Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God 'allowed' to change his mind?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 46 (39477)
05-08-2003 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by amsmith986
05-08-2003 10:13 PM


The death Adam and Eve experienced was the death of their perfect relationship with God.
Is that your literal interpretation? Because I don't really see that supported in the text. That's certainly not what God said.
If you read closely, the serpent told a half-truth
Better than a non-truth, which is what they got from God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by amsmith986, posted 05-08-2003 10:13 PM amsmith986 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

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 46 (39525)
05-09-2003 12:13 PM


Exactly how did they get a non truth from God? I plan to expound a little more when I get the time.
As an after thought,you think I haven't been around many kids?
I am 16 and 2nd in a family of 13 children. (4 boys,9 girls).
Quote: Never underestimate my ability to take sarcasm at face value.
I don't mind you picking the chicken off of my drummstick-postings,
but really, I don't expect you to eat the bo-
Oh no, don't tell me you do eat bones!

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2003 3:00 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 34 of 46 (39539)
05-09-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
05-09-2003 1:47 AM


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.
That's because the man at the pawn shop, when offered either, will say the same thing: "Twenty dollars."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2003 1:47 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 46 (39540)
05-09-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
05-09-2003 1:47 AM


[QS]Of course, you still haven't managed to explain how one gets from homosexual activity to murder. Could you help us out here?[QS] I have absolutely no idea how this activity could lead to an action such as murder. 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. Perhaps an interview with a person like Wayne Gacey or another, could help you with an answer to your question.
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. My responsibility is to my conscience and laws. As I've pointed out, all actions, whether right or wrong, are done out of the free will. Some people use both laws and conscience to determine their actions, some use just laws, some use just conscience, and some use neither to determine some of their actions. For me personally , laws are my first line of defense against wrongdoing. If the law says it wrong then I don't do it and if I do, and get caught, I suffer the consequences. 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.
As we all know, there are two forms of law. Human law and Spiritual(Gods) law. Some of course do not recognize Spiritual law and only use human law to determine lifes actions. Again, a free will choice. Others at the same time use both forms of law in their daily lives. Both human and Spiritual law say murder is wrong, and as well, my conscience tells me taking the life of another is wrong, therefore murder is clearly a wrongful action in my opinion, but again, is a free will choice to be made. Human law does not say that homosexuality is a wrongful action, Spiritual law does, therefore it is now left up to the individual conscience to decide whether to participate in that action or not, my conscience tells me it is, again, another free will choice. This has been my point throughout this entire thread. Neither evolution nor God are responsible for human actions, we are. 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 , is an extremely shallow, and I think a rediculous excuse to qualify human actions in these areas. As well,to say that these things happen because God doesn't intervene to stop them, is equally rediculous. But then again, that's your free will choice to believe either.
I just wish the blame for human actions would rest where it belongs, on humans. There are a few individuals at this forum that consistantly blame God for the worlds problems and human failures. If God changed and intervened all the time, what would we do? 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. You see God's thinking then? To intervene in the process of the human free will and its decisions and results, would both force a believe by some in God, and void the overall purpose of the free will, which both go directly against Gods own eternal purpose and plan. He will NOT force us to believe in him by intervention, as well, intervention I think, would not always cause belief anyways.
Are murder and homosexuality, sins you ask? What does law and your conscience tell you? It's not up to me to tell you what to think of these things, thats your responsibilty. I'm only obligated to act according to law and my own conscience, as we all are.
BTW: Do you "personally" believe that we are the way we are, as a result of what we see in the monkeys? 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? Or does this Sin thing you talk about have more to do with it than we think?
Respectfully, Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2003 1:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 1:55 PM Paul has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2003 3:13 PM Paul has not replied
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2003 7:15 PM Paul has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 36 of 46 (39541)
05-09-2003 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Paul
05-08-2003 4:11 PM


Stealing within the human species however, is always done out of greed, laziness or for profit.
Really? Never hunger, eh? What about the laws in the Inca empire, that carried the death penalty for stealing? It had an additional clause, though: if the thief was stealing because his family was hungry, the "mayor" of his district was the one put to death.

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 38 by Paul, posted 05-09-2003 2:11 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 46 (39543)
05-09-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Paul
05-09-2003 1:18 PM


quote:
As we all know, there are two forms of law. Human law and Spiritual(Gods) law. Some of course do not recognize Spiritual law and only use human law to determine lifes actions. Again, a free will choice. Others at the same time use both forms of law in their daily lives. Both human and Spiritual law say murder is wrong, and as well, my conscience tells me taking the life of another is wrong, therefore murder is clearly a wrongful action in my opinion, but again, is a free will choice to be made. Human law does not say that homosexuality is a wrongful action, Spiritual law does, therefore it is now left up to the individual conscience to decide whether to participate in that action or not, my conscience tells me it is, again, another free will choice.
I have a number of comments. Firstly I do NOT know that your "Spiritual Law" exists as such. Therefore there is no question of having a free will choice to ignore it.
Further my conscience tells me that homosexuality is not morally wrong, but that your "Spiritual Law" is on that point.

