[Message Deleted]
-
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die?
Not at all, from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children. Many in the animal kingdom exhibit such traits. It is also beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Edmundisme wrote:
Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die?
Not at all, from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children. Many in the animal kingdom exhibit such traits. It is also beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children
OK, the bigger the herd the better? I can buy that. But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose. Still, what about my other point? Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
-
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good?
Have you ever been sick or felt weak? If so, you know how it feels and can thus feel empathy. Over a generation or 2 or 1000 that becomes learned kindness.
Edmundisme wrote:
We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish!
Speak for yourself. Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
Edmundisme wrote:
Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
How does a religious morality fare any better? :confused:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
David Wulff wrote:
from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children
OK, the bigger the herd the better? I can buy that. But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose. Still, what about my other point? Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
I was not addressing your thread as such because I don't have the time to do it justice before I go to bed, I was just replying to the obvious bit that jumped out of the page. I added a further sentence to my last message just as you posted your reply. To repeat it -- it is beneficial to have the sick and weak hang around long enough to be the ones killed off by your predators. In other words, to further your individual chance of survival. Meerkats are amongst the most studied social animals and such behaviour (and it's observed results) are commonplace and well documented in books and on the TV. To answer your question here, the concept of buying a homeless old man a drink is exactly the same as the meerkats caring for the attacked pack member who they all know will die within a few hours: it spreads risk and reinforces emphathy and associated social bonds. All of which are critical to their individual survival as group animals.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...",
Who is us? Who is this "our image"?
This statement was never false.
Christians believe in the doctrine of the trinity. That is, one God, three persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine does not try to diminish the distinction of the three, nor their total and complete unity. So, how do we rationalize this apparent logical paradox? Well, honestly, we can't. However, we believe it. We accept on pure faith that there are truths that are outside our abilities to understand. So, in the face of contradiction, we count God as one and three. Not because we reason it to be so, but because He declares it to be so. So, that's the explanation.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good?
Have you ever been sick or felt weak? If so, you know how it feels and can thus feel empathy. Over a generation or 2 or 1000 that becomes learned kindness.
Edmundisme wrote:
We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish!
Speak for yourself. Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
Edmundisme wrote:
Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
How does a religious morality fare any better? :confused:
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
that becomes learned kindness
Learned behavior, maybe. But kindness? You're treating it qualitatively without acknowledging a standard of quality. The question here is whether empathy can be called "good" at all.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
The question is not about why we are or aren't good, but whether anything can be considered "good" at all. In order to declare something as "good", there must be a standard in light of which we can view the act in question. If no such standard exists, by what logic can we conclude that something is "good"?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How does a religious morality fare any better
Remember, we aren't talking about the quality of one morality vs. another. We are talking about whether morality exists at all and what its origin might be. The point I'm making is that the standard of morality that we seem to hold ourselves and others to cannot be explained as an evolutionary survival technique because we fail to follow that standard! We are selfish when we know we should share. We are rude when we know we should be kind. We tell lies when we know we should be honest, etc.
-
John Carson wrote:
you and I are both atheists: I just am an atheist about one more god than you are.
You and him are the same. He claims that not believing in God is a belief. I disagree with both of you. :rolleyes:
"The trouble with the profit system has always been that it was highly unprofitable to most people." - E. B. White Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You and him are the same.
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
He claims that not believing in God is a belief.
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
John Carson
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You and him are the same.
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
He claims that not believing in God is a belief.
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Done that. I've also tasted. It sucks. :)
John Carson wrote:
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
I agree. But your quote that you're both atheists since you believe in one less god than him is also nonsense. ;-P
"This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
that becomes learned kindness
Learned behavior, maybe. But kindness? You're treating it qualitatively without acknowledging a standard of quality. The question here is whether empathy can be called "good" at all.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Seriously though, how does theism explain selfishness?
The question is not about why we are or aren't good, but whether anything can be considered "good" at all. In order to declare something as "good", there must be a standard in light of which we can view the act in question. If no such standard exists, by what logic can we conclude that something is "good"?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How does a religious morality fare any better
Remember, we aren't talking about the quality of one morality vs. another. We are talking about whether morality exists at all and what its origin might be. The point I'm making is that the standard of morality that we seem to hold ourselves and others to cannot be explained as an evolutionary survival technique because we fail to follow that standard! We are selfish when we know we should share. We are rude when we know we should be kind. We tell lies when we know we should be honest, etc.
