can take pleasure from an act does not necessarily mean that the act is good for the person to be engaged in. Your hypothetical woman is free to enjoy herself as she sees fit, and she need not bow to any particular moral law she doesn't wish to. I don't understand why you're bringing such an image into this conversation?




> And to me, it is disturbing that you would deny humans the freedom to seek happiness, in the name of religion and propriety. Since you are happy being a christian, and others claim not to be, is it not a selfish act to judge from the light that suits you? 
> I will refrain from commenting on the brave soldiers who chose to serve your country in its mighty wars.


I'm not denying anybody their "happiness" - I simply said that making "happiness" the highest value creates a self-centered society that pursues its "happiness" at the expense of more important things. Mothers or fathers who weren't happy in their marriages left to get their romantic needs fulfilled, yet their children suffer terribly - that kind of thing is often excused because the spouse who leaves felt entitled to "happiness."

Who am I judging? Point out where I've laid judgment on anybody? Unless you can come up with an example, I'd say you have no valid point here.

----------


## JBI

You are arguing over me, who understands the hebrew word. I say it means don't be jealous. Feel free to take whatever meaning you want, but the subtext where it goes over things like your neighbor's house, his wife, et al. prove me right. Sorry, but Tach Modd translates the way I say, if you are claiming the book as the true text, than my book is a more true text, being the original.

----------


## JBI

> They're not MY "rights" and "wrongs" - they are the rights and wrongs that both natural law and the Bible recognize. Throughout the world, throughout history, certain values have always been consistent - murder, rape, cowardice, selfishness, betrayal, and such have never been admired by any culture; as well, things such as love, loyalty, generosity, compassion, mercy, charity, courage, self-sacrifice for a worthy cause - all these have been admired. The fact that those things are consistend throughout history and throughout the world suggest a stable ground for right and wrong.


An example please, of a law that has been constant throughout all cultures in all time periods? Do not steal? Nope. Do not kill (murder)? Nope. Do not commit adultery? Nope. Believe in God? Nope. Believe in only him? Nope. Honor your mother and father? Nope. Keep the sabbath? Nope. Do not make Idols? Nope.

That's just ten, I could have a field day with the other 601 from the old testament, and the rest in the New. The point is, history proves these wrong. This natural law you speak of doesn't exist. And either way, if it did, we wouldn't need religion to tell us so, would we? Since it already exists, the book is somewhat pointless, it being a "natural law" to begin with. But either way, history has shown natural law to be wrong. I don't know many legal scholars who support it now - perhaps a few neo-cons, but most agree with, ironically, Aquinas, who laid out that laws between (wo)men are relative.

----------


## Petronius

> You're right - I don't know - that's why I qualified my statements (here's what I said about divorce: "Spoken again by someone who assumedly has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child.") So feel free to correct me and tell me that you both have gone through such an experience (I have been through both - divorce as a child and as an adult, and I have had an unfaithful partner).
> 
> And spare me your shuddering concern over how I "react" - you know next to nothing about how I react to the circumstances of life. Rather than unfounded assumptions, I'd prefer you stick to a real argument.
> 
> Betrayal hurts us because it is a violation of a relationship - and a relationship is more than just some social arrangement by which we agreeably pass the time. Our hearts, our feelings, our very sense of who we are is wrapped up in our romantic relationships. We will probably not agree as to what relationships are, how they are formulated, and how they function - but anybody who has been in one understands the pain of no longer being the object of your lover's love.


I have been betrayed in a relationship (it wasn't marriage though), at a time when I had no idea how to deal with it and my dreams of a perfect love were at the highest. And I did find my own blame in my egocentricity. Love is obsession for another and it tends to build its own mythos wether it's truly shared or not. The more that happens, the less likely one is to accept that the person they love has wants of their own, and that they may not coincide to what you expect - a mirroring of your own. That a foolish girl cared for me enough to indulge my relentless passion and enter a relationship with me once, years ago, does not mean she was imune to experience for another what I experienced for her. I did not ask her before I fell in love, and no one asked me if I want that to happen either, and I would have been heart-broken had she refused me just as well.
I understand the pain you're talking about, but love can't be conditioned. If our lover doesn't love us anymore, we can't force them to pretend for us. It's cruel, artificial, and in most cases all it leads to is further suffering. What I've learned is that if we lower our demands and increase our awareness for what our partener wants (yes, including a fling), we will have a better understanding of the relationship, less delusional suffering, and more human love.

As far as parental divorce goes, I did not go through it myself but a number of my close friends experienced it at ages from early childhood to highschool and what I've observed was something akin to what JBI said: reaction was directly linked to the child's awareness of family values and their cleverness (or maturity, but not in an age-related way). This is talking about marginally functional families, mind you. I don't think you'd argue divorce is worse than an abusing parent.

Now, I am sorry I stirred some bad memories for you. I won't demand you continue on this matter, but if you do I would plead that you try to limit biases.




> I did not suggest anything like "marked for life" by sex - I suggested that things happen during the sex act that raise it above a simple merging of "plumbing" - that psychological/emotional things happen during it as well, and these things contribute to the bonding of the couple thusly engaged.


Yes, but I have emotional reactions to a play, a song, a painting, a walk through the forest and a carrousel ride. My point is, emotions are not intrinsically billateral. When I like a person I do so by mental association, not by a tangible spiritual link. Thus, while my intellectual reaction to sex may be falling in love, my partner's can very well be "Geez, this guy sucks in bed". That's why I believe that, while sex should be freely practiced for pleasure, caution must be exercised in forming deep bonds around it. 




> But the point wasn't changing the definition of "dog" - it was the idea that if everybody had his/her own definition for the word "dog" that it would cease to have any meaning as a word. The reason it is meaningful is that we all understand that "dog" has a certain, unalterable meaning. I don't understand the difference you draw between words, morality, and reality; words are what we use to describe reality; morality is the "ought" of how we behave in reality. In reality, there are conflicts that are bound to occur between people - specifically in the areas of equality, liberty, and justice; morality helps us navigate those conflicts by either a) preventing them, or b) helping us adjudicate them.
> 
> That individuals can take pleasure from an act does not necessarily mean that the act is good for the person to be engaged in. Your hypothetical woman is free to enjoy herself as she sees fit, and she need not bow to any particular moral law she doesn't wish to. I don't understand why you're bringing such an image into this conversation?


Social fabric changes in time... it may be harder for you to understand if you prefer static design to evolution. We keep claiming liberties that had been unconcievable before and must learn how to deal with them: democracy, eradication of slavery, woman emancipation, childrens' rights, to name just some that may be close to you.
Who could have vouched for democracy in the middle ages, when people had no education and could be easily manipulated? Putting choice in the hands of plebeans would have been unthinkable. 
Eradicate slavery? would have said the 18th century plantation lord. That would crumble the economy.
Women are better off if they just listen to their men, was the norm just a hundred years ago. 
Children can do with a good beating, some still say today.
Are you saying we won't be able to deal with more sexual liberties?

As far as linguistic changes go, I belive JBI would have more accurate things to say than me, but words' meanings fluctuate constantly, and even if they remain relatively accurate for longer periods of time, they are certainly not unalterable. Their form changes, their meaning widens. For example "insect" will expand to include any new species that gets discovered. With this in mind, return to your comparison with morals. 




> I'm not denying anybody their "happiness" - I simply said that making "happiness" the highest value creates a self-centered society that pursues its "happiness" at the expense of more important things.


Hedonism, as I see it at least, abhors causing the suffering of others. However, some people cause their own suffering. If the mother wants her child to be a doctor, and he wants to be a painter, is the child to blame for following his dream inspite of her suffering? Or is that suffering (and the child's guilt on top) her own fault, because she replaced reality with her own expectations?

----------


## JBI

Honestly - I know couples who have gotten divorced, with kids involved mind you, with both parents remaining good friends. Their reason for divorce, was simply they wanted to have sex/ enter relationships with other people. where's the problem in that?

----------


## JBI

On the subject of meanings of words - there are no real natural meanings of words, according to many prominent linguists and scholars. The meaning of the word is created in a trace. Meaning I take a word house, and when I think of it, I create my definition by forming the meaning in abstract terms in my mind. A house itself has more than one meaning, therefore we rely on additional words, and additional traces to create meanings.

The term Dog meaning something else has no problem. If Dog was taken to mean Cat, the trace would simply lead to a perspective of a Cat. If the opposite was true, the trace would lead in another direction.

For instance, Marriage in the United States has a different meaning than in Canada. In The U.S. it is the union by law of a man and a woman. In Canada, gender isn't specified, and same sex marriages exist. The term still has a meaning, but the meaning is relative to the society that creates it.

The law works the same way - Jurisprudence, the philosophy and rational of the law, is relative, therefore laws are relative to the place, time, and case. Punishments themselves vary in severity, and in seriousness. 

What is the law is not constant. What is right and wrong is not constant. In fact, very little is, if anything.

----------


## Petronius

> Honestly - I know couples who have gotten divorced, with kids involved mind you, with both parents remaining good friends. Their reason for divorce, was simply they wanted to have sex/ enter relationships with other people. where's the problem in that?


_"Brother," then said the Duke of Egypt, laying his hands upon their foreheads, "she is your wife; sister, he is your husband for four years. Go."_

Not anything bad with this either.

Thank you for the further comments on the meanings of words.

----------


## JBI

You may find this useful - generally I don't like these easy guides, but for someone like Derrida, and for something like deconstruction, I find this one works. Reading the original texts of Deconstruction is unbelievably difficult without some background:
http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction...9533432&sr=8-1

----------


## Petronius

Deconstruction looks interesting. I'll check my library, but I doubt they have this book here. I might have to start straight with Derrida inspite the difficulties.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

Let me put this as simply as possible. In matters of religion, as in sales, presentation is everything. People need to show a difference in their lives as well as in their talk. Perhaps many who do not believe in God might if they did not see Religious people acting in the same manner as those without any. Endless arguments and angry words do nothing to further either cause. People dislike being treated as fools. May I strongly urge all to remember that whatever the other believes, they are convinced, or they would believe differently. So try to be slightly more understanding of the other person. Everyone has feelings that can be hurt by grievous words. This builds anger and resentment, not the work of God or the ideas of man. It tears down and separates, rather than promotes harmonious living. And this causes naught but strife.

If I have harmed any by my words, I sincerely apologize. But I will stand up for my belief in God and Christ Jesus.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## andave_ya

> What is the law is not constant. What is right and wrong is not constant. In fact, very little is, if anything.


Forgive me, but are you absolutely sure about that?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You are arguing over me, who understands the hebrew word. I say it means don't be jealous. Feel free to take whatever meaning you want, but the subtext where it goes over things like your neighbor's house, his wife, et al. prove me right. Sorry, but Tach Modd translates the way I say, if you are claiming the book as the true text, than my book is a more true text, being the original.


I will defer to your knowledge. However, the 10th commmandment deals with jealousy over what is not rightfully mine; the jealousy I speak of (reaction to a violation of the intimacy of my relationship with my wife) is a different matter, because I should - as her husband - expect certain loyalties to our vows. The 10th commandment gives a specific context within which it condemns jealousy.




> An example please, of a law that has been constant throughout all cultures in all time periods? Do not steal? Nope. Do not kill (murder)? Nope. Do not commit adultery? Nope. Believe in God? Nope. Believe in only him? Nope. Honor your mother and father? Nope. Keep the sabbath? Nope. Do not make Idols? Nope.


Would you care to name the culture that thought theft, murder, sleeping with someone else's wife, etc were all _condoned_ actions that the culture _valued_ and _supported_?




> That's just ten, I could have a field day with the other 601 from the old testament, and the rest in the New. The point is, history proves these wrong. This natural law you speak of doesn't exist. And either way, if it did, we wouldn't need religion to tell us so, would we? Since it already exists, the book is somewhat pointless, it being a "natural law" to begin with. But either way, history has shown natural law to be wrong. I don't know many legal scholars who support it now - perhaps a few neo-cons, but most agree with, ironically, Aquinas, who laid out that laws between (wo)men are relative.


Don't bother with the Levitical laws - the NT invalidated most of the non-moral ones.

Natural law must exist because without it we have no standard by which to critique the "justness" of the positive law. If slavery once was legal, and Hitler's regime made genocide legal, the only way we can protest those laws as unjust is to appeal to a higher law as a measuring standard. Otherwise, we're back to relativism, which means we have no moral ground from which to judge a culture that participates in slavery or genocide.




