Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God 'allowed' to change his mind?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 46 (39342)
05-08-2003 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by amsmith986
05-08-2003 12:08 AM


amsmith986 writes:
quote:
Did Adam have to know "why" in order to obey God?
Yes.
Obedience requires knowledge. Otherwise, it's either random behaviour or the forcing of behaviour.
How can a person who is incapable of comprehending what good and evil are possibly be responsible for an evil act? By what basis did he make the choice to deliberately do evil when he doesn't know what evil is?
Suppose I tell you that there are two things that you can do. One is "beetaratagang." The other is "clerendipity." Now, think carefully: Your immortal soul is on the line.
Which do you do?
C'mon...no hesitating. Which is it? Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
He wasn't a little kid.
Yes, he was. The Bible even says so:
Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Now, apparently they didn't understand that they were supposed to be mortified at not wearing any clothing. And notice, god doesn't seem to mind about this dreadful sin of theirs.
Why? Because they are innocent. They haven't eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil yet. They can't be held responsible for this deliberate sin of theirs because they literally are incapable of understanding that they are doing something wrong.
And look what happens when they do eat of the tree:
Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Don't you think that the very first thing that would go through their minds upon eating from the tree of knowledge is that they shouldn't have eaten from the tree of knowledge? But instead, the first thing they realize is that they's nekkid!
And when god comes looking for them (why does god need to look for them? Doesn't he know where they are as a supernatural being?) they hide because they have no clothes. And when god asks why they're hiding, they don't say that they had eaten from the tree...they say they hid because they were naked.
So yeah, Adam was as a little kid. You see, children don't understand morality, either. They haven't been indoctrinated in all the rules plus, their brains are not mature enough to handle the information. There's a reason why children all tend to latch onto post-operative logic at about 7 years old: Their brains have finally matured to the point where they can think about it.
quote:
If my Dad tells me not to chew gum, I don't have to have a reason as to "why".
But if you don't understand that obeying your father is a good thing to do, you can't be faulted for not obeying him. Especially if someone else comes along and takes advantage of your incomprehension and tells you that your father is lying to you when he says that you'll die if you chew gum and that he's only jealous because if you do chew gum, you'll become like him.
And, in fact, it seems that guy that was telling you your father was lying was right...you didn't die and we can hear your father mutter that since you've chewed gum, all you need to do now is eat the Pop Rocks and you will become just like him so he better make you get a job and your own friggin' apartment and while he's at it, he's going to speak to all the employers in town to make sure they only hire you grudgingly and give you the most menial tasks as well as all of your children:
Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So please explain it to me: If you are so innocent that you don't know you're running around naked and you certainly don't understand that it is bad to disobey your father, do you really think that it is your fault if I come along and take advantage of that innocence of yours to get you to do something your father doesn't want you to do?
Isn't it the father's fault for letting there be gum for you to chew? Isn't it the father's fault for not watching you every second to make sure I don't get near you? Isn't it the father's fault for not providing you with the tools necessary for you to brush me off?
Remember, you're innocent. You don't even realize you're naked let alone know that you're supposed to obey your father.
quote:
He may just be trying to see if I will obey him or not.
And the best test he could come up with is "Do what I tell you or I will curse you and all your offspring for all eternity"? Couldn't he come up with something a little less drastic? Something for which the punishment is no TV for a week? But even then, would that really be of any use for someone who doesn't understand what just happened?
If you don't understand right and wrong, how can you possibly understand consequences? How could you possibly come to learn anything? What is the point of testing something that is going to act randomly because it is incapable of making a deliberate choice? The only thing we'll find is that if we keep playing with it we'll eventually break it.
quote:
Oh, by the way, does your saw really look just like all the other toys you are letting your kids play with?
How is an innocent supposed to know that it doesn't look like a toy? Everything else is a toy...so this is just another one.
Remember, Adam and Eve were incapable of comprehending the concept of "obedience" since that requires knowledge of good and evil and they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
[This message has been edited by Rrhain, 05-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by amsmith986, posted 05-08-2003 12:08 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 46 (39376)
05-08-2003 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Paul
05-08-2003 9:54 AM


Paul writes:
quote:
Evidence for presumptuous acts done wilfully and deliberatly against law and conscience is everywhere, and is a tuff subject which most try to avoid. However it's rampant in and exclusive to the human species and it needs to be addressed as to why?
There are lots of reasons why.