Edmundisme wrote:
The question is not about why we are or aren't good, but whether anything can be considered "good" at all. In order to declare something as "good", there must be a standard in light of which we can view the act in question. If no such standard exists, by what logic can we conclude that something is "good"?
The source of human morality is human emotion (which has been shaped by evolution). Receiving kindness feels good, so we esteem it. Being lied to or assaulted produces negative emotions, so we disapprove of it. Society reinforces this effect by indoctrinating us.
Edmundisme wrote:
The point I'm making is that the standard of morality that we seem to hold ourselves and others to cannot be explained as an evolutionary survival technique because we fail to follow that standard! We are selfish when we know we should share. We are rude when we know we should be kind. We tell lies when we know we should be honest, etc.
Who says that following a moral standard perfectly is advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint? We do follow it partially, and that may be what worked best in evolutionary terms. Note that some people follow it more closely than others. Diversity helps a species survive, since it means that a wider range of environmental conditions can be survived. More fundamentally, I think you have evolution and Intelligent Design confused. Evolution involves a gradual process of adaptation based on genetic change that is selected by the environment. This is a very imperfect process. That is why some bats have eyes that are completely sealed over by skin and hence useless. It is why python snakes have pelvic bones (i.e., a bone structure adapted for hosting hind legs), even though they have no legs. In this spirit, let me reply to your earlier question about why humans care for the sick and weak. David gave one good answer. Another is that humans need to care for their young (human young are helpless and require parental care for far longer than the young of almost all other species) and, since we are not Intelligently Designed, the emotional wiring for caring for helpless young may then be "misapplied" to caring for the sick and weak. Yet another explanation is that the forging of emotional bonds facilitates cooperation and hence aids survival among the strong and healthy. Those emotional bonds (or, more generally, the capacity for forming emotional bonds) may th
-
John Carson wrote:
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Done that. I've also tasted. It sucks. :)
John Carson wrote:
Actually, he claims that it is a religion --- which is nonsense.
I agree. But your quote that you're both atheists since you believe in one less god than him is also nonsense. ;-P
"This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But your quote that you're both atheists since you believe in one less god than him is also nonsense.
I presume that you wish to draw a distinction between: 1. "I don't believe God exists". 2. "I believe God does not exist." I take it you endorse 1. but not 2. Proceeding on that assumption, my "I believe in one less god than you" formulation is actually fully consistent with 1. "I believe in one less god" can mean "You believe in one god and I don't believe in any". For an analogy, I might say: "I have one less boat than you do" and mean "you have one boat and I don't have any". Putting that aside, I accept that there is a logical difference between 1. and 2., but the difference is of no practical importance in most cases. Those who "don't believe" presumably estimate the probability of God's existence to be below some threshold level necessary for belief in God. Those who "believe God does not exist" estimate the probability of God's existence to be so low that that they affirmatively reject it. Thus those in category 2. are a subset of those in category 1. and they differ only in their level of confidence. It seems to me that placing a big emphasis on subtle gradations of belief is genuflecting before the religious. Religious people think that what you believe about God is terribly important: you go to Hell if you get it wrong. Gradations of belief are therefore very important as indicating your prospects of eventually getting it right and fully embracing belief in God, as compared to having "hardened your heart" against God. For those without belief in God, belief doesn't matter nearly so much since we don't believe that our eternal destiny hangs in the balance. Accordingly, my inclination is to dismiss all these distinctions as fussy nit picking.
John Carson
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But your quote that you're both atheists since you believe in one less god than him is also nonsense.
I presume that you wish to draw a distinction between: 1. "I don't believe God exists". 2. "I believe God does not exist." I take it you endorse 1. but not 2. Proceeding on that assumption, my "I believe in one less god than you" formulation is actually fully consistent with 1. "I believe in one less god" can mean "You believe in one god and I don't believe in any". For an analogy, I might say: "I have one less boat than you do" and mean "you have one boat and I don't have any". Putting that aside, I accept that there is a logical difference between 1. and 2., but the difference is of no practical importance in most cases. Those who "don't believe" presumably estimate the probability of God's existence to be below some threshold level necessary for belief in God. Those who "believe God does not exist" estimate the probability of God's existence to be so low that that they affirmatively reject it. Thus those in category 2. are a subset of those in category 1. and they differ only in their level of confidence. It seems to me that placing a big emphasis on subtle gradations of belief is genuflecting before the religious. Religious people think that what you believe about God is terribly important: you go to Hell if you get it wrong. Gradations of belief are therefore very important as indicating your prospects of eventually getting it right and fully embracing belief in God, as compared to having "hardened your heart" against God. For those without belief in God, belief doesn't matter nearly so much since we don't believe that our eternal destiny hangs in the balance. Accordingly, my inclination is to dismiss all these distinctions as fussy nit picking.
