The two most discussed topics on first page. Religion and boobs. Also people discussing what is fake/real.

jefft01 wrote:

Mr Pat wrote: Jeff, I took issue with your statement about how if people followed the New Testament closely there would a lot MORE atrocities, which is just silly. I believe you are running out of ammunition for that ridiculous claim because you know there is much more about peace in Jesus' teaching then you could misinterpret into possibly making human being commit MORE atrocities.

I was trying to point out that people who believe literally in a religion which promises reward in the afterlife, are much more likely to commit atrocities against people who believe something different, and much more likely than someone who thinks that their current life is all they have. I agree that a lot of things taught by Jesus are good. I just disagree that it is all good.

Jesus didn't teach, do atrocities and you'll still get to heaven. I for one believe in God, and in Jesus' teachings and I believe in an afterlife. I am no more likely to commit an atrocity then a non believer. In fact, I can see the opposite. The nonbelieve believes that when they die that's it, and there will be no eternal punishment for their misdeeds. A believer believes that if they are a horrible person they will be punished in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

If somebody told you that if you stole a vase one of two things would happen; A) You would be punished by the people who owned the vase or B) You would be punished by the people who owned the vase AND thrown into a lake of fire. I think most people would take the first option.

krazie45 wrote: Fair enough, though the Catholic church was very corrupt in its early stages with things such as "buying your way into heaven". The corruption was one of the reasons that Martin Luther started his own church after being excommunicated.

No doubt--I'm on board with you here. As a human institution, the church universal has had numerous problems over the years, which reflect very poorly on it. The evangelical church in the US is in desparate need of reform, a la Vatican II.

Not a great example since we have things like TV and the internet these days where we can document such things. Sure I'll always remember 9/11 but if I lived back then it would be tough to remember every point especially since I wasn't actually in New York at the time. I suppose most of the gospels are pretty close to what actually happened but again, many people falsely believe they were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I don't use the bible as a historical tool, I don't believe the Earth was created in 7 days.

You can use something as historical without believing that literally every single word is correct. This is how we treat the "historical" documents of that era (e.g., Josephus). We rely on it extensively for history, but that doesn't mean we assume that it's accurate for every detail. FWIW, I'm willing to bet that only a small fraction of Christians worldwide are "young-earth" creationists. Most of us don't read that literally. You can read The Brothers Karamazov as something that provides cuultural insight into what happened in that era and how people dealt with it. In that sense, it's historical. But it's not historical in the sense that it's actually relating facts. Not all parts of the Bible are intended to be factual, and it's simplistic to pick out non-literal parts and point out that they're not literally true. That's like pointing out that any other piece of literature is "not true"--if it wasn't intended to be an accurate historical relation of something that happened, pointing out that it isn't doesn't seem worthwhile.

I guess you could say my perspective is somewhat pantheistic. . . . That's perfectly fine with me, but you're implying that I'm some kind of idiot because I think this way. I could easily say the same about you but I don't because I'm tolerant of others belief.

I'm not implying that you're some kind of idiot for thinking that way. I'm pointing out that pantheism is, by its very nature (and as it is presented in the Nag Hammadi library), communal, and yet you seem to be proposed something acommunal and individualistic. Individualistic pantheism is an oxymoron. The Gospel of Thomas and other Nag Hammadi gnostic documents present an intensely communal approach to religion. The backlash against organized religion isn't found there--the NH docs are pretty much the exact opposite in that they strongly encourage relational thinking about religion.

This is part of the problem of organized religion. I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see how going to a building that a group of "religious officials" deem to be a holy place makes me a better human being. I give time and money to the less fortunate, I love my neighbor as myself, I believe in God. In my opinion, practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ is more important than focusing on his life, death, resurrection, etc. I know not everyone feels this way and doesn't have to, but that doesn't make me ill-informed.

I haven't told you I think you should go to church. Nor have I endorsed organized religion. What I have said is that the Nag Hammadi library doesn't endorse individualism, but rather pantheism, and if you're pulling reactionary, acommunal, Taoist-like teachings from it, you're not reading it accurately. You seem to be putting the Gospel of Thomas into a uniquely postmodern American procrustean bed.

My way of thinking makes more sense to me, your belief makes more sense to you. This should be the basis of religion. Believe what you wish and let others believe what they wish. It is God that reveals himself to you.

I believe what I wish, and I let others believe what they wish, too. You can believe whatever you want. But if we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, and if you're going to peddle the GoT interpretation you mentioned above, I feel I have a duty to point out that it's certainly not a standard reading of the gnostic gospels. Anyone can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make all their beliefs equally reasonable.

FWIW, if you want the last word, it's yours. I think we've pretty much ironed out where we both stand.

Mr Pat wrote:

jefft01 wrote:

Mr Pat wrote: Jeff, I took issue with your statement about how if people followed the New Testament closely there would a lot MORE atrocities, which is just silly. I believe you are running out of ammunition for that ridiculous claim because you know there is much more about peace in Jesus' teaching then you could misinterpret into possibly making human being commit MORE atrocities.

I was trying to point out that people who believe literally in a religion which promises reward in the afterlife, are much more likely to commit atrocities against people who believe something different, and much more likely than someone who thinks that their current life is all they have. I agree that a lot of things taught by Jesus are good. I just disagree that it is all good.