They can range from the clinical (the person has a psychological or medical defect that renders him incapable of comprehending or complying with the standards established by society for behaviour) to the personal (the person values the outcome more than the rules that disallow the action and thinks he can get away with it.)
But, it would seem to be a shifting of burden to ask of those who aren't invoking god as a ruler of all that is good and bad to explain why good and bad exist. This is because they aren't saying that there is some powerful being that defines what "good" and "evil" are and is capable of guiding creation along those lines.
That is, people who place good and bad clearly within the realm of human behaviour don't have to explain why good and bad exist since it is part of human behaviour simply by observation.
However, a person who claims that there is a god who controls everything (or, at least can control everything) needs to explain why there is good and bad since it is conceivable that this "all good" being could do away with evil if only he would act.
Let's try it this way: Suppose there's a stickup in a city 1,000 miles away. Do you as a person who finds out about it two seconds before it happens have to explain why it's going to happen since you are in no position to do anything about it? What about if you're Superman and capable of getting there in time and, indeed, have nothing stopping you from getting there in time to foil it?
By observation, there are good and bad people. If we don't invoke an uber-being as arbiter of all that is good and bad and capable of controlling the humans, then we simply accept that there are good and bad people and while we might try to adjust the ratio, we will accept that we are only human and might not be able to do so.
But if we do invoke this uber-being, why are there good and bad people?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Paul, posted 05-08-2003 9:54 AM Paul has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 19 of 46 (39381)
05-08-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Paul
05-08-2003 9:54 AM


Oh, and I had forgotten this:
quote:
However it's rampant in and exclusive to the human species
Incorrect. Observation of chimpanzee troops finds that they, too, have an ethical system, even to primitive legal systems. Certain crimes (such as stealing someone's food) have consistent punishments meted out.
It was one of the great difficulties many had with Goodall's work observing primates when she described how they would actually wage war with each other. It was thought that "mere animals" couldn't possibly be that sophisticated.
Well, turns out they are. The difference between human cognitive processes and the processes of other animals appears to be one of quantity, not quality.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Paul, posted 05-08-2003 9:54 AM Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Paul, posted 05-08-2003 4:11 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 46 (39392)
05-08-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Paul
05-08-2003 11:12 AM


Paul responds to schrafinator:
quote:
So, your opinion is that if it feels good sexually, whether heterosexual or homosexual, any act is ok? That no matter how odd the behavior, if it feels good, it's quite fine to do?
I can't speak for schrafinator, but let me rephrase your question:
Why are any sexual practices considered "odd"?
You don't do this for other aspects. For example, you don't call Scandanavians "abomination" for eating lye-soaked whitefish. Pretty odd, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is an offense against god, is it?
quote:
What are the parameters for this "because it feels good" logic?.
The consent of the people involved.
After all, if you're not involved, why should you care? Why are you obsessing about what other people are doing for fun when you have no chance of being affected by it?
quote:
Does this logic then explain why a 27 year old, 8 month pregnant, woman is murdered on Christmas eve by her husband, while he is having a torrid sexual relationship with another woman?
So Laci Peterson was murdered because gay people are tolerated?
Question: Do you think Peterson consented to being murdered?
quote:
This murderous act must be driven by the bonding and social aspect that you refer to then, correct?
You mean Scott Peterson is gay? When did that come out?
What does the existence of gay people have to do with S. Peterson's murder of L. Peterson?
quote:
Was he tired of the old bond and needed a new one?
You'll have to ask him.
But what does this have to do with people being gay?
quote:
Was that "because it feels good" aspect absent from their relationship, therefore he needed a new one?
You'll have to ask him.
But what does this have to do with people being gay?
quote:
I guess this extra bonding, social and sexual activity that "felt so good", became more important than the lives of his wife and unborn child then?
Do you seriously think they consented to the assault?
Think about it for a second, Paul: If I decide to have Cheerios for breakfast as opposed to Grape Nuts, does that really have any effect upon your life? So if two people decide to engage in some non-procreative sexual activity without consulting you, how does that affect your life? By what basis do you think you have any claim to stop them from doing so?
How does it break your leg or pick your pocket, to paraphrase Jefferson?
Do you have a problem with finding yourself engaging in sexual practices you don't want to be participating in?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Paul, posted 05-08-2003 11:12 AM Paul has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 46 (39487)
05-09-2003 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Paul
05-08-2003 4:11 PM


Paul responds to me:
quote:
Some good points are made. However, although research can be catagorized in the manner you have described, it is at the same time quite clear that all other species behavioral characteristics are seen as survivalistic actions.
