Battleground God...
Sep. 28th, 2003 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skkyechanWow, this is really interesting! Unfortunately, I think I took more damage than I should have. Here are my points of contention-- and the logic that supports my decision!
[LJ-CUT text="Ouch..."]
You're under fire!
You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.
Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
Needless to say, I bit the bullet on that one. Didn't affect my health any-- which it shouldn't, darn it!
Question 11
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
My answer: True. I really don't like the way they word this question, as it has the potentiallity to really skew someones answer-- as we soon see.
You've just bitten a bullet!
Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose.
Well, just because people cannot accept what I have just accepted doesn't mean I'm in the logistical wrong, so to speak. And, correction-- He didn't create the world in a way where pain, suffering, and death, is required. That's Evolution's tale. God created a perfect world, and we screwed it up. And continue to screw it up. So, hardly fair to claim that it's okay under one auspice (evolution) but not under another (Creation)-- but that's probably because it would be our fault in the latter.
There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?
Oh, and telling them that their suffering is completely for naught, and it doesn't matter anyway because their genetic/lucky lottery just happened to fail them? I mean, that's what Evolution would say. Sorry, you're a genetic dead-end. No consolation prize, either. Aaaand, God doesn't want His creation to suffer. Aaaaaaaand, He gives us the ultimate way out-- through Him, into Heaven. So, whatever suffering we happen to go through in this world will be nothing compared to an eternity of joy. I could go on in more detail, but it would take more theological and philosophical work than I have the mental capacity for at the moment.
No fair, since I took slight damage on that one.
Question 12
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
My answer: False-- however, only if we're talking about my God, the God of the Bible.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist.
And I stand by that claim!
But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.
I would argue that this goes against the very nature of God, and all He stands for. If the Bible says that God is perfect, just, loving, and a God of Order-- not chaos-- (among other things) then He would not make murdering good and worshipping bad. That would go against His nature, and therefore be a contradiction-- something that could not happen if He was perfect.
Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
Oh, that is such a loaded question. It depends on what proof one is willing to accept.
Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
Another tricky one. I really don't like the question-- there's really no logical answer when you consider reality. It's just a big 'What If' question meant to trip you up.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Again, I stand by the observation that God is a God of order and logic-- not chaos. While He certainly would be able to create a universe and have it function under those principles-- that is not how He chose to do it. Entertaining the idea of God creating illogical circumstances--as far as we can see it--goes against logic itself. This quiz is full of anti-Christian umbrella statements. ;p
In short, I survived with the TPM service medal.
"You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullets.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!"
So, yeah. While it's a very interesting quiz, it's too heavily biased against those who actually believe in the God of the Bible for my liking. One of the stats was that "46.71% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction." I'd be willing to bet money that most of those people are atheist.
[LJ-CUT text="Ouch..."]
You're under fire!
You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:
Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.
Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
Needless to say, I bit the bullet on that one. Didn't affect my health any-- which it shouldn't, darn it!
Question 11
People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
My answer: True. I really don't like the way they word this question, as it has the potentiallity to really skew someones answer-- as we soon see.
You've just bitten a bullet!
Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose.
Well, just because people cannot accept what I have just accepted doesn't mean I'm in the logistical wrong, so to speak. And, correction-- He didn't create the world in a way where pain, suffering, and death, is required. That's Evolution's tale. God created a perfect world, and we screwed it up. And continue to screw it up. So, hardly fair to claim that it's okay under one auspice (evolution) but not under another (Creation)-- but that's probably because it would be our fault in the latter.
There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?
Oh, and telling them that their suffering is completely for naught, and it doesn't matter anyway because their genetic/lucky lottery just happened to fail them? I mean, that's what Evolution would say. Sorry, you're a genetic dead-end. No consolation prize, either. Aaaand, God doesn't want His creation to suffer. Aaaaaaaand, He gives us the ultimate way out-- through Him, into Heaven. So, whatever suffering we happen to go through in this world will be nothing compared to an eternity of joy. I could go on in more detail, but it would take more theological and philosophical work than I have the mental capacity for at the moment.
No fair, since I took slight damage on that one.
Question 12
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
My answer: False-- however, only if we're talking about my God, the God of the Bible.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist.
And I stand by that claim!
But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.
I would argue that this goes against the very nature of God, and all He stands for. If the Bible says that God is perfect, just, loving, and a God of Order-- not chaos-- (among other things) then He would not make murdering good and worshipping bad. That would go against His nature, and therefore be a contradiction-- something that could not happen if He was perfect.
Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
Oh, that is such a loaded question. It depends on what proof one is willing to accept.
Question 16
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
Another tricky one. I really don't like the question-- there's really no logical answer when you consider reality. It's just a big 'What If' question meant to trip you up.
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Again, I stand by the observation that God is a God of order and logic-- not chaos. While He certainly would be able to create a universe and have it function under those principles-- that is not how He chose to do it. Entertaining the idea of God creating illogical circumstances--as far as we can see it--goes against logic itself. This quiz is full of anti-Christian umbrella statements. ;p
In short, I survived with the TPM service medal.
"You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullets.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!"
So, yeah. While it's a very interesting quiz, it's too heavily biased against those who actually believe in the God of the Bible for my liking. One of the stats was that "46.71% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction." I'd be willing to bet money that most of those people are atheist.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 07:29 am (UTC)This is an interesting way to look at it. =) I "got through" and am definitely not an athiest, but I think an argument could be made for that... not because the quiz is slanted, necessarily, but because religion is in and of itself illogical. After a long time studying it, I don't think there's any way you get around that. If something logically followed from the natural environment, there would be no need for 'faith' in it, and therefore faith itself is anti-logical. This can be viewed as bad or good. ;) Me personally, I believe that faith is an important thing -- that it is important to believe in things that are unprovable.
This quiz itself relied heavily on logical precepts used in metaphysics... the arguments for or against whether god exists. This one:
My answer: True. I really don't like the way they word this question, as it has the potentiallity to really skew someones answer-- as we soon see.
...in particular is the one that for me clinches the non-existence of the Christian god. No matter how you slice it, either God is not infallible or is not benevolent. Why? Babies born without hearts, multiple schlerosis, AIDS reaching pandemic levels in Africa -- the myriad horrible things that happen to totally undeserving people. I SO do not buy the "the baby wasn't baptized so it goes to hell" notion; I don't believe that there is any possible way that a newborn child who has done nothing in the world is anything but innocent. But they die and suffer every day. Either God has the power to stop this and doesn't, or doesn't have that power, and in either case the Christian dogma is invalid. In philosophy it's referred to as the "problem of evil", and in my experience it's the ones that most Christians balk heavily at even facing. =/
You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist.
This I totally disagree with, but that's just me. ;) I know far too many intensely moral athiests. Rather than relying on God as a means to justify or excuse sin, athiests take responsibility for their lives. I believe athiesm to be as closed-minded as dogmatic religiousness, but certainly there is a basis for morality without God. I am not moral because I fear the wrath of a higher power -- I'm moral because I believe certain things are right and wrong.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein
...one of my all time favorite dudes. ;) Just some thoughts. Sorry again for not replying on your earlier post dealing with this stuff. =/
Gah! Too verbose... Part I
Date: 2003-09-30 03:29 am (UTC)I'm curious-- what do you follow?
Babies born without hearts, multiple schlerosis, AIDS reaching pandemic levels in Africa -- the myriad horrible things that happen to totally undeserving people.
I don't deny that these are horrible things. It really does suck to open a newspaper and see stories that just get more and more.... heart-rending? However, would it make it easier to bear if viewed through the eyes of Evolution? A cold taskmaster, that. "Too bad, so sad, because you and your husband failed the genetic lottery, you have to watch your newborn baby die. Better luck next time, hey?" And how do you know that those people aren't undeserving? Who can know the depths of a man's heart? There's evil lurking in each and every one of us-- how do we know that the baby without a heart wasn't going to be the next Hitler?
As for multiple sclerosis, I'd say that's due more to a world Fallen due to the wrongdoing of man, than to the cruelty or impotence of my Almight God. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics-- entropy is always increasing. Translation: Things ain't gettin' better. In fact, they're getting worse. They scientifically can't get better. So, what would you expect to see in a Fallen world? A once-perfect creation gets shabbier and shabbier, just like a once-clear picture gets more and more distorted after copies, and then copies of copies, are made.
AIDs is a scary, sucky, and utterly devestating disease. However, one must ask-- how is it being spread? As far as I understand it the most common paths through which it is spread is through sexual promiscuity, sharing of needles, etc, etc. If people abstained from sex, if they didn't do drugs, the disease wouldn't spread as quickly. I'm sure there are more ways to spread the disease than just the two I mentioned, which is why I say it 'wouldn't spread as much', rather than 'not spread at all.'
I SO do not buy the "the baby wasn't baptized so it goes to hell" notion...
Actually, that's not Biblical at all. It says in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." So, straight from the Son of God's mouth-- kids go to heaven.
I don't believe that there is any possible way that a newborn child who has done nothing in the world is anything but innocent.
Well, the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God-- but, I think it's fair to say that a newborn child hasn't the faculties, nor the ability, to do anything sinfull. So, in any case, I'd agree with you there. :)
But they die and suffer every day.
Yes. It's very sad, it's very tragic. It outright royally sucks. However-- that's the way that life is, whether or not you believe in God. So, you can either believe in God, due to other logical conclusions you've come to through other trains of thought, and trust Him on this-- or, you can go it alone, and find cold solace in the argument that "they weren't 'fit' enough to live," which is what evolution offers you.
Either God has the power to stop this and doesn't, or doesn't have that power, and in either case the Christian dogma is invalid.
Now, I follow you for the second part-- that if God didn't have the power to stop the suffering, Christian dogma would be invalid. However, how does His not stopping the suffering invalid? If you have time, a response with your thoughts on this would be appreciated!