Jesus didn't teach, do atrocities and you'll still get to heaven. I for one believe in God, and in Jesus' teachings and I believe in an afterlife. I am no more likely to commit an atrocity then a non believer. In fact, I can see the opposite. The nonbelieve believes that when they die that's it, and there will be no eternal punishment for their misdeeds. A believer believes that if they are a horrible person they will be punished in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

If somebody told you that if you stole a vase one of two things would happen; A) You would be punished by the people who owned the vase or B) You would be punished by the people who owned the vase AND thrown into a lake of fire. I think most people would take the first option.

I think people should not have to be enticed to good. If you only believe because of hope for a reward or because you fear hell, I think that belief is disingenuous.

Be that as it may, that wasn't the point I was making. We were talking about what would be more likely for men to do evil, not if their beliefs are satisfactory.

*cracks knuckles*

Mr Pat wrote: I'm not convinced!

Most religions preach tolerance and peace, I don't see why that is a detriment to society. Like it's been stated before, if there weren't religion, we would find something else to fight about. Even before there was any sense of religion man was killing off one another.

I'm not sure, when either side is talking about "religion," that the actions encouraged are the issue. I think they are used as reasons to like or dislike "religion," but I don't think they are the goodness or badness in the eyes of most.

For example, most nonbelievers I know (and I know many) don't spend time discussing the evils of religion by referring to issues like 9/11, the Crusades, or other such atrocities. They spend their energies focused on whether or not there is a supreme being ... or anything supernatural that one might believe exists. THIS is the issue, according to such a crowd ... not what people do with it. That is simply a talking point.

The other side does the same, however. Most who approve of religion do not do so primarily because of how it has benefited society. That's simply a talking point used to support their view.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not religion is "good" for society is entirely too subjective a question.

It presupposes no authoritative definition of "good" regarding society, leaving that up to the subjectivity of each person's outlook.

sleeper wrote: By whole population, I meant only the religious believers.

I'm not arguing that our laws aren't based off the Ten commandments, I'm saying that if religion was never "invented", at some point in time the people would get together and decide that having the ability to kill others without punishment should be outlawed. Obviously, that is just one example of a law that would be enacted without the help of religion, I'm sure people in power would eventually want to control their constituents.

Even if you only meant religious believers, it is still a logical fallacy, because only an incomplete syllogism could arrive at such a conclusion if only relating the state of delusion to the conclusions, and not the method by which the conclusion was drawn. Moreover, I'd be willing to gamble that you have not likely come into personal interaction with a large enough portion of religious individuals to consider it an adequate test sample. Thus, no adequate conclusion can be made.

Rest assured, that's not an attack on you, as I have shared and sometimes still do share many of your ideals. I only question your conclusion in this case, much as I did when Dawkins raised the same such conclusion (as I've said before, he's a fantastic zoologist, but a rotten philosopher).

sleeper wrote: See 9/11/2001

Oh come now. You can't seriously be using one event to sum up the whole.

BRF wrote: I could prove if the freehuddle otrap is the REAL one by a simple PM.

Fire away.

Tiernan wrote: Gonna be alot of embarassed theologians on the planet when the aliens show up. And this will happen within the next 50 yrs. We are now capable of throwing so much more advanced digital signaling into space somebody or something will be showing up before long.

Why would that be embarrassing?

krazie45 wrote: I think that the idea of believing in a higher power is fine. This has proved for some people to help them get through tough times and continue living their lives. It also gives people more of a sense of peace in coming to terms with the idea of death, as well as preach good moral and social value.

However, the idea of organized religion I believe is a detriment to the world. You look at it historically and not only have there been countless wars and acts of violence committed in the name of religion, but various religions have been corrupt and taken advantage of people and their resources. Look at some of the early days of the Catholic Church where you could "buy your way" into heaven and the pope was a more of a political office than a spiritual leader. Or look at the current state of Scientology masking itself as a religion in order to take advantage of people.

The Gospel of Thomas (which you won't find in the Bible because the church felt that its message was a detriment to their own fiscal cause) says in verse 77. " I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there." Basically, you don't need to go to church to be a good person. You also don't need to go to church to find God, because God is everywhere. Therefore I do not see how people giving their time, money, and lives to an organized religion is beneficial. Having a personal relationship with God (or Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Chuck Norris, whomever) is far more beneficial both on a personal and societal level in my opinion.

I wish to make three points in address to this.

Point 1: If an "organized" religion has been corrupted, that does not mean that religion is corrupt. That would be equitable to saying that if a business is corrupted, then business is corrupt.

Point 2: If there are unscrupulous organizations which are posing as organized religions, that actually lends credibility to organized religion as a whole, because the unscrupulous organizations see that organized religion has credibility that can probably withstand the damage they might do to it.

Point 3: I concur with your notion of personal relationship with God. It would appear that many in the early NT church did as well. That didn't mean, however, that it was private. Personal and private are two different things. It should absolutely be personal. However, I don't think that necessitates that it be private as well.

Also, there are historical reasons why the GoT was left out of the Canon. Had nothing to do with the financial well-being of those deciding, historically speaking. I'm afraid FFT is right as far as Dan Brown is concerned. He's hardly a credible historian of the Second Temple era. Think of him more like a historical conspiracy theorist.

BRF wrote: I have a slate of questions for you.

Then, if answered correctly, you can disprove this business once and for all.


Oh............by the way......................BRF says that religion is good..............in the "western" world.

PM me. Fire away.

For what it's worth, I believe Clayton Bigsby would have a question for me as well which would prove who I am. It has to do with what they used to do to landmines during Vietnam.

