|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nwr writes: We see people making it up. 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.
nwr writes:
Just ask Descartes. Does existence exist?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Again, it is a belief or faith issue. I see them put up one-way signs on a street. That defines the right way. In such a case, it is not a "belief or faith" issue. It is a social convention.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: I said hopefully parents raise their kids with unconditional love, acknowledging that it wasn’t done universally. But you haven't accounted for parents not raising their kids with unconditional love.
Agreed you just keep making the same arguments.
They're not my arguments, they're sciences' 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've given you a paper that starts to simply explain it, have you read it?
I don’t see atheists as being godless. But you just see what you want to see. I'm an atheist, I'm totally godless. Just accept it.
Even Hitler loved his dog from what I’ve read.
Oh god, Hitler... He was a bloody Catholic. Most people - excepting Phat and Faith - accept Catholics as Christians and I suppose even a psychopath can love his dog. But, you know wtf? He was a power crazed, murderous, deluded dictator - a product of evolution, culture and environment. God failed to whisper in his ear.
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? I'm a Christian Atheist.
quote:Irreligion in Sweden - Wikipedia And they are the happiest in the world. So how do you account for that?
Because He gave us free will.
A psychopath has no choice to be a psychopath. It's a neurological error. How is that free will?Edited by Tangle, . Edited by Tangle, . Edited by Tangle, . Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Stile writes:
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. The analogy you've provided clarifies my issue: Loving parents caring for their children. This provides an explanation on why God would write Love onto our hearts.But it brings up a bunch of other unanswerable questions: -why does God's parenting involve caring for us enough to write on our hearts that Stile should help an old lady cross the street, but God's parenting does not involve caring enough to write on Timmy's parents' hearts that they shouldn't let their child die from malnutrition? God's parenting-care just doesn't compare with a loving parent's care. Therefore - either God's "care" isn't Loving... or God doesn't have the power to feed Timmy... or God doesn't write things on our hearts at all. I contend that Timmy’s parents chose to not respond to the god meme put on their hearts. Stile writes:
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.
You seem to be describing a God that interferes "a certain amount."This calls into question "why that amount?" This is why I find the answer unsatisfactory. It seems like a "just-so" story to answer a question that didn't think of the ramifications of it's own answer. Stile writes:
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: No - it's not about looking out for number 1.Evolution isn't even about surviving. It's just a thing that happens. The fit end up surviving. The unfit end up dying. That's it. Evolution doesn't have a purpose or a goal of surviving... it's just a thing that happens, or it doesn't. Like rocks will either sit on land, or on water. There's no goal of rocks to be underwater, or on dry land... some just end up here and others there. Just a thing that happens. Therefore - evolution isn't about "looking out for number 1." It's just a thing that happens to live species as they reproduce. Some live species co-operate and end up surviving better. This can be a goal for that species... but it's not a goal for evolution. Or, maybe, again... it might just be "a thing that happens" within that species. Individuals within a surviving, co-operating species may have their own goals. Some might want the species to survive. Some might want to look out for number one. Some might not care at all and have a completely different goal - like painting the perfect picture. “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" Stile writes:
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. o me, there's nothing to "rise above" because there isn't anything there in the first place.I'm an individual, not only can I create my own personal purpose... but I have to create my own personal purpose because no one else is giving me a purpose. Well, I'm sure some people who want to take advantage of me try to give me purpose all the time - but I tend to ignore them, they don't seem helpful. 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. Stile writes:
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. Yes - and I can define it: (right and wrong)Right: those actions that result with the-people-being-affected-by-the-action giving their approval of the action. Wrong: those actions that result with the-people-being-affected-by-the-action giving their disapproval of the action. Can you define it? 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. Stile writes:
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.
