Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Ouroboros]

This un-explainable sensation of somehow feeling bad when we know we've done wrong, and good when we know we've done right, is the law written in our hearts.

You mean the "unexplainable" sensation of the amygdala? http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2008/06/0...te-to-altruism/

 

There's plenty of evidence that there is a basic form of altruism embedded in our biological system, and it has evolved through the benefit of the larger populations of species surviving. They even have found that apes and monkeys have social structures and altruism. I even have seen altruism in dogs. So if your evidence for Divine Moral Law as a genetic construct, then animals are also moral beings, and should also held accountable for their actions.

 

On the other hand, how do I know God didn't plant this genetic code in us? First of all, the animals have the same genetic code. Secondly, some people are born (or through injuries) do no have the "altruistic" behavior (psychopaths). So if altruism was given by God to everyone, then exceptions wouldn't exist, unless God also gave exceptions... but then what does anything prove at all? Does exceptions prove that everyone have the gene? Very strange logic. Does rotten apples prove that apples can't get rotten? The exception here proves that it's not all-inclusive, but since it's a brain function, it does prove it's not just random relativism. So what we can conclude is: Natural Law made by Nature, not God.

 

Lets say we made some experiment where we changed the brain functions of a tribe of people. Overnight we changed the constraint for killing each other. By the afternoon next day, we would go back and most likely find the whole tribe destroyed. Now, here's the tricky mathematical question one would have to ask: how many children will this dead tribe have? Or in other words, how good are the chances of successful offspring?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Answer: Zero - in other words, altruism is beneficial for survival, and can be explained by evolution)

[chefranden]

We all feel we know right from wrong even if sometimes we disagree,

 

An important first step is to realize that the conscience guides only, and can only guide what it has considered. So we become more consciencous as we consider more and more things that are right and wrong. Pointing out here of course we are free to supress this prompting, as a matter of fact all of us do, some with greater frequency than others.

 

You have already been told this. You only have your conscience that depends on it's particular genetics, moral training, moral experience, social standing, and social circumstance. Even if there is some absolute out there, you can't know it. Morality will always be relative to your genetics, moral training, moral experience social standing, and social circumstance i.e. your conscience. Perhaps you would be more comfortable to say morality is absolutely relative.

 

You can insist all you want on moral absolutes, but since you cannot tell what they are, they are moot. At best they supply you with a carrot as explained above.

 

As creatures we are subject to certain biological laws just as animals, we need air to breath, and food to eat, and we all fall if dropped, we have no choice to disobey these laws. But man is different from animals in one way, uniquely possesing intellect, rationality, conscience he also has a law unique to his nature, which not only are animals not subject to....neither is man.

 

Squids and Octopi are unique in being able to squirt a biological smoke screen. Your intellect, as much as you like it, doesn't make you anything special. But even if it did it doesn't follow that humans also have a unique law. You think you are explaining something when you have said nothing. "I know that farmer Brown is having chicken soup for supper because he owns an axe. For if he owns an axe he must have chicken soup." "I know that humans have a special law, because they own a mind. Because they own a mind they must have a special law." Phooey!

 

If you are not taking into account evolutionary psychology and cognitive science (I haven't seen any evidence yet that you even know about these things) you aren't even answering the right question. You are still trying to explain crystal spheres as if they are real.

 

Interestingly if we were to examine the race of mankind as under a microsope we would see little sign of this law existing at all. Most people, Christians included choose to ignore their conscience with regularity if they see it as advantagious to themselves.

 

Bullshit. This isn't any better than attesting to the idea that you only use 10% of your brain. Present a study please that shows that people ignore their conscience. What you mean is they, most people, don't agree with you on moral issues, for if they would pay attention to their conscience, of course they would agree with you, or at least with the Church.

 

This un-explainable sensation of somehow feeling bad when we know we've done wrong, and good when we know we've done right, is the law written in our hearts.

 

Ah, sorry it is not un-explainable. You just are unaware of the science. Start here: The Feeling of What Happens; The Blank Slate; Philosophy In The Flesh.

 

 

Edit: Deleted a bit to be more in compliance to Colosseum rules.

 

2nd Edit: question How can you say something is unexplainable and then explain it?

[Neon Genesis]

A question before I flip the switch. Have the five on the one rail been convicted of genocide while the one tied to the other is a doctor who claims to have a cure for cancer?

Why should you have to run a criminal background check on complete strangers before you decide whether or not to save their lives? Didn't Jesus say you should love your enemies and forgive those who persecute you? Thus, if you're following Jesus' commandments, and what Jesus says is always absolute in every situation, you should decide to save the criminals and let millions of people die from cancer.

 

Again intent and circumstance can only cause the act to be more good or bad, not make a good act bad.

If circumstances doesn't change whether or not an act is good or bad, then if god was the one flipping the switch, did god do a good or bad thing?

 

 

 

 

Abandoning the switch, jumping infront of the train in an attempt to gain control and stop the train saving every one (even if some might consider it to be suicide) would be good because the object, the moral act itself is to save.

Abandoning the switch, jumping infront of the train in an attempt to free oneself from the cumbersome duty of posing ethical questions to oneself and wash one's hands of responsability would be bad because the object, the moral act itself is suicide.

Coming up with deus ex machina responses as cop out solutions doesn't count as an answer because you're still avoiding the question of should you flip the switch or not if you absolutely had no choice but to flip it. If you were in a situation where you're forced to flip the switch no matter what, should you flip the switch?

[Antlerman]

Natural law is a fascinating subject to me it is the idea that there is a law written in our hearts, it is a law, discoverable by our own reason, which is part of our very nature. This part of our rational capability is called our conscience, which not only discovers what is right and wrong but amazingly encourages us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Hardwired as it were to seek good over evil.