> I understand the pain you're talking about, but love can't be conditioned. If our lover doesn't love us anymore, we can't force them to pretend for us. It's cruel, artificial, and in most cases all it leads to is further suffering. What I've learned is that if we lower our demands and increase our awareness for what our partener wants (yes, including a fling), we will have a better understanding of the relationship, less delusional suffering, and more human love.


Relationships are fragile things - "flings" are a violation of the relationship because they bring people into the circle of the relationship who have not made a committment. Relationships do not improve via affairs - the affair is a symptom of the ill health of the relationship. Adultery improves nothing - and the spouse who engages in it disrespects the other spouse - essentially making the adulterer as guilty as the inconsiderate spouse whom they "stepped out on."

Love cannot exist in an atmosphere of selfish betrayal.




> As far as parental divorce goes, I did not go through it myself but a number of my close friends experienced it at ages from early childhood to highschool and what I've observed was something akin to what JBI said: reaction was directly linked to the child's awareness of family values and their cleverness (or maturity, but not in an age-related way). This is talking about marginally functional families, mind you. I don't think you'd argue divorce is worse than an abusing parent.
> 
> Now, I am sorry I stirred some bad memories for you. I won't demand you continue on this matter, but if you do I would plead that you try to limit biases.


What "bias"? I simply believe that people who experience adultery and divorce are less cavalier about its consequences and effects than those who watch (no matter how closely) from the outside.





> Yes, but I have emotional reactions to a play, a song, a painting, a walk through the forest and a carrousel ride. My point is, emotions are not intrinsically billateral. When I like a person I do so by mental association, not by a tangible spiritual link. Thus, while my intellectual reaction to sex may be falling in love, my partner's can very well be "Geez, this guy sucks in bed". That's why I believe that, while sex should be freely practiced for pleasure, caution must be exercised in forming deep bonds around it.


I'm sorry - I too have emotional reactions to songs, to plays, to etc, etc...but none of them came close (by a mile) to sex - experiencing the most intimate of relationships with someone IMO far outstrips the other joys you described; granted some people feel differently, but a song, play, etc does not require me to engage with another person in an intimate, bonding way. There is a difference - there are potential consequences and ramifications involved with sex - not so with listening to music, attending a play, etc.





> Social fabric changes in time... it may be harder for you to understand if you prefer static design to evolution. We keep claiming liberties that had been unconcievable before and must learn how to deal with them: democracy, eradication of slavery, woman emancipation, childrens' rights, to name just some that may be close to you.
> Who could have vouched for democracy in the middle ages, when people had no education and could be easily manipulated? Putting choice in the hands of plebeans would have been unthinkable. 
> Eradicate slavery? would have said the 18th century plantation lord. That would crumble the economy.
> Women are better off if they just listen to their men, was the norm just a hundred years ago. 
> Children can do with a good beating, some still say today.
> Are you saying we won't be able to deal with more sexual liberties?


We've had sexual liberty in the US since the 60s - you tell me how things are going.




> As far as linguistic changes go, I belive JBI would have more accurate things to say than me, but words' meanings fluctuate constantly, and even if they remain relatively accurate for longer periods of time, they are certainly not unalterable. Their form changes, their meaning widens. For example "insect" will expand to include any new species that gets discovered. With this in mind, return to your comparison with morals.


Meanings do shift - but words are not so unstable to have their meaning become whatever the user wants. Once the definition of a word is self-referential, the word is no longer useful for communication. Morality is no different - the word becomes meaningless if it simply stands for "the way I see things."





> Hedonism, as I see it at least, abhors causing the suffering of others. However, some people cause their own suffering. If the mother wants her child to be a doctor, and he wants to be a painter, is the child to blame for following his dream inspite of her suffering? Or is that suffering (and the child's guilt on top) her own fault, because she replaced reality with her own expectations?


Happiness cannot be our highest value - it is the by-product of other actions and experiences. To seek it for itself is a fruitless pastime. Your definition of hedonism in sentence one suggests some sort of moral absolute - hedonism "abhors causing the suffering of others" - says who? You? Well isn't that just YOUR version of hedonism? What if MY version says "damn the torpedos - my happiness WILL be achieved, and I don't care what it costs because I deserve to be happy!"?




> Honestly - I know couples who have gotten divorced, with kids involved mind you, with both parents remaining good friends. Their reason for divorce, was simply they wanted to have sex/ enter relationships with other people. where's the problem in that?


That doesn't mean that consequences have not been suffered by all parties. Unless you are a child of divorce or are divorced and have children, you can have no clarity whatsoever on the kind of trauma divorce puts upon kids. Period. No book, no obseravation from the outside will suffice - unless you've been there (which I have, both sides) you cannot understand the long-term ramifications - which become more heinous when the justification for tearing apart a child's world is for the self-centered and selfish gratification of a sexual desire. Your failure to see the problem in that is stunnning to me - simply astounding.




> On the subject of meanings of words - there are no real natural meanings of words, according to many prominent linguists and scholars. The meaning of the word is created in a trace. Meaning I take a word house, and when I think of it, I create my definition by forming the meaning in abstract terms in my mind. A house itself has more than one meaning, therefore we rely on additional words, and additional traces to create meanings.


But - as Aristotle points out in the _Metaphysics_ - all the things that go by the term "house" must have some essential "house-ness" about them in order to be recognized as a part of the category of "house."




> The law works the same way - Jurisprudence, the philosophy and rational of the law, is relative, therefore laws are relative to the place, time, and case. Punishments themselves vary in severity, and in seriousness. 
> 
> What is the law is not constant. What is right and wrong is not constant. In fact, very little is, if anything.


Right - but natural law allows us to evaluate the justness of positve law. Without the natural law, there is no reason that slavery or genocide cannot become legal.

And, as Andave pointed out very subtely above, you seem pretty _certain_ about the _lack of certainty_ in the law, in morality, in everything. How can you be so certain about the uncertainty of everything? Is there not irony in your position? If you're correct, then all law is merely random mutual agreement - which means that there is no real "right" and "wrong" which means that nothing is either - only what we personally think it is. All fine and good until you are the victim of some immoral behavior and you object. Once I rob you, rape your wife/girlfriend, steal your car and murder your kids, do I get to tell you "sorry - but what is right and wrong is not constant - and anyway, since it's self-defined, what does it matter? Have a nice day"?

----------


## MattG

> What is the law is not constant. What is right and wrong is not constant. In fact, very little is, if anything.


I would agree to an extent. I'd say that natural law is constant though and laws made by men trying to assert their own moralities are inconsistent and inconstant. 

Right and wrong in many cases is a matter of perspective.

----------


## JBI

> Forgive me, but are you absolutely sure about that?


Of course not - that's the paradox. That ends up essentially in a pragmatic answer - each makes up the rules of the game, because the rules don't exist, but one makes up natural rules, one is changing the rules to create existence, but existence is relative, so how can it be natural at the same time.

Either way, the relativity isn't necessarily thwarted by that. The uncertainty means there is relativism, because if there is no concrete answer, then there is no possible way there is anything natural that we can know about, being that we don't have one answer. The fact that the bible provides one answer is useless in the sense that there are many scriptures, and many words of God.

----------


## JBI

To your challenge - Native American cultures, and I will narrow specifically to the Hurons had a different view of property. Since everything belonged to no one, theft did not exist. Polygamy was practiced to a great extent, and wars were fought not over land, but purely in a form of macho bravado, a deceleration of masculinity. Wives and Children were then taken from the loser's band, of a fallen warrior, in order to make up for lost life by the victorious band. 

The sense of theft didn't exist, and native American divorce custom, if such a thing can be called that, given their concept of marriage was very different than Western ones, consisted merely of the couples separating, and the woman, and man taking on a new lovers. 

In that context, I would say you are ethnocentric in thinking such states do not exist.

But on a more practical note, it is quite logical to assume the primitive form of life, that is, before civilization was established to humans, that such laws did not exist. The concept of property, whether it be material goods, or wives, as you seem to propose, is a formation of culture.

----------


## JBI

Honestly, your argument works both ways. Your morality of the law becomes immoral when dealing with the criminal, in the electrical chair, who thinks he doesn't deserve to die. To him the morality falsifies itself, when he thinks this morality is immoral. I may think something is wrong when it is done to me, but honestly, when I do it to others, I probably don't. And the ones committing it probably don't either.

The I'm afraid of x, so I will condemn it is purely a social construction. It is merely a social contract entered to ensure the best of x for the member of society. The same way I may or may not want to pay my taxes, but I do because it is the law, and I fear the repercussions of not paying them.

Our society takes in a number of factors, and dishes out laws to try and accommodate the values of those who are in charge.

----------


## NikolaiI

I would like to point something out which might be hard to understand at first. In response to what someone (JBI I think) said about a thief; the thief is happy because he has the bread... now I do agree that a case by case basis must be taken into account... for instance as you say Jean Valjean was of course not in the wrong to take the bread. But then this example (of Jean) is not an argument against morality; it's a good example showing the flaws of might makes right. (Might makes right is effectively the situtation which existed there. The poor, almost slave-state Jean did not have the might; but the "system" did have the might, etc.) But killing is usually wrong. Again I would say it is not always wrong. It must be a case by case basis. For instance if a robber comes into your house with a lethal weapon and is threatening to kill your family, I don't say you should be non-violent. He should immediately be killed. But if you killed without reason, or for the wrong reason (like Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment), then it is wrong. Anyway I am just now coming to what I wish to say, which is this: Karma. We reap what we sow.

There's a song I know that's main point is this, that we reap what we sow. It begins "Sow good seeds, everybody (repeat)... Over the mountains, down in the valleys, you gonna reap just what you sow..." then "Sow by walking, sow by talking" etc... now over the mountains isn't the main point but rather that we should always be sowing good seeds. If you spit on someone or if you insult them... some how, or some way, it will come back to you. If you hurt others, you hurt yourself, because you reap what you sow. Karma. This is the true natural law; the law of cause and effect. It is not dependent on humans.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> To your challenge - Native American cultures, and I will narrow specifically to the Hurons had a different view of property. Since everything belonged to no one, theft did not exist. Polygamy was practiced to a great extent, and wars were fought not over land, but purely in a form of macho bravado, a deceleration of masculinity. Wives and Children were then taken from the loser's band, of a fallen warrior, in order to make up for lost life by the victorious band.


Your example does not disprove my assertion: "community property" and the absence of a "need" to steal does not mean that theft was a valued cultural activity. No culture has encouraged, valued, or praised theft. I need you to name me a culture where theft, lying, adultery, murder, etc were actions that a culture praised, found praiseworthy, or valued among its members. Ditto for polygamy: that is not the same as adultery - I also doubt that you would support the attitude towards women that a polygamist society has - but then again, who are you to judge, since morality is relative - right?




> In that context, I would say you are ethnocentric in thinking such states do not exist.


You've yet to prove that any culture exists that does not value the basic values (and reject the others) that I mentioned. You can "say" whatever you wish about me, but you'll need to offer up sound evidence to claim a victory. I'm still waiting. 




> But on a more practical note, it is quite logical to assume the primitive form of life, that is, before civilization was established to humans, that such laws did not exist. The concept of property, whether it be material goods, or wives, as you seem to propose, is a formation of culture.


All fine and true, but doesn't dent my point in the slightest.




> Honestly, your argument works both ways. Your morality of the law becomes immoral when dealing with the criminal, in the electrical chair, who thinks he doesn't deserve to die. To him the morality falsifies itself, when he thinks this morality is immoral. I may think something is wrong when it is done to me, but honestly, when I do it to others, I probably don't. And the ones committing it probably don't either.


Another false example. The thief's opinion of the law that condemns him is immaterial to the law's correctness/justness. The criminal does not need to agree with his desert in order for it to be just. That we can justify our bad behavior doesn't change the moral content of that behavior. But - if morality is self-defined, then how can we convict any criminal for any "wrongdoing" at all?

----------


## JBI

Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.

Oh, and I even forgot. The Vikings were all about stealing other people's stuff in Raids, as were many peoples, and are many peoples today.

----------


## PierreGringoire

> There's a song I know that's main point is this, that we reap what we sow. It begins "Sow good seeds, everybody (repeat)... Over the mountains, down in the valleys, you gonna reap just what you sow..." then "Sow by walking, sow by talking" etc... now over the mountains isn't the main point but rather that we should always be sowing good seeds. If you spit on someone or if you insult them... some how, or some way, it will come back to you. If you hurt others, you hurt yourself, because you reap what you sow. Karma. This is the true natural law; the law of cause and effect. It is not dependent on humans.