That's right. But now you have this "God meme" in the picture... something God has forcefully placed into our minds/hearts without our consent (that's just a long way to say "interacting" with this world.) So now you have a problem: if God interacts with this world... why only a little bit? Why not more? Why not less? Why interact at all? I don't have any of those questions in my view of Right and Wrong.-some people care about others affected by their decisions (Right.) -other people do not care about others affected by their decisions (Wrong.) So we end up with people doing good things and bad things at various times with varying frequencies (whenever they individually decide to care about those affected by their actions.) No hanging questions. Everything's answered.GDR writes: You have chosen a path of loving the other but that was freely chosen by you.Stile writes:
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 your view, I still don't see how you can say this.God very well may be a caring parent and want to help us out by writing it on our hearts... but this is still writing it on our hearts which is still affecting our decision and it's not "really free," is it? There's an advertisement hanging around clearly pushing us in a certain direction. It would only be "freely chosen" if that advertisement wasn't there. 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. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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. Are you sure? Let's take a look at your definition:
quote: I agree that these sentences do not directly depend on any outcome. But how do these definitions actually work in practice? Let's say we have an old lady who wants to cross the street.So we help her cross - because we want to help (actions driven by selfless love - correct?) After we cross - that lady says "Thank-you for your attempt, but please don't help me cross the street - I really like my independence and crossing the street on my own helps me feel self-sufficient." The next day... we see the same old lady wanting to cross the street again.What do you do: Help her cross? Or not? I'm assuming you'll say something like "Don't help her cross, because this is what will help, out of selfless love." And I'd agree... and why do we know this is what actually helps in this situation? Because of the results of the previous situation. Now, let's add some more layers around the situation: What if, instead of helping the lady cross the street originally, we ask her: "Excuse me, ma'am... would you like me to help you across the street?"And her answer would be "No thank-you, I'm good." And the right thing to do would be to respect her wishes and leave her alone - correct?Why is this correct? Because Right/Wrong depends on how the person affected by the action wants the action to affect them! It always boils down to how the affected-people like or don't like the action that was done to them. If you agree with this... the rest of my argument follows (it's all built upon defining Right/Wrong... because that's the basis of morality.)If you don't agree with this... please let me know how I'm describing the above situation incorrectly. Or... feel free to provide your own situation that shows Right/Wrong comes from "the intent to do good things" as opposed to "actually doing good things." I agree that the intent is an important aspect... but it's what leads us to continually update our actions to find "the right thing" for any given situation. If it's the final definition on Right/Wrong... you end up with people doing bad things while having good intentions and not caring about the results because they had those good intentions to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
GDR writes: Why do you even care if your actions leave people happy or sad? Because I'm a human with the ability to care about things. "But Stile - where does that caring come from?"-it comes from the materialistic process of evolution. Steel doesn't float.But boats are made of steel. Steel boats float. Things, after going through materialistic processes, can gain properties that didn't exist before. Somewhere along the line, living organisms gained the property of "caring" that didn't exist before.And humans also have that property. Humans don't "have the ability to care" because of survival.But "having the ability to care" did help humans survive. And it's something that just happened. A change occurred, somewhere (where before two-legged mammals were a thing...) through the materialistic process of evolution, and some living things began to care for each other and co-operate. They survived. Then there were more changes... and eventually humans evolved. There was no plan for humans to care.There wasn't even a plan for "humans." Again - if anything, we live in a universe that's obviously created to make stars."Living things" is an unaccounted for by-product. "Living things that care for others" is an even further unaccounted for by-product. And that's fascinating. Materialistic processes like evolution are about individual and species survival. No, it's not. Materialistic processes like evolution are not "about" anything. They don't have a goal, they don't have a purpose. They just are.Like some rocks being on land and others being underwater. No matter how many times you say "rocks want to be underwater" it doesn't make it true. No matter how many times you say "evolution is about surviving" it doesn't make it true. (And it looks just as silly as claiming that rocks want to be underwater.) So again, IMHO . we do very much have something to rise above. But that's simply because you think rocks want to be underwater. They don't.But that's simply because you think the materialistic process of evolution is about survival. It isn't. It isn't about anything. It's a materialistic process... just a bunch of rocks... there's nothing to rise above. But, the fact that we can... and choose to... that's fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: It really isn���t. You���ve just reminded me of your misrepresentation of Dawkins��� The Selfish Gene - trying to pass it off as something like Original Sin. But understanding that idea would be a good starting point. And then you have culture on top of that. 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. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nwr writes:
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. see them put up one-way signs on a street. That defines the right way. In such a case, it is not a "belief or faith" issue. It is a social convention.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
tangle writes: 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.
But you haven't accounted for parents not raising their kids with unconditional love.Tangle writes: 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. They're not my arguments, they're sciences' explanations.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. Tangle writes:
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.
But you just see what you want to see. I'm an atheist, I'm totally godless. Just accept it. Tangle writes: I'm a Christian Atheist. Tangle writes: And they are the happiest in the world. So how do you account for that? OKSecularism 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.
Tangle writes:
Mental illness exists and can dominate the nature of one’s actions. A psychopath has no choice to be a psychopath. It's a neurological error. How is that free will?Edited by GDR, . Edited by GDR, : Correcting posting mistakes. Hopefully for the last time. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I don’t think so.
quote: I didn’t say or quote anything about a “god meme”. The misconstrual is obviously yours.
quote: My point was that in past discussion you represented the idea of the selfish gene as being like original sin. But that that was a gross misrepresentation and in fact it is part of the basis for morality - or even altruism. And that that is in complete contradiction to your idea that evolution is simply about “survival of the fittest” - as you construe it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
You didn't read the link did you?