In philosophy it's referred to as the "problem of evil", and in my experience it's the ones that most Christians balk heavily at even facing. =/
Yeah-- well, it's a hard argument! This is the stuff that tests one's faith. However, it's also something that most non-Christians balk at. All they can do is shake their heads and wonder why-- and then turn back to their own daily grind, their own secular diversions. It's the only way they can stay sane! I know, I've been there! The only way for a non-theistic person to stay sane in this world is to be numb, to a certain extent, to the pain and suffering of others.
Re: Gah! Too verbose... Part I
Date: 2003-09-30 03:58 am (UTC)I am exceedingly careful NOT to follow. ;)
But more on my beliefs following your next post...
However, would it make it easier to bear if viewed through the eyes of Evolution? A cold taskmaster, that. "Too bad, so sad, because you and your husband failed the genetic lottery, you have to watch your newborn baby die. Better luck next time, hey?"
This is anthropomorphizing a theory, something that isn't supposed to be a belief system in any way, shape, or form. If Darwin was alive today and saw what had been done with his theory (cultural darwinism) he'd have an aneurism. In reality evolution makes no prediction whatsoever for the origin of life, and is in no way counter to the notion of a creator. Evolution is also not reduced simply to survival of the fittest...
how do we know that the baby without a heart wasn't going to be the next Hitler?
Yet Hitler was born, lived, painted, ate his vegetables, and slaughtered millions. Stalin slaughtered more. The Mormons, in the name of their religion, slaughtered thousands upon thousands of Native Americans. The Christians endeavored on a bloody crusade against another religious group almost identical to their own. This is all God's Plan? And yeah, you can say "it's because humanity fell" and that's all well and good, but it still is very squarely a contradiction in terms, between the impossibly coexisting notions of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god.
entropy is always increasing. Translation: Things ain't gettin' better.
That's not entirely accurate... entropy means that a **closed system** will always degrade. The Earth is not a closed system. This is a very common misconception on the part of creation theorists. I am inclined to quote the almighty MC Hawking:
"Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"
God I love that man. That's a side note, though. ;)
If people abstained from sex, if they didn't do drugs, the disease wouldn't spread as quickly.
So God a) created humans, b) gave them a sex drive, and c) punished them for acting on it? Why is it that all things considered "sin" are inherent in human nature? And most of them are actually healthy (masturbation, sex, etc)? I can give you my theory -- religion is ultimately a social tool. It has nothing to do with god. It has to do with controlling people, which is not altogether a bad thing. Nietzsche, while abhoring what Christianity had done to the world, recognized the necessity of religion, because some people can't control themselves. As a corollary to this, religion would arise even if there were no god because it is scientifically, evolutionarily, socially necessary. See later comments. ;)
Argh. at my comment limit too. TBC...
A
Date: 2003-09-30 06:28 am (UTC)I do want to take a quick moment to, before I attempt a response, thank you for talkin' with me on this. This is definetely honing my thoughts, expanding my mind, and giving me an opportunity to talk with a rational person on all sorts of interesting things! n___n
This is anthropomorphizing a theory, something that isn't supposed to be a belief system in any way, shape, or form.
My bad for anthropomorphizing-- although, I think you have to admit that that's a proper paraphrase. n__n;;
I think I have some interesting quotes from Darwin, Huxley, and the crew that might prove that that's exactly what the early proponents of Darwinism were intending-- a belief system to counter that of Christianity. Let me see if I can't scrounge those up and present them in another comment...
If Darwin was alive today and saw what had been done with his theory (cultural darwinism) he'd have an aneurism.
Sadly, I think racism and cultural darwinism are exactly the logical progeny of the Darwinian theory of evolution.
In reality evolution makes no prediction whatsoever for the origin of life, and is in no way counter to the notion of a creator.
Well, as I've argued before, just the manner in which evolution is carried out is counter enough to the God of the Bible that the two cannot coexist logically. As I stated in the previous bout, a god that isn't powerful enough to form a creation without the use of billions of years of pain, suffering, and death, in my estimation is not worthy to be worshipped. That would have to be a sadistic, clumsy, uncaring god of the Galapagos.
Evolution is also not reduced simply to survival of the fittest...
No, but you also cannot remove 'survival from the fittest' from the core of the theory. It's one of the main tenets-- along with the heritability of genes, without which there would be nothing for natural selection to work upon.
Yet Hitler was born, lived, painted, ate his vegetables, and slaughtered millions. Stalin slaughtered more.
Both of whom followed the tenets of evolution. I should tell you about Lysenko and the state of Soviet Russia science sometime. Kind of dry stuff, except for the implications, though... ;p
The Mormons, in the name of their religion, slaughtered thousands upon thousands of Native Americans.
Yes-- in the name of their religion. Two points: a) I know you count Mormons as Christians, but there's really plent of justification to place them, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name a few, in the category of 'cult' rather than 'sects.'
b) They were not following the Bible, they were not being Biblical Christians-- they were doing what they thought was right. Another example of how when man dictates morality, things tend to run amuck.
The Christians endeavored on a bloody crusade against another religious group almost identical to their own.
There are several major differences between Christianity and Islam-- I think it an unfair blanket-statement that you label the two identical just because they're monotheistic. ;) And this is, again, another example of Churchianity-- not Jesus-Christianity. People following what other, fallible people tell them to do. Not people following God, or the Word of God inspired by His Holy Spirit. Every time in history that things went wrong-- 'missionary' work to the Native Americans, the Crusades, etc, etc, has always been when people have put their own paraphrase on God's commandments, and merely used Christianity as a banner-- without following the actual tenets that God set out. There's a big difference between Biblical Christians, and those who are 'cultural' Christians.
This is all God's Plan?
Apparently. This is where faith, born of many other logical conclusions in countless other paths of reasoning, comes in. You do have to trust-- something I still have a hard time with, unfortunately! :/
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 08:24 am (UTC)I think I have some interesting quotes from Darwin, Huxley, and the crew that might prove that that's exactly what the early proponents of Darwinism were intending-- a belief system to counter that of Christianity. Let me see if I can't scrounge those up and present them in another comment...
That would be difficult, considering that his whole family Christian. =/ He steered away from the subject of religion because he believe science should be as free from faith as was possible. The closest you get, that I've ever seen is:
"As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
"...freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science."
Sadly, I think racism and cultural darwinism are exactly the logical progeny of the Darwinian theory of evolution
As I said, a very simplistic and short-term view of evolution, which is vastly incomplete. And this is even assuming the theory of evolution should be projected onto all other social aspects of life, which I think it shouldn't. This is another difference between religion and science: science does not attempt to project its views onto things that are nowhere within the same domain. This is why we have both Newtonian and quantum physics, for example -- because we realize that both models are ultimately incomplete. In contrast, religions as a whole attempt to squash everything into a single dogma, and the result is gross contradiction, inevitably.
Well, as I've argued before, just the manner in which evolution is carried out is counter enough to the God of the Bible
Which one? ;) Whenever I bring up something biblical, you say that it's not Christ so it's not Christianity. ;) Christ was a philosopher who basically charged in and rewrote the bible. Not only that, but his words from the new testament were written and rewritten over again by people who came after him. So we don't really know WHAT he ever really said; we're taking the church's word on it.
But, if you do acknowledge the OT, I'm curious about these entries in it, particularly given that the disciples did in fact say that the OT was the Word of God:
Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God,"
Matthew 4:4: "Scripture proceeds from the mouth of God."
Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
That being said:
Exodus 34:7: God will visit the iniquity of the fathers "upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation."
Ezekial 18:20: "[T]he soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Deuteronomy 28:49-53: "The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far...And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters"
Exodus 32:27: "And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."
Genesis 17:10: "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised."
Galatians 5:2: "Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
Genesis 3:16: "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 08:24 am (UTC)Exodus 20:4: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image..." (yadda; you know this one I'd assume)
Exodus 25:18: "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
Kings 6:28-29: "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."
These are a mere few. =/ Believe me, I have indeed read the Bible... and it's full of countless absurdities, contradictions, and flat-out immoral activity.
Yes-- in the name of their religion. Two points: a) I know you count Mormons as Christians, but there's really plent of justification to place them, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name a few, in the category of 'cult' rather than 'sects.'
b) They were not following the Bible, they were not being Biblical Christians-- they were doing what they thought was right. Another example of how when man dictates morality, things tend to run amuck.
This, I do have a problem with... nothing in all of the Judeo-Christian tradition bothers me more than how all of them fight amongst each other. It's no wonder to me, since you can find justification for just about anything in the Bible, but there is SO MUCH hatred between these groups. I'm also interested in how you differentiate cult from sect from religion. Jesus started a cult. He came in as the messiah of the Jews, practiced Judaism, and then started going against all of their rules (working on the sabbath, various). He waltzed into a Roman city hall and said (paraphrased of course) "You know, I could knock all of this down." So they crucified him. Judas did help, but do you damn an entire freaking religion on the acts of a single individual? Especially considering what the various folk in the bible were up to, with and without the LORD sayething?
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 08:38 am (UTC)Actually, Hitler was a practicing, confirmed Catholic. If you consider the Catholics "cults" rather than "sects," I think you've actually got it backwards. Defining a cult as: "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." -- the Catholics and the Jews and many of what are considered "extremist" Christians are actually following the OT. Fish on Fridays, no working on the Sabbath, all of that is in the bible, along with the baby eating and what-have-you. The only reasonable way to get around any of this is to say that the whole OT is bunk, only the NT is any good -- and Jesus himself is quoted as contradicting explicitly that.
There are several major differences between Christianity and Islam-- I think it an unfair blanket-statement that you label the two identical just because they're monotheistic.
That's actually not why I group them together. ;) Muslims consider themselves Christian, or backwards, whatever you like. They acknowledge Christ as a prophet of Allah (in fact, in the Muslim story, God steps in and switches Judas with Christ, giving Judas Christ's likeness so that Judas is the one who is crucified), and the traditions of both religions have the same origin. Christ = Prophet, "Christian" = follower of Christ, Muslims = Christians.