I think that makes a lot of sense. Since being cruel requires one to utilize immature and inferior parts of one's brain, all it does is promote an inferior way of thinking. Which is not productive in solving problems, or seeking out the greater good. What you practice you become in a sense.

People who are _consistently_ wicked may not feel the effects of Karma though. Their whole science becomes lies. Perhaps living in a state with no room for honesty is Karma enough... Not to say I know anything about Karma, except for the aforementioned defintion.

----------


## JBI

Nah, I can kill someone and get away with it, and quite frankly, if I don't feel bad, I win. I don't see there being any sort of "justice" in this world - actions and consequences. If you can live with the consequences of the actions - that is, you can commit a crime and not feel bad afterward, and not get in trouble, then naturally there is nothing saying you are wrong.


That always leads to the ad Hitler argument, which says essentially that how can we condemn Hitler on those grounds. I hate to answer like this, since it may be a shocker, but quite frankly we all would be (well I wouldn't, I wouldn't exist, but you get the point) praising Hitler, and heralding him as the hero of the world, who saved it from the clutches of those filthy Jews (I am being ironic here). The point is, Religious people in general seemed unmoved by the Holocaust as it was happening. I don't recall the Pope ever condemning Hitler in his life time, and speculatively, it is possible that the current Pope would have dawned the SS uniform had the War gone longer. But I didn't hear anything about them talking about its unjustness, and unholiness, and blasphemousness while it was going on. Nothing. The only member of the Nazi party to be excommunicated from the Catholic church was Goebbels, since he, unfortunately to them, married a protestant. 

Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.

Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.

----------


## The Atheist

> Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.
> 
> Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.


Saved me saying it - nicely put.

Quite often - as is the case with Zimbabwe - the wicked prevail and the good are punished.

----------


## The Atheist

Actually, this idea of good and wicked raises another point in terms of the OP.

I don't believe there is any evidence which would convince me to follow a god whose standards are such that an atheist who has committed no crime can be sentenced to the same punishment as Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin and Pol Pot.

----------


## MattG

> Karma. This is the true natural law; the law of cause and effect. It is not dependent on humans.


It's part of it. Natural law is much wider than this though.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.


That's clever, but not valid. I asked you for a culture that thought things like theft, murder, adultery, lying, cowardice and/or betrayal were _praise-worthy_ things as part of my argument that certain values, certain _rights_ and _wrongs_ are consistent throughout history and throughout cultures. You've not done that. You have presented a utopian vision of an indian culture, but instead of providing me with a culture that _values_ the things I've listed above, you've decided to argue that their lack of existence disproves my point. It does not do so in the least.




> Oh, and I even forgot. The Vikings were all about stealing other people's stuff in Raids, as were many peoples, and are many peoples today.


Sure - but again, "acts of war" (whether "official" or not) against another culture are very different from what is condoned and valued _within_ the culture and the interaction of its own members. What I need you to tell me is that the Vikings condoned theft _among their own community members_ - that would prove your point.




> Nah, I can kill someone and get away with it, and quite frankly, if I don't feel bad, I win. I don't see there being any sort of "justice" in this world - actions and consequences. If you can live with the consequences of the actions - that is, you can commit a crime and not feel bad afterward, and not get in trouble, then naturally there is nothing saying you are wrong.


The key word in sentence #1 is "IF." Have you, by chance, read Dostoyevsky's _Crime & Punishment_? It's very instructive in commenting upon the scenario you suggest. I would assert that the consequences enacted upon the human heart from such an action do exist - whether the doer wishes to acknowledge them or not.




> That always leads to the ad Hitler argument, which says essentially that how can we condemn Hitler on those grounds. I hate to answer like this, since it may be a shocker, but quite frankly we all would be (well I wouldn't, I wouldn't exist, but you get the point) praising Hitler, and heralding him as the hero of the world, who saved it from the clutches of those filthy Jews (I am being ironic here).


_Natural law_ is what allowed us to condemn Hitler's "lawful" killing of the Jews.





> The point is, Religious people in general seemed unmoved by the Holocaust as it was happening. I don't recall the Pope ever condemning Hitler in his life time, and speculatively, it is possible that the current Pope would have dawned the SS uniform had the War gone longer.


Christianity did indeed drop the ball badly in this instance; that invalidates Christianity, however, no more than a few bad cops invalidate the value of the police force, or a few bad doctors the value of medical treatment.





> Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.
> 
> Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.


I never suggested anything about "justice" or that the world was fair. God is just, and at the final accounting, justice will be served - that He has promised. In the meantime, in order to allow us our freedom, He must allow certain things to occur that we take issue with. It's interesting that nonbelievers complain about God and all His "rules" that they don't want to obey, but then they turn around and demand that He violate our freedom by stopping all evil before it happens - you can't have it both ways.

----------


## JBI

Why are they invalid? Because they defeat your argument? There are cultures/were cultures where people would kill each other to increase their status. the early Iceland peoples for instance, used to kill each other in blood feuds.

As for your proofs why my concept of theft is not a natural law, consider this: A regressive tax does just that in the economy. It takes more from the poor, and gives back less.

I see no problem with calling even that stealing.

But there are cultures, and countries, who allow Americans to come in and steal there natural resources. IF you look at the colonial and post-colonial history of the 20th century, you seem some disturbing things - you see American funded fascist regimes, you see Genocides going unpunished, and you see cultures who allow people to go and steal from their neighbor, assuming the neighbor is something that isn't like. Robbing the other is a trait of this world in many, many places.

But beyond that. I see no reason why my examples shouldn't count. If the concept of theft doesn't exist, then the society doesn't really care about it, being the natural law doesn't exist. The abstract terms invented for the sake of our social contract aren't made natural automatically. If the abstract doesn't exist, it clearly isn't universal. I hate to accuse this, but you are being ethnocentric.


As for natural law allowing us to condemn Hitler, I would say you are wrong there to. I think what really did that, was a mix of Russians, British and commonwealth, Americans, and others. The actual condemnation is a huge misconception of history. How many people were actually found guilty of war crimes and sentenced after the war? Or better yet, how was Germany's economy right after the war? Did it not sky rocket because of all the funds poured into the border post with Russia, and vice versa?

Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.


Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.

----------


## Petronius

> Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.


I'd go even further and say that when goods are shared, stealing is the only way to appropriate them. The primitive taking a bowl of berries from the storage house for his personal use steals from the community, since there is no measure of linking the efforts he made in support of the group with the quantity he took. 
I, eating the last piece of cake in the fridge, am stealing it from the rest of my family.

----------


## PierreGringoire

> Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.


Hitler did boost the economy. You know how he did it? He provided jobs that made weapons. If he would have just sat around without putting those weapons made in factories into no use. The country's economy would have collapsed. I'm not negating anything you said. I'm just trying to make clear that Hitler's "economic policies" should not be held in awe the least bit.

Alexander the Great and Genghis Kahn pretty much wanted to conquer as much of the world as they could. There were no real goals.

Many things are pure sophistry. I like to go back to Quantum Mechanics. Its a confusing science and doesn't work the way we think it works. What does it prove? How little far common sense goes when it comes to explaining the origin of things. I do not think it is necesarrily romantic or fanatic to believe in a divine entity, or at least keeping an open mind to one.

The suffering populace in Africa is well noted. It contributes to one keeping an open mind about the matter. All you really need is one case study of someone suffering so much so that they don't have any options to get out to make this point valid.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Why are they invalid? Because they defeat your argument? There are cultures/were cultures where people would kill each other to increase their status. the early Iceland peoples for instance, used to kill each other in blood feuds.


They are invalid because they do not address the criteria of my argument: I asked for a culture where stealing, etc were admired and considered praise-worthy by the cutlure as behaviors acted out _within that culture among its members._  You have not shown that. That theft (supposedly) did not exist among a certain tribe of indians does not mean that theft was admired and condoned among the people - it means that stealing didn't exist; but if it did exist, would the people have praised and admired those who did it within their culture?




> As for your proofs why my concept of theft is not a natural law, consider this: A regressive tax does just that in the economy. It takes more from the poor, and gives back less.


Your example is of the positive civil law; although you may call something "theft" you have done so via interpretation; either way, no culture advocates theft as a positive way of life or a behavior that benefits the society within which it occurs. Taxes that are unfair are not condoned - but since they are not "theft" explicitly, sometimes they are permitted to exist.




> But there are cultures, and countries, who allow Americans to come in and steal there natural resources. IF you look at the colonial and post-colonial history of the 20th century, you seem some disturbing things - you see American funded fascist regimes, you see Genocides going unpunished, and you see cultures who allow people to go and steal from their neighbor, assuming the neighbor is something that isn't like. Robbing the other is a trait of this world in many, many places.


These are clever, but they are not the same thing; once again, your examples have to deal with interactions _between_ cultures; I'm talking about _within_ the culture itself; so, instead of speaking of England's "stealing" of India's resources, let's talk about England or India: in history has either country supported the idea that theft of property _among_ its members was *OK, praiseworthy, admirable behavior?*




> But beyond that. I see no reason why my examples shouldn't count. If the concept of theft doesn't exist, then the society doesn't really care about it, being the natural law doesn't exist. The abstract terms invented for the sake of our social contract aren't made natural automatically. If the abstract doesn't exist, it clearly isn't universal. I hate to accuse this, but you are being ethnocentric.


Clearly you don't get the argument and I don't know how to rephrase it so you can understand. Within a community - whether it be tribal or national - when in history has stealing from each other, having sex with other people's wives, lying to each other, indiscriminantly killing each other, betraying each other been seen as positive, praiseworthy, admired behavior? I dare say you will not be able to find such a community. Your examples have all dealt with one culture vs. another, war-time conditions, negating the existence of the vice, or a matter of interpretation - but you've not offered an example for the criteria I've laid out 4-5 times now.





> As for natural law allowing us to condemn Hitler, I would say you are wrong there to. I think what really did that, was a mix of Russians, British and commonwealth, Americans, and others. The actual condemnation is a huge misconception of history. How many people were actually found guilty of war crimes and sentenced after the war? Or better yet, how was Germany's economy right after the war? Did it not sky rocket because of all the funds poured into the border post with Russia, and vice versa?


Natural law is what drove those countries to condemn and drives us now to condemn the atrocities of the Holocaust.




> Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.


Hitler's "success" is not the measure of his _rightness_ or _wrongness_ - you have got to be kidding me; are you really taking the argument in this direction?





> Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.


My statement that God will ultimately distribute justice isn't an argument about anything except my belief that justice will eventually be served for the wrongs done on earth - this is an answer to the charge that God is unjust because He doesn't address injustice _right now_.

----------


## andave_ya

> Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.


 "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?"

----------


## JBI

No, not really. In truth, the countries sat back and appeased Hitler. His boats in their harbor, and tanks on their ground is what caused them to go against him. The Canadians for instance, went because the British did. The Americans didn't really go, and went once they got attacked, knowing it was them next.

Not divine law - or any such nonsense. Simple survival.

As for societies that praise stealing? Raider societies. Underground societies. Vikings again, who you won't acknowledge.


For murder and killing:
Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?

Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.

My last point, was more to suggest that you can't prove God delivers justice by saying you believe in it. It is like saying, I believe in x, therefore x is proven, and therefore y exists. You cannot skip to y without providing something more substantial to x. For all you know, Hitler is basking in God's holy light right now.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, not really. In truth, the countries sat back and appeased Hitler. His boats in their harbor, and tanks on their ground is what caused them to go against him. The Canadians for instance, went because the British did. The Americans didn't really go, and went once they got attacked, knowing it was them next.


This discussion of history isn't really germain to what we have on the table. It's interesting, but a tangent that I'm not interested in pursuing.




> Not divine law - or any such nonsense. Simple survival.


Sorry J - when you don't quote the portion of my post you're dealing with, I get unsure to which point of mine you're addressing.




> As for societies that praise stealing? Raider societies. Underground societies. Vikings again, who you won't acknowledge
> 
> For murder and killing:
> Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?


I'm getting the idea that either a) you refuse to admit I'm right; or b) you really don't understand my argument. For the 3rd or 4th time:

You are using examples of immoral behavior performed against *other cultures*, *other peoples*, *other communities* - not immoral behavior done _against the community itself by members of the community with the community's blessing and encouragement._ In such situations - especially if they involve war, disputes, or a struggle to survive - the normal rules of moral behavior is suspended (in part) because what is done to the "other" (another nation/community/people) is "justified" in some way (legitmately or not).