 

Yes. I understand this. I'm am considering splitting this off into an entire discussion topic in the Colosseum, but will let it run here for now, and perhaps merge it over later. There's much can be said to this.

 

As far as hardwired, yes we are programmed socially to act "intuitively", as it were to know the rules. But I would go one step beyond and say that our biology itself, as humans, is "hardwired" in our very genes towards certain "general" traits. This hard-wiring is seen in all animals, knowing certain norms, instincts, etc passed on genetically. Birds who know how to perform a mating ritual well, get to mate, passing down characteristics to offspring with these heightened abilities in order to pass down their gene pool. It's how evolution works, and more specifically, its something recognized as a bio-cultural feedback loop where culture actually drives the biological evolutionary process through sexual selection.

 

Now apply this to humans. Those who know how to conform to the group, who are more able to participate socially and respect others, are allowed and chosen to mate (sexual selection). As our culture rituals, and practices evolved, those more capable of more specialized behaviors are chosen, and the "good" genes (better stated the preferred genes) are favored in the gene pool of the group. So in this sense, the "ability" to learn "right from “wrong”, and the innate disposition towards cooperative behavior is favored genetically in the majority of humans through this process. Hence, in a sense, we are "hardwired" genetically towards being able to function "morally", or cooperatively as it were.

 

This is also true of other primates, not just humans. Other primates understand what is considered acceptable behavior, or “morality” to use the human term for it. See here: http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html and here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=chimps...se-of-justice-f I actually saw a video of a group of male chimps working cooperatively, searching for and hunting down another chimp down in the forest, then upon finally finding him, they cooperatively as a group beat him to death. This shows something premeditated; motivated by a sense of group outrage at something this chimp did, driven by a sense of justice. They eliminated his existence: capital punishment, or premeditated murder , something once believed to be uniquely human!

 

In the beginning God created Chimps in his image? Do you have a theological explanation for why animals besides human understand “morality”? You say they don’t but clearly that’s wrong.

 

However back to “hardwired” sense of morality, though this may be valid, specifics of "right" and "wrong", are dictated largely by need within a given environment - the same as it is everywhere in nature. Therefore there are no universal, innate knowledge of say, "not stealing". They can be no “10 Commandments” from a universal eternal God that dictates social practices. At the very best, this innate or “hardwired” knowledge would be to recognize we need to follow whatever rules the society we're part of demands of us. That's the only universal. What’s moral to a chimp, is not relevant to us. What’s moral to someone living in the desert, is not relevant to someone living in a water-rich forest. And so forth.

 

“Morality”, the form it takes is completely situational. Therefore God doesn’t write any specific laws, if you want to look at our “moral” creation through evolution as an act of God.

 

What you're doing, following suit with those like C.S. Lewis, is take this lightening-fast processing of our brains, programmed through specific cultural practices into our reflex as a species hard-wired biologically towards cooperative behavior, and somehow speculate that a specific such as "Thou shalt not steal", is an innate knowledge, suggesting a source beyond humanity (whereas another poster showed how “stealing” must be based on a cultural understanding of “property”). We somehow just "know" this, but it’s not accurate to say specifics are innate. Not accurate at all.

 

As creatures we are subject to certain biological laws just as animals, we need air to breath, and food to eat, and we all fall if dropped, we have no choice to disobey these laws. But man is different from animals in one way, uniquely possesing intellect, rationality, conscience he also has a law unique to his nature, which not only are animals not subject to....neither is man.

You have to clarify your wording, as it’s a bit confusing here. I suspect you mean to say that unlike animals, man is different because he posses a moral nature. This is false. See the two references I provided you with above. Additionally, reasoning abilities are wide-spread throughout many species.

 

This un-explainable sensation of somehow feeling bad when we know we've done wrong, and good when we know we've done right, is the law written in our hearts.

It’s hardly inexplicable (as opposed to un-explainable ). It’s cultural programming. People do not innately know a specific act is considered immoral or wrong until taught culturally. This is in fact - Biblical! “Train up a child in the way he shall go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The writer of the proverbs understood how it works with humans. It takes programming! It’s NOT innate.

 

It is Natural law, and it was an important aspect of me returning to the faith. The first three chapters of C.S. Lewis' "mere Christianity" cover it well.

I’m sorry you base your faith on loose, un-scientific speculations like those from C.S. Lewis. I really am. You see, if reading through what I’ve pointed out above has merit, which I surely believe it does because of supporting actual evidence, then you have built a faith on shifting sand. That’s sad. It’s like building your faith on the belief the earth is 6000 years old. Do you understand??

 

On a personal note;

 

I'm guessing most here were presented a false Christian faith one based solely on the bible and were told to shun those idolators in rome. I've battled those same "fundies" elsewhere and can feel your pain. I was once myself in the same place you all are right now and rejected Christianity altogether as nonsense. I'm not saying there are'nt parts of the plan that would'nt seem "Religulous" either ( I think I'll wait for the video ) It was a long and difficult road back to the church for me, I tried absolutely every moral and ethical position I could think of against it, and it turned out to be exactly what it claimed to be, infallable when teaching on morals. I did'nt always want to accept it, but in my heart I knew it was right. Don't believe me? Try it.

 

 

 

Peace Dear Dogma

I appreciate the gesture, but from my perspective the sort of religious faith your talking about is basing itself on things that science can step into. It’s one that tries to justify itself, like my Carrot example earlier, to a mind that ties belief in God into a natural world. It’s the exact opposite that would allow it to survive if somewhere on a non-rational level it has value to you. The surest way to kill God is to put him up for examination on a natural level – exactly what you are doing. Shifting sand.