Not at all.
Why do pretty much every other mammalian species engage in non-procreative sex?
There's a wonderful book you ought to read: Biological Exuberance. It seems that not only do other animals engage in non-procreative sex, some animals mate for life with members of the same sex.
Of course, you still have the problem of trying to explain how one goes from "non-procreative sex is not a sin" to "therefore murder is not a sin."
quote:
When a chimp takes another chimps food it has done so because it feels it needs to eat that food to survive, period.
Incorrect. When was the last time you watched chimpanzee troops?
Chimps will steal food from others simply because they don't like the others. Even when there is plenty of food to be had all around, sometimes one chimp decides he just doesn't like another and does things like steal his food, kick him out of nests, etc.
Depending on his place in the hierarchy, the aggrieved chimp can complain to the more senior members of the troop and they will punish the one who is tormenting the other.
quote:
When a chimp responds to this other chimps action it's doing so because it feels it's survival is being threatened by the taking of its food.
Incorrect. When was the last time you observed chimpanzee troops?
Why would one troop engage in war with another troop when there is no conflict of territory, food, shelter, or mates?
quote:
This cannot be catagorized as stealing and delivering punishment such as we do.
So why do the chimpanzees consider it stealing and punish the offender appropriately?
quote:
Stealing within the human species however, is always done out of greed, laziness or for profit.
I see you haven't read Les Misrables, either.
Humans also steal out of necessity, too.
quote:
Indeed there are clinical and personal reasons for the multitudes of failures that we humans commit, with the question being why are we the only species to have these characteristics?
We aren't. Therefore, your entire argument fails.
Can you think of any particular reason of "necessity" for animals to commit rape, murder, theft, extortion or go to war? They do, after all. So since there isn't a single thing that humans do that animals don't do, by what justification do you draw a distinction?
quote:
Why is there such a vast difference between us and all other species in this area?
There isn't.
It really is that simple. You are simply mistaken. Therefore, your entire line of reasoning is faulty.
quote:
Why is it that I can break into my neighbours house and steal his $10,000 stereo set when I have one of my own at home?
Because you are physically capable of doing so and want to do so and have either determined that you will get away with it or do not care if you don't.
It's the same reasons chimpanzees do the same thing of stealing from their neighbors even though there is no need to do so.
quote:
Why does the human species consistantly conceive things in their minds that go against conscience, and then futher, manifest those things through a blatant action?
For the same reasons that other animals do it: Because they can and want to.
quote:
Am I to assume that you are saying it's the condition of the mind that dictates our every action? Is the mind the place that we "Know" or "Feel" ? or both? or neither?
Yes. Our neurological systems are quite complex and often we do things without conscious thought. For example, your heart is beating right now, but it isn't like you are consciously thinking out making it beat. But, your heart's beating is controlled by your brain.
quote:
If I know something is wrong to do, can I go ahead and do it based on how I feel?
You do anyway, don't you?
You seem to have neglected the key component in my response to you.
Consent.
If what you are about to do affects someone else, do you have their consent to do so?
If X and Y are having sex, how does that affect Z?
Be specific.
quote:
Where did this ability come from?
Our societal structure.
quote:
I "know" it's wrong to steal my neighbours stereo, but, based on how I "feel" allows me to steal it?
Do you have your neighbor's consent?
quote:
or even gives me the right to steal it?
Do you have your neighbor's consent?
quote:
Why is it that one day I may steal something and the next day not?
Because one day you'll want to and the next day you won't.
quote:
Why is it that the greater the value of something the greater the likelihood of me stealing it there is?
That you'll have to ask yourself. I don't see many people trying to steal nuclear weapons compared to, say, television sets despite the fact that nuclear weapons are much more valuable.
quote:
Why would value mean anything to me anyways?
You're the one who brought it up. Why don't you tell me?
quote:
I'm simply surviving am I not?
You might think you are, but you still haven't answered my question:
Do you have the consent of the person whose property you are taking?
quote:
What told my mind to place such a value on things and then give liscence to steal them?
Lots of things. The value concept is most likely derived through social upbringing. That you think you have a license to steal can come through a whole bunch of sources. You'll have to ask yourself for the actual one.
quote:
Is it an emotion that drives this?
