Choosing a faith

We are bombarded with conflicting means. Back to letting someone into traffic. Maybe I’ve been in that line up for an extended period of time, and the other driver has just pulled up on the side street. We understand fairness so it seems fair that he/she should wait like I have, which maybe we can fall a meme of fairness. Which do we choose? The loving thing still prompts us to let him/her in, but have a very strong meme saying we shouldn’t. (As in all metaphors it breaks down eventually because in effect it also impacts the drivers behind me but I think you get my point.) [/qs]-would it not be "more honourable" to choose Love on our own without having any seeds planted?
-why would God eliminate this possibility of us choosing Love honourably? Why does God hate honour? Why does God seem to want robots?[/qs]If we are looking for honour then it isn’t sacrificial. What we do then is for the benefit of the self. Honour means that we are simply looking to be built up in the eyes of others. Christianity contends that death is not the end, and that ultimately it is metaphorically like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. The Christian contention is that ultimately there will be a recreation of all things, but that this life matters, and will have an impact in the world to come. Yes, that is a faith issue. I’ll go back to my initial example regarding memes. When one driver let’s another driver into traffic ahead of themselves it is more likely that the driver let in when he is next in that situation. It is still however his decision. Theoretically that can be spread around exponentially, however somewhere somebody is sure to break the chain.
So yes, I see the God meme of sacrificial love touching everyone’s heart, but then everyone has the choice of accepting or rejecting it. I suggest that you have made the choice unconsciously to have that meme impact your life – Hitler, for example, not so much.
From this we can go back to the point of starting this thread. Which God do we choose? We choose between a god of self love where we are prepared to sacrifice the well being of others for our own benefit, or a god where we are prepared to sacrifice our own well being for the well being others. It is our choice.

Sorry Phat but I have to disagree. The Gospels are clear that Jesus was for all nations. God's spirit touched everyone and everyone is free to reject it.

If it is ok I think that this section pretty much covers your whole post. When we raise our kids hopefully we do it with unconditional love. We want to be a good example and we want to give them guidance. However in all of that they aren't robots and do have free will.We are what we are through an evolutionary process which is about the survival of the fittest. Certainly co-operation can exist within the process and should be expected as there can be strength in numbers. However it is still about looking out for number one. We know though that we can rise above that and there has to be a reason for that. I don't see materialistic reasons for it.I think we would both agree that there is a right and wrong. Why would there be a right and wrong in a totally materialistic world?I contend that it would be a very unhappy world if there was no God meme. We have seen nations governed by despots whose lust for power is quite content to see the lives of millions lost to increase their power and others are simply tools to be used to increase their power. Maybe that would be survival of the fittest in action. In my view they have completely rejected the God meme, the still small voice of God, and they had the free will to do that. You have chosen a path of loving the other but that was freely chosen by you.

And you know that how? It is your belief just as I have mine. PHILOSOPHY
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.I guess sticking totally in there is kinda redundant.

I said hopefully parents raise their kids with unconditional love, acknowledging that it wasn’t done universally. Agreed you just keep making the same arguments. So yes, love is an aspect of cultural explanations, but it is a faith issue as to why the idea of sacrificial love exists at all. What is the science behind sacrificial love in the evolutionary process? Darwin’s finches got longer beaks to adapt to their environment, Evolution is a physical process. I do mean materialistic. See the definition in my post to nwr. Also, I don’t mean godless. I don’t see atheists as being godless. Even Hitler loved his dog from what I’ve read. 2/3 of Swedes are Christian
Sweden population (2022) live — Countrymeters
84.7% of Norway is Christian
Norway population (2022) live — Countrymeters
Why do you need to make this stuff up? Because He gave us free will. He didn’t make us to be robotic.

Well ya, but what they make up as you put it comes from all sorts of cultural memes and there is nothing to say that a God meme couldn’t be one of them. Again, it is a belief or faith issue. Just ask Descartes.