Now: imagine said Vikings are home from the raids and are living in their Viking community together. Please do not tell me that if Sven the Viking raids Erick's tent and steals his sword that Sven is going to say "Excellent - I've been robbed. Time to head over to Lars's tent and take his sword." Do you get it? No culture has seen stealing among its own people/community as a good, admirable thing - something on par with bravery (which is universally valued especially by the Vikings). How much plainer can I make it?




> Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.


I'm dismissing your poor historical examples. The government sanctioned massacres aren't against their own people - and if they are, that the government "sanctions" them (as did Hitler's) does not mean that the community/society/culture in general accepted the practice as *good, admirable, praiseworthy.*




> My last point, was more to suggest that you can't prove God delivers justice by saying you believe in it. It is like saying, I believe in x, therefore x is proven, and therefore y exists. You cannot skip to y without providing something more substantial to x. For all you know, Hitler is basking in God's holy light right now.


I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.

I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.

Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.

----------


## JBI

OK fine, how about dirty wars committed by elected governments? How about what's going on in Darfur? How about Gladiators, forced to kill each other for entertainment?

----------


## JBI

> I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.
> 
> Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.


Great to know - no matter what you do, if you acknowledge God in the end, you make it to heaven. You call that moral? I call that shooting ones self and argument in the foot. Killing millions is forgivable under Christian law, but denying god! Burn in hell for it!!

----------


## The Atheist

> "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?"


That's physics, not life.

Ask a zebra.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Great to know - no matter what you do, if you acknowledge God in the end, you make it to heaven. You call that moral? I call that shooting ones self and argument in the foot. Killing millions is forgivable under Christian law, but denying god! Burn in hell for it!!


It is not enough to simply "acknowledge" God - since God knows the human heart, you can't fool Him; if your repentance is sincere, then God accepts you. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was to redeem all sinners - even ones who did terrible things. I do not expect you to understand or agree with that theology. But please understand that God does not "sentence" one to hell for denying Him - hell is the destination that those who deny God _choose_ because of the simple reason that they would be _miserable_ in heaven. To force someone to go to heaven who rejects God would be the equivalent of "hell" for that individual. God respects human freewill enough to allow His creations to choose an eternity out of His presence. Think about that for a bit before you fire back.

----------


## andave_ya

> Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?
> 
> Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.


But what makes government always right? Even, what makes the church always right? The church as you are referring to it is solely the human part. God didn't and wouldn't actually tell them to go "kill the infidels," not in my Bible at any rate. What I'm trying to say is, is the government always right in what it does? Is anything connected with humans always right, every single time? The Crusades were based on weird superiority complexes cloaked as "God's will."


And um, everyone counts. Whether saved or unsaved. Especially if they're unsaved, because -- forgive me for sounding egotistical -- but if it wasn't for God's grace I'd be in the same place, worse probably, knowing myself. So I'd better not go around sticking my nose in the air because I'm a Christian.




> That's physics, not life.
> 
> Ask a zebra.


 :FRlol: . But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to _everything_?

----------


## JBI

What's free will? All action is the consequence of previous actions, therefore everything is predetermined. I see no gap room for free will. The predetermined history, that is, according to the Bible, genesis to Armageddon, and the stop of time, is predecided. If one is to stray, God, being all knowing knew in creation, and therefore sets people up for failure. It is predecided if you burn in hell or not, according to a logical interpretation of scripture.

Milton tries to defend against it in Paradise Lost, and argue free will, but even he, the most learned of his generation, and one of the wisest minds failed.

Prove free will, with or without Christian scripture, and then we can go from there. But as it is, free will is but a term used by Theists which means absolutely nothing.

Where is free will when time is linear? Could time have spun another way? Can Armageddon be dodged? Of course not if you believe in scripture, then where does the room come in for free will? God created us, and he is all powerful, therefore how could he not have known we would fail him? How could he not have known who would burn and who wouldn't? He set the time in motion, providing all the necessary props to assert his dominion at the end of time, yet where is the room for free will? Where is the room for bettering?

Fix that argument before we precede. To assume something like free will exists is not arguing, it is assuming, and not proving anything.

----------


## JBI

> But what makes government always right? Even, what makes the church always right? The church as you are referring to it is solely the human part. God didn't and wouldn't actually tell them to go "kill the infidels," not in my Bible at any rate. What I'm trying to say is, is the government always right in what it does? Is anything connected with humans always right, every single time? The Crusades were based on weird superiority complexes cloaked as "God's will."
> 
> 
> And um, everyone counts. Whether saved or unsaved. Especially if they're unsaved, because -- forgive me for sounding egotistical -- but if it wasn't for God's grace I'd be in the same place, worse probably, knowing myself. So I'd better not go around sticking my nose in the air because I'm a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> . But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to _everything_?


God actually says to go out and massacre Amalechites, men, women, children, and cattle.

God also listed a number of things punishable by death, including disobeying your parents. In fact, pre-marital sex is, by the Bible, punishable by death - to be held in the public square, with thrown rocks.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> OK fine, how about dirty wars committed by elected governments? How about what's going on in Darfur? How about Gladiators, forced to kill each other for entertainment?


These are better - but again: the victims of these crimes were not members of the society - but "outsiders" or those considered "unacceptable" due to social status or race. I'm talking about the "mainstream" society of people who are of the same ethnicity, same religious views, etc. Nowhere in the US is there a town, city, county where theft is considered a virtue. I venture to say that that is so in most countries in terms of how the natives interact with each other. What we do to other countries, or what a government decides to "pull off" against its own country are different things - and again - when a "dirty war" is being committed, the general public does not always agree that it is _virtuous_ or _right_.

I've given clear criteria and your examples do not meet that criteria. Seriously - I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly do not consider your examples to be valid in terms of presenting a culture where things like theft, murder, etc are deemed _good_, _virtuous_ behaviors.

----------


## JBI

Not necessarily outsiders - often times random people, people who just happened to be there, or some other factor. I think the dismissal of "other" is again a logical fallacy, used to bi-pass the proof.

It's like you saying "I gave clear criteria for you to prove that God exists, and you haven't." I don't need to fit a criteria built on ethnocentric assumptions. I have satisfied the criteria proposed enough - of course I am not going to find a society exactly like the one we live in, with only one thing changed. That's just silly. It's like saying give me an example of the United States without white people. Such a thing can not be obtained in history, and must be hypothetical.

And when you go hypothetical, the persistent necessarily fails. I cannot create a situation outside of a historical reference point.

You want a Western world with only a few minor changes as an example from history. Good luck. You essentially asked me to find a country with cars but no gas pumps.

Everyone within a society is a member of society, or are you suggesting African Americans, or any other minority group's people aren't part of a society? Natural law didn't apply to them - they happened to drive Japanese cars instead of American ones. Blah Blah.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What's free will? All action is the consequence of previous actions, therefore everything is predetermined. I see no gap room for free will. The predetermined history, that is, according to the Bible, genesis to Armageddon, and the stop of time, is predecided. If one is to stray, God, being all knowing knew in creation, and therefore sets people up for failure. It is predecided if you burn in hell or not, according to a logical interpretation of scripture.


So it was predetermined that you'd type up these words? If so, then the words really have no inherent meaning because you had no free choice to compose them - which means they can contain no truth whatsoever. Right? How can you be exempt from predetermined actions in the universe you describe (using a description that you didn't really come up with)?




> Prove free will, with or without Christian scripture, and then we can go from there. But as it is, free will is but a term used by Theists which means absolutely nothing.


Without freewill, your thoughts become the mere consequence of random and accidental processes and forces that you are subject to. Your thoughts then become nothing more than chemical/electrical reactions that occur due to no control or direction of your own - and as such, are meaningless. You cannot dismiss freewill and then use your thoughts/words to claim it doesn't exist because your words are not the product of your conscious thinking - they are the product of natural forces that you have no control over.




> Where is free will when time is linear? Could time have spun another way? Can Armageddon be dodged? Of course not if you believe in scripture, then where does the room come in for free will? God created us, and he is all powerful, therefore how could he not have known we would fail him? How could he not have known who would burn and who wouldn't? He set the time in motion, providing all the necessary props to assert his dominion at the end of time, yet where is the room for free will? Where is the room for bettering?


There are a number of complex explanations that could answer this difficult question. My experience here with you over the last 20 posts or so tell me that I would simply be exhausting my fingers to go over these arguments. In short, in order to say that God "knows" the future, you presume a certain idea as to how God experiences time. That conception may be wrong. As well, I do not believe God "knows the future" because the future does not exist to be known. Therefore, what God may see is simply the entire panorama of our existence in a single, all-encompassing glance - as such - there is no past, present, or future for God - all is NOW in His vision. Which means that the entire arc of your life may constantly be shifting due to your freely made decisions; God's knowledge of you, your heart and mind, and your entire make-up, means that He knows with precise accuracy what you will do - but that's different than predetermining what you'll do. That's a short form of a much longer, more complex argument. Read Richard Rice's _God's Knowledge and Man's Free Will_ for a thorough treatment of the topic.




> Fix that argument before we precede. To assume something like free will exists is not arguing, it is assuming, and not proving anything.


Have you "proved" determinism beyond your assertion that it's true? Would you mind doing so, so that we know that you're not assuming yourself?

----------


## JBI

Yes, I agree, my thoughts are the product of what came before. You are trying to scare me into thinking otherwise, but in truth, it was pre-determined that I would type this, as it was pre-determined you would read this, and pre-determined if you respond to it. Are you saying, at every instance of your life, you, with the same past, replaying the same scenarios, with exactly the same parameters, would have chosen anything different? No. If you reflect, knowing the future, then you would change the past, but knowing the future would be pre-determined to begin with, so the same linear line follows.

As for no control - I have no "real" control, as I wouldn't act any differently. You are trying to use a fear statement, or an abstract logical gap to prove a point, when simply, I am not afraid and agree with you. I didn't have free will to decide to post this or not. I read your message, and based on my past, and the universes' past, I, under a direct reaction, posted this. Then I thought, and reread thour thing, and had another reaction, and edited this in.


Take a ball as an example. You push it, it moves. Now take a very complex thing, lets say, a single entity. It explodes, divides, changes, and as it does it goes along a strait path.

How can there possibly be free will anyway, if God knows everything. Knowing everything, and having a choice is a contradiction. You can't know all without a something existing. If the something exists, then you know what everyone will choose before they do. If so, it is pre-determined. Either he doesn't know all, or free will doesn't exist automatically based on logic.

But keep in mind, God not existing doesn't prove free will, which creates a bigger question, what possibly can prove free will. Contemporary physics seems to have proved well enough determinism, as does logic, but what evidence beyond a bunch of semi-intellectual theologians has even come close to proving anything like free will, without resorting to painful assumptions.



Your whole argument is necessarily flawed, because it is based on an assumption that God exists. Take away that, and anything you say becomes falsified automatically. Therefore the onus is on you to justify that belief, before you can start cutting at mine, which is based on empirical evidence and logic. You cannot prove y without proving x. If you can't prove X, as you said, then there is no purpose arguing anymore, because clearly there is no evidence Potent enough to convince the atheist. There is nothing but an assumption based on a bunch of old clergymen, and a 3000-1900ish year old text.

No evidence, no proof, only an assumption used to create contexts. You can't prove anything, therefore you cannot prove free will with logic, only with an assumption based on faith in an old, tattered book, which in itself is based on assumptions, and dated logic, not to mention contradictions within itself.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not necessarily outsiders - often times random people, people who just happened to be there, or some other factor. I think the dismissal of "other" is again a logical fallacy, used to bi-pass the proof.


But they were people who were not considered an integrated part of the mainstream community.




> It's like you saying "I gave clear criteria for you to prove that God exists, and you haven't." I don't need to fit a criteria built on ethnocentric assumptions. I have satisfied the criteria proposed enough - of course I am not going to find a society exactly like the one we live in, with only one thing changed. That's just silly. It's like saying give me an example of the United States without white people. Such a thing can not be obtained in history, and must be hypothetical.