Origins is something else I wanted to bring up with you. Prior to the birth of Christ, who if I understand correctly you're saying is the only carrier of the True Word, so to speak, there were some fifty or sixty thousand years during which human beings existed. We've proved this, regardless of whether you think the fossils are swapped around to somehow forge evolution. What were they doing all that time? Dinking around? Where was God then? And why the heck was all of Asia left out of the equation, when Buddha reached enlightenment some five or six hundred years before Christ was even born? The arrogance of a religion that says that all of human history before this one specific prophet showed up is totally invalid astounds me, particularly one that asserts that humans were created as a perfect masterpiece.
And I still can't get past the notion that anyone in their right mind can follow the Bible, considering all of what it contains. Like I said, I've read it, and it's a great storybook, I suppose, but Aesop at least has the one-up on the Bible because he wasn't so darn confused about his morals. You'd have to be schizophrenic. And why would any God with any power, not to touch omnipotence, deliver Their word in this way? Is it beyond God's power to speak coherently? If there is all of this confusion, all of this death, all of this fighting even among the proclaimed followers of Christ, and God could show up one day on a mountain, get himself a whole mess of satellite TV signals, and set it all straight -- why doesn't He?
B
Date: 2003-09-30 06:37 am (UTC)However, the entire universe *is* a closed system. And, since the Earth is within said universe, it makes very little sense for life to be evolving-- since that would be an increase in order. Even with energy coming from the sun, matter coming from extrasolar particles, and the like. Besides, how do you explain the Big Bang, then? Everything came from nothing, light and pure energy turned to matter-- that seems to be just as ordered. Things should have been going downhill for a long time....
So God a) created humans, b) gave them a sex drive, and c) punished them for acting on it?
A) Yes, B) Yes, C) No. God did create humans, God did give them a sex drive-- but inbetween b) and c) something really icky happened. Sin entered the world. That screws up everything. So, instead of using sex as the way it was inteded to be-- a man and a woman come together to share the ultimate intimacy, two becoming one-- body, mind, and soul-- and merely turn it into recreation. So, c) should read: and people screwed it up from there, and brought the consequences of their actions down upon themselves.
Why is it that all things considered "sin" are inherent in human nature?
Because the nature of man is to be sinfull. ;) Even though that's not how it was originally intended to be. You can't hold God to our mistakes-- He didn't make it like that originally, we did. (And I can almost anticipate what you'll write in response, but I'll wait and not put words in your mouth-- just in case I'm wrong. Which has a tendency to happen. n__n;; )
And most of them are actually healthy (masturbation, sex, etc)?
Healthy how-so? Just curious on what levels-- mentally, emotionally, etc. Why is it considered healthy? Just want to get your definitions, so I know where you're coming from, and there's as little misunderstanding as possible.
I can give you my theory -- religion is ultimately a social tool. It has nothing to do with god. It has to do with controlling people, which is not altogether a bad thing. Nietzsche, while abhoring what Christianity had done to the world, recognized the necessity of religion, because some people can't control themselves. As a corollary to this, religion would arise even if there were no god because it is scientifically, evolutionarily, socially necessary. See later comments. ;)
See my response with your later comments! ;D
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 08:44 am (UTC)So all of the animals, God's creations "unfallen", that engage in sex for recreation (chimpanzees, dolphins, the entire macaw family) are evil?
You can't hold God to our mistakes-- He didn't make it like that originally, we did.
God made us, God is perfect, we were God's masterpiece, but He screwed it up? I might buy the whole Eve-ate-the-fruit thing, but who put the serpent, and the tree, and the fruit there in the first place? And who instilled in humanity the curiosity to take the fruit? That's like taking a dog and a treat, putting the treat in front of the dog, saying "Don't eat it" and then kicking the dog when it does.
Healthy how-so? Just curious on what levels-- mentally, emotionally, etc. Why is it considered healthy? Just want to get your definitions, so I know where you're coming from, and there's as little misunderstanding as possible.
Sex is both physically and emotionally healthy, but as far as masturbation goes, there's a lot of documentation on its health benefits... there are a LOT of articles from multiple medical sources: http://www.allaboutsex.org/masturbationishealthy.html .
Seriously, though, I get a lot of religious people who tell me "Well, it's just more complicated than that" when faced with some of these things. I do enjoy talking about them with you, but I also believe that all of these things are actually very simple.
Re: Gah! Too verbose... Part I
Date: 2003-09-30 04:00 am (UTC)It's an old testament thing, and both Mormons and Baptists (which I consider Christian, the factionization and hatred between Christian groups is another matter) believe that if a human being is not baptized they will not go to Heaven, but remain in Purgatory. In the case of babies, they can never leave purgatory. Mormons actually have an interesting custom of getting baptized FOR other people -- I knew folk in high school who did it once a week.
So, you can either believe in God, due to other logical conclusions you've come to through other trains of thought, and trust Him on this-- or, you can go it alone, and find cold solace in the argument that "they weren't 'fit' enough to live," which is what evolution offers you.
Whereas I would say that believing in the Christian god, and an "ultimate plan", is a very complex self delusion that ultimately leads to self-loathing and depression -- is it not more tragic that a creator, against whom we are grains of sand, sees fit to torture without giving reasons why?
I also don't in any way think that the answer you offer is what evolution gives you. Again, I disagree with anthropomorphizing evolution at all -- it would be like saying that physical law wants you to eat fish on Fridays, it's just absurd. In my entirely non-Christian brain, when I hear about these horrible things happening all over the world, I don't sit back and say "God has a plan." I try to help where I can, and mourn where I cannot. Blaming the troubles on the world on a deity that (at least to me) is quite obviously not omnipotent seems awfully irresponsible and unfair to the deity.
Now, I follow you for the second part-- that if God didn't have the power to stop the suffering, Christian dogma would be invalid. However, how does His not stopping the suffering invalid? If you have time, a response with your thoughts on this would be appreciated!
This part is simple... it doesn't invalidate omnipotency, it invalidates benevolence. Either god is omnipotent or benevolent, but by necessity not both, if evil exists in the world. You can twist around the definition of 'benevolent', but no matter how you cut it, if God has the power to end suffering and does not, and that suffering exists where it is wholly and 100% undeserved by any definition, that deity is not benevolent. I prefer to believe that if there is a creator, and if They give two shits about the human race, they are benevolent but simply not omnipotent. My graduate thesis will be titled "The Problem with Perfection" and will outline why the notion of an omnipotent deity has actually led to the downfall of renaissance society.
However, it's also something that most non-Christians balk at. All they can do is shake their heads and wonder why-- and then turn back to their own daily grind, their own secular diversions.
I think you give non-Christians WAAAAY too little credit. ;) It might be worth your while to study Buddhism, which Christ himself it is highly likely studied. Buddhism has no god, yet is intensely moral, and intensely, intensely empathetic to the suffering of humanity, which is what it revolves around. Buddha was a brilliant man. If you'd like I can do an entire 'nother comment covering its basics, but it's a complicated subject... took me a couple of years before I fully understood the basics alone.
It's the only way they can stay sane! I know, I've been there! The only way for a non-theistic person to stay sane in this world is to be numb, to a certain extent, to the pain and suffering of others.
Again, I would disagree... I think God is in a way a buffer between humans and suffering. The Christian religion gives people a way to sin and be forgiven -- not by God but by other humans. And I cannot emphasize this enough -- there are so, so many philosophies and modes of thought that deal with these issues and yet are absent the contradictions rampantly inherent in Christianity. Some of the religious ones have their own contradictions, but they are fewer.
C
Date: 2003-09-30 06:53 am (UTC)Do you happen to know where in the OT? I'd be very interested in looking up the verses and reading it in context!
Mormons and Baptists may be following Churchianity, rather than Biblical Christianity-- as I mentioned earlier. It's sucky when the whole thing gets umbrella-statemented just because a few people don't read their Bible enough.
In the case of babies, they can never leave purgatory. Mormons actually have an interesting custom of getting baptized FOR other people -- I knew folk in high school who did it once a week.
Mormons are weird. But, that's another topic all together! ;D
Whereas I would say that believing in the Christian god, and an "ultimate plan", is a very complex self delusion that ultimately leads to self-loathing and depression -- is it not more tragic that a creator, against whom we are grains of sand, sees fit to torture without giving reasons why?
I'm curious-- how do you think it leads to self-loathing and depression? I'm just very intrigued, and want to follow your train of logic, since I know you have one. n__n
Well, Job had to deal with all sorts of bad stuff. And at the end, God actually comes to him, in the visage of a whirlwind. But, instead of offering an explanation as to why Job had to go through all the suffering, all that he had to-- He turns around and asks Job, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." And onward goes the liturgy of just a few chapters of the wonders that God has done, that we simply take for granted, as far as creation goes. And in the end, Job-- who never lost faith, who continued to trust in God-- says "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee... I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefor I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Heh, so even though Job suffered all the bad stuff, he repented. Why? 'Cuz he knew that before the glory of God, he was so small, so poor, so wretched. And yet, God-- who owes us *nothing*-- still cares for us, still loves us, and actively pursues us. He sent His Son-- an aspect of Himself-- to die, and make propitiation for all our sins-- just so we could be with Him! He's never left us, never forsaken us-- no matter how we turn away.
Heh, in retrospect, this probably won't make any more sense as an answer to you, than God's to Job made any sense to me, the first time I read it. n__n;;
I also don't in any way think that the answer you offer is what evolution gives you. Again, I disagree with anthropomorphizing evolution at all -- it would be like saying that physical law wants you to eat fish on Fridays, it's just absurd.
I would ask, then-- what is the answer that evolution gives you?
In my entirely non-Christian brain, when I hear about these horrible things happening all over the world, I don't sit back and say "God has a plan." I try to help where I can, and mourn where I cannot.
