+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread (/thread-2337.html)
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
@ bodhi
I remember reading somewhere that a considerable amount of homeless people don't even have ID's.
I remember when I moved to California, it was a bit of a pain to get an ID. It wasn't enough to show them my ID from my state of prior residence. I had to order a certified copy of my birth certificate from Oregon as proof; I had never had to do that before so it took a bit of online detective work to figure out how to start the process. I paid about 15 bucks by check or credit card; I can't remember which. I'm also pretty sure it took several weeks to arrive in the mail to my home address.
Of course many homeless people don't have birth certificates, computers, literacy, credit cards, bank accounts, and physical addresses so this process could be considerably harder for them.
Maybe there are alternative routes for homeless people to get ID's if they are lucky enough to find people who are willing to actually help them, but the point is that red tape exists everywhere when dealing with government agencies, even for food stamps which is probably the easiest form of welfare to get.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
snispilbor Wrote:“igordesu wrote:igordesu Wrote:"Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else."If this were true, then a Christian who errs and then dies before having a chance to repent, would go to hell. Salvation is permanent, and has nothing to do with acts (ie, sins). The whole of Jesus' Christianity is: "Believe you are saved, and you will be saved." I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that; son, I feel the Lord compelling me to share it with you, because it is really good news!
Actually, Jesus typically said something more like, repent of your sins and follow me (in belief). And in the translation of the word believe, which we take to mean "accept as the truth or fact," actually means something more like "put your trust in."
igordesu Wrote:"Bible: Jesus never read the Bible."The Old Testament is part of the Bible, it is not the Bible itself, and even in the perverted corrupt modern institution of Christianity, the Old Testament plays second chair to the New Testament.
You're wrong. Even if you don't agree that He was the son of God or anything, it is still clear from the Bible that he was familiar with the old testament. In his teachings, he quotes A LOT from the book of the *law*, Deuteronomy (He quotes from here more than anywhere else, gee, isn't that FUNNY...). In Luke chapter 4 verses 16-21, Jesus specifically reads from the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament in a synagogue in Nazareth. It's true that He wasn't familiar with the New Testament as it wasn't written yet, but, if you believe the first chapter of John and that Jesus is God, then it is clear that the Bible is the very word of God (Jesus).
igordesu Wrote:"Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)"I could found a stripclub based on his ideas. It would have a New Testament theme, the strippers could even come wash your feet for you. Would that make it holy?
Of course. The church wasn't founded until the day of Pentacost (read about it in the book of Acts) after Jesus' death and ascension. This is irrelevant anyways since, even if you don't believe that he was God and the founder of the church, the church was still originally founded upon his ideas.
igordesu Wrote:"Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant"."Jesus _fulfills_ the Law by being the sacrifice. He removes from us the obligation to follow the laws. Before Jesus, if you broke a law you had to make some animal sacrifices. Jesus _fulfills_ the law by BEING that sacrifice, so that we don't have to worry about it. The rest of your quote is entirely supporting ME, because Jesus is talking about a sort of Heavenly hierarchy, "he shall be called least in Heaven", "he shall be called greatest in Heaven", Jesus says nothing about the offender going to Hell. He's directly saying that the offender will still go to Heaven (albeit, where he'll be "seen as least", whatever that means, but who cares?)
Wrong again. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-21 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." You must have skipped over this part, eh? The purpose of the law was never to save us but to show us our faults. It is by the law (ten commandments) that we know we are sinners in need of Jesus. That's what he means by "fulfill." When Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God totally and the second greatest is to love your neighbors, this is a summary of the ten commandments.
igordesu Wrote:"The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed."Who said the first thing about atheism or creationism? I happen to be extremely spiritual, and I call the modern institution of Christianity evil for the same reasons I would call a serial killer or child rapist evil. Modern Christianity is far worse than any serial killer or child rapist.