Look JB - I give up. I don't know how to help you understand. Each of your examples possesses a characteristic that disqualifies it from countering my assertion. The reality is that some things are stable: all cultures have valued similar things and rejected similar things (to a certain extent). No culture sees murder of its members BY ITS MEMBERS as a positive, viruous thing. Slaves, criminals, those of different religious beliefs or race have been immorally treated with the tacit consent of society - but that society would not see that behavior enacted among its native members as virtuous or acceptable. It's not that my criteria is unreasonable; it's that no example exists to support your position.




> You want a Western world with only a few minor changes as an example from history. Good luck. You essentially asked me to find a country with cars but no gas pumps.


I want you to admit that no society has ever existed that *praised* thieves, murderers, adulterers, cowards and traitors.




> Everyone within a society is a member of society, or are you suggesting African Americans, or any other minority group's people aren't part of a society? Natural law didn't apply to them - they happened to drive Japanese cars instead of American ones. Blah Blah.


Come on J - you're a student of history; all are "members" yes - but society also has a strata for certain members - especially those who are different in a way that the community defines as significant.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, I agree, my thoughts are the product of what came before. You are trying to scare me into thinking otherwise, but in truth, it was pre-determined that I would type this, as it was pre-determined you would read this, and pre-determined if you respond to it. Are you saying, at every instance of your life, you, with the same past, replaying the same scenarios, with exactly the same parameters, would have chosen anything different? No. If you reflect, knowing the future, then you would change the past, but knowing the future would be pre-determined to begin with, so the same linear line follows.
> 
> As for no control - I have no "real" control, as I wouldn't act any differently. You are trying to use a fear statement, or an abstract logical gap to prove a point, when simply, I am not afraid and agree with you. I didn't have free will to decide to post this or not. I read your message, and based on my past, and the universes' past, I, under a direct reaction, posted this. Then I thought, and reread thour thing, and had another reaction, and edited this in.


I cannot go along with this line of thinking. Without free will, all your words become meaningless because truth cannot come out of random processess. Truth can only come from conscious freedom to discriminate between things. Without free will, your thoughts are mere random accidents. No "fear statements" here - simply the logic of the naturalists applied to their own thoughts.

----------


## The Atheist

> . But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to _everything_?


Nope, only physics.

Remember, the full phrase is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

I suppose you could argue that the zebra dies and the reaction to that is lion eating, but it blows your karmic hopes out of the water.

----------


## JBI

Oh, I know I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I came up with the perfect historical example of a society which encouraged the murdering of people (in this case Children specifically, such as infants). Of course, they no longer exist, but Jonestown Guyana I think fits the criteria well enough.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Oh, I know I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I came up with the perfect historical example of a society which encouraged the murdering of people (in this case Children specifically, such as infants). Of course, they no longer exist, but Jonestown Guyana I think fits the criteria well enough.


Oh yes, that's a good point- infanticide. Two things though... the exception makes the rule?... and also, I would just say that Red's logic makes a lot of sense to me. Like stealing-- it is universal or near universal because no one wants to be stolen from. Same thing with violence but of course there is violence in certain social systems (like prisons).

----------


## JBI

No, I don't think there is a rule. He challenged me to find a situation, and I found one. Though I found one before, I think this one has particular punch, given the circumstances.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I don't think there is a rule. He challenged me to find a situation, and I found one. Though I found one before, I think this one has particular punch, given the circumstances.


But again - you've picked an _exceptional_ situation - a cult that withdrew from regular society, led by a madman who set the society's rules. As well, the encouragement to murder was a one-time thing - a response to Jone's assertion that they would be invaded as a result of Congressman Ryan's visit. That's different than murder being an accepted part of day-to-day life - which is what I've been talking about all along (but maybe is only clear now): I've been asking for a society that encouraged murder, theft, lying, betrayal, cowardice, etc on a day-to-day basis within the "equal" members of a community (by "equal" I mean those members who are roughly of the same class, make-up, etc). I appreciate your example, but the circumstances are exceptional - the suicide was encouraged not so much as virtuous or good action, but a necessary final solution to a "threat" that Jones convinced his followers was imminent.

I need a culture whose behavior is not due to exceptional circumstances; a culture whose day-to-day behavior shows a value and respect for the negative actions I've listed probably 10x over the last twenty posts.

----------


## Petronius

Red, I think JBI has come up with nothing but good points and I don't understand your penelopean attempts at dismissing them. You started by claiming the commandments are natural, universal laws, and that I believe was proven wrong.
Are you now changing your premises in retrospect so you can challenge his examples? If these principles are now only to apply among "equal members", am I to believe that, as far as your natural laws are concerned, it's ok to steal from, lie to, betray or murder someone as long as you don't like them very much?

To add my own example, I invite you to read this article on human sacrifice in the Aztec culture. 
The Aztecs believed the Universe is sustained by ongoing sacrifice, in which they felt it was their obligation to partake. This included self-flagelation, bloodletting and death.
Human sacrifice was pretty common and wide in scope, and it did not only include prisoners, but also willing (or indoctrinated) members of the society, the latter of which were revered by their peers. These people obviously thought ritual murder is an important part of their society, even a spiritual necessity. By what reasoning would you deny the imperatives of their culture?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red, I think JBI has come up with nothing but good points and I don't understand your penelopean attempts at dismissing them. You started by claiming the commandments are natural, universal laws, and that I believe was proven wrong.


No: I did not claim the 10 commandments were universal laws; I asked what was negative about them and how they didn't benefit society. Then I asserted that morality cannot be "relative" or self-defined because that way madness lies: behavior becomes undefinable in terms of its moral content because we can all then justify atrocious behavior based upon the claim that "it's my morality." I then asserted that some values, some behaviors were universal in their acceptance and rejection by the cultures of history and the world. All cultures have admired bravery, compassion, justice, love, loyalty; all cultures have rejected theft, lying, adultery, murder, betrayal as destructive things. That there are _exceptional_ circumstances where a culture might engage in some of the negatives I've listed does not mean that the culture in general embraced those behaviors as virtuous, desirable and praiseworthy. All JBI's examples deal with exceptions that disqualify them from countering the argument I'm making.





> Are you now changing your premises in retrospect so you can challenge his examples? If these principles are now only to apply among "equal members", am I to believe that, as far as your natural laws are concerned, it's ok to steal from, lie to, betray or murder someone as long as you don't like them very much?


No: my argument has been consistent. I keep trying to reword it to see if he'll understand what I'm looking for, because he (she - sorry?) keeps giving examples that contain an exceptional flaw within them - a circumstance that clearly explains the culture's support of a negative social behavior. I need a culture where the negative social behavior is viewed as good not on an exceptional basis, but as an accepted and praised cultural norm outside of special influences (religion, war, "marginalized cultural members" and such). I dare say neither of you will be able to do that.




> To add my own example, I invite you to read this article on human sacrifice in the Aztec culture. 
> The Aztecs believed the Universe is sustained by ongoing sacrifice, in which they felt it was their obligation to partake. This included self-flagelation, bloodletting and death.
> Human sacrifice was pretty common and wide in scope, and it did not only include prisoners, but also willing (or indoctrinated) members of the society, the latter of which were revered by their peers. These people obviously thought ritual murder is an important part of their society, even a spiritual necessity. By what reasoning would you deny the imperatives of their culture?


Now there's a good example. Far better than any JBI has offered - but like the Jonestown example, it relies upon the misuse of religious belief to manipulate people. And even then, the people believed that their sacrifice did something positive for society. If their sacrifice was willing, then they believed they were contributing positively to their society; if they were sacrificed against their will, well that supports my position in that the society's members did not completely embrace the practice. You get one point for the ritual murder - but the fact that it is a part of religious ceremony taints it in my view because I'm seeking community values that are not from exceptional sources. You see, the culture didn't embrace the random murder of people by just anybody in the culture; there were specific rules about it, and it was done only by certain people, in certain ways, on certain days. It's a good example, but it's still shy of what I'm looking for.

----------


## andave_ya

> Nope, only physics.
> 
> Remember, the full phrase is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".
> 
> I suppose you could argue that the zebra dies and the reaction to that is lion eating, but it blows your karmic hopes out of the water.



 :FRlol: . Okay. I've seen the law apply in more than just physics, but I suppose it depends at how one looks at it.

----------


## blp

> Now there's a good example. Far better than any JBI has offered - but like the Jonestown example, it relies upon the misuse of religious belief to manipulate people. And even then, the people believed that their sacrifice did something positive for society. If their sacrifice was willing, then they believed they were contributing positively to their society; if they were sacrificed against their will, well that supports my position in that the society's members did not completely embrace the practice. You get one point for the ritual murder - but the fact that it is a part of religious ceremony taints it in my view because I'm seeking community values that are not from exceptional sources. You see, the culture didn't embrace the random murder of people by just anybody in the culture; there were specific rules about it, and it was done only by certain people, in certain ways, on certain days. It's a good example, but it's still shy of what I'm looking for.


So, are you saying that murder still fits a sort of universal notion of morality as long as its ritualised? Is that why Aztec human sacrifice is not a good enough example? Because it still contains enough of the moral values we recognise as our own? I mean, sure, at least some of the people involved thought they were contributing positively to their society, but isn't that almost an a priori given in the context of different values? They have a different sense of what constitutes a positive contribution to society, ergo, a different sense of value. And you say it constitutes a misuse of religion. Well, according to you and I it does, but not them. Different values, see.

----------


## Petronius

Then you have to realize that the way values are interpreted in traditionally monotheistic cultures are also exceptional and may differ from what people would arrive at if they didn't believe. The reason we tend to agree on banning theft and murder from our social groups is an instinct of self-preservation (and preservation of our possesions in some, now dominant, cases). We simply agree not to apply the "survival of the fittest" law among eachother as an ensurance in case of weakness, but it's a rational conclusion we arrived at during our evolution, and one that doesn't apply on every case and scale. It's simply a more educated form of pack animals working together - but once killing eachother becomes an imperative for survival we would end up having little remorse doing it.

My main problem has been, however, with sexuality, given that christian principles tend to be prude, ascetic and patriarchal. I give you this little morsel on sexual equality in Sparta, from wikipedia:

"_Women, being more independent than in other Greek societies, were able to negotiate with their husbands to bring their lovers into their homes. According to Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus, men both allowed and encouraged their wives to bear the children of other men, due to the general communal ethos which made it more important to bear many progeny for the good of the city, than to be jealously concerned with one's own family unit. However, some historians argue that this 'wife sharing' was only reserved for elder males who had not yet produced an heir_"

Proof of a society where adultery was allowed or even encouraged, depending on interpretation, and jealousy condemned. Something much easier to balance one's principles with than mass murder. As far as special influences are concerned, on both my examples, I would argue that they would have to be consolidated within the culture in any case, otherwise there would be constant unrest and the society wouldn't last as long as both the aztecs and spartans did. In my orthodox country, there are many religion-linked traditions that are strongly valued, although their proponents understand little or nothing at all about their original spiritual symbolism.

----------


## JBI

Actually, the Sparta example doesn't rely on anything religious, but on society. The social norms of society created the wife-sharing trends, not the Divine Law. Either way, there was nothing wrong with my examples, except that you needed too specific a thing, like asking for the impossible and pretending to be right because that doesn't exist in history.

----------


## Saladin

*JBI*

Are you familiar with compatibilism?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

----------


## JBI

> *JBI*
> 
> Are you familiar with compatibilism?
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/


Yes, but that is a light form of determinism. In truth, it essentially means, though pre-determined, people still make choices, which I agree, but it still asserts the outcome of the choice is pre-determined, reducing everything to a linear time plot again.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Yes, but that is a light form of determinism. In truth, it essentially means, though pre-determined, people still make choices, which I agree, but it still asserts the outcome of the choice is pre-determined, reducing everything to a linear time plot again.


Yes, even if everything is pre-determined though, that doesn't end all thought of the matter. Even if free will is illusion; it is still the most gripping illusion that exists. There are causes for why I do what I do, and so my actions are dependent on all those causes. Yet everything I see, think, hear, and say are also causes. The fact that you and I are having this dicussion is part of the whole matter. The idea of pre-determinism is part of the causes, and whether it makes one act or not act is a part of it; and whether we believe in pre-determinism is a part of it, as well as what this makes us do then.

What I am saying is the "illusion" of free will is so important, that by all standards of observation, it still appears that one thinks, one considers, and then one acts or not. Thus one thinks and considers and comes to a decision of whether to act or not. Those causes you mentioned which you say make everything pre-determined are part of it; but it's also vital what we think of this and how we react to it. So you might say that all of the past, and all of the future is pre-determined, but this doesn't mean much since just saying it doesn't change the way things actually are; or that, by all appearances, everything known or thought of free will exists and is legitimate.