 

I look forward to you engaging me in this area of thought.

 

P.S. You’re getting much better at this Internet thing.

[Guest Dear Dogma]

I have to admit I do enjoy chefrandens "phooey's" Thankfully I've not received the "no soup for you" yet. Shame on you Chef for having to be editted for the colloseum forum I can only imagine what you posted.(insert smiley here) fast reply confused??? Cudos to all for some great replies including Han's "amygdala link" which I've not looked at yet but feel compelled to as soon as time permits definately food for thought. I know you all have your "pelting fruit" ready for the next round but, I might not be able to post in the next day or two real busy time before the weekend, might not be til Monday, but I'll be back!!!

 

regards; Jacques

[Kuroikaze]

We all feel we know right from wrong even if sometimes we disagree,

 

Natural law is a fascinating subject to me it is the idea that there is a law written in our hearts, it is a law, discoverable by our own reason, which is part of our very nature. This part of our rational capability is called our conscience, which not only discovers what is right and wrong but amazingly encourages us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Hardwired as it were to seek good over evil.

 

What you are talking about is explainable by biological and social evolution. God is not a valid explanation of this, if he were the cause you would expect us to agree on right and wrong, since our ideas come from a single source. Since we often disagree it is most likely that our source for "natural law" is not universal.

 

 

 

As creatures we are subject to certain biological laws just as animals, we need air to breath, and food to eat, and we all fall if dropped, we have no choice to disobey these laws. But man is different from animals in one way, uniquely possesing intellect, rationality, conscience he also has a law unique to his nature, which not only are animals not subject to....neither is man.

 

We aren't just like animals, we ARE animals. We are not unique here, other animals posses intellect and conscience as well. Studies done on apes show that they have social structures as well. Besides, calling man unique because of intelligence is absurd, nature merely selected for it because it was beneficial. I can't run as fast as a cheetah, or breath under water, so are animals that can better than me? The truth is that "better" does not exist in this context, at least not as you want to use the term.

 

 

Interestingly if we were to examine the race of mankind as under a microsope we would see little sign of this law existing at all. Most people, Christians included choose to ignore their conscience with regularity if they see it as advantagious to themselves.

 

Who does this? I don't. Now I may ignore YOUR conscience. To you lying is always wrong for any reason, but if I tell a lie to save someones life I have obeyed MY conscience just fine. You are the one who has a problem with it, you assume that my conscience tells me the same things as yours and if I act in such a way I have ignored mine, but it isn't so.

 

This un-explainable sensation of somehow feeling bad when we know we've done wrong, and good when we know we've done right, is the law written in our hearts. It is Natural law, and it was an important aspect of me returning to the faith. The first three chapters of C.S. Lewis' "mere Christianity" cover it well. For a more in depth and profound study I recomend "Natural Law, reflections on theory and practice" Jacques Maritain quick bio....Maritain was a strong defender of a natural law ethics. He viewed ethical norms as being rooted in human nature. For Maritain the natural law is known primarily, not through philosophical argument and demonstration, but rather through "Connaturality". Connatural knowledge is a kind of knowledge by acquaintance. We know the natural law through our direct acquaintance with it in our human experience. Of central importance, is Maritain's argument that natural rights are rooted in the natural law. This was key to his involvement in the drafting of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

It isn't un-explainable. I've read C.S. Lewis' arguments on the topic and they simply fail to demonstrate what he thinks they do. Furthermore, the natural ethics you speak of here do not require a god in order to function IMO.

 

 

 

On a personal note;

I'm guessing most here were presented a false Christian faith one based solely on the bible and were told to shun those idolators in rome. I've battled those same "fundies" elsewhere and can feel your pain. I was once myself in the same place you all are right now and rejected Christianity altogether as nonsense. I'm not saying there are'nt parts of the plan that would'nt seem "Religulous" either ( I think I'll wait for the video ) It was a long and difficult road back to the church for me, I tried absolutely every moral and ethical position I could think of against it, and it turned out to be exactly what it claimed to be, infallable when teaching on morals. I did'nt always want to accept it, but in my heart I knew it was right. Don't believe me? Try it.

 

WOW......you are lucky you are posting here instead of the "lion's den" because if you were I would become less than friendly

 

Do you really think we haven't heard the "You weren't a REAL Christian" argument before? So are you catholic then? You really aren't helping your position as far as I'm concerned the catholic church is just a crazy as the protestant ones, and on top of that your current leader should be in prison for attempts to cover for pedophiles, but he uses his diplomatic immunity to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. If that counts as moral behavior leave me out.

 

Your position isn't infallible, it isn't even sensible or rational as far as I can see. If it is you certainly aren't doing a good job demonstrating it.

 

Your last sentence is telling, even when you "weren't a Christan" you thought Christianity was true. Even when I was a christian I had doubts, they nagged at me for years. Every time I espoused Christan "morality" part of my mind rebelled saying "that can't be right." Eventually that part of my mind got too loud to ignore, the more I tried to silence it, by studding apologetics, the less sense Christianity made, and the louder the voice got.

 

Edit: Please don't assume your life experiences are the same as ours, or assume to know what we have and haven't experienced. That is just your own hubris talking.

[Neon Genesis]

I actually saw a video of a group of male chimps working cooperatively, searching for and hunting down another chimp down in the forest, then upon finally finding him, they cooperatively as a group beat him to death. This shows something premeditated; motivated by a sense of group outrage at something this chimp did, driven by a sense of justice. They eliminated his existence: capital punishment, or premeditated murder , something once believed to be uniquely human!