How can you say this (or anything else) is evil? To what standard are you comparing this when you say it's evil? There MUST be some standard for you to say that. If you are an athiest, there is no basis for you to call anything evil. Without starting a debate on creationism, etc., if we are all the product of random chance, there is really no reason for you to call something evil. The only "law" there would be is survival-of-the-fittest. "Might makes right." If we're products of random chance, none of us is better than the other, and therefore no one's sense of ethics is better than another's.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed."The abstinence-only sex education pushed by Modern Christianity has been proven to be ineffective at stopping premarital sex, and by removing education on actual contraception/protection, actually increases teen pregnancies and STDs. Furthermore, the institution of marriage is entirely secular and certainly the Christian marriage ceremonies have _no_ Biblical foundation. Going off on a Japanese-related tangent, it's interesting to compare Heian era marriages, formed initially by having sex three nights in a row where the house servants can hear it; showing how ludicrous the "no sex before marriage" idea is.
Because we all know teenage pregnancies and STDs are the best thing ever.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."As others have pointed out, Modern Christianity specifically discourages people from questioning certain things or having open minds about certain things.
Not sure what you mean by that.
igordesu Wrote:"Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."You're technically right here, but that's not how Modern Christianity has practiced it. You and everyone else reading this all know that under Modern Christianity the homosexual is mercilessly persecuted, and there is no excuse, and you as a Modern Christian ought to be ashamed.
Actually, the bible declares every "natural-born minority" to be inherently evil. The bible says everybody is inherently evil. I'm not sure what your point is there. I won't get into a debate about homosexuality in this public forum. We all know that discussion would not end up being a normal discussion. If anybody really wants to debate it, I guess I'd do it over email.
igordesu Wrote:"Jesus himself agrees with me absolutely, and as His tantrum in the Jewish synagogue demonstrates, He would happily light the first detonator."Yes, he would. I claim prophecy here and declare Jesus is speaking through me. Roll your saving throw.
No, He doesn't. He did not have a tantrum in the Jewish synagogue (actually, I think it was the temple). He did that to dispel the people who were making a monetary profit off of religion. I think many people in this thread could sympathize with that.
"Actual Christianity, as Jesus actually established it, is ridiculously simple: "Believe you're saved, and you'll be saved. Have a nice day." That's IT. There's nothing else."
Actually, Jesus typically said something more like, repent of your sins and follow me (in belief). And in the translation of the word believe, which we take to mean "accept as the truth or fact," actually means something more like "put your trust in."
If this were true, then a Christian who errs and then dies before having a chance to repent, would go to hell. Salvation is permanent, and has nothing to do with acts (ie, sins). The whole of Jesus' Christianity is: "Believe you are saved, and you will be saved." I'm not sure why you are so resistant to that; son, I feel the Lord compelling me to share it with you, because it is really good news!”
If “believe you are saved, and you’ll be saved” were all it comes down to, then a Buddhist, Muslim, and anybody else could be saved under Jesus’ Christianity. That is simply not supported by the Bible as I have said before. By repent of sins I mean admitting your sin and that you were wrong and turning to Christ and following him. This is a one time thing when you first put your faith in Christ. Jesus told many people to do this when he encountered them (I believe the woman at the well is an example). The reason for this is that we cannot go on living as a slave to sin and a slave to God at the same time. Because we still live in these bodies of flesh, the process of sanctification will never be complete until we die. So, we will sin. But we certainly cannot go on living the same way as we did before we put our faith in Jesus Christ. If we truly did that, then our actions, though they don’t save us, should show and be evidence that we are saved. And we need to do more than “believe” to be saved. I can believe in my bellybutton lint all I want, but I won’t be saved. I have to specifically put my trust in and believe in Jesus Christ to save me. I’m sorry if I made it sound like you have to do something or follow the law to be saved. I didn’t mean that. I think that if someone seriously falls back into sin later in life though, then there’s reason to question whether they truly put their faith in Jesus in the first place. I’m sorry if I made that unclear.
“igordesu wrote:
"Bible: Jesus never read the Bible."
You're wrong. Even if you don't agree that He was the son of God or anything, it is still clear from the Bible that he was familiar with the old testament. In his teachings, he quotes A LOT from the book of the *law*, Deuteronomy (He quotes from here more than anywhere else, gee, isn't that FUNNY...). In Luke chapter 4 verses 16-21, Jesus specifically reads from the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament in a synagogue in Nazareth. It's true that He wasn't familiar with the New Testament as it wasn't written yet, but, if you believe the first chapter of John and that Jesus is God, then it is clear that the Bible is the very word of God (Jesus).