Separate issue, though.

pmoney25 wrote: If religion were not around, the real meaning of wars would come out. Mankinds thirst for power, money, and land.

Also in my opinion the existence of aliens would not automatically disprove existence of a God.

I would agree on both counts, as a personal persuasion.

In the words of Joseph Conrad: "A belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."

Religion would not undo any atrocity, I don't think. Humanity, in and of itself, commits evil. If religion did not exist, the only difference would be the excuse.

jefft01 wrote: If people truly lived according to the NT there would be a lot more atrocities and violence in the name of a god, unless of course you pick and choose the few good things and ignore all the violence. The only code one needs to live by is "The Golden Rule", which predates all monotheism by many, many years.

Dare I ask you to defend the statement you just made regarding the New Testament without you yourself just "pick[ing] and choos[ing] the few" bad things and ignore all the good?

I dare. Find more than a few verses you can take out of context. Find one ... single atrocity that is commanded or endorsed in the New Testament. And I'll hold you to the context, so don't just pull out a verse.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: There may be socities that see murder, lying, perjury as virtues but they are the exception, not the rule. Of course there will be some instances where these things make social life easier or simply are not detrimental, but they are few and far between.

Nevertheless, it WOULD seem to indicate that an intrinsic notion regarding what is right and wrong, even as far as things like murder, is not something that can be said of all people. Thus, we are again where we started, as there are exceptions to every single opinion regarding morality. I would be willing to bet that there is not one single moral question upon which every person in the world agrees. So, who is right?

What we are left with is a "might makes right" reality. He who has the biggest guns/most supporters/best equipment wins.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: To think that we needed a god to tell us not to murder is silly. All of us lie, that's no crime.

So, do we judge what ought to be and ought not to be a crime based on how a lot of people live already? There are way too many problems with that, including the openness to oppressing the minority.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: The idea that some societies function better when they are able to murder or lie, etc. seems to defeat the idea that these things are inherently wrong I guess. Only if you believe in morality.

And if you don't, there's no reason I shouldn't sleep with your significant other, get her to lie to you about it, and then lie about it myself.

fan_from_texas wrote: How familiar are you with the gnostic gospels and why they were/were not included in the canon? There are a number of very good reasons why the GoT wasn't directly included in the canon, and the church's pecuniary interest wasn't among those, as far as historian's can tell. That's a little too much Dan Brown and not enough history.

Regardless, I'm not sure your exegesis on v77 is particularly accurate. If anything, v77 suggests something more pantheistic and gnostic, which is the traditional scholarly reading of the GoT. The idea of God being all and in all is more closely akin to various gnostic movements in the Middle East, e.g., the Sufis. But being pantheist and gnostic doesn't necessarily go against communal meeting and "organized" religion. We've seen most groups along those lines become more communal than ever. The idea of "individualized pantheism" is a bastardized American creation that basically says, "I want to believe in something convenient so I can be spiritual, but I don't want to have to do anything real about it." That is an admittedly convenient, pluralistic, and non-threatening way to approach religion, but that doesn't seem to square up with rigorous philosophical or theological thought.

In short, I'm not sure where you got your information from regarding the GoT, but from what you've typed here, it appears that you've built a personal belief system based on an erroneous (albeit conveniently western) interpretation of one of the Nag Hammadi docs. You can believe whatever you want and live your life however you want, but it's not reasonable to throw out your thoughts on this as though they're accurate. Hold 'em, but treat 'em like what they are--a way for Americans to feel good but not have to follow through.

Re aliens: the Bible doesn't say (or even suggest) that there are no aliens. The Bible states that there are non-human beings that exist. I assume there is other intelligent life out there, which is consistent with (and reinforced by) the Bible itself. I don't know why that would be embarrassing for religious people unless they took a hard line over a meaningless issue (which happens all the time. See, e.g., Falwell and the dinosaur bones). Picking apart the words of dumb Christians is pretty easy, and while it proves that there are some religious morons out there, these sort of ad hominem attacks don't say much at all about the validity of the religion itself.

That was excellently spoken. Not sure I take the issue on aliens to the degree you do, but what you said about the GoT is spot on.

I Wear Pants wrote: What created god?

The creation of a being which is admittedly supernatural, and is thus not bound by the natural law requiring a beginning, isn't necessary. The origin of the universe, something empirically observable, and thus bound by natural law, would require a beginning. Therein lies the difference.

BCSbunk wrote: The universe is eternal no need to add some supernatural beings to the equation it violates Occams Razor.

Your notion that the universe is eternal (that is, without beginning or end) is fallacious, or at best baseless, as it is still bound by the confines of natural law, and all which is observable in nature and bound by the confines of time has shown to have a beginning. Thus, at best, you would arbitrarily be suggesting that even though everything else bound by time and natural law does have a beginning, the universe does not. The key word there being "arbitrarily."

jefft01 wrote: So apparently you haven't read the NT if you think that's the only thing in it. Like I said, if you are selective you can find some good things there, but you'll also find as much, injustice, violence, and cruelty.

You will find injustice, violence, and cruelty. You will find it historically recorded. You will NOT find it endorsed ... anywhere.

jefft01 wrote: I don't understand the ad hominem attacks, because they add nothing to the discourse. Most of the Christians I know are smart people. Though to me it seems that they set aside their reasoning skills to believe.