John Carson
You are putting too much thought into it. My only qualm was you saying that both you and the person who believes in God are atheists because you believe in one less than him. However, people who believe in God believe in one and only one. And that one is infinitely large. :) So that I disagree with. The rest of your statement, about going to hell if you don't believe and all that, had no bearing on my argument. I believe in God. I don't believe in heaven or hell. If there was a H&H, I don't believe you would go to hell for not believing in God. As for 1 and 2, they are identical in statement except one is meant with conviction and the other with doubt. Again, this had no bearing on my reply to you. So believe what you like, you'll be okay. However, people who believe in God or not are not both the same or are both atheists. :)
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
You are putting too much thought into it. My only qualm was you saying that both you and the person who believes in God are atheists because you believe in one less than him. However, people who believe in God believe in one and only one. And that one is infinitely large. :) So that I disagree with. The rest of your statement, about going to hell if you don't believe and all that, had no bearing on my argument. I believe in God. I don't believe in heaven or hell. If there was a H&H, I don't believe you would go to hell for not believing in God. As for 1 and 2, they are identical in statement except one is meant with conviction and the other with doubt. Again, this had no bearing on my reply to you. So believe what you like, you'll be okay. However, people who believe in God or not are not both the same or are both atheists. :)
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
My only qualm was you saying that both you and the person who believes in God are atheists because you believe in one less than him. However, people who believe in God believe in one and only one. And that one is infinitely large.
I see. Evidently we are not in agreement. Over the millenia, people have believed in a large number of gods: the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Babylonians all had their gods. Likewise today there are many different gods that people believe in: Hindus have their gods, for example. Christians typically reject belief in all those other gods and thus may reasonably be described as atheists with respect to all those other gods. A Christian is an atheist with respective to thousands of gods and a believer with respect to only one. A complete atheist just goes one god further in also not believing in the Christian God.
John Carson
-
Christians believe in the doctrine of the trinity. That is, one God, three persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine does not try to diminish the distinction of the three, nor their total and complete unity. So, how do we rationalize this apparent logical paradox? Well, honestly, we can't. However, we believe it. We accept on pure faith that there are truths that are outside our abilities to understand. So, in the face of contradiction, we count God as one and three. Not because we reason it to be so, but because He declares it to be so. So, that's the explanation.
I know what Christians believe (stated beliefs anyway), I am a Christian. But that doesn't excuse critical thinking. And... AND... this is the book of Genesis. Real Old Testament. So this isn't a New Testement Trinity addition. Who is this US in the Old Testament book of Genesis. You know, this is the problem when people turn off their brains and push the I believe button. My Pastors would always resort to "That's just the way it is" and would never really address the issues I was trying to figure out. We need a new bible. One for our times. What we have is targeting people who are not here today.
This statement was never false.
-
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak? Don't most of us feel that helping the sick and weak is good? On what basis is it good? Wouldn't it be better from a evolutionary standpoint to let the sick and weak die? There is a standard of right and wrong that cannot be explained by natural selection. Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
But how do you explain the instinct to take care of the sick and help the weak?
Empathy. When I see someone that provokes my compassion I think about it. Why and where did it come from. Empathy. I imagine myself in their place and decide to give the help I would want if that were me. Empathy derived from emotion. Morals don't need to derive from authority. They can. But it isn't a prerequisite.
This statement was never false.
-
David Wulff wrote:
from an evolutionary standpoint the bigger the extended family group the more help and protection there is to raise your children
OK, the bigger the herd the better? I can buy that. But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose. Still, what about my other point? Besides, the argument of evolution only works if we mostly obey the standards of right and wrong to which we refer. We all believe it is good to treat others better than ourselves, but most of the time we are selfish! Attributing our standard or moral behavior to some evolutionistic survival instinct falls on its face when we compare the way we usually behave with the way we know we ought to behave!
Edmundisme wrote:
But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose.