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

  
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 46 (39547)
05-09-2003 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coragyps
05-09-2003 1:21 PM


Nice law !!.. So it's the mayors fault that the man wouldn't work or hunt to feed his family? Sounds like a dream job to me LOL
Respectfully, Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coragyps, posted 05-09-2003 1:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 46 (39550)
05-09-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by amsmith986
05-09-2003 12:13 PM


Exactly how did they get a non truth from God?
God told them they would die the day they ate that fruit. The serpent told them they would not die, but would gain the wisdom to tell good from evil.
What happened? They ate the fruit, did not die that day, and gained the wisdom to tell good from evil.
Who's story was most accurate? Obviously, the serpents. It's pretty simple, and the only conclusion a literal reading can arrive at.
I am 16 and 2nd in a family of 13 children. (4 boys,9 girls).
I forgot what I was talking about. How old is the youngest child in your family? Did you mean 2nd oldest, or 2nd youngest?
If you meant 2nd oldest, that should make your youngest sibling something like... less than three, I suppose? I'm just estimating.
The point is, in your family, do you tell a less-than-three year old child not to play with guns? Or do you lock your rifle cabinet? (Well, probably both.)
If your parents left the guns out and loaded, and one of you shot yourselves, guess who's going to be in trouble.
If god is the Father (or, parent at least) why can't he/she be held to the same responsibility?
P.S. That's a lot of brothers and sisters. My dad's family is like that. I have way too many cousins. My fiance has none. It's going to make our family reunions a little one-sided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by amsmith986, posted 05-09-2003 12:13 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 46 (39551)
05-09-2003 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Paul
05-09-2003 1:18 PM


I just wish the blame for human actions would rest where it belongs, on humans. There are a few individuals at this forum that consistantly blame God for the worlds problems and human failures.
I think you're misunderstanding what some of us believe. I (for one) don't blame god for human actions, because I don't believe in gods. I'm just trying to point out the contradiction involved in stating that while God may have created us (as parents create their child), he's not responsible for what we do. So far I have yet to hear an argument that lets god off the hook for what we do that doesn't also apply to similar human relationships (parent-child, commander-soldier, etc.)
If these kinds of relationships are indicative of the relationship god is supposed to have with us (as a father and lord), then they are also indicative of the relationship of responsibility. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children (up to a point), commanders are responsible for the acts of their men, kings are responsible for the acts of their servants. Why isn't god responsible for our acts?
Of course, if god doesn't exist, then that's why. Ergo, I agree with you that human acts are humans' responsibility.I just don't see how you yourself can hold such a position.
Do you "personally" believe that we are the way we are, as a result of what we see in the monkeys? 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? Or does this Sin thing you talk about have more to do with it than we think?
Personally, yes I do. The thing is, most acts that are regarded as immoral have survival benefit in some situations. Therefore whhy assume those behaviors would be extinguished just because we punish them in some situations?
We may have been a separate species for millions of years but there's no evidence we've been intelligent, social creatures for nearly that long - maybe something like 20 thousand years. Not nearly enough time to extinguish instinctual behaviors that, let's face it, are sometimes useful.
I don't believe in the existence of sin, anyway. It's an arbitrary method of condeming actions without reference to harm or victims. The "sin" model just makes some things plain wrong without adequate justification.

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

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 46 (39560)
05-09-2003 7:01 PM


The youngest is about a year and 3 months. (Oh, by the way, I haven't heard her naming any animals yet!)
You are still assuming that Adam and Eve were too young to know better,but their conversations show otherwise.
We keep our guns out of reach of little children (and their are plenty- 3 of them are 4-year-old triplets!)
But if my Dad tells one of my brothers (8,10, and 12) not to touch them, they are totaly capable of knowing better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2003 7:31 PM amsmith986 has not replied
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 05-10-2003 6:47 AM amsmith986 has not 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

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 46 (39569)
05-09-2003 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rrhain
05-09-2003 7:15 PM


quote:
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.
Excuse me... I'm an athiest, and I fully believe that a robot should obey orders, except when in direct conflict with the first law.
...
What? Spiritual law? Oh, nevermind.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2003 7:15 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 46 (39593)
05-10-2003 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by amsmith986
05-09-2003 7:01 PM


Hi,
But if my Dad tells one of my brothers (8,10, and 12) not to touch them, they are totaly capable of knowing better.
Lets suppose that one of them did touch them, say the ten year old. What would your father do?
Would he give the lad a stern talking too, would he perhaps ground him for a few days, or would he throw him out the house telling him never to return and put a curse upon him and all of his children?
Brian.

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