I think the same about both camps.

jefft01 wrote: So you think this is good?
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Or that Jesus accepts the laws of the Old Testament?

I don't understand how you can't see it.

First, the rest of the things Jesus is recorded to have said in the New Testament exhaustively lend evidence to the fact that he was not being literal with the statement. A particular example would be his command to Peter at his arrest. The "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" statement, where he tells Peter to put his weapon away instead of fighting.

You've brought out two passages. One is not literal. The other is not saying what you've intended it to say. Suppose, however, they BOTH were saying what you wanted them to. That is a very small portion of the New Testament. I see a LOT more "love thy neighbor" statements than two.

cbus4life wrote: My question...and the one i struggle with most of all...is which religion is right?

Are the millions of followers of Islam "wrong," and they're going to hell?

Are the millions of followers of Buddhism "wrong," and they're going to hell?

I mean, i understand religion being a "personal" thing and all, but if you believe that your religion is the one "true" religion, that, essentially, means that there can be no wiggle room on the fact that, those who don't believe, are going to hell because they are heathen, non-believers, and have not accepted Christ into their heart.

Or do they end up somewhere else? Or do they really get to go to their religions version of the "afterlife?"

I don't know how to reconcile this and make it fit rationally.

Would God create a system whereby millions upon millions of people are going to end up hell because they are non-believers? Seems rather sick to me.

My favorite response to this was from a Muslim friend i had in England, who said, upon my moving away, that it is a "shame that we would be going to two different heavens." Seemed interesting, as he seemed to believe that we would both be rewarded in the afterlife based on our own personal beliefs.

But, i know this isn't the attitude of everyone.

You know, I struggled with this as well. In part, giving up on this question actually helped. That isn't to say that I never approached it again. However, I don't think it's an adequate starting point.

Until I accept the fact that two plus two equals four, I cannot accept the fact that two times three equals six. Thus, starting by trying to figure out two times three is fruitless.

If the foundation for an aspect of a worldview is not yet established, working on the walls of the worldview is a self-defeating practice.

jefft01 wrote: Maybe "accept" was the wrong word, how about "uphold" or "confirm" which is exactly what Matthew 5:17 implies.

He doesn't say "he knows that it's going to divide households when people convert to believe in him." He says that he comes for that specific purpose. So cruelty in this context is cool, but you're ok with that because it's your brand? Nice try yourself.

Actually, if you read the fourth verse that you yourself quote, it explains what he's saying. He comes to take precedence over even our most closely-knit relationships ... which at the time would have almost always been family relationships (and still is, to a sizable degree). Thus, he came to have relationships stronger than those between aforementioned family members ... which would inevitably mean that there would be those whose families would split as a result.

There is no reason why you shouldn't bang my girlfriend and lie about. You're primary goal is to see that your genes survive. I'm wired to be jealous if my girl is sleeping around because I want to be sure that any children I'm investing my time and support in are actually MINE (My primary goal is to pass on my genes too).

It's not morality, just nature.

If you can't tell that's OTrap by that last post you aren't very smart.

krazie45 wrote:
I guess you could say my perspective is somewhat pantheistic. This is probably because that perspective makes more sense to me. I can see the earth, I can see nature, therefore it's not outlandish for me to believe that God and the Earth are connected. Faith stems from two sources, either what we were taught so we simply believe it, or what we've discovered so we simply believe it. That's perfectly fine with me, but you're implying that I'm some kind of idiot because I think this way. I could easily say the same about you but I don't because I'm tolerant of others belief. This is part of the problem of organized religion. I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see how going to a building that a group of "religious officials" deem to be a holy place makes me a better human being. I give time and money to the less fortunate, I love my neighbor as myself, I believe in God. In my opinion, practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ is more important than focusing on his life, death, resurrection, etc. I know not everyone feels this way and doesn't have to, but that doesn't make me ill-informed.

This. Is post of the year.

GoPens wrote:

krazie45 wrote:
I guess you could say my perspective is somewhat pantheistic. This is probably because that perspective makes more sense to me. I can see the earth, I can see nature, therefore it's not outlandish for me to believe that God and the Earth are connected. Faith stems from two sources, either what we were taught so we simply believe it, or what we've discovered so we simply believe it. That's perfectly fine with me, but you're implying that I'm some kind of idiot because I think this way. I could easily say the same about you but I don't because I'm tolerant of others belief. This is part of the problem of organized religion. I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see how going to a building that a group of "religious officials" deem to be a holy place makes me a better human being. I give time and money to the less fortunate, I love my neighbor as myself, I believe in God. In my opinion, practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ is more important than focusing on his life, death, resurrection, etc. I know not everyone feels this way and doesn't have to, but that doesn't make me ill-informed.

This. Is post of the year.

I'd agree. Well, except for the last sentence since I don't believe in the Christian deity. Or any of the individual or collective gods created by any religion.

When it comes to this question, I gave a half-hearted "bad" answer. There's good aspects and bad ones. My mom volunteers for a church in her town and they do a lot of good things (knitting shawls for the elderly in nursing homes, food drives for shut-in types, etc.). You could say that no one needs a church/religion to do so, but it was being part of that group that gave her and others the drive to do so.

But, on the other hand, religion and prejudice go hand-in-hand in pretty major ways. You get a crapload of people convinced that their way is the ONE TRUE BELIEF and others are misguided. Which leads to all sorts of stupidity. Small scale stupidity (such as the whole concept that a person could live a good and charitable life and be condemned to an unfavorable afterlife because they didn't worship the "right" god) and large scale stupidity (Middle Eastern conflicts, Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc. where religious beliefs were used as a primary tool to inspire conflict, acts of torture and other undesirable stuff).