I think I may have seen that video too, if I'm thinking of the same one. Was it from the BBC documentary, Planet Earth, by any chance? If it is, we saw that in Sunday school at church once and our preacher used the scene of the chimps of beating a chimp as a group as proof that evolution isn't true because obviously god wouldn't create humans to behave naturally like that. If humans behave like that, it must obviously be the work of Satan.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

So what in nature declares that "Humans" are the ultimate good in the Universe (or even just on Earth)? Do we discover that we are the meaning and purpose of the Universe, because ... of what?

 

Right and wrong is mostly about how we treat each other. Without humans, there wouldn't be human morality, would it? Or does nature somehow declare human morality as an absolute, underlying law of nature, so even if there would evolve a new species on another planet, they're morality wouldn't be Xyz morality, but somehow they would discover that Human morality is the all good for the whole universe? How would they know their morality was a Human morality, unless they could travel to our planet? Are all intelligence and conscious thought the same a human thought? Amazing. We always tend to put ourselves and our species above everyone and everything else. We're a prideful animal.

 

 

I read the first page of the debate...Jenna may be a nice person, but she aint winnin nobody for christ, thats fo sho.......so I skipped to the last page out of sheer impatience, and glad I did, Senor Solo expressed something I had never quite put into words...how we talk about this anthropocentric universe with such absolutes, and were damned sure were right....some "being" could come along and explain how we got it all wrong, how eating meat was the best thing to do, for only eaten animals can go to heaven and only carnivorous humans as well......bad analogy but sh*t Im tired and you know what I mean, we use our own myopic viewpoint to prove our own myopic viewpoint, when we need to be more open to other ideas, more open to the truth, if there is such a thing.

 

 

I Want To Believe

[Ouroboros]

I Want To Believe

The truth is out there. And trust no 1.

 

(Thanks for quoting me, I found a speelin error in my post. )

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Honestly, now I am wanting to go back and read a bit....just when I thought I could lay down...............

 

 

 

 

Everything Dies

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Han, I'm not sure if you have, but, If you can come to believe in an infinite universe, You can come to believe in an infinite power. How could the finite ever completely discern with certainty the infinite. So if one does accept the universe is infinite they do it with faith, no one could supply proof of it,it can only be accepted by faith as a result of analyzing and discerning the signs.

I attempt to answer the question of why I remain a christian by submitting some of the signs (not proof) that help me discern and accept my faith. Through the example I've presented of human written law, I planned to start with some of the churches teachings on the subject of Natural law, which is subject to divine law, because it is an important aspect to me retaining my faith. I probe the answers given in opposition here to see if they are more or less convincing than those presented by a group of individuals that make the amazing claim of being infallibly correct when teaching on faith and morals. In order for me to accept this claim, it must be able to hold up this statement in a format such as this. I believe it will, and that it would be more effective to discuss morals as they may be something we both might agree exist and have validity but not necessarily agree completely on.

There would be little point in me starting the discussion with an atheist on the subject of faith aside from maybe the challenge I've presented in the opening sentence of this post.

Peace; DD

 

 

Honestly...I think the point here is not providing sound arguments to prove there is a God, youre talking to a huge group of people to which this god DID NOTHING in their lives, and as time went on we finally ttok a closer look, realized our "book" was chock full of holes....looked at history saw the church was full of crap, looked at our xtian brothers and sisters and saw hypocrisy and deception...and looked at ourselves and realized we were plastic images of the humans we once were.

 

How are you going to give some "perfect" cosmological answer, or "perfect" argument on why there must be a God....or evn worse, that we should believe your word for it, that the bible is true for its word for it, based on the statement "how could the finite understand the infinite"....its very f*cking clear, if the INfinite wanted to be known he wouldnt jag off in a book that makes no sense to the people its supposedly addressed to....the INfinite wouldnt make such mistakes as to make the FINITE realize that even that little book is elementary, if that on any given level.

 

Youre talking to people who are going to want a god damned handshake from the creator and a personal invitation to his f*cking casa in order to believe.....so come up with something better than extrapolations and interpolations from the one book that puts chick tracts to shame

[Antlerman]

I actually saw a video of a group of male chimps working cooperatively, searching for and hunting down another chimp down in the forest, then upon finally finding him, they cooperatively as a group beat him to death. This shows something premeditated; motivated by a sense of group outrage at something this chimp did, driven by a sense of justice. They eliminated his existence: capital punishment, or premeditated murder , something once believed to be uniquely human!

I think I may have seen that video too, if I'm thinking of the same one. Was it from the BBC documentary, Planet Earth, by any chance? If it is, we saw that in Sunday school at church once and our preacher used the scene of the chimps of beating a chimp as a group as proof that evolution isn't true because obviously god wouldn't create humans to behave naturally like that. If humans behave like that, it must obviously be the work of Satan.

I can't recall exactly. It was on PBS, I think a Nova special, but it could well have been a BBC documentary. For him to say that doesn't resemble humans is mind-boggling. Just turn on the news! Anyway I found the research talked about just now. It was a field study done in Tanzania. I'm going to quote a section of an article on it, as it underscores deeply what I was trying to communicate to DD about how evolution, which he accepts, is not just about our bones and muscles, but our personalities and behaviors (our morality) as well. That also evolved and is NOT unique to humans. If God created man in his own image, he did so by shaping it out of clay in the form of an early, ape-like primate.

 

From the article: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosm...ext_cult_2.html

Society, Good and Bad Love, altruism, kinship, and curiosity are attributes associated, not only with humans, but also with chimps and probably other animals as well.

Many contend that these notable qualities of goodwill are less apparent in chimps than in humans, but a glance at the daily newspapers can create doubts.