The Old Testament is part of the Bible, it is not the Bible itself, and even in the perverted corrupt modern institution of Christianity, the Old Testament plays second chair to the New Testament.”
Is your point here that, since He didn’t read or write the new testament, the new testament is just the product of people and not God? If that’s so, I’m sorry you feel that way. I can’t prove to you that the New Testament was inspired by God (and therefore Jesus) even though it claims to be and I believe so. And in that case/if that’s the case, since it’s all inspired by God, it doesn’t really matter if He “read” the new testament beforehand.
As important as the new testament is, the old is just as important. It’s still part of scripture. “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.” 2 Timothy 3:16 (I love those 3:16 verses, don’t you?)
“igordesu wrote:
"Church: Jesus never went to a Christian church (in the sense of an institution)"
Of course. The church wasn't founded until the day of Pentacost (read about it in the book of Acts) after Jesus' death and ascension. This is irrelevant anyways since, even if you don't believe that he was God and the founder of the church, the church was still originally founded upon his ideas.
I could found a stripclub based on his ideas. It would have a New Testament theme, the strippers could even come wash your feet for you. Would that make it holy?”
What? The very fact that you’re making a stripclub shows that you aren’t basing anything even remotely on his ideas. Just because you take a few of his teachings out of context doesn’t mean you’re basing anything off anything He said. And it especially wouldn’t make it holy. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. By “founded upon his ideas” I mean belief in one holy, powerful, etc. creator God; Jesus is the only way to God; etc. etc. If anything was truly based on all His ideas in the right contexts, then I would have to say that the church would be Holy (Not because of legalistic reasons, but because of their true faith in Him.) I don’t think I’m really sure of your point here, though, so…
“igordesu wrote:
"Ten Commandments: Jesus himself said they were null and void. They are the "old covenant"."
Wrong again. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-21 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." You must have skipped over this part, eh? The purpose of the law was never to save us but to show us our faults. It is by the law (ten commandments) that we know we are sinners in need of Jesus. That's what he means by "fulfill." When Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God totally and the second greatest is to love your neighbors, this is a summary of the ten commandments.
Jesus _fulfills_ the Law by being the sacrifice. He removes from us the obligation to follow the laws. Before Jesus, if you broke a law you had to make some animal sacrifices. Jesus _fulfills_ the law by BEING that sacrifice, so that we don't have to worry about it. The rest of your quote is entirely supporting ME, because Jesus is talking about a sort of Heavenly hierarchy, "he shall be called least in Heaven", "he shall be called greatest in Heaven", Jesus says nothing about the offender going to Hell. He's directly saying that the offender will still go to Heaven (albeit, where he'll be "seen as least", whatever that means, but who cares?)”
I’m sorry. I fail to see why you are carrying on with this particular argument. I agree that, in the New Testament, Jesus presents the New Covenant based on faith and belief. I don’t agree that we should totally scrap the ten commandments. That is completely inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Just because we’re saved by faith doesn’t mean we should stop living by God’s commandments. I do disagree with the Heavenly Hierarchy thing. He doesn’t say “he shall be called least in heaven” who is an offender (breaks the law). There was a Jewish saying in those days that was “If two men make it to heaven, one will be a scribe, and the other will be a pharisee.” This scripture threw them for a loop because even though they kept the law externally by technically not killing anyone, Jesus showed them they were still murderers because they had “killed” someone by hating them in their heart. Therefore, “exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” meant keeping the law in your heart also. Of course, nobody goes their entire life without breaking the law to that degree because everybody hates somebody or lies or steals at some point. That’s why after He says “shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” I’m not sure about the previous part with breaking the commandments and teaching others to do so, and still making it to heaven as the “least.” If you look at the wording, I think it means that people who potentially get rid of the law/tell others to do so(but still follow in faith) still go to Heaven. I think He’s stressing the lasting importance of the law. (don’t worry, I still agree that we’re saved only by faith)
“igordesu wrote:
"The Christian religion which exists today is pure evil and should be utterly destroyed."