I only brought up loving parents to draw a parallel between that and how God loves us. The kids are influenced and then freed to make their own choices. You had mentioned earlier that a god meme would make us robots. Just loving parents don’t necessarily raise children that are loving parents, which doesn’t mean that the first set of parents weren’t loving.
I contend that Timmy’s parents chose to not respond to the god meme put on their hearts. In earlier posts you suggested that a god meme would make us into robots and now you seem to be questioning why it is that God didn’t turn us into robots. We have multiple influences in our lives of which I’m simply suggesting that God is one of them. Some of the influences we receive are ignored or over-ridden. IMHO we all ignore God’s influence to varying degrees in our lives. I suppose it is a matter of degree. In the end though there is “nature raw in tooth and claw” and about the survival of the fittest whether it be by brain or brawn. It cares not whether we love or not. It is just a physical process like Darwin’s finches. It cares not whether we paint a perfect picture or not .This is from wiki:
“Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[2]
Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868.[2][3] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[4][5] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment" It appears that we give ourselves purpose and we do so with our free will, but that does not argue against the position that one of the influences that bring about us arriving at that purpose is the influence of God.
Well from my Christian perspective all mankind has been given purpose by God. IMHO we have been given the purpose of stewarding all of creation by reflecting God’s love for us into all of that creation. We are called to be loving parents. We are called to love our neighbours and enemies. We are called to care for the planet. We are called to create beautiful paintings music etc. We can choose to respond to that call on our lives, but it isn’t forced on us. [qs=Stile] The reason I choose to follow Love is because I like that option better than the alternative.1. I interact with people.
2. My interactions can leave people happy or sad.
3. I use my intelligence to decide that between these options - I would rather leave people happy instead of sad.
This basis leads to: follow Love.
No God required. Completely mundane. Completely "materialistic" (if you want to call it that.)/qs]
Why do you even care if your actions leave people happy or sad? Materialistic processes like evolution is are about individual and species survival. It might be making someone happy or sad might aid survival, but more often than not it is irrelevant to the process.
So again, IMHO . we do very much have something to rise above. Many people gave Hitler their approval, and even sacrificed their lives for it. Was that right? Actually I don’t really think that you mean what those definitions sound like as everything that youi have said indicates that you lead a life based on loving others without caring what others might think.
I would define it this way.
Right: those actions that are done that are driven by selfless love.
Wrong: those actions that are driven by disadvantaging others for our own advantage.
This says nothing though about actions being correct or incorrect depending on the out come. For example if you give a homeless guy a ten bucks for a meal and he spends it on heroin, it was still the right thing to do but possibly your judgement might be faulty. I do think it leaves many questions. Everybody has their own ideas of what’s right and wrong. Some people believed the Covid mandates were a good idea, and some thought that they were reprehensible. Your definition depends on outcome. My definition of coming from a place of love, which could include people on either side of the argument. My definition is not dependent on outcome. We are still free to make our own decisions.. It is very clear that many reject His influence. We have free will where God is just one of many influences, stronger than some and often weaker than others.
In so many ways we come to our own conclusions on this based on our starting point. If we believe in a strictly material world then everything I say is just empty words. However, if we believe that there is an intelligence behind our existence then it is a different discussion altogether. Ultimately, we all put our faith in something, whether it is in the human mind or a cosmic intelligence. If it is the former then it is about establishing a code of conduct for people to adhere to. If it is the latter then it is a matter of discerning the nature of that intelligence. Either way we aren’t ever in this world going to come to anything close to a unanimous conclusion.

I think you’ve misconstrued my point. I don’t see a god meme in that light at all. However, I do see raw evolutionary forces, defined as survival of the fittest as something like original sin.
Absolutely we are impacted by the memes coming out of our culture.

Sure, but there is no ambiguity about what our response should be, and it doesn’t involve the possibility of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Ignoring it however, could cost us our life.