 

Not to imply that chimps are nice and gentle all the time; vegetarian pacifists they’re not. Chimps do resemble humans in yet another way, namely their occasional desire to exert unnecessary aggression. Some conflict within and among species is a normal, perhaps even essential, ingredient of biological and cultural evolution. “Nature red in tooth and claw” may sound politically incorrect among idealists in today’s revisionist society, but competition and exploitation are part and parcel of any evolutionary setting.

Cooperation and mutualism work more subtly and only to limited extent alongside natural selection, especially as regards individual reproductive success.

Even when life forms do clearly cooperate, it’s often done only when in their own best interest. Without some aggression in the guise of competition, few if any species could adapt to changing environments. Reactive aggression probably has deep biological roots, yet unprovoked aggression would seem to be another thing entirely.

 

Field studies in Tanzania illustrate how some chimps occasionally murder other chimps for no apparent survival-related reason.

Premeditated, gangland-style attacks were directed by a large group of male chimps on a smaller group of males and females that had previously broken away from the larger group. Over the course of five years, each member of the splinter group was systematically and brutally beaten. All died.

Only young males initiated the attacks, which occurred only when the victims were isolated from the others. Hands, feet, and teeth were often used by the attackers,

though sometimes field-workers noticed

stones being deliberately thrown

. The hope, of course, is that comparative studies like these will uncover the reasons behind not only chimp misdemeanors but human belligerence as well, perhaps helping to guide the future survival of the human species, which, it would seem, can no longer tolerate intraspecies aggression.

 

Despite lingering controversy over details, behavioral studies of modern chimps have aided greatly our understanding of the ascent of humans. As ape-like animals resembling chimps nearly 10 million years ago began leaving the forests for the savanna (or perhaps it was more that the forests left them as an oncoming ice age made parts of Africa cool and dry), they were probably forced by environmental circumstances to become more sociable in order to survive. The origins of our social organization may well have been shaped by the new, harsher conditions in the open plains, where there would have been less food, reduced protection, and thus greater need for group cooperation—or was it everyone for himself, hence unfettered competition?

 

These hardships nonetheless gave our ancestors a chance to experiment and to learn as their sights and experiences grew over the course of millions of years. The parochial mentality of forest-living animals was replaced by the wider perspective of our plains-dwelling ancestors. Of much consequence, this suddenly larger world created pressures to evolve bigger brains capable of storing a dramatic increase of raw information.

 

Change from life in the trees to that in the plains was a renaissance of sorts that likely took a million years or more. Yet once it commenced, the race was on—a race to inhabit entirely new niches, to develop whole new ways of life, and eventually to become technologically intelligent.

 

Emphasis mine. The one about the stone being cast at them stood out wildly to me as very closely resembling this verse:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard."

Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.

All Israel will hear of it and be afraid." De. 21:19-21

 

Needless to say there are instructions after instructions about stoning the outcasts - very much like our relatives the chimp!

 

Anyway, here's another thing I found that was somewhat related, but quite intriguing and cool regardless: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/...mory-apvin.html This BTW, pretty much lays waste his argument about humans being "more intelligent".

[Ouroboros]

Koko 3:16

"For the Big Cahuna so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, Chimpanzeesus, that any chimpanzee who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life, 72 virgin chimpettes, and an infinite supply of Intelligent Designed Bananas.

[chefranden]

I have to admit I do enjoy chefrandens "phooey's" Thankfully I've not received the "no soup for you" yet. Shame on you Chef for having to be editted for the colloseum forum I can only imagine what you posted.(insert smiley here) fast reply confused??? Cudos to all for some great replies including Han's "amygdala link" which I've not looked at yet but feel compelled to as soon as time permits definately food for thought. I know you all have your "pelting fruit" ready for the next round but, I might not be able to post in the next day or two real busy time before the weekend, might not be til Monday, but I'll be back!!!

 

regards; Jacques

 

Well you see I had a few words to say about your TrueChristian™ ploy. I spoke of your church's problem with pedophilia and it's failure to deal with it. I wasn't nice enough about it so I edited it out.

 

The TrueChristian™ ploy pisses people off here, though you couldn't know that I suppose. What it does is cause you to lecture as if we know nothing, as if we know nothing about the very outdated natural law foolishness. By the way it also negates your reference to the Protestant false faith C.S. Lewis.

 

Consider the following: The Church has found itself time and again behind the times in science. Look how many centuries it took the Church to admit that Galileo was right. Yet you present this neo-scholastic nonsense as if it were the cutting edge of moral science. Based on its past record in all probability Rome is wrong about this "natural law" as well.

 

Edit: In order that you don't embarrass again over the "uniqueness" of humans you should take the time to compare and contrast the works of Franz de Waal with your notion of uniqueness of humans and natural law.

[Antlerman]

Koko 3:16

"For the Big Cahuna so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, Chimpanzeesus, that any chimpanzee who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life, 72 virgin chimpettes, and an infinite supply of Intelligent Designed Bananas.

 

This human quotes from the Great Lawgiver! Blasphemy! Stone Him!

 

[Kuroikaze]

Well you see I had a few words to say about your TrueChristian ploy. I spoke of your church's problem with pedophilia and it's failure to deal with it. I wasn't nice enough about it so I edited it out.

 

I didn't edit mine out, I pointed out both of those things. though perhaps I was nicer than your post was.

[Danaya]

Wow, a lot of very intelligent educated people here. A lot of the stuff about mutations and cells I didn't really understand. I guess I am an abstract thinker. I can't concentrate on one thing for very long. Why do I remain a Christian? I think Christian is a two syllabel word that could have a lot of meanings so you need to be more specific. Why do I believe in God? Because my heart tells me to and it makes me feel good. Because, life is too short to try and find the answers. Because, in moments of pain and suffering I pray and I feel a sence of relief and peace that no intellectual could ever give me. Because I enjoy the innocence and joy I see in other Christian women. Because I have friends who don't believe in God who seem very unhappy, as if they're missing something. Because I love God. Because when I look in to my child's eyes, I realize he is a gift that only God could create. I found that last sentence in Lauryn Hill's song, Zion. Because I don't give a shit about debating because I know, I know there is no evidence of God. I believe anyway, that's why it's called faith.