Yes.
quote:
If so what emotion is it then ?
Depends upon why you're stealing.
quote:
For that matter where did emotions come from,
Your brain.
quote:
and again, which one drives the stealing or say cold blooded murder action?
Lots of reasons. You'll have to ask yourself that since you're the one doing it. There is no single reason applicable to all cases.
quote:
Why do we have all these emotions and all other species are basically void of them?
Because they're not and anybody who thinks they don't simply hasn't done much observation of animals.
Have you ever had cats? Ever go away for a long time? How did they react when you came back?
My cat was a clingy type. If I were to go away for a week, he'd immediately run back to me when I came home. I got him from the pound so maybe he had some abandonment issues, but that's the way he was. He loved you, he loved me, he loved linoleum. You're back! Pet me!
My best friend's cat, however, held a grudge. She went away to college and when she went home, her cat wouldn't talk to her for a week. He was a very friendly cat, but he was not happy with her for going away.
Now, please explain this behaviour without invoking the concept of emotion in felines.
quote:
When a mentally handicapped person commits a crime we blame their mind and their handicap.
But animals are not mentally handicapped.
There is a difference between being incapable of comprehending actions such as one might find in certain forms of mental defect and not being as sophisticated in ones mental processes.
quote:
If an intelligent, physically fit person commits a crime what does that say about the condition of their mind or their personality?
In and of itself? Very little. It depends upon the circumstances in which the crime was committed.
quote:
Thought is the process by which we live. Every decision and then action that is made, begins with a thought process.
You mean when I tap that spot right below your knee with a hammer, it's a conscious thought process that makes your leg twitch?
Sounds an awful lot like you're about to say that humans don't have instincts.
quote:
What gaurds the thought process from presumptuous error?
Other thought processes.
Specifics of morality need to be taught.
Why do you think it is not ok to be polygamous in our culture but it is ok to be polygamous in other cultures?
quote:
The conscience, which is the birthplace of emotions.
Which is a mental process.
quote:
But what if the conscience fails?
I guess in your case, it leads to gay people being used as a warning sign for serial killers.
quote:
How could this unseen conscience have developed that can be more powerful than the mind?
Because humans are animals and animals have instincts and behave on those instincts.
quote:
And since it is more powerful than the mind how is it then possible to err with it in place?
Mistaken assumption, false conclusion.
quote:
If its intension is to protect us from err, how does it fail us then?
Mistaken assumption, false conclusion. It isn't there to "protect us from err" [sic].
quote:
Is there something more powerful than the conscience then? Yes. The Free Will:
You mean when I tap that spot just below your knee with a hammer, it is your free will that causes your leg to twitch?
Careful...you're about to say that humans don't have instincts or reflexes or all those other pesky neurological things that other animals have.
quote:
The complete and total right to choose between right and wrong.
But there is no solid definition as to what is "right" and "wrong." If there were, everybody would agree and they don't.
quote:
No other species has or even needs this right.
Incorrect.
Other primates do this as do some cetaceans.
You really need to do some more research on animal behaviour.
quote:
Observation has shown that all their behavioral habits are survivalistic in nature, and they never commit presumptuous acts of wrong.
Incorrect.
In fact, the exact opposite is true. This was part of the problem Jane Goodall had when she reported her findings. Nobody thought that "mere animals" were capable of things like rape, murder, theft, extortion, and war.
And yet, they are.
Therefore, you have started with a mistaken premise and led yourself to a false conclusion.
quote:
Why do they not have or need this right?
Because you are mistaken in your premise and thus have led yourself to a false conclusion.
Animals do have moral codes and do choose between them.
Go into the jungle and watch the chimpanzees for a few years. You might learn something.
quote:
It was not part of their design.
So why do they do so?
Are they sinning against god?
Of course, you still haven't managed to explain how one gets from homosexual activity to murder. Could you help us out here? How does recognizing that two women engaging in sex are not sinning lead us to conclude that murder is not a sin, either?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Paul, posted 05-08-2003 4:11 PM Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 05-09-2003 1:04 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 35 by Paul, posted 05-09-2003 1:18 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 46 (39561)
05-09-2003 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Paul
05-09-2003 1:18 PM


Paul responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Of course, you still haven't managed to explain how one gets from homosexual activity to murder. Could you help us out here?
I have absolutely no idea how this activity could lead to an action such as murder.