Sure I have. I agree that the influence of a god meme does not force anyone to follow its influence. I would agree that probably being raised by abusive parents is going to be a meme with a greater influence than the god meme. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t be loving parents, but it is far less likely. More realistically it would be hoped that over another generation or two that will change. Well they are explanations but they aren’t scientific, and neither are mine. It does show the influence of social memes but there are two things about that.
1/ It requires non-scientific assumptions based on observation. For example I might say the tangle is a great guy, but I can’t scientifically prove it.
2/Even if their explanations are correct, then they are the result of a myriad number of social memes but it does not eliminate, or even comment on the possibility of the influence of a theistic intelligence. Also for that matter, if there is a god meme then the influence of that meme on one person can cultural influence others. It becomes like passing along a good infection. I accept that you reject any proposal of a cosmic intelligence. I don’t accept the idea that anyone is totally uninfluenced by an external loving influence. We both have our beliefs and there is no scientific evidence to help us. OK
Secularism is primarily about a way of government that does not reference any particular belief system. Church attendance is irrelevant.
Noted humanist and author Jim Herrick wrote an apt definition of secularism,
“Secularism in the largest sense means that people do not refer to religion to make decisions, to adopt policies, to run their lives, to order their relationships, or to impel their activities”. This quotation can be found in an article in Free Inquiry titled, Will Secularism Survive?"In Canada, the UK and the US we have had secular governments for years and we have never seen so much division, violence, and general discontent than we do now. However, I do agree with the notion of the separation of church and state. The church position should never lead to a position in government, as it does in your House of Lords. It leads to terrible consequences for both church and state but particularly for the church. However, someone’s religious beliefs should not exclude them from running for political office. Mental illness exists and can dominate the nature of one’s actions.

Edited by GDR, .

Edited by GDR, : Correcting posting mistakes. Hopefully for the last time.

Sure, but we can observe evolutionary process, but we have no archeological record of how the property of caring for others came into existence. There is no evidence to support a materialistic process or processes that initiated that property. Yes it helps humans in general to survive but what evolutionary process would cause us to care if humans in some far off continent survive? How does sacrificing our own resources by sending our personal money to the impoverished in Africa help us individually survive, which is how raw evolution works? ..and you know that how? Yes, I agree Agreed, and so the question is – why are we able to.

GDR writes:Your definition (of Right/Wrong) depends on outcome. My definition of coming from a place of love, which could include people on either side of the argument. My definition is not dependent on outcome. I agree with all of that. By my definition doing the right thing can lead to negative consequences, and doing the wrong thing can lead to positive consequences. However, that is to make a distinction between what was the correct thing to do as opposed to the incorrect.That being said however, I think we would agree that far more often than not the action that comes from a loving motivation will produce a more positive result than on that comes from selfish motivation.The thing is the discussion is about having a moral or loving motivation as opposed to a discussion about simply the best course of action. In one sense it is about what does this so called consciousness want from us and I suppose my signature is a not bad partial answer - humble justice and mercy. However, the broader answer is simply sacrificial love.

I have read both links you sent me and I don’t know which one you are referring to.

According to that wiki article he claimed adherence to whatever was going to suit him politically and simply used the church until he couldn’t and then persecuted it. Does that include evidence other than scientific? There is lots of things that have philosophical evidence but for which we can disagree about the meaning of the evidence. I see a lot of things posted on this forum as facts that are actually individual beliefs and may or may not be actually factual. That is again the “god of the gaps” argument which is an empty argument. However “science of the gaps” is not an argument either and I see it employed more than I see the “god of the gaps” argument. It too is a case for intellectual laziness. This is the aspect of the forum I really dislike. I have not lied. I have expressed my opinion which may be right or wrong but my opinions are what I believe to be true.
Please don’t feel compelled to respond to this post.

Hi Phat
That statement is contrary to my reason for starting this thread. I had looked at a thread on this forum and was troubled by the ideas expressed in the thread about choosing which god to follow.My point was that God as we call him reaches out to everyone, regardless if you are Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist and then added that even Hitler loved his dog. (I was not claiming that Hitler was an atheist. I doubt he ever thought about any deity.)I used the term "cosmic intelligence" simply so that it would apply to everyone.For that matter even when we look at Jesus we have seen many different understandings of what God is telling us through Jesus. It ranges from so-called holy wars to absolute pacifism.I contend that the scriptural message is reasonably clear. Having faith in God or Jesus is not about giving intellectual assent to any particular doctrine but about giving heart assent to loving sacrificially. That is where our faith should lie.