[Ouroboros]

...

Because I don't give a shit about debating because I know, I know there is no evidence of God. I believe anyway, that's why it's called faith.

Pure honesty.

 

Even though we're on different sides of the fence, I appreciate people highly when they're able to realize this and admit it.

[chefranden]

Because I don't give a shit about debating because I know, I know there is no evidence of God. I believe anyway, that's why it's called faith.

 

Hi Danya,

 

I know how you feel, I feel the same way about the Kitchen God's Wife. When I gaze upon a carrot, I realize there could be no other source.

 

Peace,

chef.

[Kuroikaze]

Why do I believe in God? Because my heart tells me to and it makes me feel good.

 

I don't wan to seem as if I'm debating you or trying to force my beliefs on you, but in an attempt to better understand one another I'd like to comment on several things you said.

 

For me, it is probably just the opposite, believing in God made me unhappy. To be honest I'm not sure how one gets happiness out of a god belief. Perhaps you could elaborate on this? What about your belief in god makes you happy? I spent most of my Christian life miserable about one thing or another relating to my religious beliefs so this really is a mystery to me.

 

Because, life is too short to try and find the answers.

 

I agree, in the sense that we will never know everything. To me, not believing in god isn't knowing and answer but admitting I don't the answer.

 

Because, in moments of pain and suffering I pray and I feel a sence of relief and peace that no intellectual could ever give me.

 

Fair enough, but from my perspective I find more relief and peace from facing reality as it comes to me, than in asking supernatural beings to fix things for me.

 

When speaking of emotional issues like this its all very subjective, one persons salvation is another persons hell.

 

 

Because I enjoy the innocence and joy I see in other Christian women. Because I have friends who don't believe in God who seem very unhappy, as if they're missing something.

 

They don't "seem" happy? You might consider that they are perfectly happy, but you are judging them with preconceived notions, I'm just throwing that out there.

 

IMO it depends on the person, just because believing in god makes you happy doesn't mean it would make everyone so. Just something to consider.

 

Because I love God. Because when I look in to my child's eyes, I realize he is a gift that only God could create. I found that last sentence in Lauryn Hill's song, Zion. Because I don't give a shit about debating because I know, I know there is no evidence of God. I believe anyway, that's why it's called faith.

 

Fair enough, my problem with most Christians is not that they believe differently than me, but they are convinced that there is something wrong with me for disagreeing with them.

 

Some of us are just uncomfortable the idea of faith. I think if Christians could accept this and just let me live my life in a way that makes ME happy, we would get along fine.

[Antlerman]

Wow, a lot of very intelligent educated people here. A lot of the stuff about mutations and cells I didn't really understand. I guess I am an abstract thinker. I can't concentrate on one thing for very long.

Being an abstract thinker does not mean attention deficit disorder. On the contrary.

 

Why do I remain a Christian? I think Christian is a two syllabel word that could have a lot of meanings so you need to be more specific. Why do I believe in God? Because my heart tells me to and it makes me feel good.

Emotional reasons have their place to be sure. The down side of that is when it's not balanced with reason. Emotions can be easily manipulated, as is evidenced by a great many cults that have led people to disastrous ends.

 

Because, life is too short to try and find the answers.

The down side of this of course it that you may turn to others to tell you what those answers are, letting them doing your own hard work of thinking. This can actually lead you to a less fulfilled life, never figuring our for yourself what is right for you. What's right for others, is not right for everyone.

 

Because, in moments of pain and suffering I pray and I feel a sence of relief and peace that no intellectual could ever give me.

This is interesting, as it is what we humans do. We always find reasons to comfort ourselves. To the point we manufacture reasons, such as telling yourself death isn't the end, that there's some world beyond that we or our loved ones go to and continue to live. That's essentially what belief in God does in some ways. It's a way to put a face on a great abstraction of existence, of our existence, and it gives us something to tell ourselves, to dump our anxieties, fears, sense of despondency onto. We can't always rely on our friends, so we manufacture our own best personal friend. That best personal friend is actually you. God is a projection of you. "In the beginning man created God in his own image", and we wrote the myth the other way around as a psychological device.

 

Because I enjoy the innocence and joy I see in other Christian women.

For me I see a world of turmoil beneath that. Read this as an example of how women are jammed into a mold by men using God as the authority over them. Please read this from this official web site of a Pentecostal Church: http://www.upci.org/doctrine/scripturesModesty.asp

 

Her hair style is again predicated upon the Word of God, which teaches her to let her hair grow uncut: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11:13-15).

 

Against this picture of scriptural womanhood, we have the worldly female of today who tries by every conceivable means, it seems, to flirt with the hazards of indecency. Costumes and apparel that are inclined toward nudity are sought after intensely. The results are demonstrated in a wanton display of seminude parades on our public streets.

Many authorities agree that this concentration on exposure of the body has contributed greatly to the serious problems of immorality that threaten the basic foundations of our homes and families. It has also been a cause in inviting serious sexual atrocities.

 

The worldly woman also makes a hobby of fashion crazes and style shows. She sets up a contest with her neighbors as to who owns the most expensive jewelry, who wears the latest clothes, and who has traveled the farthest to buy the latest creation. It makes for an interesting discussion over a cocktail, but it does not alleviate the serious problems and needs of a reeling world, which Christians are called upon to address with a Christ-like zeal to help desperate souls, both by their means and their consecration.