If you use religion as a way to motivate you to do good things to your fellow man, it's cool. But when it starts getting to the point where people use it as a means of establishing superiority, it can get bad very quickly.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: There is no reason why you shouldn't bang my girlfriend and lie about. You're primary goal is to see that your genes survive. I'm wired to be jealous if my girl is sleeping around because I want to be sure that any children I'm investing my time and support in are actually MINE (My primary goal is to pass on my genes too).

It's not morality, just nature.

And inasmuch, then, your jealousy wouldn't warrant any appeal to an authority for punitive measures. Thus, if I was to lie on the stand about having sex with someone (or for any reason), there should be no legal measures taken, because my lying was instinctive.

What about if I didn't, at all, want my genes to pass on. What if I had the mentality of Hitler ... that humanity should strive for some arbitrary genetic idealism because it is somehow better. And my own lineage has been tainted so that I don't even fit my own profile for ideal? I certainly wouldn't want my genes continuing. Is it still cool if I hit it?

What of those with sexual predispositions toward children? There is no more evidence to suggest that they are "sick" as there is any other sexual orientation. We attempt to rehabilitate them, and we think we do, but if you've done any perusing into the history of homosexuality, you'll see almost a mirrored example.

Now, I'm not necessary equating the two in every aspect. However, as long as we're speaking about "nature," I think it warrants discussion.

And, as another question, why is it that we assume that even if there is a universal morality, that nature doesn't ever contend with it? Given the circumstances, I'd say it's perfectly possible for that to be the case.

If you indeed believe, however, that there is no such ethic, then like Kai Nielson, you'd have to admit that, at the end of the day, there is no difference between someone who lives their life serving people and someone who lives their life as a sort of "moral slob" with complete disregard for others.

jmog wrote: If you can't tell that's OTrap by that last post you aren't very smart.

Thanks, man.

You can certainly suppress your human nature and not want to pass along your genes, but once again you'll be the exception not the rule. Of course you'll always be able to find one of those. So what???

There is no difference between the servant and the slob. But you want so bad to believe that you'll be rewarded for your goodness however, you know that no one could possibly keep track. But what if there were an an invisible man in the sky who knows all the good I've done? Well now, I feel a little better.

It's a harsh reality I know. Like you, I think it sucks that some ppl get to be moral slobs while the rest of us are stuck living a strict moral life, and there are no punishments for the former nor rewards for the latter. Well, I guess there are some rewards, but not even close to the idea of a heavenly existence for eternity. You are more likely to be socially accepted, being of strong moral character. People don't have to worry about you railing their wives or stealing their televisions.

But since some socities get along just fine with their virtuous murder and lies I guess the invisible man forgot about those ones. How else could a society flourish while flying in the face of the universal laws???? Surely they'd have been turned to dust by now.

Sure have been a lot of interesting "novels" on this thread.

jmog wrote: If you can't tell that's OTrap by that last post you aren't very smart.

Yeah, he posted his old "suck it in" pic on another thread!

Of course, this fake otrap could have just pulled it out of his "stalker" file!! ha ha!

Strapping Young Lad wrote: You can certainly suppress your human nature and not want to pass along your genes, but once again you'll be the exception not the rule. Of course you'll always be able to find one of those. So what???

How do we know that human nature involves a "want" at all in a circumstance like this? We can know that it has been known to be necessary, and has thus been sought, but what epistemological authority can one appeal such that he may know resolutely that such a want is indeed human nature and that, thus, a lack of such a want is a suppression of human nature?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:There is no difference between the servant and the slob.

Indeed. As I said, you'd already led into the fact that you share this position with Nielson, and Dr. J. L. Mackey as well, who wrote in his book "The Miracle of Theism" that morality, as it is traditionally conceived, cannot exist.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:But you want so bad to believe that you'll be rewarded for your goodness

Believe it or not, that isn't of particular interest to me. As strange as that may sound, the notion of afterlife was and is irrelevant in the epistemological pursuit on the subject of the existence of the supernatural.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:however, you know that no one could possibly keep track.

How is it that I know this? How is it that anyone would know this?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:But what if there were an an invisible man in the sky who knows all the good I've done? Well now, I feel a little better.

To be quite honest, I don't think that's how it works, either, but that's a discussion for a different worldview construct.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:It's a harsh reality I know. Like you, I think it sucks that some ppl get to be moral slobs while the rest of us are stuck living a strict moral life, and there are no punishments for the former nor rewards for the latter.

Though my pursuit of good, even in the privacy of my own mind, is indeed a result of my belief in a supernatural supreme being, it is regardless of any notion of reward.

Curious. Why do you, in particular, live a "strict moral life?" I'm assuming that when you said "the rest of us," you were including yourself. Why do you? Do you have an intellectually honest reason for doing so?

Now that I think about it, if such universal morality cannot exist, then we couldn't even consider your actions, or anyone else's for that matter, to be moral, because to deem them moral on a spectrum of morality assumes that the spectrum exists.

I suppose, then, that I should rephrase the question. Since objective morality, in your view, does not exist, it is not intellectually honest to ask you why you act morally, because under your view, you wouldn't be able to even agree with me in saying you act morally.