Whoah-- when did I say it's okay to just sit back and watch? By all means, the Bible says-- "Love your neighbor as yourself." That means help out, give the shirt off your back, sympathize, mourn, feel. The exact things that modern day society seems to be lacking-- even though Mr. Einstein-- and I will be careful, sorry-- kept exhorting us to do just that, without God.
Blaming the troubles on the world on a deity that (at least to me) is quite obviously not omnipotent seems awfully irresponsible and unfair to the deity.
Um, I'm sorry-- I got a bit confused. Where were you going with that? n__n;;;;;;; Not quite sure to which tangent that was responding to.
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 09:06 am (UTC)Well, the baptism thing is here, and yeah, it's best to read the whole passage -- this is just the ending part:
Acts 10:49: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
And the bit about not getting into heaven unless you're baptized is in John 3:5 --
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
I'm curious-- how do you think it leads to self-loathing and depression? I'm just very intrigued, and want to follow your train of logic, since I know you have one. n__n
That's my entire graduate thesis. ;) Essentially, prior to Christianity in the entire history of religion the concept of "perfection" never once came into play. Take the Greek gods, for example -- full of human flaws, entirely fun and mischievous and horrendously but not totally powerful. Likewise the gods of the Germans or Vikings, who were doomed to fall at Ragnarok. Beautiful, beautiful religions. Never any concept of perfection. That came solely from the Christians, and not from the Christians even specifically, but the Catholics. Once that hit everything started to get very depressing. People started to die, a lot, in the name of God. And they started to believe that human beings are flawed, imperfect -- sinful. This was an entirely new concept, though the Buddhists had something somewhat related in their tenet of "all life is suffering", they just didn't attach plausibility to it. When you have a concept of "perfect", but nothing to exemplify it, it's very easy to say that everything in the world is imperfect, and moreover it shouldn't be because it's our fault. Then you get guilt. Then you get repression. Then you get psychotic repression. Then you get rabid consumerism all the way down to the current state of our society. Crimes against gays? Right back to that point. Crimes against women? Same thing. Sure there were problems before it, but nothing like what happened in its name, and it changed the entire face of mankind.
That all being said, true Christianity of the Gnostic sort (which held Christ not as the Son of God [and this always perplexes me -- aren't we ALL the children of God? in any event the Gnostics celebrate him as a messiah, an enlightened teacher] but as one who has reached divine enlightenment and can visit that state upon others with teaching) is a beautiful religion as well. I believe that, from what you've said, what you follow is much more in line with Gnostic theology than it is with what became of Christianity as it was founded after Nag Hammadi, that council where the old guys all got together and decided what to edit out of the bible. I still greatly encourage you to read _The Gnostic Gospels_, especially given that you think Catholicism is a cult, because that somewhat supports that theory.
Monotheism I challenge just on basic principle. Life is too diverse for one god, though there may have been one creator. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" -- what other gods was God talking about, if there weren't any? ;) This is the Demiurge talking, and he's referring jealously to the Mother and Father, according to the Gnostics.
At any rate, following what Christ MOSTLY taught (not all of what he said, and I'm convinced that a lot of the things the apostles claimed he'd said, he didn't actually say) is a good thing. But it is certainly not unique in any way to Christianity. Those teachings go back much, much further in human history.
Part II
Date: 2003-09-30 03:31 am (UTC)But how do athiests know what is moral? What is morality? What is considered moral and immoral? If you take God out of the picture, then morality is relative. For instance, in one culture it may be morally permissible to sleep/rape a woman-- I believe there was an old Native American tribe in Alaska where the males could have their way with any woman, who'd been through puberty, they wanted. If the woman refused, the man could take a knife, slit her breeches, and take her right there. Now, morally, that's wrong-- in American society, and in God's eyes. What of the Nazis, who thought it was morally permissible to murder thousands upon thousands of Jews? You and I recognize it for an atrocity-- but to them, it was a-ok.
Evolutionarily speaking, morals are a bunch of bull! What organism in their right mind would choose to be moral? It gets in the way of their own personal gain! Which is why you see more and more murdering, less and less regard for your fellow human-- because we are taught that people are simple hunks of flesh, the haphazard and utterly unremarkable result of billions of years of chance, pain, suffering and death. Contrast that to what God says we are-- we are His poema, His masterpeice-- made in His image, to be special to Him forever.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein
For as brilliant a man he was with all his other endeavors, he seems to be frightfully naive in the area of human nature. C'mon, Erin. Look at this world. Where is the sympathy? Walking on the streets of L.A. I see nothing but cold apathy-- people don't even look you in the eyes, they don't even acknowledge you as a sentient, existing, being.
Education? Education, when people can get it, can be just as blinding and dogmatic as brainwashing. Look at the Nazi Germany-- their children were educated. They were educated as to the proper, logical result of Darwinian thought-- some races obviously are superior to others. So, why should it be bad to speed evolution along, right?
Social ties? That, living in L.A., is also a rare thing to see, let alone expect. In 3 months in living in my apartment building, I've seen and talked to all of 3 people. If I open my window I hear nothing but honking, squeeling tires-- I see nothing but people, in cars and on the sidewalk, who care about nothing but their own lives, their own gain. I see a flash of surprise in people's eyes when I hold the elevator for them. People give me funny looks when I say, "Bless you," when they sneeze. People look at me with wary distrust in their eyes when I offer to help them with a bag or something heavy or cumbersome.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-09-30 04:28 am (UTC)Whoa. Whoa, whoa, WHOA. You're saying that every athiest out there is potentially a cold blooded killer who could go out and cut a newborn baby's throat and not think anything of it?
My boss is a self-proclaimed athiest. I actually think he's more an agnostic. But in either case, he certainly has no god. I have no god. Yet he is one of the most sensitive, intelligent, and empathic human beings I know. You say yourself that evolution has no need for empathy; I disagree wholeheartedly. But even if I didn't, given that my boss has no connection whatsoever to any god, and neither do I, how is it that we are moral when it is actually biologically advantageous for us to be cut-throat?
To mention in a note of irony, here, Majesco is intensely Jewish. Super religious. Won't eat non-kosher foods. Won't go to work on Saturdays. We actually had problems with them because of this.
What is morality? What is considered moral and immoral?
Now THAT is a complicated question. ;) But one that in no way requires a deity to answer.
If you take God out of the picture, then morality is relative. For instance, in one culture it may be morally permissible to sleep/rape a woman-- I believe there was an old Native American tribe in Alaska where the males could have their way with any woman, who'd been through puberty, they wanted. If the woman refused, the man could take a knife, slit her breeches, and take her right there. Now, morally, that's wrong-- in American society, and in God's eyes. What of the Nazis, who thought it was morally permissible to murder thousands upon thousands of Jews? You and I recognize it for an atrocity-- but to them, it was a-ok.
Okay. Look at it this way, since I'm at least getting an impression that to you it's either evolution or god, and never the two shall meet:
If there were a society where men raped every woman they came across, what would be the result? --Genes would be entirely mixed, and no one genetic line would succeed over another. Therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial, in human beings, for mating relationships to be monogamous. One man, one woman -- to preserve the genetic line. Why do you think we take our father's last name? Because we're preserving his line, biologically.
Now, the nazis. What would happen in a society where it was alright to wholesale exterminate entire phyles of people? Eventually there would be no people left. So if this ever happened, that species died out, rapidly. Species that do this have gone extinct in the wild in the past.
Evolutionarily speaking, morals are a bunch of bull! What organism in their right mind would choose to be moral? It gets in the way of their own personal gain!
Ohhhh no, not at all. This is another common misconception, leading down to a misunderstanding about the nature of evolution and evolutionary processes, not to mention the nature of -- well, nature itself. The problem here is that you are considering survival of the fittest to be calculated ONLY on an individual basis, which is not in touch with reality at all. Human beings are special in the evolutionary map because they are social creatures. So are wolves, and cats, to a degree. Therefore there is not only individual evolution, or "line" evolution, but social evolution. Societies change and the ones that are the most successful flourish. When humans came to the fore, they were founded on social bases, and those societies allowed them to overcome creatures that were actually physically superior to them. When you take the notion of societal evolution and extrapolate it out over time, you arrive on morality. This is sort of connected with a philosophy/theory base called "emergentism" and following that, "emergent evolution" or "emergent behavior." The world trained human beings to be moral, because morality exists to stabilize society and allow human beings to coexist, allowing the species to thrive and continue to overcome physically superior predators.
D
Date: 2003-09-30 07:07 am (UTC)I didn't say that!! Shame on you for putting words in my mouth! Bad Erin, bad! ;D I'm saying, what would an atheist know to be moral? I'm not saying that atheists are im-moral, or a-moral, and that they're all out to be serial killers or anything of the sort. I was asking, the thought of which I continued in my next sentence, where does right and wrong come from?
My boss is a self-proclaimed athiest... Yet he is one of the most sensitive, intelligent, and empathic human beings I know.
I'm not saying he can't be nice, and polite, and intelligent, and good in human eyes. However-- do you know the depths of his heart? How can we tell if a man is good or not? We can't-- only God can. All the more reason for believing that Jesus was the Son of God-- not only did He see sin, He forgave it!
You say yourself that evolution has no need for empathy; I disagree wholeheartedly. But even if I didn't, given that my boss has no connection whatsoever to any god, and neither do I, how is it that we are moral when it is actually biologically advantageous for us to be cut-throat?
That's your question to answer. n__n Why are you going against the programming in your genes?
To mention in a note of irony, here, Majesco is intensely Jewish. Super religious. Won't eat non-kosher foods. Won't go to work on Saturdays. We actually had problems with them because of this.
Ah-- just like the Jews who were so caught up in cultural aspects of their religion that they lost all sight and bearing on why it was actually there to begin with-- and ended up crucifying their Messiah because of it! Sucky, when people take the name, but don't walk the walk.
Now THAT is a complicated question. ;) But one that in no way requires a deity to answer.