But you were the one claiming that it did.
After all, you were the one who jumped from homosexual sex to the murder of Laci Peterson by her husband.
Or do you not remember saying the following in Message 20 of this very thread:
So, your opinion is that if it feels good sexually, whether heterosexual or homosexual, any act is ok? That no matter how odd the behavior, if it feels good, it's quite fine to do?
What are the parameters for this "because it feels good" logic?.
Does this logic then explain why a 27 year old, 8 month pregnant, woman is murdered on Christmas eve by her husband, while he is having a torrid sexual relationship with another woman?. This murderous act must be driven by the bonding and social aspect that you refer to then, correct? Was he tired of the old bond and needed a new one? Was that "because it feels good" aspect absent from their relationship, therefore he needed a new one? I guess this extra bonding, social and sexual activity that "felt so good", became more important than the lives of his wife and unborn child then?
You were the one saying that homosexuality leads to murder. That the rationale that allows two people who love each other to engage in sexual activity that they find pleasurable somehow also allows the taking of another human life in a vicious manner.
Therefore, it is up to you to justify it.
quote:
I do know however, that the majority of the participants of this activity do not commit such an action, or a wrongful action of any kind for that matter.
So please explain how it is that you think that not thinking being gay is a sin somehow necessitates not thinking murder is a sin.
Be specific.
quote:
Perhaps an interview with a person like Wayne Gacey or another, could help you with an answer to your question.
They weren't the ones equating homosexuality with murder.
That was you.
Therefore, you are the one that needs to explain it.
quote:
quote:
How does recognizing that two women engaging in sex are not sinning lead us to conclude that murder is not a sin, either?
The labeling of an action is not my responsibilty.
No, your responsibility is to provide justification for your claims and to have the integrity to answer questions directly asked of you.
Why did you jump from homosexuality to murder? You were the one who equated the two, Paul. You were the one that said that two people who are engaging in a mutual sexual pleasuring was somehow justification for murder.
Please explain how you went from sex to murder.
quote:
For me personally , laws are my first line of defense against wrongdoing.
Oh...so if it weren't for the possibility of jail time or worse, you'd be a criminal? Is that what you're saying? That your internal nature is so twisted and rotten that it is only through the threat of force and violence against your person that keeps you from being a criminal? That you are actually a psychopath with no social commitment to anybody, no compassion for your fellows, no desire to see good things happen to other people? That despite all of the evidence that shows that if everybody is nice to each other, everbody benefits compared to if everybody is mean to each other, nobody benefits, you'll still favor being a jerk to everyone on the off chance that you can get a bit ahead in the short term?
Is that what you're trying to say?
quote:
If the law says it wrong then I don't do it
What if the law is wrong?
What if the choice is between breaking the law and dying?
quote:
If any form of law does not have a bearing on a decision to be made, then I rely on my conscience to direct me next. I do use both in every decion to be made.
But you seem to be a blind slave to the law.
And you still haven't explained how you managed to get from sex to murder.
quote:
As we all know, there are two forms of law.
No, we don't.
quote:
Human law and Spiritual(Gods) law.
Since when? I think if you took a poll of the atheists around us, they'd have something to say about whether or not that "second law" existed.
And even if we do agree about the existence of the second, you need to be a little more specific about it. There seem to be an awful lot of people who disagree about it.
And in the end, at least in the United States, it is irrelevant since "god's law" is impotent. There's this little thing called the First Amendment that prevents the government from using religion as a basis for government.
You still need to explain how you got from sex to murder.
quote:
To say that we commit war, suicide, rape, murder, terrorism, steal, lie, etc. etc. because science considers that perhaps some of those tendancies have been rarely observed in the monkeys
No, not "rarely observed." It happens a lot.
I know you don't like it, but animals other than humans have feelings and emotions, too.
quote:
is an extremely shallow, and I think a rediculous excuse to qualify human actions in these areas.
Only because you seem to have this preconceived idea that humans are "above" other animals. That there is something different in quality in humans with regard to other animals rather than quantity.
Now, please explain how you got from sex to murder.
quote:
As well,to say that these things happen because God doesn't intervene to stop them, is equally rediculous.
You mean that a being that knows of something bad that is going to happen, has the ability and wherewithal to stop it, and doesn't actually do anything to stop it isn't in the least responsible for it actually happening?
In the human world, we tend to call that "criminal negligence."
quote:
I just wish the blame for human actions would rest where it belongs, on humans.