So, why do you act the way that you do? What intellectually honest reason do you have for acting in a way that those who believe in morality might call "moral?" What logical reason do you have for not acting in a more self-serving way? This would certainly appear as a more primal and instinctive way to act, since we're talking about human nature. Why do you, specifically, go against your instinct of self-service?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Well, I guess there are some rewards, but not even close to the idea of a heavenly existence for eternity. You are more likely to be socially accepted, being of strong moral character. People don't have to worry about you railing their wives or stealing their televisions.

Possible, I suppose. Is this why you choose to act in such a way?

I would contend, however, that this would only satisfy the desire to appear moral, and may not, in fact, be a reason to actually act moral.

Suppose, for example, that I might have a way of stealing without even the tiniest chance of getting caught, having sex with people's wives and not getting caught, or burning down my childhood neighbor's house without getting caught. I would still bear the social appearance of one which could be trusted, when in fact, the opposite would be true. Thus, my morals would not affect my social standing. Only the appearance of my morals would.

A person has no reason not to go through with any of those things, in your view. Correct?

Certainly, you can think of some socially unacceptable act you could perform, which might be pleasing to you as a human, and with which you might be able to get away. I know I can.

So why not do it?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:But since some socities get along just fine with their virtuous murder and lies I guess the invisible man forgot about those ones. How else could a society flourish while flying in the face of the universal laws????

In the very same way a man can exist as a moral slob, a society can. I see no reason why there cannot be a distinction between the way a society is supposed to function and the way a society is able to function.

If I use a dime as a screwdriver, it knicks up and scratches the dime. It still works, and the dime is no less a dime, but it has indeed been damaged. This doesn't, however, mean that if I take it to the bank, a teller is going to tell me she cannot deposit the dime, because it has a few scratches.

Just because a society is still a society, and still bears the capability to function as a society, this does not mean that it is functioning in the way it was intended. Just as a dime is still a dime, and bears the capability to function as a dime (a piece of currency), even if it is not functioning in the way a dime is intended to function.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Surely they'd have been turned to dust by now.

Why?

The reason you crave sex, the reason sex feels good is to provide a desire to do it, for survival of the species. It's the same for every species on earth, why would we assume it's now different for us??? Of couse sex is very cerebral to human beings, but what isn't? We now have the ability to over-think any and everything and we do. But, even it is not why you want it right now, it's the basis of why you want it at all.

How can I know there is no earthly being keeping tally of everyone's deeds??? Just a hunch.

If there is that God given mechanism inside guiding us morally, why do some societies see murder as a virtue. Did God forget to install theirs??? It's hard for you and I to imagine, but imagine feeling no guilt, but rather the opposite after killing.

Since some will never hear of Jesus let alone accept him as savior, then I'd suppose God would at least instill in them a moral compass pointing them to Him and His laws. But I guess not. That's what univeral morality is about right?? C.S Lewis' little man inside.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: The reason you crave sex, the reason sex feels good is to provide a desire to do it, for survival of the species.

The problem is, this is speculative. There is no authority to which one can appeal that will tell resolutely why a species wants something. What you provided is an advantage to it. However, the advantage may not be why something intrinsically wants to do something.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: It's the same for every species on earth, why would we assume it's now different for us??? Of couse sex is very cerebral to human beings, but what isn't? We now have the ability to over-think any and everything and we do. But, even it is not why you want it right now, it's the basis of why you want it at all.

Based on what? It cannot be said, scientifically, that the if/then statement in question is true.

"If Action (A) has advantage (a), then (a) is the cause of (A)."

That's not proof. That's, at best, step three in the scientific method. Not six.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: How can I know there is no earthly being keeping tally of everyone's deeds??? Just a hunch.

If you're going to change it to "earthly," then we agree on the obvious in this instance. That was not your initial statement, however.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: If there is that God given mechanism inside guiding us morally, why do some societies see murder as a virtue.

Who ever said there was a God-given mechanism inside us? I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious who brought it up.

If there is, I would suggest there is an immoral mechanism within us as well. Not so much like the little angel and demon on the shoulders of cartoon characters. More innate than that. More primal, I'd say.

If they both exist (I suspect that, in some sense, they might), I would suggest they are part of the human condition, part of basic human nature.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Did God forget to install theirs??? It's hard for you and I to imagine, but imagine feeling no guilt, but rather the opposite after killing.

You say this as though you or I might be immune from it, but there are people very close to me that have had precisely this feeling. While there may be a flood of emotions that run through a person's body (and admittedly, guilt may be one that I would experience in such a situation), it cannot be said that it is required.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Since some will never hear of Jesus let alone accept him as savior, then I'd suppose God would at least instill in them a moral compass pointing them to Him and His laws.

I don't know that he doesn't. I actually think that, in some way, he does.

But then again, I'm a Dispensationalist, so that is something I already believed to be true. He may not appear to everyone and tell them about everything we know, but just as acceptance of Jesus' crucifixion was not always necessary for salvation (Moses, David, Asa, John the Baptist), I'm not sure it is now, either. There are reasons for that, but it's too much of a rabbit trail to get into now.

All that to say that I think God does present people with the ability to follow him.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: But I guess not. That's what univeral morality is about right?? C.S Lewis' little man inside.