It is a complicated question-- it seemed to pop up in every one of my philosophy classes (er... well, each of the two I took) and leave everyone stumped. Why? 'Cuz they took the deity out of the question. Although, if you have time-- maybe at a later date, or in a different thread, or even in this one, I'd love to get in on that question as well! Heh, no holds barred.
Okay. Look at it this way, since I'm at least getting an impression that to you it's either evolution or god, and never the two shall meet:
Yeah, that's pretty much where I stand-- for the reasons that I've expounded before. n__n
If there were a society where men raped every woman they came across, what would be the result? --Genes would be entirely mixed, and no one genetic line would succeed over another. Therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial, in human beings, for mating relationships to be monogamous. One man, one woman -- to preserve the genetic line. Why do you think we take our father's last name? Because we're preserving his line, biologically.
Then why is it that almost every other species of mammal is polygamous? You don't see the mixing of genes to be detrimental there.
Now, the nazis. What would happen in a society where it was alright to wholesale exterminate entire phyles of people? Eventually there would be no people left.
Yes there would! The one that survived the extermination-- the fittest, evolutionarily speaking, since their offspring are the only ones to survive long enough to have reproductive success, which is what 'fittest' means, biologically speaking.
So if this ever happened, that species died out, rapidly. Species that do this have gone extinct in the wild in the past.
Which species, specifically? I'm just all for learning, and it's good to get details whenever I can. n__n
Re: Battleground God...
Date: 2003-09-30 09:19 am (UTC)I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was following your train of thought. ;) If a person does not know what is moral, they could act immorally and not know it, right? By definition.
As for what morality is, I can give you several definitions... it is a system of social heuristics emerging from the need for a stable society. That's the naturalist version. The Kantian version is more complicated and (I think) more interesting. It starts with calculating worth. How do you determine worth? We think that human beings are worthwhile, moreso than, say, rocks. Why? What do they have that rocks don't? Kant distilled this down to the notion of a unique point of reference -- a point of view. I can explain it further, but basically it's like this: anything that has a point of view creates INFINITE value, because human beings, by having their own perspective, generate value. A dog generates value but on a much smaller scale, and a rock generates value not at all. From here you get to Kant's focal point of mutual respect for persons. You must respect people and not kill them because to kill them depletes a source of infinite value, which is mortally wrong -- if it's not, your own value is, well, valueless. From these points are derived an extremely broad array of values, from monogamy to education to nearly anything you'd need in a moral system. Our justice system is founded not on God but on Kant. And there are dozens of other moral systems -- I keep mentioning Buddhism, and theirs is one of my favorites. Their moral theory is grounded on the central principal of all buddhism -- pratiya samutpada, which, loosely translated, means "interdependent arising" -- all things are irrevocably interconnected in their endless flow and change throughout life; nothing exists independently. From this it is an easy jump to "do unto others" as the Bible would have it -- because all things are connected, where one thing suffers, all suffer, and so the goal in life is to control suffering. This is done in many ways; Buddha espoused a four-fold truth and an eightfold path to defeat suffering and the Hungry Ghosts. Once one has reached enlightenment, one can, as an option, become a bodhi sattva -- one who denies themselves enlightenment because others still suffer.
Ah-- just like the Jews who were so caught up in cultural aspects of their religion that they lost all sight and bearing on why it was actually there to begin with-- and ended up crucifying their Messiah because of it!
You know, the Jews are the most stepped-on religion in all history, and I've never understood why. The Romans crucified Jesus, but everybody likes them. Hmm.
It is a complicated question-- it seemed to pop up in every one of my philosophy classes (er... well, each of the two I took) and leave everyone stumped.
Which philosophy classes did you take? ;) Any philosophy class dealing with morals (Ethics, Wisdom, etc) that can't lead you to your own answer to this question, sans God, is a piece of shit. ;)
Then why is it that almost every other species of mammal is polygamous? You don't see the mixing of genes to be detrimental there.
Every other SOCIAL animal is monogamous. ;) Wolves are monogamous, as are swans (several species of birds in fact), most notably parrots that live in flocks, and mongooses. Not only are they monogamous, but they mate for life. My personal theory (one shared by some others, I think) is that monogamy actually encourages diversification. If the pair is monogamous, it behooves the male to protect the female, and thus the female can diversify into other activities not associated with physical violence. Thus you carry this out further and you get culture -- painting, cooking, art, all these things require one to be free of the need for violence.
E
Date: 2003-09-30 07:22 am (UTC)True-- evolution itself does not work on the individual, but the population. However, from the individual's point of view-- which you take when you are a human looking at the world-- is that the whole point of your existence is reproductive success. Live long enough to have as many babies as you can.
Human beings are special in the evolutionary map because they are social creatures. So are wolves, and cats, to a degree. Therefore there is not only individual evolution, or "line" evolution, but social evolution. Societies change and the ones that are the most successful flourish.
How is this different that social darwinism? Other than the fact that social darwinism has the historical connotation of people speeding the event along, kind of like artificial selection speeds along/manipulates natural selection...
When humans came to the fore, they were founded on social bases, and those societies allowed them to overcome creatures that were actually physically superior to them. When you take the notion of societal evolution and extrapolate it out over time, you arrive on morality. This is sort of connected with a philosophy/theory base called "emergentism" and following that, "emergent evolution" or "emergent behavior." The world trained human beings to be moral, because morality exists to stabilize society and allow human beings to coexist, allowing the species to thrive and continue to overcome physically superior predators.
It sounds like a very good theory. However-- where's the anthropological data to support it? If there is none, then we have a problem. Also, like most of evolutionary theory, I think this falls more under the 'faith' than the 'science' category, as you cannot falsify it. And, as I established before, science is only science if it's falsifiable.
Who in the world taught you that?
All my teachers at UCLA. n__n;;
Take a piece of string, then divide it, divide it again, and divide it again as you run it off the spool. Keep doing that. Now tie parts together, bridge other parts across them, and continue to split them. This is what happened over time.
I'm sorry, brain fart.. Explain that again? n__n;;
True-- evolution itself does not work on the individual, but the population. However, from the individual's point of view-- which you take when you are a human looking at the world-- is that the whole point of your existence is reproductive success. Live long enough to have as many babies as you can.
<i> Human beings are special in the evolutionary map because they are social creatures. So are wolves, and cats, to a degree. Therefore there is not only individual evolution, or "line" evolution, but social evolution. Societies change and the ones that are the most successful flourish. </i>
How is this different that social darwinism? Other than the fact that social darwinism has the historical connotation of people speeding the event along, kind of like artificial selection speeds along/manipulates natural selection...
<i>When humans came to the fore, they were founded on social bases, and those societies allowed them to overcome creatures that were actually physically superior to them. When you take the notion of societal evolution and extrapolate it out over time, you arrive on morality. This is sort of connected with a philosophy/theory base called "emergentism" and following that, "emergent evolution" or "emergent behavior." The world trained human beings to be moral, because morality exists to stabilize society and allow human beings to coexist, allowing the species to thrive and continue to overcome physically superior predators.</i>
It sounds like a very good theory. However-- where's the anthropological data to support it? If there is none, then we have a problem. Also, like most of evolutionary theory, I think this falls more under the 'faith' than the 'science' category, as you cannot falsify it. And, as I established before, science is only science if it's falsifiable.
<i>Who in the world taught you that?</i>
All my teachers at UCLA. n__n;;
<I> Take a piece of string, then divide it, divide it again, and divide it again as you run it off the spool. Keep doing that. Now tie parts together, bridge other parts across them, and continue to split them. This is what happened over time.</i>
I'm sorry, brain fart.. Explain that again? n__n;;
<I. Humanity is a node along the modern chain of those events. It is bafflingly complex and scintillatingly beautiful. Our smallest behaviors can be followed back thousands, maybe millions of years, to their roots in time. This is a breathtaking concept. </i>
I know how enchanting it is-- I was caught up in it for 19 years! But then what I learned in biology and chemistry, and what I observed in my world around me, poked big holes in that shiny spiderweb-- and reformed the world in a different way.
<i>Religious folk would like to believe that athiests and non-theists in general are cold, boring, lifeless people -- but this couldn't be further from the truth. We are nature's masterpiece.</i>
I, and a great deal of my fellow Christian 'religious folk' don't think such a thing. Heck, you're not Christian, but I've always regarded you as an interesting, talented, creative masterpeice of work-- it just seems that you and I believe in a different set of hands that made that work.
F...
Date: 2003-09-30 07:45 am (UTC)Correction-- God made Adam out of dirt, Eve from Adam's rib. n__n
I think that Lucy, and most australopithecines, were another species of great ape. I think that most of the more human-like 'predecessors' were fully human, but due to pathological/genetic bottlenecking (probably due to the Flood) their osteology and physiology seems somewhat different that what we are now. I think that some of the so-called 'transition' fossils between Lucy and us are nothing more than an amalgamation of pure-ape, and pure-human fossil materials. There's a really excellent book by Marvin Lubenow called Bones of Contention. He does a really thorough, scientific synopsis of the ancient 'human' fossil record in a creationist light. It's really very interesting, and if you're at all interested in anthropological views that don't follow the rest of the herd, I suggest you read it! In fact, if you like, I'd let you borrow my copy. n__n
Ah, special to Him forever, yet he dictates His word in Hebrew, which he then allows to be translated across hundreds of languages, and then allows us to kill each other over minutae in the translation.
He doesn't merely allow, He guides the translation. Once I borrow a book back from Kyle, I can hit you up with some pretty interesting statistics about the veracity of the Bible. I do remember, off the top of my head, that if you wanted to discount the OT (Old Testament) as unreliable, you'd have to throw out a lot of other canon literature-- like all of Homer's writings-- as well, since the OT is more historically constant, and has a greater number of preserved texts, than any of his stories!
That just doesn't wash with me. If God wants us to know something, REALLY wants us, I think He'd have the power to come on down and make it VERY clear. Yet priests tell you that you need THEM to intepret it for you. Hmm. Who's winning, here? Not you. Not God. The priests.