 

This is the "peace" that comes from not looking for the answers and letting others do it for you? This is a false joy, one that comes at the expense of freedom. A "security" based on willful slavery to men. I know these women you speak of in these churches. I was in church with them. These were their guidelines for living "in Christ".

 

Because I have friends who don't believe in God who seem very unhappy, as if they're missing something.

Oh, that's a projection of yourself with a host of unsupported assumptions. It's unfair to them. I'll bet if you really asked them, as hard as it may be for you to wrap your mind around it, to fathom that someone could be happy without belief in God, you would find that they in fact are - perhaps even more than you since they don't have to "obey" men.

 

Trust me, even as male, my true happiness began after leaving religion. Ask any women here about their experience. In fact, I'd suggest starting a thread asking women that question. Ask them, "We're you happier in the church, or now that you're not in it?" Please do so. I would love to see the responses. Care to actually take a poll around here and find out the truth about it, or is it more comforting to tell yourself they're not?

 

Because I love God. Because when I look in to my child's eyes, I realize he is a gift that only God could create. I found that last sentence in Lauryn Hill's song, Zion. Because I don't give a shit about debating because I know, I know there is no evidence of God. I believe anyway, that's why it's called faith.

Is it also your faith to assume people (women) who don't believe like you are unhappy? You see my point?

 

Now that you believe without evidence is fine. I always argue that a Christian who tried to prove God with evidence is missing the point of faith. But my issue, is all your assumptions about others, and that you sound like, from what you said, you don't want to figure out your life and would rather just let others tell you what's truth. That my friend is NOT faith at all! That is laziness. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would forfeit their freedom for security, deserve neither." Think about it. What you described is not a leap of faith, it's copping out. There is a huge difference there. One is faith, the other a lack of responsibility.

 

I'm being a bit uncharacteristically harsh, but I feel to say this. I don't disrespect faith, but I have do have a problem with religion and how it steals from people their souls, not helps them along on their own journey that they have to have to do the work of figuring out themselves.

[chefranden]

It is tantamount to asking "Is stealing as little as I need to feed my starving family good, While stealing as much as I can to feed my family better?" Stealing is wrong. Stealing as little as you need is wrong. Stealing more is worse. Saving someone from impending doom is good. Saving as many as you think you can is better.

 

"Consider the following dilemma: Mike is supposed to be the best man at a friend’s wedding in Maine this afternoon. He is carrying the wedding rings with him in New Hampshire, where he has been staying on business. One bus a day goes directly to the coast. Mike is on his way to the bus station with 15 minutes to spare when he realizes that his wallet has been stolen, and with it his bus tickets, his credit cards, and all his forms of ID.

 

At the bus station Mike tries to persuade the officials, and then a couple of fellow travelers, to lend him the money to buy a new ticket, but no one will do it. He’s a stranger, and it’s a significant sum. With five minutes to go before the bus’s departure, he is sitting on a bench trying desperately to think of a plan. Just then, a well-dressed man gets up for a walk, leaving his jacket, with a bus ticket to Maine in the pocket, lying unattended on the bench. In a flash, Mike realizes that the only way he will make it to the wedding on time is if he takes that ticket. The man is clearly well off and could easily buy himself another one.

 

Should Mike take the ticket?

 

My own judgment comes down narrowly, but firmly, against stealing the ticket. And in studies of moral reasoning, the majority of American adults and children answer as I do: Mike should not take the ticket, even if it means missing the wedding. But this proportion varies dramatically across cultures. In Mysore, a city in the south of India, 85 percent of adults and 98 percent of children say Mike should steal the ticket and go to the wedding. Americans, and I, justify our choice in terms of justice and fairness: it is not right for me to harm this stranger—even in a minor way. We could not live in a world in which everyone stole whatever he or she needed. The Indian subjects focus instead on the importance of personal relationships and contractual obligations, and on the relatively small harm that will be done to the stranger in contrast to the much broader harm that will be done to the wedding.

 

An elder in a Maisin village in Papua New Guinea sees the situation from a third perspective, focused on collective responsibility. He rejects the dilemma: 'If nobody [in the community] helped him and so he [stole], I would say we had caused that problem.'"

 

Read the rest of the article by Rebecca Saxe here

[Danaya]

Antlerman, meow. Feisty today, are we?

 

I can't disagree with any of the opinions made. All I want to say is, I would never assume somebody is unhappy unless they told me they were. Whether or not it's a direct result of being an Atheist, I guess that is a matter of debate.

 

I change my mind everyday and actually almost took offence to somebody calling me lazy and not able to think for myself. Then I remembered... this is the internet. I guess I'm a little afraid to think for myself. Whatevs.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, meow. Feisty today, are we?

As I said, it's atypical of me. I'm usually the last person to be so 'adamant', always trying to find the middle-ground of something, valuing every perspective and trying to find a meeting of minds. But there are certain things that trigger me: someone "sounding like" (not that you necessarily are) they would rather let someone else tell them what the answers are rather than finding their own meaning, is one. My whole life since 18 years old has been about the pursuit finding that "answer". In that quest, delving deeply into the pursuit of "God", I have found the answer hiding in plain sight at every point. Myself. As I reached for God, I found more inside myself, what I was about, who I am. The illusion being that God is our salvation. God is a "path' to salvation, so to speak, a path to finding "God" in us, and our own salvation. God being understood as the symbol of ourselves.