And you can't explain why the most non-religious countries in the world are the happiest can you?(Despite your assertion that the godless can't be happy - somehow I manage it.) Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Stile writes:
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.
Because I'm a human with the ability to care about things. "But Stile - where does that caring come from?"-it comes from the materialistic process of evolution. Steel doesn't float.But boats are made of steel. Steel boats float. Somewhere along the line, living organisms gained the property of "caring" that didn't exist before. And humans also have that property. Things, after going through materialistic processes, can gain properties that didn't exist before. Stile writes:
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?
Humans don't "have the ability to care" because of survival.But "having the ability to care" did help humans survive. Stile writes:
..and you know that how?
There was no plan for humans to care.There wasn't even a plan for "humans." Stile writes: Again - if anything, we live in a universe that's obviously created to make stars."Living things" is an unaccounted for by-product. "Living things that care for others" is an even further unaccounted for by-product. And that's fascinating. GDR writes:
Materialistic processes like evolution are about individual and species survival.Stile writes:
Yes, I agree
No, it's not. Materialistic processes like evolution are not "about" anything. They don't have a goal, they don't have a purpose. They just are.Like some rocks being on land and others being underwater. No matter how many times you say "rocks want to be underwater" it doesn't make it true. No matter how many times you say "evolution is about surviving" it doesn't make it true. (And it looks just as silly as claiming that rocks want to be underwater.) GDR writes:
So again, IMHO . we do very much have something to rise above.Stile writes:
Agreed, and so the question is – why are we able to. But that's simply because you think rocks want to be underwater. They don't.But that's simply because you think the materialistic process of evolution is about survival. It isn't. It isn't about anything. It's a materialistic process... just a bunch of rocks... there's nothing to rise above. But, the fact that we can... and choose to... that's fascinating.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Hitler was not an atheist. Quit saddling us with him. He was a Christian.
For more info. If you have a wiki problem, then follow the links to the sources. If you are incapable of that and want to continue to deny facts, I will gladly present them to you, one at a time. Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Context is everything. Why do you exist? What is the definition of a life well lived? Is it entirely up to the individual? Can an individual choose to be a rogue and steal pleasure at the expense of others and neglect long-term responsibilities?
Again, the apologists explain it this way: (You may agree or disagree, but it is important to understand their argument)
Apologist writes: So how bad were those so-called reprobates?
These nations had the light of creation and conscience, and they also had prophetic light. There were prophets in the region such as Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his sons. The Canaanite nations could have repented like Nineveh did, and God would have forgiven them (Jonah 3:5-10).These pagan nations were proud and bold in their sin (Isaiah 3:9). Following is a description of the horrible practices of the Canaanites of Joshua’s day. This is from “Killing the Canaanites,” Christian Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2010. Idolatry. The Canaanites took seriously the testimony of the Old Testament witness of Yahweh and His revelation, if for no other reason than intentionally to transform the scriptural depiction of Yahweh into a castrated weakling who likes to play with His own excrement and urine (See Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba‘al in Canaanite Religion, p. 172). ... Incest. Like all Ancient Near East (ANE) pantheons, the Canaanite pantheon was incestuous. Baal has sex with his mother Asherah (“El, Ashertu and the Storm-god,” trans. Albrecht Goetze, ed. James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament), his sister Anat, and his daughter Pidray (W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan), and none of this is presented pejoratively. ... In the larger ANE context, it is helpful to consider that in an Egyptian dream book dreams of having sex with your mother or your sister were considered good omens (Lise Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt). Adultery. Canaanite religion, like that of all of the ANE, was a fertility religion that involved temple sex. Inanna/Ishtar, also known as the Queen of Heaven, “became the woman among the gods, patron of eroticism and sensuality, of conjugal love as well as adultery, of brides and prostitutes, transvestites and pederasts” (Gwendolyn Leick, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature). As University of Helsinki professor Martti Nissinen writes, “Sexual contact with a person whose whole life was devoted to the goddess was tantamount to union with the goddess herself” (Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World). The Canaanites even remake the God of the Bible, El, after their own image and portray Him ceremonially as having sex with two women (or goddesses). The ceremony ends with directions: “To be repeated five times by the company and the singers of the assembly.” About this John Gray comments, “We may well suppose that this activity of El was sacramentally experienced by the community in the sexual orgies of the fertility cult which the Hebrew prophets so vehemently denounced” (Gray, The Legacy of Canaan). Child sacrifice. Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bullheaded idol with a human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death. The victims were not only infants; children as old as four were sacrificed (Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context). Kleitarchos reported that “as the flame burning the child surrounded the body, the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing, until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron” (John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice, p. 87). Homosexuality. No ANE text condemns homosexuality. Additionally, some ANE manuscripts talk about “party-boys and festival people who changed their masculinity into femininity to make the people of Ishtar revere her” (Stephanie Dalley, “Erra and Ishum IV,” Myths from Mesopotamia, p. 305). Bestiality. Probably the ultimate sexual depravity is intercourse with animals. Hittite Laws: 199 states, “If anyone has intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man has intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment” (Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East,” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday). ... There should be no surprise that bestiality would occur among the Canaanites, since their gods practiced it. From the Canaanite epic poem “The Baal Cycle” we learn: “Mightiest Baal hears / He makes love with a heifer in the outback / A cow in the field of Death’s Realm. / He lies with her seventy times seven / Mounts eighty times eight / [She conceives and bears a boy” (Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 1997, ed. Simon B. Parker). There were absolutely no prohibitions against bestiality in the rest of the ANE. In fact, in an Egyptian dream book it was a bad omen for a woman to dream about embracing her husband, but good things would happen if she dreamed of intercourse with a baboon, wolf, or he-goat (Lise Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt, 1987). In short, their sexual fantasies involved everything that breathes. This explains why, in certain cities, Yahweh sentenced to death everything that breathes. If they had sex with just about every living thing they could get their hands on, and they did, then all had to die” (Clay Jones, “Killing the Canaanites,” Christian Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2010). It is not morally wrong for a holy, lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagrantly, and unrepentantly break His laws and pollute and degrade human society. Men are quick to call for justice when they are offended, but they hypocritically criticize God for exercising justice against sinners. In other words, God basically set apart His chosen people (Israel) for a future mission as yet to be setermined. The reprobate nations had to be destroyed because they were polluting the innocence and purity of the chosen ones. Now before you get statrted, I know you will use Nazi Germany or even America herself in order to show that such an attitude towards other nations and practices is simply a prelude to nationalism and exclusivism, for example. Critics could even point to Russias invasion of the Ukraine as a similar excuse. So there are arguments both pro and con. Whichs gets back to the whole belief and concept of God Himself. You say that God is a monster hands down. I would argue that God, if God exists would be more in line with this apologetic defense:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7). You likely will attempt to defend the behavior (any behavior) of others as a freewill exercised right. Consider, however, if there were a city of men (humans) who demanded to have sexual relations with your guests. Would they have that right? Now....I dunno much about Bestilaity, but it sounds quite undisciplined and unnatural. Are you going to argue that it all depends on the culture? That cows have rights too? "Its MY body, so mooooove over!" Even in judgment, God is merciful. What He loves above all is mercy and what He is above all is a Saviour, but men must repent and turn to Him. That is His requirement, and the Creator has every right to set the rules! And as for child sacrifice, thats downright evil no matter what culture you are from."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
Stile writes:
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. Are you sure?Let's take a look at your definition: quote: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. I agree that these sentences do not directly depend on any outcome. But how do these definitions actually work in practice? Let's say we have an old lady who wants to cross the street.So we help her cross - because we want to help (actions driven by selfless love - correct?) After we cross - that lady says "Thank-you for your attempt, but please don't help me cross the street - I really like my independence and crossing the street on my own helps me feel self-sufficient." The next day... we see the same old lady wanting to cross the street again.What do you do: Help her cross? Or not? I'm assuming you'll say something like "Don't help her cross, because this is what will help, out of selfless love." And I'd agree... and why do we know this is what actually helps in this situation? Because of the results of the previous situation. Now, let's add some more layers around the situation: What if, instead of helping the lady cross the street originally, we ask her: "Excuse me, ma'am... would you like me to help you across the street?"And her answer would be "No thank-you, I'm good." And the right thing to do would be to respect her wishes and leave her alone - correct?Why is this correct? Because Right/Wrong depends on how the person affected by the action wants the action to affect them! It always boils down to how the affected-people like or don't like the action that was done to them. If you agree with this... the rest of my argument follows (it's all built upon defining Right/Wrong... because that's the basis of morality.)If you don't agree with this... please let me know how I'm describing the above situation incorrectly. Or... feel free to provide your own situation that shows Right/Wrong comes from "the intent to do good things" as opposed to "actually doing good things." I agree that the intent is an important aspect... but it's what leads us to continually update our actions to find "the right thing" for any given situation. If it's the final definition on Right/Wrong... you end up with people doing bad things while having good intentions and not caring about the results because they had those good intentions to start. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024