That's what He did, in the OT. Burning bush, Tower of Fire, floating Cloud, Whirlwind-- He's taken on many direct, physical forms, as well as sending His message through angels and in dreams and visions. Those are just a few of his physical manifestations. However, the people in the OT-- and even the apostles and disciples who were with Him in the NT, lacked something that we have now-- the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost wasn't available to people until Jesus died on the cross.
And here's the same misconception again-- what priests teach is not necessarily what the Bible teaches. That was what Luther and the whole Reformation was about-- finally someone stood up and shook the people by the shoulders saying, 'Dummy! You don't need priests or acts of work-- all you need is faith! Dur!' To loosely paraphrase. n__n;; Which is also why Jesus did away with the need of priests-- He is our High Priest, and since He is ever at our side, ever our advocate with the Father, we're all set. Not to mention that His sacrifice washes those who accept it white as snow in the eyes of the Lord-- not just blameless, but holy, in His eyes. Pretty crazy stuff, that.
G...
Date: 2003-09-30 07:46 am (UTC)Right.
Then they begat Cain and Abel. Who did Cain and Abel marry? In the Bible, they trounce over the hill and BAM! there's a whole bunch of people there from which they choose wives. Where the hell were they during the whole "fall of humanity" thing?
They weren't born yet, since they were the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. It doesn't say how old Cain and Abel were when Cain slew Abel. And, if you hadn't noticed, in Genesis everyone was living waaaaaaaaay longer. Adam himself lived to be 930 years old. That's plenty of time for making lots of babies. (And I can see another objection coming-- but rather than put words in your mouth, I'll be patient. n__n )
Einstein knew more about human nature than 95% of the people I've ever met. And that's a conservative figure.
How do you come to that conclusion? And I ask that innocently, not sarcastically. n__n
Right. Yet God wants it to be this way? No.
There, you've got it! ... j/k, Erin, j/k! n__n
It's this way because this way works -- there is no evolutionary need for people to look you in the eyes. Humanity is a broad spectrum of types, some of them intensely humanitarian and self-sacrificing, others not. They all serve different purposes.
Yes, they serve their own purposes. Why? 'Cuz that's, evolutionarily, what they should do to make sure they pass on their genes. Pretty convenient, since they can essentially do whatever they want to do, ignore everyone else, and have a good excuse. I would suggest, just something for you to take note of and kind of keep track of, which of the two types of people you mention above are increasing in numbers, and which are decreasing.
But from an anarchist point of view, I would urge you not to make assumptions about people.
Those weren't assumptions, those were real-life experiences! But, I really do try to steer clear of projecting my own views onto other people-- I don't expect of them what I expect of myself. I don't think they should all be exactly like me-- heaven forbid! I'd hope they'd be much better! God embraces diversity, and I do too-- even before I met Him. I'm very polite and concientous of other people. And I'm sorry if I've come across differently to you, Erin-- I really don't mean to. And I don't say any of this meanly, or sarcastically. I really just want to get to the bottom of this, and I hope that I help you as much as you help me, with the honing and the clarifying and the enlightening.
H
Date: 2003-09-30 07:58 am (UTC)I really wish it did abound-- and every now and then I will get a nod, or a smile. It's not like I do what I do to just elicit a response, not like I go around being good so I can get praise from people for doing so. It just sucks, and it continually wears my heart down, to see people so insanely selfish. Look at the guy who was so selfish he got himself drunk, and was selfish enough to take his pleasure over the safety of others. It sucks that the bonsai got taken out, but at least that was the only thing! The world's full of that selfishness. That's part of human nature too-- since selfishness is priding yourself, loving yourself, over your neighbor, and over God.
Religion to me is a fascinating thing -- as a societal emergent phenomenon and as a way of thinking... But they've distilled out all the 'why's, and to me, that's abominable, because thinking is all about the 'why'.
Which is why Christianity is different for two reasons-- one, it's a relationship, not a religion... Two, God encourages us to explore the 'why'. He says, "Study, and be approved."
But one thing I would urge you to be very careful about -- this priest of yours might be great, but I'm seeing a distinct xenophobic trend, here.
What priest? o__O O__o
A distinct budding hatred for those who don't buy in with theism or Christianity. It worries me a little. One thing that ALL religions will tell you is that the world is an evil evil place where you need to follow their rules, and moreover, get EVERYONE ELSE to follow their rules, or everything will be hell and damnation, just you wait.
I don't hate anybody. I promise that. (Well, maybe that one guy…… Just kidding! ;D ) What I do, I do with love in my heart. The Bible itself says if it's not done with love, it's worth less than poop. 'Cuz that's all it is. It's you looking to do stuff for you-- not the other person. The reason I take time-- (like the time I probably should have spent studying, or sleeping, tonight... n___n;;;;;) -- to talk to the people I care for about things this important. I'd say all religions are right in the statement the world is an evil, evil place. I'd say not all religions are right about following their rules-- although this is a good argument about how all religions aren't necessarily the same, since they're all mutually exclusive. n__n;;
But the world isn't an evil place. People, humans in general, are good creatures, whether because some deity made them so or because from a biological perspective this is the only obvious conclusion to events as they happened.
I'm sorry Erin-- but where do you get this from? How can people, in general, be good? Look at what we do to each other, to the Earth, to small, helpless, furry woodland creatures? There's not a single good person, no, not one.
It is very important to listen to other people, and to really look at them, talk to them, smile at them, and recognize them for the glorious creatures that they are, possessing of a unique point of perspective and way of looking at the world. Whether they're Christian or not.
And I do. I'm really sorry if I've come off hateful, spiteful, or anything like that. I'm really not, and that's really not my intention. I hope that, in future posts, if I haven't exhibited love and appreciation for my fellow man, that I can show that more fully. I'd love nothing more to believe in the goodness of people-- but that's just asking for it. I know I wouldn't want anyone to believe in the goodness of me, and people would probably think I'm a pretty nice person! But, I'm just that-- mortal, fallible, with the same weaknesses and temptations as anyone else.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-09-30 04:29 am (UTC)Who in the world taught you that? Take a piece of string, then divide it, divide it again, and divide it again as you run it off the spool. Keep doing that. Now tie parts together, bridge other parts across them, and continue to split them. This is what happened over time. Humanity is a node along the modern chain of those events. It is bafflingly complex and scintillatingly beautiful. Our smallest behaviors can be followed back thousands, maybe millions of years, to their roots in time. This is a breathtaking concept. Religious folk would like to believe that athiests and non-theists in general are cold, boring, lifeless people -- but this couldn't be further from the truth. We are nature's masterpiece.
Question for you. If God made Adam and Eve, wholesale, out of the bare dirt, what do you think about Lucy, the australopithicus? Or any of the human predecessors in the fossil record?
made in His image, to be special to Him forever.
Ah, special to Him forever, yet he dictates His word in Hebrew, which he then allows to be translated across hundreds of languages, and then allows us to kill each other over minutae in the translation. That just doesn't wash with me. If God wants us to know something, REALLY wants us, I think He'd have the power to come on down and make it VERY clear. Yet priests tell you that you need THEM to intepret it for you. Hmm. Who's winning, here? Not you. Not God. The priests.
And another question for you. God created Adam and Eve, bloop, there they were, in the garden of eden and all, right? Then they begat Cain and Abel. Who did Cain and Abel marry? In the Bible, they trounce over the hill and BAM! there's a whole bunch of people there from which they choose wives. Where the hell were they during the whole "fall of humanity" thing?
For as brilliant a man he was with all his other endeavors, he seems to be frightfully naive in the area of human nature.
Ouch. Ouch. Please. Be careful here. ;) Einstein knew more about human nature than 95% of the people I've ever met. And that's a conservative figure.
C'mon, Erin. Look at this world. Where is the sympathy? Walking on the streets of L.A. I see nothing but cold apathy-- people don't even look you in the eyes, they don't even acknowledge you as a sentient, existing, being.
Right. Yet God wants it to be this way? No. It's this way because this way works -- there is no evolutionary need for people to look you in the eyes. Humanity is a broad spectrum of types, some of them intensely humanitarian and self-sacrificing, others not. They all serve different purposes. But from an anarchist point of view, I would urge you not to make assumptions about people. If you actually go out and try to help people, most of them will just be grateful. It may be that you're in a bad part of town or something, but I hold the door for people all the time, and they just say thank you. Not only do I say "bless you" when someone sneezes and NOT get funny looks, other people, not religious, say it to me. It's a social convention. By understanding the way that people work, you can manipulate the system in countless ways. Ever tried to bargain your way down on a price for an item at Best Buy? I'd bet not. But it's actually possible. People just have a tendency to think in grooves, and if you move your mind outside it, you have tremendous power. Anecdotally, this is what The Matrix is all about. Social anarchism, which is not what most people think it is. Yes, there is a lot of bad energy in LA. There are too many people crammed into one space and that's what you get. Yet kindness abounds if you keep your eyes open for it.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-09-30 04:29 am (UTC)At any rate, I encourage and applaud you for doing what works best for you. But one thing I would urge you to be very careful about -- this priest of yours might be great, but I'm seeing a distinct xenophobic trend, here. A distinct budding hatred for those who don't buy in with theism or Christianity. It worries me a little. One thing that ALL religions will tell you is that the world is an evil evil place where you need to follow their rules, and moreover, get EVERYONE ELSE to follow their rules, or everything will be hell and damnation, just you wait. But the world isn't an evil place. People, humans in general, are good creatures, whether because some deity made them so or because from a biological perspective this is the only obvious conclusion to events as they happened. It is very important to listen to other people, and to really look at them, talk to them, smile at them, and recognize them for the glorious creatures that they are, possessing of a unique point of perspective and way of looking at the world. Whether they're Christian or not.