 

It's been a journey, which though painful and frustrating, has opened up vistas of understanding that offer whole new areas of exploration into this universe and into my own soul. Not that I claim any such thing as "enlightenment", what I have found, what I am finding is that there is an answer, and that it is in the moment only. It's nothing to be grasped onto and put on a flag (or a cross) and say, "This is the Truth". In a very true sense the truth is there is no truth - in any ultimate sense; only in the moment. And if we look to the church, the pastor, the doctrine, the theology, the political system, or any other thing or idea in the hope that we can now "rest" in that truth, we really are just distracting ourselves from the real truth - an acceptance of now on our road to finding the meaning of ourselves in our humanity and in the world.

 

In that sense, we can find rest or peace should we choose to simply breathe in life along that road. Yet to spend long in that is to fall into complacency. And it's complacency that is sin, as a human. I suppose "faith" is in resting in our not ever being able to grasp truth wholly, but acceptance of the power of life. One could layer all the metaphors of God upon this, of faith and hope, but its emphasis would be away from finding an "end", but more words of guidance, small philosophical sound-bites to act as reminders of the nature of being human.

 

So, when I hear what sounds like anyone suggesting (even though you may not have been), that searching is something they don't have the energy or desire for it shocks me in some way. I guess I consider it our "sacred" duty to life as human. But perhaps I'm as guilty in not recognizing that not all humans are driven into the Void to see the face of God in the mirror as I seem to be geared towards in my personality. I didn't mean to offend, just perhaps provoke something if it's there.

 

It's my belief people try to avoid looking into the abyss like this for fear of what they may see staring back at them. Religion offers people a mask to put on that face that's out there, that we can try to hide from. "For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face." There's an ironic truth to that.

 

I change my mind everyday and actually almost took offence to somebody calling me lazy and not able to think for myself. Then I remembered... this is the internet. I guess I'm a little afraid to think for myself. Whatevs.

To be clear on a couple points, I never outright judged you as lazy. It was an example of those they do what Ben Franklin said in that quote. I can't judge you. Secondly, I did not nor intended to suggest you aren't capable of thinking for yourself. On the contrary, it's my belief that you certainly are, and in fact should make that a sacred responsibility to yourself and life itself.

 

Peace

[Guest Dear Dogma]

Greetings to all;

 

I just wanted to present, as best I could, my response to what I believe to be some of the combined objections to my posts so far in defense of remaining a Christian. Now of course I started my defense with the proposals of a real and true (objective) right and wrong. What guides us in determining between them (conscience) and what binds people to accept certain basic human rights as inerrant regarless of race colour or creed (Natural Law). Of course, many objections have been raised, too many to list, but I think to further stengthen my position I believe most if not all of those objections seem to be of a scientific nature, while the questions themselves are of a meta physical one.

 

If I were to make the statement "Compassion is more noble than selfishness" the statement itself is of a meta physical nature, Science can say nothing about it. Science may argue how these concepts came into being but it can not argue the validity / invalidity of the concepts themselves. The same applies to the innitial question I posed of a real and true right and wrong when speaking of a moral act. No one can effectively argue against the concept of Natural Law with a scientific book, any more than some one could effectively argue against the concept of evolution with a theological book (the bible). The Bible is not a book of science, it is filled with conceptual symbolism, espescially O.T. and Revelations. People who read all of it literally, ignoring the teachings of Orthodoxy, inevitably wind up presenting a false Christianity. The same however applies to those who attempt to denounce the theological declarations of Christianity using Darwin's "On the origin of species" as their tool, in the end it just doesn't speak to the questions at hand.

 

 

Earlier in our dialogue I used the example of acceptance of the Universe as being infinite as a stepping stone towards the acceptance of an infinite being. It was even countered by the assertion the universe may indeed have boundaries. I only mentioned it because it reveals that all of us do accept somethings on faith, realistically how could either position regarding the expanses of the universe ever be proved one way or the other. The same goes for God

 

 

I would venture to guess that most if not all here through faith believe that man has evolved from the apes with fewer signs to support it than those that exist supporting belief in a Christian God (IMO). Considering the obvious problems surrounding the ninth chapter of Darwins book citing the "imperfection of the geological record" problems yet rectified. It's amazing to me how some people can so adamantly adhere to a theory and then flatly reject a theology, when both clearly require a leap of faith to retain. For all ardent Darwinian's here I present for your consideration this qoute from G.K.Chesteron who in this same book "The Everlasting man" quiped that "the ultimate oxymoron is a history of pre-history." Interesting guy Chesterton, a great logician, he defended the church for nearly 30 years from outside of it, finally converting in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

PROFESSORS AND PREHISTORIC MEN

 

Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that

has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels

we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data.

In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can

always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment

in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make.

An inventor can advance step by step in the construction

of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks

and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot

watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If

he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane

will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has

made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor,

he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree.

He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch

him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry

off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture.

He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds

and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct.

If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get

other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds

a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill,

he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones.

In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished,

he can only go by evidence and not by experiment.

And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential.

Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve,

being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies

off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything.

But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be

formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific

mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about

the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something

like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole

scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor

of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous

and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes.

The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.

 

We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department

it would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the

difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry.

We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be

called fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts.

The most empirical anthropologist is here as limited as an antiquary.

He can only cling to a fragment of the past and has no way of

increasing it for the future He can only clutch his fragment of fact,

almost as the primitive man clutched his fragment of flint. And indeed

he does deal with it in much the same way and for much the same reason.

It is his tool and his only tool. It is his weapon and his only weapon.

He often wields it with a fanaticism far in excess of anything shown

by men of science when they can collect more facts from experience

and even add new facts by experiment. Sometimes the professor

with his bone becomes almost as dangerous as a dog with his bone.

And the dog at least does not deduce a theory from it, proving that

mankind is going to the dogs--or that it came from them.

 

 

regards; Dear Dogma