And this is why "moral authority" is a red herring. We are personalities. Some things are personal. Does every Christian give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. Does every Atheist not give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. So that doesn't work. I think a greater wonder than authority, morality, compassion, etc.. is Personality. Explain that one. The drive to persist beyond this life and the idea of living a strictly spiritual one. But to tackle moral authority, another reason this is a red herring is that the only way it works is if there is a penalty for disobeying the authority. So, really John was right in that if he was the alpha dog in his house, his authority could dictate the morality just as easy as if it was God's authority dictating the morality of the tribe. Its fear based. Fear of the negative repercussions of disobeying. On the one side, you get no dessert to go to your room, to maybe a smack in the head if he's so inclined, on the other you have lakes of fire and unending torture. Which really doesn't jive with a loving God. And why I don't believe in Hell*. * I think that to live a spiritual life, one beyond the grave you have to build the soul that becomes that vehicle which is derived from spiritual development. So, no spiritual development, no spiritual life.
This statement was never false.
-
I know what Christians believe (stated beliefs anyway), I am a Christian. But that doesn't excuse critical thinking. And... AND... this is the book of Genesis. Real Old Testament. So this isn't a New Testement Trinity addition. Who is this US in the Old Testament book of Genesis. You know, this is the problem when people turn off their brains and push the I believe button. My Pastors would always resort to "That's just the way it is" and would never really address the issues I was trying to figure out. We need a new bible. One for our times. What we have is targeting people who are not here today.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But that doesn't excuse critical thinking
You asked who the "we" and "us" referred to, so I explained the doctrine of the Trinity. I can see how this doctrine would be difficult to accept. But consider the idea of God to begin with. If you believe in God, that he has created all things, and that he himself is not created, is it so difficult to accept that there are things about his very nature we are incapable of understanding? This is a stumbling block for many. A.W. Tozer wrote, "love and faith are at home in the Holy of Holies. Let reason kneel in reverence outside." We need not abandon reason as Christians. We do, however, need to make reason and intellect subservient to faith. It is by faith that we see God. Tozer writes that we seek to understand because we believe. Reason follows faith, not the other way around. To those who seek to find God by their own wisdom, there is little else I can say except that way is shut. Paul quotes Old Testament scripture in 1 Corinthians to teach us this principle: 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Paul further states, Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. So we see that man cannot know God through man's wisdom. What seems like folly to the world's wise is salvation to those who... what? Believe! This is a difficult principle. It requires faith and humility.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And... AND... this is the book of Genesis. Real Old Testament. So this isn't a New Testement Trinity addition. Who is this US in the Old Testament book of Genesis.
The Trinity is not a New Testament addition. It is fundamental doctrine with evidence found in both the Old and New Testaments. In Zechariah, God says, "And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced. And they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son." In Isaiah we read, 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Pe
-
Edmundisme wrote:
But why help the sick and weak if they are purely a burden and no help at all? Buying the homeless old man a sandwich doesn't seem to be full of evolutionary purpose.
And this is why "moral authority" is a red herring. We are personalities. Some things are personal. Does every Christian give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. Does every Atheist not give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. So that doesn't work. I think a greater wonder than authority, morality, compassion, etc.. is Personality. Explain that one. The drive to persist beyond this life and the idea of living a strictly spiritual one. But to tackle moral authority, another reason this is a red herring is that the only way it works is if there is a penalty for disobeying the authority. So, really John was right in that if he was the alpha dog in his house, his authority could dictate the morality just as easy as if it was God's authority dictating the morality of the tribe. Its fear based. Fear of the negative repercussions of disobeying. On the one side, you get no dessert to go to your room, to maybe a smack in the head if he's so inclined, on the other you have lakes of fire and unending torture. Which really doesn't jive with a loving God. And why I don't believe in Hell*. * I think that to live a spiritual life, one beyond the grave you have to build the soul that becomes that vehicle which is derived from spiritual development. So, no spiritual development, no spiritual life.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And this is why "moral authority" is a red herring
A red herring to what? This thread is a discussion on moral authority - where does it come from? Does it even exist? How can the topic of discussion be a red herring?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Some things are personal. Does every Christian give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. Does every Atheist not give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. So that doesn't work.