Education? Education, when people can get it, can be just as blinding and dogmatic as brainwashing. Look at the Nazi Germany-- their children were educated. They were educated as to the proper, logical result of Darwinian thought-- some races obviously are superior to others. So, why should it be bad to speed evolution along, right?
This is another religious-republican myth that I would urge you to handle with intense care. =/ Proper, true education does not brainwash. Education is about questioning, not about answers, but about questions. There are bad teachers and bad students that succumb to brainwashing, but that's not what it's about. And the Nazis were not following Darwinistic thought. They were following Hitler, who was a remarkably, bizarrely charismatic speaker. And the vast majority of Germans were ABSOLUTELY NOT fascists. They were just pulled along with the tide and trying their level best not to get shot by a firing squad. Darwinism does not teach that some races are superior to others. Darwinism shows that in an atomic population a species branches out to fill various niches through mutation, diversifying and extrapolating. The corollary to this is that all life becomes interdependent (core Buddhist teaching btw) and pulling out one node on the web can cause the whole mess to collapse. So any Darwinian with half a brain would realize that genocide is an act of total idiocy. And immoral.
Got another comment too. ;)
no subject
Date: 2003-09-30 09:23 am (UTC)Btw, why are/were you sad? =(
Meep!
Date: 2003-09-30 03:10 pm (UTC)Oooh, yes, more OFAS! You've got me addicted, you know. ;D Oh no, Erin's my dealer!! XD
I am/was sad because I knew that this topic would start up controversy. I really don't like controversy, or conflict-- I'd much rather get along with everyone! Especially a person who I've admired for years, such as yourself.
I was also sad because it seemed to me that the Battleground God quiz was full of words that had quicksilver definitions. I saw a lot of bait-and-switch, and a lot of presupposition, and it just sucks to be reminded that persecution is right around the corner for me. Even in areas I least expect it!
Re: Meep!
Date: 2003-10-02 04:01 am (UTC)---
Okay, coming back in here for a min while I wait for
Glad also that you're enjoying OFAS. I worry about how long it's getting.
A thought on controversy... getting along sometimes includes that. =) I think it's important to know where people stand in order to develop a relationship that really has meaning. Maybe take it as a vote of confidence in our friendship that I can argue with you and vice versa? ;)
That being said, do make sure to whack me on the head if I get too aggressive. I did go through an entire philosophy program and no matter what anybody tells you about it, philosophy trains you to argue with people. I also do believe very strongly in a great number of things that may be right or may be not right. ;) And they change peroidically. ;) All that being the case, when you get right down to it the important thing is that you live a good and fulfilling life. For me, that means living authentically -- thinking through everything I do and making sure that I've nailed down not just the logic of it but why it is intuitively right for me. Other people do this in other ways, and I already admire and respect you a great deal for a great many reasons. None of that will ultimately change because of anything you believe, so long as you remain the same person, which you already are. =) Hope that makes sense.
Battleground God did have some 'quicksilver definitions'. It's a hallmark of bad philosophy / bad logic. They fell into certain logic problem traps and probably did have a bias, but I think there is great value there for everyone because in order for emotional stability, I think it is important that your beliefs be rationally consistent. It doesn't even mean you believe one way or the other, just that all of your beliefs together can stably fit in the same head without contradicting each other. The persecution thing probably comes into play because typically the non-religious come under horrendous fire from the religious sectors... ultimately as a result of insecurity. When people don't understand their own beliefs, or more rightly what they're told to believe, they get afraid and they start lashing out, and that unfortunately happens especially around the more literal-minded of the religious groups. And the non-religious have grounds for a certain amount of paranoia because people really have died over this stuff.
Christianity for me has way too much historical baggage. I do believe that Jesus was one of the best philosophers, although it's difficult to say that because his philosophy has been filtered through so many different lenses over time. But the atrocities that are committed in conjunction with those religions I don't think are escapable. Otherwise I could probably well be a Christian (if not for certain sheep aspects), so I think at the end of the day we agree on the basic rules for how a person should behave. That's something at least. ;)
I'm probably rambling, I've been standing up for three hours. =P So sorry if this is abnormally incoherent. ;)
Re: Meep!
Date: 2003-10-02 04:59 am (UTC)3 isn't bad? Great balls of fire, woman-- don't you ever sleep?
And class is going.. mmm... crazy. n__n;; One of my professors almost got washed out to sea on our tidepool-trip yesterday, the entire class was wiped out today as a result of the excursion, and about half of us are nursing colds for our trouble. But it was soooo much fun!
I think it's important to know where people stand in order to develop a relationship that really has meaning. Maybe take it as a vote of confidence in our friendship that I can argue with you and vice versa? ;)
Y'know, I never think about it that way... That's a really comforting thought, actually. And the only reason I'm being as vociferous and tenacious in my arguments are because I figured we'd been friends long enough-- and if you'd survived me in my middle-school and high-school years, you could survive college-me. ;D
Other people do this in other ways, and I already admire and respect you a great deal for a great many reasons. None of that will ultimately change because of anything you believe, so long as you remain the same person, which you already are. =) Hope that makes sense.
;__; Arigato!!!
When people don't understand their own beliefs, or more rightly what they're told to believe, they get afraid and they start lashing out, and that unfortunately happens especially around the more literal-minded of the religious groups. And the non-religious have grounds for a certain amount of paranoia because people really have died over this stuff
View from a sideliner.....
Date: 2003-10-01 08:48 am (UTC)I also find it highly interesting that because of your faith in the Biblical God, you can find no faith in Evolution. I find that interesting because my faith in God is proven to me by evolution.
hmm.. I tend to stray away from conversations like this, because I always feel half armed. Erin's got all the beautiful quotes and statistics, I only have what I feel and find to be true to my best judgement.
Couple points I did want to touch on, that you an Erin went through. I'm gonna ask for your forgiveness in advance, because I'm C&P'ing out of context here...
How can we tell if a man is good or not? We can't-- only God can.
Exactly. So how can any Christian come up to me and tell me I'm bad if they cannot judge me? That is the main bone of contetion that I have with many religions. You cannot see into my heart, I cannot see into yours. So I judge you by your actions, and if your actions are not something I can agree with, I simply leave you alone. Well, okay, I'll also make sure you can't hurt anyone else, but I also do not try to make you change yourself. Trust me on this, I'm the one who lives in the bible belt, Christians are very big about making you change yourself to fit their ideals.
If you take God out of the picture, then morality is relative.
Morality is subjective. Atheists and Agnostics can sometimes be the most moral of people because they have strong believes on social order themselves. You brought up the point about a certain tribe of Eskimos believing that promiscuity and rape were moraly okay. This is a cultural distinction. I'm sure if you brought up the full cultural mores of the tribe, some would match Christianity, some would not. Each societal group comes up with their own mores. But a lot of the basics are the same. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
Cultural mores evolve as well. A mere hundred years ago, there were quite a few devout biblical christians running around, preaching that women had no souls, that other races were sub-human, etc.
Actually, I could go on with this, but I want to sum up to one thing before I run out of room. Religion, morality, and social constraints depend on only one thing. A person's free will to choose. Each person, as they learn throughout life, from their parents, their church, their schools, their experiences, they choose what they will believe in. A lot of it is subconcious, they don't even realize that they've chosen to believe in something until that belief is called into question.
I choose to believe that God lets things happen in this world because he gave us free will. Once he gave us free will, he could no longer step in and say this is right or wrong. He then became a spectator. Right down through history, right down to the evolutionist's single cell organizm becoming a multi celled organizm and thus the basic level of life on earth, each creature has had free will, choice in what was to happen to it. My dog Sadie each night chooses to sleep on the sofa, on the floor, or in the bed with me. She has her reasons to choose each one, or not choose each one. Genetically she is the same species as a wild wolf, at least 98% of her genetics. If there is no such thing as evolution, why is it I have a German Shepherd, a created breed, on my sofa rather than a wolf? Incidentally, the bone structure and jaw alignment is more superior in a wolf than in my bebe. :)
more in the next post.. dang I got wordy.
Re: View from a sideliner.....
Date: 2003-10-01 08:48 am (UTC)My main problem with religeons is that they are man made. Perhaps inspired by God, but written and practiced by man who has proven himself very fallible. Anything I read I take with a grain of salt. I question everything. I do however, believe that people can choose to be good, or to be evil. There are people in this world, that I know personally, that I would recommend as saints over the most holy of priests or preachers. Admitted, most of them are in the canine circles. People who give their time, money, hearts, love, and homes to help rescue dogs out of bad situations and certain deaths and get those same dogs to places they can heal, learn, and find new homes. These people give of themselves to make admends for what other, crueler people have done. Animal Planet is full of people like them. There are also the people who donate their time and money to help other people, like the doctors who do tours in low income areas here in the states, and travel abroad to third world countries to help people there. people who build bridges, donate computers, simply giving of themselves.
And if you say these people do not exist, even in LA, then you're not looking in the right places. If I remember correctly, you're working in a public museum on that backbone? Take a break, walk through the museum. I bet you just might find a teacher taking children through a guided tour. That's humanity at a high point. Walk the other streets, through other neighborhoods. The latinos have a very involved society, built around family rather than jobs and the mainstream society. Volunteer at a soup kitchen and look at the people who are working there with you. Are those the type of people you're looking for? If so, look at where you just found them.
you make fun of your home town sometimes, but I bet socially, it is vastly different from LA. You cannot judge LA by what you grew up with.
Gah.. I got windy and wordy there, sorry. ::hugs:: now I gotta use my free choice in hitting "comment" or closing the window. hmm... guess you figured out what my choice was, huh?
... time to sleep now?
Date: 2003-10-02 04:42 am (UTC)...Which is an excellent way to approach this! I'd just like to suggest a few points for you to mull over, if you're ever pondering about this... Religions are man-made, yes. They're man trying to reach out to god(s). I would propose that Christianity is a) more of a 'relationship,' and b) is God reaching out to man. And, yes-- man is very fallible. That's where you get the 'women have no souls,' 'not all races are equal,' 'Day-Age theory,' 'Gap-theory,' the Crusades, etc. It's when men stray from the Word of God-- which was not only inspired, but edited by God-- that Christianity goes haywire. It's when it's people using Christianity as an umbrella, a banner to wave, instead of actually following it, that things go bad.