----------


## JBI

The way I see the argument, is from a rather stranger perspective. Compatibilism seems to be the optimistic one, allowing humans to seem to have somewhat of a control of their lives, whereas incompatibilism seems to be a more dreary understanding, which ties in with the notion of meaninglessness, and other nihilistic thoughts. They both though, argue in a sense against free will as seen in Christian dogma. One merely says everything is but a pawn, being pushed around by the forces of time, whereas the other one says yes, that's true, but on a daily basis, one can still choose the chicken or the fish. The free will comes from a creation of personal meanings, rather than an actual ability to have a "free choice", in the sense of compatibilism. Either way though, they all essentially equal the same thing.

All these thoughts are rhetoric driven constructs, and arguments over semantics more than actual arguments, I find. Either way though, determinism isn't shaken off one way or another. The best argument I can think of against it is also agreeing with it, in that the future is not determined, but is on a linear line. That concept again disregards free will, but goes off to say that the actual plot isn't written yet.

----------


## Delta40

I would rather be happy than right. I am happy. I guess that means your point view has no bearing on my beliefs.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Of course they _can_ be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.
> 
> 
> 
> That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so. 
> 
> You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?
> 
> If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.
> ...




_"i cant wait for this act to be over, cause i have a roll of lifesavers in my pocket and pineapple is next"_  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Pendragon

I seem to forget, is this thread on dogma, commandments, or trying to help someone who is non-religious see a different point of view? The topic jumps around a lot. If someone doesn't even see God in nature, how can one convince that person of a God? That hurdle is shocking hard to get through to those who cannot conceive what "Faith" really is.  :Wave:

----------


## JBI

Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.

----------


## NikolaiI

> The way I see the argument, is from a rather stranger perspective. Compatibilism seems to be the optimistic one, allowing humans to seem to have somewhat of a control of their lives, whereas incompatibilism seems to be a more dreary understanding, which ties in with the notion of meaninglessness, and other nihilistic thoughts. They both though, argue in a sense against free will as seen in Christian dogma. One merely says everything is but a pawn, being pushed around by the forces of time, whereas the other one says yes, that's true, but on a daily basis, one can still choose the chicken or the fish. The free will comes from a creation of personal meanings, rather than an actual ability to have a "free choice", in the sense of compatibilism. Either way though, they all essentially equal the same thing.
> 
> All these thoughts are rhetoric driven constructs, and arguments over semantics more than actual arguments, I find. Either way though, determinism isn't shaken off one way or another. The best argument I can think of against it is also agreeing with it, in that the future is not determined, but is on a linear line. That concept again disregards free will, but goes off to say that the actual plot isn't written yet.


This is interesting... I believe there's something to that, but again it doesn't change the way things are. If I cannot distinguish or perceive the "illusion" of free will. That is, with all my faculties at their clearest and most sober, if by all my reasoning I cannot tell that my free will does not exist, then I must assume it does, or that the fact that it doesn't does not mean very much. I mean it's the issue of "You can't fool fate," right? Whatever happens, happens. And once it happens it can't be taken back; but then if you really consider, it must have happened anyway and it is pre-determined. There is the question then of how this affects us. Whether it makes us sad, or if we recognize it doesn't change things at all. The worst mistake anyone could make is to think that this matters, that it affects things. It may be true but it's also not true. If someone thinks that fate is guiding all his actions, then he becomes very dangerous. It's not fate guiding his actions but the fact that he has resigned himself to it. Then he might think his actions don't matter, but then he could really mess up his life or the lives of others. Let's say, he goes on a robbing spree, and then gets locked up for many years. All because of his reaction to what he thought was fate.

Basically one thinking that fate is guiding all his actions is about as bad as thinking God is guiding all of one's actions. Then one surrenders responsibility. If one does this, and then commits atrocious actions, they might think they are not responsible for their actions-- but they are responsible; their mind and heart are responsible for their actions. It's their mind thinking that fate is controlling them that controls them, and this is why they're dangerous. They are responsible- no one made them do their actions. And the power of both negative and positive thoughts, beliefs and faith is very great. It can completely paralyze someone if they think they cannot act, they cannot change things, and it can also give one strength if they have faith and are sure that they can. Often we don't realize how our thoughts are limiting us; thoughts which are nothing more than habits.

You said - I believe it was you - you disliked how movies and stories followed unbelievable plot lines. But don't forget about people who do things under the influence of some kind of thinking, and then sort of wake up from it later in shock and repulsion at what they'd done. I've dealt with people who are like this. For instance if someone is paranoid and thinks that everyone is wanting to kill them. They are suffering very greatly although it is their own choice to repeatedly reinforce this fantasy. They are trapped by their thinking until they can break out of it and realize it was only in their head. They are mistaking the rope for the snake.

----------


## Petronius

I think the best way to portray the free will vs determinism problem is by bringing the former into statistics - if free will existed and there was nothing to guide it but the individual's spiritual ego, then any number of occurances deriving from free choices would have assigned a probability to them. Such, interactions of humans in society would have the makings of a stochastic process, such as the Brownian motion, with individuals being the particles and the world the body of water. 

However, wether we consider the Brownian motion model stochastic or deterministic is a matter of the observer's perspective. The phenomenon consists of the "_seemingly_ random movement of particles suspended in a liquid or gas". 
It says seemingly because if we have complete information/control on the forces involved between the moving particles and the particles in the body of liquid/gas, then we can predict/repeat the patterns within physical law. The process becomes stochastic through perception; the ordinary observer knows nothing of these infinitesimal forces at work, or if they do they have no interest in measuring them, and by convention dismiss the deterministic equations and, in the name of a wider scope, analyze the process as being random. However, there is no process to date that is purely random; chance exists only in the perception of observers who lack information.

From personal perspective, we will never have complete information, because everything us humans percieve and process goes through our brains. Thought process can not totally step out and analyze itself (even when you think of yourself thinking there is a lag, a loop of unprocessed information), just like the eye can't see inside itself. This gives, in a wild chase around one's own tail, the appearance of a mind outside the body, or a soul outside the mind. It also gives the illusion of "freedom of choice" because we can't dose our body's propreties at the same time they reach a decision - we suffer from a latency that blocks from our minds the simulatenous percieving of its own commands. 

From a universal perspective though, just like the full-information Brownian motion, an ecuation (a very complex one at that) can define the course of entire existence, and an entire human life as part of it. But any attempt to change this would be pre-determined as well, but in flux not as end results (you can't say that no matter what you do fate will push you to a certain end for example). Of course it is pointless to assume that God or fate control our lives, because even the process of thinking that and our response to it is source of linear influence.

----------


## dzebra

> Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.


I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.

Do you mean that maybe the believer doesn't know that faith is nothing more than imagination (thus indicating that perhaps the non-believers know more about faith than the believers)? Or are you saying that in addition to the non-believers not knowing what faith is, that the believers also do not know what faith is (possibly because it is very complicated)?

Because believers are known to be the people who have faith, and non-believers are known to be the people who do not have faith (at least faith in God). Therefore the believers would naturally be the only ones who know anything about faith, while the non-believers would have merely hunches about what faith is.

It seems analogous to love. One who does not have love may think he knows about it, but he really doesn't.

----------


## JBI

A mechanic may not own a certain car, but he perhaps knows more about it than someone who does. The I Believe therefore I'm the authority on the subject is rhetoric, a mere sophism.

I deliberately left my point vague, in order to create a thoughtful aporia. In the sense, I read the line the unbeliever doesn't understand faith, and I realized that to be pure rhetoric. I merely pointed out that perhaps the loss, or non-belief in God can come from a realization of the nature of faith, an understanding, rather than an ignorance, as the rhetoric of the post was suggesting.

----------


## The Atheist

> I seem to forget, is this thread on dogma, commandments, or trying to help someone who is non-religious see a different point of view?


None of the above. I thought the original intention was simply to find out what would convince an atheist to accept that god/s exist.

I think there were even some posts on that score! I've seen the same thread idea many times, and there's not much ever comes out of it, because the atheists have only one option: they will believe when it's possible to prove god/s exist.

Theists have the habit of jumping in at that stage and saying, "but a god is already known to exist, because.............." Fair enough, but it never advances the original thought.




> The topic jumps around a lot.


 :FRlol: 

Hey, it's a thread in "Religion" involving atheists and theists, what else would you expect?




> If someone doesn't even see God in nature, how can one convince that person of a God? That hurdle is shocking hard to get through to those who cannot conceive what "Faith" really is.


You'd agree with a friend of mine who recently explained to me that one is only able to see god with "the eyes of a god" (paraphrased badly), which I think is what you mean - we either "see" god, or we don't.

I can't say it's a doctrine which makes any sense to me - but maybe that means it's right!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## NikolaiI

> You'd agree with a friend of mine who recently explained to me that one is only able to see god with "the eyes of a god" (paraphrased badly), which I think is what you mean - we either "see" god, or we don't.
> 
> I can't say it's a doctrine which makes any sense to me - but maybe that means it's right!


God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite.

----------


## Pendragon

> Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.


I will not be the first to say that "Faith is belief without proof." Faith is what allows one to believe what one can never prove. If then I don't know what "Faith" is, I trust you will be able to tell me.  :Smile:

----------


## Jilvin

"God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite."

That is possibly the most vague, ambiguous, desparate, impotent, and hastily contrived rationalization I have seen defending the existence of God.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite."
> 
> That is possibly the most vague, ambiguous, desparate, impotent, and hastily contrived rationalization I have seen defending the existence of God.


Well, Jilvin, despite your rather glib dismissal of Nikolai's statment, it does not appear to be an argument/defense for the existence for God so much as it is a commentary about how we "see" God. 

Really, you might want to be clear on the nature of a post before you simply attempt to define it as meaningless. Nothing Nikolai said indicated that he was in process of "proving" the existence of God - he was merely talking about the difficulty finite beings have of comprehending that which is infinite.

----------


## Mathor

If you believe something it's a belief. How much science have we actually seen firsthand, actually looked at the original documents, at the original research? 

I believe even the atheist knows much of faith, because he practices it on a daily basis. He has proven nothing to himself or anyone just as a religious man has proven nothing to himself. Life is a product of faith.

EDIT:

Isn't the belief in an absence in a religion a belief in itself? and what proof is there that there is no God at all? Asking a person to prove something that is beyond their means is a hard task, so why don't you (as in everyone engaged in this argument) just accept your beliefs and accept the beliefs of others as it is something that has no real merit besides in the view of the subject and how they percieve what they believe.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If you believe something it's a belief. How much science have we actually seen firsthand, actually looked at the original documents, at the original research? 
> 
> I believe even the atheist knows much of faith, because he practices it on a daily basis. He has proven nothing to himself or anyone just as a religious man has proven nothing to himself. Life is a product of faith.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Isn't the belief in an absence in a religion a belief in itself? and what proof is there that there is no God at all? Asking a person to prove something that is beyond their means is a hard task, so why don't you (as in everyone engaged in this argument) just accept your beliefs and accept the beliefs of others as it is something that has no real merit besides in the view of the subject and how they percieve what they believe.


Well said, except that atheists apparently believe that because God can't be proven that He can't exist - though - as you correctly state - much of what we take for granted as "reality" has not been conclusively proven to us in an empirical manner. Many people subject God to a much more stringent "proof standard" than anything else in life that they easily accept on the basis of faith (like abiogenesis, for instance).

----------


## NikolaiI

There is a story, of a monk and a mathematician. The mathematician and the monk were friends, they enjoyed discussions and meals; the mathematician said he enjoyed the monk's company and many things about the religious life he led, but he was never convinced, and he remained a skeptic. The monk did not press him. But then, the mathematician invited the monk to the opening of a building which he had designed. When they got there, the monk said he would not go in. He did not trust the design, which he said might collapse. He asked the mathematician to prove to him that the building was stable. The mathematician said it was, in fact he could prove it. However, the monk did not have enough background in math to understand the proofs, it was far beyond him. The point is that there is proof of God, but we must have a great deal of background, wisdom, knowledge or understanding before we can understand it.