I think you misunderstand the argument. It is not about whose morality is better or whether Christians are more likely to give someone a sandwich. The argument is about whether there exists a standard of behavior to which we are all held, and if so, where does the standard come from? As for the rest of your post, I don't understand what you're saying or how it relates to the discussion.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
But that doesn't excuse critical thinking
You asked who the "we" and "us" referred to, so I explained the doctrine of the Trinity. I can see how this doctrine would be difficult to accept. But consider the idea of God to begin with. If you believe in God, that he has created all things, and that he himself is not created, is it so difficult to accept that there are things about his very nature we are incapable of understanding? This is a stumbling block for many. A.W. Tozer wrote, "love and faith are at home in the Holy of Holies. Let reason kneel in reverence outside." We need not abandon reason as Christians. We do, however, need to make reason and intellect subservient to faith. It is by faith that we see God. Tozer writes that we seek to understand because we believe. Reason follows faith, not the other way around. To those who seek to find God by their own wisdom, there is little else I can say except that way is shut. Paul quotes Old Testament scripture in 1 Corinthians to teach us this principle: 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Paul further states, Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. So we see that man cannot know God through man's wisdom. What seems like folly to the world's wise is salvation to those who... what? Believe! This is a difficult principle. It requires faith and humility.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And... AND... this is the book of Genesis. Real Old Testament. So this isn't a New Testement Trinity addition. Who is this US in the Old Testament book of Genesis.
The Trinity is not a New Testament addition. It is fundamental doctrine with evidence found in both the Old and New Testaments. In Zechariah, God says, "And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced. And they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son." In Isaiah we read, 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Pe
Edmundisme wrote:
Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, before Moses was, I Am!"
Many interpretations are being derived from scripture. One could even say we force into definitions we prefer or wish to support. This is an eternity statement. Before Moses was IAM. I AM is the principle eternity statement of here and now. Which is also fundamental to the Naassene view of things. "Through me..." "The light and the way" This is inner spiritual discovery of your own divine spark. But we have different interpretations in organized religion. In my interpretation Jesus taught a personal religion. What was organized was its dissemination. Not its religious structure. That was always meant to be personal and develop as the individual seeks the teacher within. The spirit that is quoted to in John 14. A very personal message is what Jesus delivered. I'm alright with the Trinity and trinity concepts and actually think its even more dimensional than that encompassing a seven-fold concept dealing with absolutes qualified and unqualified, then you have to balance out the existential with the experiential which is gained through our own contributions of originating in time and achieving perfection as we approach the father. But, I still wonder at the language in the bible when it says Us. Also, where is the land of Nod?
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And this is why "moral authority" is a red herring
A red herring to what? This thread is a discussion on moral authority - where does it come from? Does it even exist? How can the topic of discussion be a red herring?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Some things are personal. Does every Christian give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. Does every Atheist not give a sandwich to a homeless person? No. So that doesn't work.
I think you misunderstand the argument. It is not about whose morality is better or whether Christians are more likely to give someone a sandwich. The argument is about whether there exists a standard of behavior to which we are all held, and if so, where does the standard come from? As for the rest of your post, I don't understand what you're saying or how it relates to the discussion.
Edmundisme wrote:
I think you misunderstand the argument. It is not about whose morality is better or whether Christians are more likely to give someone a sandwich. The argument is about whether there exists a standard of behavior to which we are all held, and if so, where does the standard come from?
It comes from us. Nevermind. Its a red herring to attempt to attribute moral authority to God. It comes from us. Whether it was spirit led or not is another matter. It still comes from us if we choose to follow its leadings. We still have to weigh the impulse and choose it. In our choosing the morality becomes ours.
This statement was never false.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
My only qualm was you saying that both you and the person who believes in God are atheists because you believe in one less than him. However, people who believe in God believe in one and only one. And that one is infinitely large.
I see. Evidently we are not in agreement. Over the millenia, people have believed in a large number of gods: the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Babylonians all had their gods. Likewise today there are many different gods that people believe in: Hindus have their gods, for example. Christians typically reject belief in all those other gods and thus may reasonably be described as atheists with respect to all those other gods. A Christian is an atheist with respective to thousands of gods and a believer with respect to only one. A complete atheist just goes one god further in also not believing in the Christian God.
John Carson
Although all those religions believe in their God, they still only believe in one universal God who created the heavens and earth. Even my Hindu friends say that in the end, all their gods follow one God that represents all. However, just because each religion has their own interpretation of God and the way to achieve salvation is through their path, does not mean we believe in different gods. Most Christians don't understand that Allah is God in Arabic. Lebanese/Arab Christians use the word Allah. It's not as if the French or German Christians use the term God in their language as well. The word God is not multilingual to all Christians. It is the English variant of the almighty being. Yes there were other religions at one time that believed in more than one god, but I think that they too followed the Hindu way in that they all followed one God in the end. Again, I don't agree in multiple gods even if they did, but to me, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a supreme being whereas religious people, like deists, do.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math