There are people in this world, that I know personally, that I would recommend as saints over the most holy of priests or preachers.
Heh, and God sees and acknowledges that, too. Those who serve heap up treasures in Heaven-- but, you have to get to Heaven first! That's where Jesus comes in... 'Cuz since everyone's sinned, we've all fallen short of God. Since God's perfect, He can't be near sin. So, we've got to make propitiation. Jesus was the only man born of a woman who lived a perfect life-- and so, He was the only one perfect enough to pay for all our sins. Therefore, He died, and put His blood in our bank-account, so to speak. So, you can either take that blood and use it to pay off your loans-- or, you can't. 'Cuz nothing you can do can even come close-- not even being so wonderfully kind, to people or animals, as any of the people you mentioned. You can't get into Heaven by good works-- you can't earn your way. And it's a good thing, too! 'Cuz if it was a system of credits and demerits, everyone's demerits would outnumber the credits soooo bad! Everyone, not the preachers nor pastors nor Humane-Society workers nor bridge-builders, not you nor I nor my family I love so much, would be able to earn our way into Heaven. That's why Jesus is so cool. :)
And if you say these people do not exist, even in LA, then you're not looking in the right places.
Well, you're right. I was being dramatic. The people do exist-- it's just there's so many people who fall in the 'other' category, the 'good' people make up a tiny percentage of the populace.
If I remember correctly, you're working in a public museum on that backbone? Take a break, walk through the museum. I bet you just might find a teacher taking children through a guided tour. That's humanity at a high point.
Not all teachers are saints-- however, the ones that are there and truly care for the welfare of the kids-- those are my kind of heroes.
Volunteer at a soup kitchen and look at the people who are working there with you. Are those the type of people you're looking for? If so, look at where you just found them.
n_____________n
you make fun of your home town sometimes, but I bet socially, it is vastly different from LA. You cannot judge LA by what you grew up with.
I do make fun of my town-- but in the same way I make fun of my sister. Sometimes I'm exasperated, sometimes I'm angry-- but I always love her. n__n And it is a lot different than L.A.... A lot less selfish, although you can still see it there.
I got windy and wordy there, sorry. ::hugs::
Yay for hugs! And I like you windy and wordy-- that's the best part of being friends with writers! ;D
now I gotta use my free choice in hitting "comment" or closing the window. hmm... guess you figured out what my choice was, huh?
And I'm so glad you chose 'comment'! I never want you to, out of fear of my response, at least, censor yourself or be afraid to say something. What good does that do anyone? Especially not you or me! n__n Thanks so much for sharing, Bren!
Sorry Erin!
Date: 2003-10-02 04:07 am (UTC)First, I'd like to apologize-- re-reading through some of my posts I realized there's a bit of an arrogant air... I'll really try not to come at this as a "I'm gonna prove you're wrong so I can feel good about myself" thing-- which wasn't really my intention, but it was part of my character so long, and it's hard to get old ghosts to die. I'm really just very curious about what you two have to say, and I get very passionate about my own views. I'll try and keep intellect in the driver's seat more often than passion. ;)
With that said, on to commenting!
just curious, would you happen to have a link to this site? I'm curious enough to take it and see what answer I came up with.
Just in case Erin hasn't given it to you in an AIM/e-mail conversation yet, it's right here (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm).
I tend to stray away from conversations like this, because I always feel half armed. Erin's got all the beautiful quotes and statistics, I only have what I feel and find to be true to my best judgement.
Hee, tell me about it! Erin, you've got me fairly well intimidated! Well, you kind of always have... n__n;;
So how can any Christian come up to me and tell me I'm bad if they cannot judge me?
Well, this brings up two slightly opposite responses in me. On the one hand, no one in the world is wholly good. While people may be partly good, or somewhat good, or pretty-darn-good-at-this-moment-in-time, no one's completely without blame--including the Christian who's telling you you're bad! If they're not coming up to you and talking to you with love in their hearts, they need to be told to take that beam out of their eye first! (Matt 7:3) Sounds like a lot of cultural-Christians (those who believe in 'Churchianity', as my pastor would say) need to actually start living Biblically and begin practicing Jesus-Christianity.
Well, okay, I'll also make sure you can't hurt anyone else, but I also do not try to make you change yourself.
What if you see someone you care about living in a way that hurts themselves? Do you talk to alcoholics? To people addicted to drugs? Don't you want to talk to them, help them out of their own problems?
You brought up the point about a certain tribe of Eskimos believing that promiscuity and rape were moraly okay. This is a cultural distinction.
If you were there and saw it happen, would you stop it? What if you were a woman in that culture? Would that make it any better? What if males could rape any age girl-- even a small child? Or, what about the tendency towards female infanticide in China? That's morally okay by their standards. What about sending Jews (and really, any non-Aryan) to concentration camps in WWII? That was morally permissible in German culture at the time. Things get very tricky, and can very easily start down the slippery-slope when relativism and morality mix.
I'm sure if you brought up the full cultural mores of the tribe, some would match Christianity, some would not. Each societal group comes up with their own mores. But a lot of the basics are the same. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
I would say that any semblance of morality in any culture is due to the fact that there's an unspoken Law written in our hearts by God. But, that's just my explanation. ;)
... to be continued.. :)
Finishing up with this one...
Date: 2003-10-02 04:22 am (UTC)Well, they may have been devout-- but they couldn't have been *that* Biblical, or else they would have known what they were preachin' was somethin' other than what was taught in the Bible they claimed to follow! The Bible never said that women 'didn't have souls'-- in fact, some of the coolest Biblical figures are women! In the OT and the NT. (It was almost always the guys that were cheeseballs, actually.. Like, it was pretty much only the female followers of Jesus who showed up to the Crucifixion, and they were the ones who went to go annoint and give Him a proper burial afterwards...) Same for racism-- we're all of one blood, and we're all God's children and creation, all equal in His eyes. What those 'Biblical' Christians were preaching were their own add-ons and justifications for the secular ideologies flying about at the time (racism, sexism.)
I choose to believe that God lets things happen in this world because he gave us free will.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.
Once he gave us free will, he could no longer step in and say this is right or wrong. He then became a spectator.
But I can't agree with you here! The OT sets out very clear rules (for the people's own welfare!) about what to do, and not to do. Even about what's good to eat, what's not, and how to stay clean! It's not like He was asking us to do something ridiculous or impossible... They're all reasonable, logical requests, that we would do good to follow! Except sin and temptation usually get in the way, and people start doing what they, in their finite wisdom, think is good-- and not what God, in his infinite wisdom knows is good.
Genetically she is the same species as a wild wolf, at least 98% of her genetics. If there is no such thing as evolution, why is it I have a German Shepherd, a created breed, on my sofa rather than a wolf?
German Shepherds are such cool dogs... I hope I can have one someday! But, back on topic... There's no such thing as macroevolution--goop-to-life, fish-to-reptiles, dinosaurs-to-birds. Microevolution (Darwin's Finches, dog breeds, etc), however, is absolutely real, and in no way contradicts the Bible. God probably didn't Create every single species of mammal, bird, reptile, fish, etc... (The only reason that I say 'probably' and not 'definetely' is I wasn't there, and I don't wanna put words in His mouth!) He Created 'kinds'. So, He Created different 'kinds' of mammals-- like maybe a few generic cats, a few generic dogs, etc, etc. And then those base-body types spread, adapted, and differentiated into the different species that we have. And the term, 'species', has so many problems in and of itself! A 'species' is defined as a group of animals that can't interbreed with any other group... Yet dogs, wolves, and coyotes can all interbreed. Tigers, Lions, and several other big cats can interbreed. Yet we call them all different 'species'. However, you won't get a dog breeding with a cat-- 'cuz they're different 'kinds'. And God said "every animal, after their own 'kind'".
Incidentally, the bone structure and jaw alignment is more superior in a wolf than in my bebe. :)
And that would be an example of how things are going downhill-- which is evidence more suited for Creationism than Evolution.
Allrighty, now onto the next set.. n__n
Re: Finishing up with this one...
Date: 2003-10-02 10:37 pm (UTC)Unlike Erin though, I'm not comfortable with arguing this sort of stuff. it's taken me years of thinking to get to where I'm at, and while it makes sense to me, I can't really articulate it. And tha's pretty much why I'm gonna back my arse out of this after this post and leave it to you and Erin. :)
I'm glad to see that you do question everything. I take Evolution pretty much as a given, because it just makes sense to me. Creationist ideas make all the sense to me that fairy tales do. So it was really a shock to read your previous post where you brought up the contradictions of your beliefs and work. I know you understand that I'm not flaming you for that.. and I thank you for understanding that.
btw, I did take the test and I ended up flat on my back after three hits and a bitten bullet. There are some glaring huge holes in that presentation, as Erin said. A true and false answer test is crap, imho.
Life is contradictions. The most fun one of all is that you have to recognize everyone's differences, and not only accept and appreciate them because of their differences, but also to accept and appreciate them despite their differences. :) And that's where most humans stumble.
I do not believe that all people are inheretantly evil, or even inheratently good. and I hope I'm not being graded on spelling either. :) I believe people make choices on their beliefs and principles and desires. Some choices are obviously wrong. I've done several things that I'm not proud of. The whole situation with Mike being the most obvious one between the three of us. But I don't consider myself a bad person either. All I can do is live my life the best that I can and hope that in the end that I at least batted a .500 game.
again, as I've said, I'm not an argumentative person.. ::hugs:: I figure between Erin and Kyle, you've got two sides to debate with. :) Just figure out what works for you. And overlook us freaks on the sideline who are waiting to be reborn through the reincarnation method. :)