----------


## jakobmuller

> There is a story, of a monk and a mathematician. The mathematician and the monk were friends, they enjoyed discussions and meals; the mathematician said he enjoyed the monk's company and many things about the religious life he led, but he was never convinced, and he remained a skeptic. The monk did not press him. But then, the mathematician invited the monk to the opening of a building which he had designed. When they got there, the monk said he would not go in. He did not trust the design, which he said might collapse. He asked the mathematician to prove to him that the building was stable. The mathematician said it was, in fact he could prove it. However, the monk did not have enough background in math to understand the proofs, it was far beyond him. The point is that there is proof of God, but we must have a great deal of background, wisdom, knowledge or understanding before we can understand it.


why is it than whenever i hear one of these religious stories, they have some of the most ridiculously flawed logic I've ever heard? The one about the barber is even worse than this though.

the monk does not need an ounce of imagination or hallucination for that matter to see that the building, is, in fact, standing. 

Who writes this stuff?

----------


## NikolaiI

The question was not is it standing now, but will it stand in the future? The monk wanted proof that it would stand in the future, that it would be safe, that it could be trusted. The mathematician had the proof, and began to explain it, but the monk didn't know the requried mathematics to understand it. In the same way, there is proof of God, but it isn't obvious. It requires devotion to see God. For instance, a murderer might say he is with God, but he is only having a hallucination, for one must be pure to know God.

----------


## grotto

If you believe in God, or not, why does it matter to you if someone believes the opposite? Does the opposite view threaten your belief or make it stronger? Is your belief nothing but a wall you hide behind, a safe little cocoon you must protect at all cost? Is it a place to throw stones from, go on the offense if an infidel should pass by? 

What is the advantage of taking a stance in a belief? When you sit quietly in your own thoughts, who is it that is attacking your beliefs? Are your thoughts just concerned with proving why others are wrong? If so, that is hardly a belief worth living a life for. What a waste of precious time.

----------


## Rorshach69

> Why must someone convince you - I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.


Well if nobody gives a **** then why do you get a bunch of lame people trying so damn hard to convert people who don't believe what they believe

----------


## jakobmuller

> The question was not is it standing now, but will it stand in the future? The monk wanted proof that it would stand in the future, that it would be safe, that it could be trusted. The mathematician had the proof, and began to explain it, but the monk didn't know the requried mathematics to understand it. In the same way, there is proof of God, but it isn't obvious. It requires devotion to see God. For instance, a murderer might say he is with God, but he is only having a hallucination, for one must be pure to know God.


i would assume it takes devotion as well to understand the mathematics and architecture of the building.

----------


## NikolaiI

God is Truth. God is Love. God is the source of all that exists. It's an interesting question of whether God exists or not. I don't come to these threads in the forum to prove others wrong, grotto. I do because I wish to encourage people to enquire about God, and the soul, etc. If people can come to know what they truly are - which is more than an ego - they are that much closer to knowing God.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> If you believe in God, or not, why does it matter to you if someone believes the opposite? Does the opposite view threaten your belief or make it stronger? Is your belief nothing but a wall you hide behind, a safe little cocoon you must protect at all cost? Is it a place to throw stones from, go on the offense if an infidel should pass by? 
> 
> What is the advantage of taking a stance in a belief? When you sit quietly in your own thoughts, who is it that is attacking your beliefs? Are your thoughts just concerned with proving why others are wrong? If so, that is hardly a belief worth living a life for. What a waste of precious time.


But most of what you say applies to many of the atheists too. Why are there so many atheists going on the religious section of the forum with the clear and express intent of starting fights with religious people (usually Christian)?

I thought JBI's frustration with what he felt were posts trying to convert him was an interesting point. Yet . . .

No one is trying to convert you if you aren't reading the posts in the first place. How hard is it to just ignore a post and not come to the religious forum if it bothers people so much?

----------


## jon1jt

> Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.


In the NT the Pharasees ask exactly that of Jesus, who refuses on the grounds that they are non-believers. I betcha if they had asked David Copperfield, he would have showed them his magic.

----------


## grotto

> But most of what you say applies to many of the atheists too. Why are there so many atheists going on the religious section of the forum with the clear and express intent of starting fights with religious people (usually Christian)?
> 
> I thought JBI's frustration with what he felt were posts trying to convert him was an interesting point. Yet . . .
> 
> No one is trying to convert you if you aren't reading the posts in the first place. How hard is it to just ignore a post and not come to the religious forum if it bothers people so much?


I know this wasn't for me but, I thought I would add, I didn’t single out any sect, atheists, agnostics, Christian, it doesn’t matter; my question was why and what is the reason you need so hard to express your personal belief? It’s a valid question. I have no axe to grind, no horse in this race, I’m just asking a question. The vocal atheist is no different than the vocal Christian; they validate the existence of God by trying to prove that no God exists. Think about it, are there any special meeting groups for the “Truth Against Tooth Fairies”?

I have no interest in converting anyone to anything. I don’t care if this battle rages for months on this forum. I asked a different type of question, that’s all, I picked no side. I usually do ignore these types of threads, but hey, I was bored at work so I thought I would see what the fuss was about. Low and behold! It’s the same fuss that I have been hearing all of my life. I still think it’s a waste of precious time, but it’s slow at work right now, so I have the time. 




> God is Truth. God is Love. God is the source of all that exists. It's an interesting question of whether God exists or not. I don't come to these threads in the forum to prove others wrong, grotto. I do because I wish to encourage people to enquire about God, and the soul, etc. If people can come to know what they truly are - which is more than an ego - they are that much closer to knowing God.


So, this is a polite way to push your beliefs on people then. If you truly believe this, then you know, no matter how much you try, you will never be able to convince someone who doesn’t believe your idea. In one sentence, you describe what God is, then, you go on to say “I wish to encourage others to enquire about God”. Why do you feel the need to encourage anyone? I’m not being insulting, I’m asking, who are you? Why should anyone do as you? If their enquiry finds something different than yours, are they wrong then? My enquiry has gone far beyond what your ideal is, does that make me wrong in your eyes?

Dressing God up as Truth, Love and all that exists sounds all nice, warm and fuzzy I agree, but if in your words, “God is the source of all that exists” Than how do you explain, hatred, greed, envy, famine, war and every other so called thing that causes us pain in our lives? You can’t conveniently separate those things and say they are man made when in the previous sentence you say God is the source of all that exists. Setting the good against the bad keeps the dualism alive, attaching to one validates the other. You can’t separate them, that is the illusion.

----------


## NikolaiI

> So, this is a polite way to push your beliefs on people then. If you truly believe this, then you know, no matter how much you try, you will never be able to convince someone who doesn’t believe your idea. In one sentence, you describe what God is, then, you go on to say “I wish to encourage others to enquire about God”. Why do you feel the need to encourage anyone? I’m not being insulting, I’m asking, who are you? Why should anyone do as you? If their enquiry finds something different than yours, are they wrong then? My enquiry has gone far beyond what your ideal is, does that make me wrong in your eyes?
> 
> Dressing God up as Truth, Love and all that exists sounds all nice, warm and fuzzy I agree, but if in your words, “God is the source of all that exists” Than how do you explain, hatred, greed, envy, famine, war and every other so called thing that causes us pain in our lives? You can’t conveniently separate those things and say they are man made when in the previous sentence you say God is the source of all that exists. Setting the good against the bad keeps the dualism alive, attaching to one validates the other. You can’t separate them, that is the illusion.


I did not say you were wrong. 

God is Infinite. I do not have time now, but I will write more later. 

Please show respect. I will do the same.

----------


## grotto

I fully intend to show respect, I have no reason to do otherwise. If there is a debate, there is always the chance of someone becoming upset. I apologize if you think I am coming off as aggressive, Im not.

----------


## PeterL

This string is mildly interesting. It reminds me of an online discussion in which people tried to prove that "God" existed. None of the attempts even came close to proving the existence of an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god, but there were some arguments that may have proven that one or more smaller gods existed, of God of the Solar system of God of te planet.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.
> 
> 1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
> 
> I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling
> 
> 2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.
> 
> A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.


1. I'll start at the top. Do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls (found in the 1960's) verified the ancient Biblical texts, almost to the letter? Have you read Isaiah 53, which contains prophecies of Christ written hundreds of year before Christ lived?
2. The creation account in the Bible matches what science has found as the order of creation. How did the authors know the order in which animals were created?

----------


## NikolaiI

> I fully intend to show respect, I have no reason to do otherwise. If there is a debate, there is always the chance of someone becoming upset. I apologize if you think I am coming off as aggressive, Im not.


No problem. 

Okay, I shall state my position. God is infinite. We do not see God because of our current consciousness. There are several different levels of consciousness, such as unconsciousness, gross physical consciousness, subtle consciousness, mental consciousness, and spiritual, or unbound consciousness. Each of these levels has a difficult time perceiving the higher level. For instance, gross consciousness has a difficult time perceiving subtle or mental consciousness. And mental consciousness has a difficult time perceiving what is spiritual, because it is beyond the conceptual thought which it believes to be the sum of reality.

Mystics of every religion, it is safe to say, have said very similar things. Basically my position is that God (Infinite, Truth) is One, while there are many interpretations. God is like on another side of a barrier from us. Although this barrier is only our own limitations and consciousness. But it seems like God is on another side of a barrier; this is why we ask "Where is God?" Because in our mental or material conceptions, we do not see God and we doubt the existence of an Infinite One. 

Anyhow, further, we have a feeling of an ego, and we have feelings of limitations. If we set God aside for a moment, there is still this. We feel we are separate. You and I spoke of this on another thread. In Buddhism and Hinduism this is called Samsara or Maya. In the Vedas it is called the "Dream of separateness." In Buddhism the goal of the path is Awakening, or Enlightenment, beyond all, and realization of one's Buddha-nature. In Hinduism the goal is Self-realization or God-realization. 

For many, especially in the West, Buddhism has become less and less, and they discard out of hand anything mystical. However, it is my understanding that the mystical part of it is essential. The Buddha-nature is not something which cannot be grasped, it is actually something entirely graspable. It is pushed away from us all the time, we are always being practical. But one big part of Buddhism, and indeed of any philosophy or religion is understand the question of reality, ourselves, and truth. As we said, the question "Who am I?" is so essential.

To go back to God, my understanding that God is One. God is Infinite Light. In Buddhism there is a Buddha called Amitabha Buddha, Buddha of Infinite Light. The question of what is reality is kind of involved in Buddhism. However in my view it is Infinite Light. In Hinduism, this is taken to be understood as Deities; Krishna, Ram. The essence of God is understood to be Infinite consciousness, knowledge, bliss, etc. Hinduism and Buddhism each look at the Ultimate Truth, or the Source, God, by whatever name you will call it, and each have their own perspective. In Pure Land Buddhism there are numerless Pure Lands, with numerless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Again this is discarded by many who seek Buddhism. That is fine. I believe it is an accurate description of what God (Infinite Light) is.

Finally, and this is the main thing. When I said those mystics have said similar things about God, what I mean is... well, have you read "The Dream of A Ridiculus Man" by Dostoevsky? What the mystics describe is the light of God, of Brahman, or Atman. They say that nothing can die. Vivekananda has a good quote which is illustrative.




> There is hope for all. None can die; none can be degraded forever. Life is but a playground, however gross the play may be. However we may receive blows, and however knocked about we may be, the Atman is there and is never injured. We are that Infinite.


I am not sure if it was perhaps Sri Aurobindo, who said also, "pain and suffering are only the extremes in this play."

So you ask, how can there be God if there is suffering? Well, the answer coming from the "other side," is basically, be at peace, be happy, don't worry... it is an understanding of truth which cannot be expressed, which is always flowing. The infinite flow of the spirit. It is basically, be at peace, because; the universe is empty, your suffiering will cease while you are eternal. How to explain "Life is a game," "Life is a play"? How to say that life is illusion? Well, the thing is, we are eternal. What happens to eternal beings temporarily does not register, it is fleeting illusion. We are the eternal Atman, soul. 

I do apologize since this wasn't entirely cohesive. Just trying to get my thoughts into the post.

Basically the message from the otherside is "This is what Awakening is, be at peace because you are an eternal soul, the same essence as God." To sum up my position, our true nature is the eternal Atman, which is of the same essence as God.

George Harrison said more than once, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God, that cannot wait."

Here is the thing, and you said you do believe this. We are not separate from the world, or from the universe. But if this is true, if we are not separate, why do we feel separate? Einstein said, we feel separate as sort of an optical delusion of consciousness. But doesn't this mean it is rather important to know, to find out? Doesn't this make you wonder, what is it possible to be?