Hahaha! I appreciate Lewis' view on many things, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

When I used the term "universal morality," I was not necessarily meaning one that was universally understood. I was meaning on that is universally applicable. Think of it in terms of a child. If an 18-month-old looks over at his twin brother and clocks him in the eye, and I look over at my 24-year-old brother and clock him in the eye, both the child's actions and my own are immoral. The difference is that I know it is immoral, and doesn't necessarily know it is immoral. I'm saying that it is applicable to all. Not necessarily understood by all.

Science tells us why individuals have sex. To carry on the species and if necessary, to form social bonds helping form a larger society. Science also tells us sex feels good via changes in brain chemistry. Motivation to engage in the act. Not sure if you are disagreeing with that idea or not?!?!?!

If you grew up in a society where you never heard of Jesus Christ and it was a virtue to murder and lie, I 'm not sure you'd be able to realize that these behaviors are morally reprehensible to others in some far off land and are so because their sky-god tells them. They probably have their own sky god telling them murder is virtuous.

If you did inherently know that the laws of the God of Abraham were true then you'd follow, right??? And if you didn't obey then you do so knowing that you are doing something evil but simply don't care, or you dont believe in God so there's no eternal reason to not kill if it's satisfying, or you are mentally ill.

But some kill because it is virtuous. That seems like a real defect. It seems like God is cheating these people. They will never hear of Jesus and be saved plus many of the things they believe to be virtuous are in fact serious evils....

As far as the God-given mechanism, well, C.S. Lewis says so in Mere Christianity. Each of us have a little man inside which tells us what is right and wrong. And this is universal, throughout all civilizations.

Some Christian philosophers would certainly say that like the child who strikes his brother, if you truly do not know that you are violating the law then you are exempt. But it seems to me like God would want his children to know the law, then have the will to follow God or not.

That's the story behind God creating us and giving us free will. He loves us and wants us to love him and obey his law, but he wants us to do so by our choice. If there is a society who thinks the opposite of his law is good and virtuous, well, they are being short-changed as the meaning of life is to choose and follow God, via our own free will.

This murderous, lying society is missing out on their whole meaning of life, because God never let them know the game. If the point of every human life is to choose God, then are these lives not important to God since they believe that the opposite of his law is good??? We are born, given knowledge of God and his way, then we have the free-will to choose to follow him or not. Well this murdering, lying society is not given the same test....So, is that not the purpose ofour being here??? If so many Christians are wrong about this.

I didn't take the time to read the other 8 threads to this post.

But, I do know more people have died in the name of religion or religious believes than for any other single cause know to man.

TCSoup wrote: I didn't take the time to read the other 8 threads to this post.

But, I do know more people have died in the name of religion or religious believes than for any other single cause know to man.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it because there is zero way this can be proven.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Science tells us why individuals have sex.

Incorrect. Science tells us a lot of things about the interaction between humanity and sex. "Why we do it" is not one of them, if we are going to be technical (and I suggest we must when regarding science, as the hard sciences exist on a foundation of what is TECHNICALLY true.

1. Science tells us that it is necessary for sex in order to procreate and further the species.

2. Science tells us that it is enjoyable to have sex (I believe I heard somewhere that orgasm is equitable to a cocaine high as far as what happens in the brain ... don't quote me, though.).

3. Science tells us that, somehow, it is instinctive to engage in sex ... such that if a human boy in the wild were to have no social interaction or sexual education, formal or informal, he would still be able to figure out what to do.

These are all reasons why one MIGHT have sex, but it is completely unprovable, and thus not a scientific issue, to establish the "why" of it through the hard sciences.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:To carry on the species and if necessary, to form social bonds helping form a larger society.

Again, science establishes these as advantages to it. However, as science lives and dies with what it can prove, it must prove the link between something being an advantage and something being a cause. The two are not synonymous, and thus, if an advantage is said to be a cause, it must be proven so.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Science also tells us sex feels good via changes in brain chemistry. Motivation to engage in the act. Not sure if you are disagreeing with that idea or not?!?!?!

Once again, an advantage (the feeling brought about by sex). I'm well aware of the studies on the brain in regard to humans and sexual interaction. Still, one cannot prove, scientifically, that a possible or even absolute advantage is the cause or motivation between a specific action ... either communally or individually.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:If you grew up in a society where you never heard of Jesus Christ and it was a virtue to murder and lie, I 'm not sure you'd be able to realize that these behaviors are morally reprehensible to others in some far off land and are so because their sky-god tells them.

I concur.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:They probably have their own sky god telling them murder is virtuous.

That may or may not be true. Quite honestly, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. However, let me pose this to you. How do you know that the being they revere is not the same one I revere? Because we disagree on what he/she/it is saying? There are enough Christians who do that, and yet they are still said to worship the same God, yes?

Either way, this particular discussion is fruitless, because nothing can be said with certainty.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:If you did inherently know that the laws of the God of Abraham were true then you'd follow, right???

I don't think so. Why would I? I don't know why it is assumed that if I know something to be true, inherently, that I would follow that morality. Is it not possible that what is "natural" or "innate" is not always what is good? Is it not possible that such things might on occasion be bad?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:And if you didn't obey then you do so knowing that you are doing something evil but simply don't care, or you dont believe in God so there's no eternal reason to not kill if it's satisfying, or you are mentally ill.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:But some kill because it is virtuous. That seems like a real defect. It seems like God is cheating these people. They will never hear of Jesus and be saved plus many of the things they believe to be virtuous are in fact serious evils....