That's what people who have no gods tend to do. After all, there is nobody else to blame. Some people with gods do so, too. However, there is a bit of double-think going on there in a lot of them.
Now, will you please explain how you got from sex to murder?
quote:
There are a few individuals at this forum that consistantly blame God for the worlds problems and human failures.
Not exactly.
Rather, they say that a being who claims to have the good of the world at heart and who is capable of stopping bad things from happening and yet does nothing to do so is negligent.
That doesn't mean he's guilty of actually pulling the trigger. But if he knows that you're about to and he can make you stop and doesn't, then he is guilty of negligence.
quote:
If God changed and intervened all the time, what would we do?
Live in paradise. We would do what we could to keep up our end of the bargain and god would take care of those things that we can't control.
quote:
How would our view of God change ? Would we all believe then? Would we love God then? Wouldn't we have to? Wouldn't "seeing is believing" force us to believe in and love God? But wait a minute, having no choice but to believe in God goes against the very nature of a given free will.
But we'd still have a choice. The fact that something is obvious doesn't mean we're being forced.
I brought this up in another thread: People learn in distinct ways. Wouldn't it make sense for an all-powerful being to reveal himself in a way that could be easily understood?
Suppose you're trying to teach someone how to do a timestep. Well, most people will learn how to do it in one of three ways: Counting, talking, or feeling.
That is, if you were to look inside the head of a counter, he'll be thinking, "And-one-and-a-two-and-three-and-four, one-and-a-two-and-three-and-four." Look inside the head of a talker and you'll find "Step-hop-shuffle-step-flap-ball-change, hop-shuffle-step-flap-ball-change."
So if I know that you're a counter or a talker, why would I try to teach you as if you were a feeler by telling you that it's a slow rock forward and back followed by a fast rock forward and back on the other side? Wouldn't it be best for me to present the information to you in the way you could best assimilate it?
It isn't like I'm suddenly programming your brain to know how to do a time step. After all, you're the one that still has to get it into your head and coordinate it with the rest of your body, but now you are able to grasp what it is you have to do.
And if I am teaching class and I catch you taking your shoes off so that you can hit somebody else over the head with them, I'm going to stop you.
quote:
You see God's thinking then?
No, not at all. Instead, I see someone trying to rationalize why somebody who could help but doesn't isn't responsible for the consequences of not helping.
quote:
Are murder and homosexuality, sins you ask?
No.
What I ask is how you came to equate them since you were the one that said that thinking homosexuality isn't a sin necessarily requires thinking murder isn't, either.
quote:
What does law and your conscience tell you?
I know what I think. I'm asking you what you think. You were the one that equated them. Therefore, it is your responsibility to explain why they are equivalent.
quote:
It's not up to me to tell you what to think of these things,
I didn't ask you to tell me what I think. I already know what I think. I'm asking what you think. You were the one that equated them. Therefore, it is your responsibility to explain why they are equivalent.
quote:
BTW: Do you "personally" believe that we are the way we are, as a result of what we see in the monkeys?
No.
Humans are not descended from monkeys. If you had been paying enough attention to evolutionary theory you would know that by now. Humans and other primates are descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that they share many behavioural traits.
Oh, and by the way...you do know that chimpanzees aren't monkeys, yes?
quote:
Wouldn't you think that with the millions of years that we have spent as a seperate species, and with our superior intelligence, that we could have learned to stop all these wrongful and uneccessary actions that we mimic then?
No. Evolution doesn't optimize. It is happy with good enough.
I don't have to be faster than the bear. I only have to be faster than you.
Society doesn't have to be perfect. It merely needs to be functional enough to allow the species to continue.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Paul, posted 05-09-2003 1:18 PM Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-09-2003 10:30 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 46 (39562)
05-09-2003 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by amsmith986
05-09-2003 7:01 PM


amsmith986 writes:
quote:
You are still assuming that Adam and Eve were too young to know better,but their conversations show otherwise.
No, not too young.
Too innocent.
Innocence does not mean youth. It means unable to tell the difference between things.
Suppose I let you know that there are only two ways to act: Beetaratagang and clerendipity. Now think carefully because your immortal soul is on the line. Which do you choose?
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Come on...why are you hesitating? Make your choice. You're an intelligent person. Which is it?
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by amsmith986, posted 05-09-2003 7:01 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024