We are part of the universe, we part of reality, and complete self-knowledge is our inheritance. We don't die any more than God or the universe dies. Our source is the source of reality, and how can something go to somewhere other than its source? How can we go anywhere but to our source? All reality has one source, and nothing can ever be separate from this source. In my knowledge, that source is God.

Anyway, since we are the same nature as God, since who we really are is the divine soul; we are not fully satisfied until we are perfectly situatdd in self-knowledge, self-surrender, self-realization, or God-realization (all of which are quite similar terms).

This is why as George said, the search cannot wait. If we are heirs to truth, how can we be satsified with anything except truth, and peace?


The question is not: "How can God exist if there is suffering?" The question is: "What exists?" "Who am I?" "What is reality?" "What is God?" The question is not, "Can [this] exist while [this other] exists;" but rather, "What exists?" "What is true?"

"What exists" and "What is true" is not dependent on you, me, your actions or my actions, or the actions of all humanity. Hope that you can see my point.

----------


## grotto

> No problem. 
> 
> Okay, I shall state my position. God is infinite. We do not see God because of our current consciousness. There are several different levels of consciousness, such as unconsciousness, gross physical consciousness, subtle consciousness, mental consciousness, and spiritual, or unbound consciousness. Each of these levels has a difficult time perceiving the higher level. For instance, gross consciousness has a difficult time perceiving subtle or mental consciousness. And mental consciousness has a difficult time perceiving what is spiritual, because it is beyond the conceptual thought which it believes to be the sum of reality.
> 
> So you ask, how can there be God if there is suffering? Well, the answer coming from the "other side," is basically, be at peace, be happy, don't worry... it is an understanding of truth which cannot be expressed, which is always flowing. The infinite flow of the spirit. It is basically, be at peace, because; the universe is empty, your suffiering will cease while you are eternal. How to explain "Life is a game," "Life is a play"? How to say that life is illusion? Well, the thing is, we are eternal. What happens to eternal beings temporarily does not register, it is fleeting illusion. We are the eternal Atman, soul. 
> 
> Basically the message from the otherside is "This is what Awakening is, be at peace because you are an eternal soul, the same essence as God." To sum up my position, our true nature is the eternal Atman, which is of the same essence as God.
> 
> The question is not: "How can God exist if there is suffering?" The question is: "What exists?" "Who am I?" "What is reality?" "What is God?" The question is not, "Can [this] exist while [this other] exists;" but rather, "What exists?" "What is true?"
> ...


Just to make a quick comment on some of your last post. Please see this as a compliment; it is not aggressive in any way. Your age is your advantage; dont allow your ideas and intelligence to keep you from seeing wisdom. Dont miss the forest for the trees. 

My point in throwing a wrench into this is, you state what God is and then proceed to go on a long winded way of telling me why we cant see who God is. Endlessly describing states of consciousness that you have only read about, other peoples ideas, and the like to prove why it is that we do not see what god is. By the way, more people than George Harrison have said that, he is no one special, same with Einstein. Quoting others only helps to keep you removed from your own truth. When you point to anothers ideas, you can safely remove responsibility of your own thought. 

How do you know what the message is from the other side? All I hear is verbiage from an intelligent, well read young person with a quest for knowledge that is getting bogged down in endless ideas from other people, words spoken from who knows who, from times past and much of it of dubious origin that you assume to be true because it fits your current state of identifiable consciousness. Show me that state of consciousness! Where is this scale that its measured against! So who are you? How would you seek God if you could not hear or see, if no one elses ideas bogged you down and sent you off on tangents? 

So where do I stand? Life is to be experienced in this current form, it is not a thing to escape from, its a thing to be awakened to.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Just to make a quick comment on some of your last post. Please see this as a compliment; it is not aggressive in any way. Your age is your advantage; don’t allow your ideas and intelligence to keep you from seeing wisdom. Don’t miss the forest for the trees. 
> 
> My point in throwing a wrench into this is, you state what God is and then proceed to go on a long winded way of telling me why we can’t see who God is. Endlessly describing states of consciousness that you have only read about, other people’s ideas, and the like to prove why it is that we do not see what god is. By the way, more people than George Harrison have said that, he is no one special, same with Einstein. Quoting others only helps to keep you removed from your own truth. When you point to another’s ideas, you can safely remove responsibility of your own thought. 
> 
> How do you know what the message is from the other side? All I hear is verbiage from an intelligent, well read young person with a quest for knowledge that is getting bogged down in endless ideas from other people, words spoken from who knows who, from times past and much of it of dubious origin that you assume to be true because it fits your current state of identifiable consciousness. Show me that state of consciousness! Where is this scale that it’s measured against! So who are you? How would you seek God if you could not hear or see, if no one else’s ideas bogged you down and sent you off on tangents? 
> 
> So where do I stand? Life is to be experienced in this current form, it is not a thing to escape from, it’s a thing to be awakened to.


No, again, I was quoting George as an expression of my own thought. 

As they say, all this is something which can't be taught, but has to be realized.

You do get down to the heart or the crux of the matter. I can't really avoid telling you at this point, although this may derail it. Everything I described is not something which I have only read about, I wouldn't have written it then. I have experienced these states of consciousness which I described - divine consciousness. I have experienced Awakening in the Buddhist understanding, as well as divine revelation in the Hindu understanding.

You may not believe me, that is fine. I will go elsewhere if you don't wish to discuss anymore. 

I quote people like Vivekananda beause, as I said, most mystics have described things which are the same, in a certain similar manner. I woulnd't perhaps believe them except that I experienced too what they described. In one case, word for word, the description of this writer was what I experienced.

Perhaps Buddha-nature, perhaps Atman, the soul, are only our interpretations of it. It is clear that we, by logical thinking, should be of the same nature as the rest of the universe - energy, or light. A photon of light is eternal, it never ceases to exist, but it merely changes form. We are thus the same, also eternal. Some think we lose our individuality, some don't ponder. For me, I think it is absurd to think that we are supreme in the universe, which appears to be the stance taken by atheists. I believe we are a part of a universe which was created from the Infinite Light, which is not unconscious, which is not less than us, but we are part of the Upper Force, if you will, of the Divine.

Anyway you ask how do I know what is the message coming from the Divine, I hope I have explained that to you a bit.

No Einstein was not that special, nor was he the most advanced spiritually, etc. George Harrison was not special because he said that. George was deeper spiritually than perhaps you will ever know. Of course he probably wouldn't wish to be thought of like that, as he was unfailingly humble, but it is true about him.

Yes these have been some tangents, please forgive me for that. Sorry I didn't answer all your questions. As for your request of me to show you that state of consciousness - I can't show it to you. I do hope you, and all, find what I have found some day.


And I am aware that others have said what I have said before. I am aware that there is nothing new under the sun. But they are dead now, and they are not here. Also, when one learns something, discovers something for oneself, even if it has been discovered before, then they are being original. But then I did read that somewhere, so maybe it is taking me further from truth to agree with it and repeat it.

----------


## grotto

It does not matter what I believe or what anyone else believes, its what you believe. Belief I have come to know is a hindering word.

Those who know, do not say, those who say, do not know. Yet! Some one had to start the ball rolling and so it goes. 

This thread has been derailed enough; I wish you the best in your quest. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming already in process.  :Tongue:

----------


## Lynne Fees

> It does not matter what I believe or what anyone else believes, its what you believe. Belief I have come to know is a hindering word.
> 
> Those who know, do not say, those who say, do not know. Yet! Some one had to start the ball rolling and so it goes. 
> 
> This thread has been derailed enough; I wish you the best in your quest. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming already in process.


My post was short - do you have time to answer it?

----------


## grotto

> My post was short - do you have time to answer it?



Nope, sorry, I have no interest. :Wink:

----------


## krymsonkyng

> 2. The creation account in the Bible matches what science has found as the order of creation. How did the authors know the order in which animals were created?


It skips a few steps like "swarmers" (aquatic and flying), that is land critters should be after the sea critters but before the flying variety but biblicly come at the end, Genesis 1.21-24. That and the astrology is off in that the sky considered firmament, the sun and stars come after light, day and night etc. I dunno. Maybe he built the physics before the physical, but then he created heavens and earth first.


Not sure about the dead sea scrolls confirming anything more than they and the bible were written centuries ago. Though you may have something there...

----------


## Musicology

The greatest evidence against atheists is their complete failure to get their story straight.

----------


## The Atheist

> The greatest evidence against atheists is their complete failure to get their story straight.


Sorry, but I don't understand this at all.

What story is there to "get straight"?

An atheist - and I speak with some authority on the subject - is someone who *does not believe in god/s*.

The simple answer is that anyone not conforming to that sentence isn't an atheist, and since it's the only criterion, I really don't know which story you might mean.

----------


## soundofmusic

:Confused:  Do Atheist begin as such; or are they created?

----------


## OrphanPip

I would contend that most babies don't spring out of the womb reciting the Gospel of St. John.

----------


## The Atheist

> Do Atheist begin as such; or are they created?


Saved me the trouble!




> I would contend that most babies don't spring out of the womb reciting the Gospel of St. John.



 :Smile:

----------


## soundofmusic

> Saved me the trouble!


 :Confused:  Sorry if I am asking a stupid question; but what creates an Atheist? Is it a strict, fundamentalist faith that lets one down (as well as the people one trusts) Is it the unfairness of life; some enjoying abundance while others suffering starvation, disease, etc. Is it that when one listens to religious conversation; it seems to be some sort of circular logic that really answers nothing...taking a person around until dizzy and leaving them back to the beginning of the conversation. Is it that while most God images are supposed to be the creator of all mankind; he is unfair: favoring one group of people while making others suffer. Is it because he takes a sadistic delight in making man suffer with his mind games: as with Abraham and Isaac or Job. Is it that, for Christian doctorines, Gods morals and ethics change over time even if God does not.
I myself am not an Atheist; neither do I buy into such belief systems; So please, give me your opinions. I am not putting anyone or any faith down; merely curious

----------


## The Atheist

> Sorry if I am asking a stupid question; but what creates an Atheist? Is it a strict, fundamentalist faith that lets one down (as well as the people one trusts) Is it the unfairness of life; some enjoying abundance while others suffering starvation, disease, etc. Is it that when one listens to religious conversation; it seems to be some sort of circular logic that really answers nothing...taking a person around until dizzy and leaving them back to the beginning of the conversation. Is it that while most God images are supposed to be the creator of all mankind; he is unfair: favoring one group of people while making others suffer. Is it because he takes a sadistic delight in making man suffer with his mind games: as with Abraham and Isaac or Job. Is it that, for Christian doctorines, Gods morals and ethics change over time even if God does not.
> I myself am not an Atheist; neither do I buy into such belief systems; So please, give me your opinions. I am not putting anyone or any faith down; merely curious


All or any of the above.

I know atheists who, like myself, decided at around the same age that Santa and god/s were both the same type of myth and never bothered with theism at all. I know others who were christian for many years before becoming atheist. 

Some atheists come from strong christian families, while some christians grew up devoid of god/s.

There is no single factor which unites atheists in any way beyond that one little phrase; "I do not believe in god/s."

From there, there are no common paths. We don't have a common answer for what life, the universe and everything actually is and is up to, we don't have a common theory for the origin of life, and we certainly don't have any common ground on how to deal with theists.

The philately argument works fine for atheists. While you can classify philatelists as people who collect stamps, you can't group non-philatelists by any other typing.

----------


## The Atheist

I missed this one, and I hate seeing unchallenged assertions lying around.

Especially when they're wrong!




> 1. I'll start at the top. Do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls (found in the 1960's) verified the ancient Biblical texts, almost to the letter? Have you read Isaiah 53, which contains prophecies of Christ written hundreds of year before Christ lived?


If you want to argue biblical accuracy, you'll need to cover the several thousand parts which do not fit.

Besides which, saying Isaiah prophesied Jesus is like trying to make a Nostradamus quatrain predict the 9/11 attacks. It just isn't there.




> 2. The creation account in the Bible matches what science has found as the order of creation. How did the authors know the order in which animals were created?


As we've discussed here previously, this assertion is just wrong. Animalian evolution did not happen in the order of the bible.

----------


## OrphanPip

This presentation from Dr. Laurence Krauss on how the universe can come into existence from nothingness might be interesting for the people in this thread. He is presenting it in layman terms in a very charismatic manner, he's a great speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Imvl...layer_embedded

----------