Quite honestly, I don't think the vices called virtues really matter in the grand scheme of things. On some level, I think every society does this ... if not explicitly, then implicitly. Thus, we are all in the same boat, to some degree.

And as far as never hearing of Jesus, like I said (rather plainly, I thought) before, I'm not sure that matters. I referenced numerous examples of people who are depicted to be in heaven prior to the death of Jesus. They didn't know of it, as it was futuristic.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:As far as the God-given mechanism, well, C.S. Lewis says so in Mere Christianity.

I understand that. I was asking who brought Lewis' little man into the discussion here. I had made no mention of it. I didn't see anyone else referencing it, either.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Each of us have a little man inside which tells us what is right and wrong. And this is universal, throughout all civilizations.

As I said, Lewis and I don't see eye to eye on everything. In fact, I'm not sure I see eye to eye on everything with anyone. I would argue that if a person is truly reflective and thoughtful of what he professes, he will not agree on everything with any other person.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:Some Christian philosophers would certainly say that like the child who strikes his brother, if you truly do not know that you are violating the law then you are exempt.

Not true. While many Christians believe that a young child would be exempt from the punishment for such actions in the case of dying, I know of no single Christian thinker who would say that the action would not be wrong. Only that ignorance would be, in such a case, a viable defense.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:But it seems to me like God would want his children to know the law, then have the will to follow God or not.

I believe that is the case for the most part. I'm not sure where this would contradict anything else I've said.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:That's the story behind God creating us and giving us free will. He loves us and wants us to love him and obey his law, but he wants us to do so by our choice. If there is a society who thinks the opposite of his law is good and virtuous, well, they are being short-changed as the meaning of life is to choose and follow God, via our own free will.

I could see one thinking they were short changed. However, I would contend that they are short-changed by their own society ... in essence, they are short-changed by themselves.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:This murderous, lying society is missing out on their whole meaning of life, because God never let them know the game.

According to whom?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:If the point of every human life is to choose God, then are these lives not important to God since they believe that the opposite of his law is good???

Since when is what a people believes a reflection of God's emotion toward them? Is this a presupposition you've brought to the table?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:We are born, given knowledge of God and his way, then we have the free-will to choose to follow him or not. Well this murdering, lying society is not given the same test....

I'm not certain they as individuals aren't. Even so, however, it is probable that their skewed view of ethics is not the result of God, but of their ancestors. Would you not agree? If you would agree, why then would we blame God for the bed their ancestors made?

Strapping Young Lad wrote:So, is that not the purpose ofour being here???

Actually, I think that, at our most basic, our prime purpose is indeed not to choose God. Quite honestly, I think our most basic purpose is independent of our own will. That's a rabbit trail, though.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:If so many Christians are wrong about this.

Shocking. Many Christians (including myself, I'm sure) are wrong about a lot of things. Many PEOPLE are wrong about a lot of things. Hell, I'm willing to bet every person on the planet is wrong about several things.

TCSoup wrote: I didn't take the time to read the other 8 threads to this post.

But, I do know more people have died in the name of religion or religious believes than for any other single cause know to man.

Proof, or it's inadmissible.

^^^ Grandaddy of all posts!

CenterBHSFan wrote: ^^^ Grandaddy of all posts!

Unfortunately, you haven't seen anything yet.

There were a few Huddlers with whom I had this very same discussion, and our posts made that post look like a 10-second soundbite transcript.

Mr Pat wrote:

TCSoup wrote: I didn't take the time to read the other 8 threads to this post.

But, I do know more people have died in the name of religion or religious believes than for any other single cause know to man.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it because there is zero way this can be proven.

Name me a cause that more people have died in the name of.

Have you heard of the Crusades.?
The Jihad. Read the paper today dude and see how proud the Muslim nation is for the suicide bomber who killed all the CIA in the name of religious beliefs.
Think the Jews were killed by the millions, because they knew how to make money and had big nose's.?
Ask the Catholics in Belfast. What they think about killings in the name of religion.
What about along the East Bank.?
America was founded and settled by people who fled their own countries to avoid death and destruction in the name of religion.
You think 911 happened because of what.?

TCS, go read a history book, the Jews weren't killed in the Holocaust for religions reasons, they were killed for racial and political reasons.

The statements earlier still hold true, people in general are "bad", if not for religion they would have found many other reasons to kill.

Heck, Hitler started WWII with no religious reason whatsoever, he wanted more land/power and to create the "superior race" and expedite human evolution.

TCSoup wrote:

Mr Pat wrote:

TCSoup wrote: I didn't take the time to read the other 8 threads to this post.

But, I do know more people have died in the name of religion or religious believes than for any other single cause know to man.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it because there is zero way this can be proven.

Name me a cause that more people have died in the name of.

Have you heard of the Crusades.?
The Jihad. Read the paper today dude and see how proud the Muslim nation is for the suicide bomber who killed all the CIA in the name of religious beliefs.
Think the Jews were killed by the millions, because they knew how to make money and had big nose's.?
Ask the Catholics in Belfast. What they think about killings in the name of religion.
What about along the East Bank.?
America was founded and settled by people who fled their own countries to avoid death and destruction in the name of religion.
You think 911 happened because of what.?

Soup, ever hear of Joseph Stalin? He killed quite a lot of people, mog is correct about the Jews, and WW2 didn't happen because of the Holocaust, it started because Germany was impoverished because of WW1 and Hitler used that to his advantage. Civil War? Vietnam? American Revolution, or are taxes a spiritual thing?