How can you say this (or anything else) is evil? To what standard are you comparing this when you say it's evil? There MUST be some standard for you to say that. If you are an athiest, there is no basis for you to call anything evil. Without starting a debate on creationism, etc., if we are all the product of random chance, there is really no reason for you to call something evil. The only "law" there would be is survival-of-the-fittest. "Might makes right." If we're products of random chance, none of us is better than the other, and therefore no one's sense of ethics is better than another's.
Who said the first thing about atheism or creationism? I happen to be extremely spiritual, and I call the modern institution of Christianity evil for the same reasons I would call a serial killer or child rapist evil. Modern Christianity is far worse than any serial killer or child rapist.”
I didn’t mean to call you an atheist. I just used that as an example because that was the most convenient (sorry). What I meant was, by what standard are you saying that the Christian set of beliefs is pure evil? Your own set of ethics that you’ve created? Then why would you impose that on such a large group other people’s ethics. A set of ethics that you’ve adopted in the form of a religion? Then why are you judging/comparing one set of religious ethics to another? That’s like comparing apples to oranges. That’s like telling me my orange is no where near as tasty as your apple simply because mine simply couldn’t be as tasty as the apple you’re eating (that may be a very crappy metaphor, lol, and you could just ignore it all together… I’m not even sure it works…) And, more importantly, for what reason would you all a serial killer or child rapist evil?ß---that’s the most important question here.
“igordesu wrote:
"Any religion which tries to spread "abstinence until marriage", is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Because we all know teenage pregnancies and STDs are the best thing ever.
The abstinence-only sex education pushed by Modern Christianity has been proven to be ineffective at stopping premarital sex, and by removing education on actual contraception/protection, actually increases teen pregnancies and STDs. Furthermore, the institution of marriage is entirely secular and certainly the Christian marriage ceremonies have _no_ Biblical foundation. Going off on a Japanese-related tangent, it's interesting to compare Heian era marriages, formed initially by having sex three nights in a row where the house servants can hear it; showing how ludicrous the "no sex before marriage" idea is.”
All I have to say about sex education is that it is certainly sending conflicting messages to tell kids to be abstinent but practice “safe sex.” The truth is, the safest sex is within marriage. Let’s be hypothetical here. Could you imagine what would happen if an entire generation (or two) waited until marriage to have sex and then only had sex in marriage (assuming monogamy and NOT polygamy)? That’d be crazy. Like, wouldn’t most STDs be eliminated (only genetically transmitted ones would be present)? And teen pregnancies (as we think of the term) would be eliminated. I do agree that maybe some of the actual things we do in marriage ceremonies are based on tradition and not on biblical principles.
“igordesu wrote:
"Any religion which attempts to LOWER peoples' consciousness, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Not sure what you mean by that.
As others have pointed out, Modern Christianity specifically discourages people from questioning certain things or having open minds about certain things.”
Maybe other people who claim to practice Christianity do that, but I don’t. The particular brand of biblical Christianity that I practice doesn’t prevent me from questioning things. Though “having an open mind” about things like other religions and ways to God is of course not encouraged. That doesn’t mean we hate the people who practice them, but Jesus was pretty narrow-minded. Period. Lol
“igordesu wrote:
"Any religion which declares certain natural-born minorities (e.g. gays) to be inherently evil, is evil and should be utterly destroyed."
Actually, the bible declares every "natural-born minority" to be inherently evil. The bible says everybody is inherently evil. I'm not sure what your point is there. I won't get into a debate about homosexuality in this public forum. We all know that discussion would not end up being a normal discussion. If anybody really wants to debate it, I guess I'd do it over email.
You're technically right here, but that's not how Modern Christianity has practiced it. You and everyone else reading this all know that under Modern Christianity the homosexual is mercilessly persecuted, and there is no excuse, and you as a Modern Christian ought to be ashamed.”
You ought to be ashamed of the way you’ve just spoken to me. I am a complete stranger to you. You have continually thrown around the ambiguous term “Modern Christianity/Christian” without defining it. And then, you claim that’s exactly what I believe and that I should be ashamed of it. That’s ridiculous. If by the term “Modern Christianity” you mean churches and organizations such as the Catholic church, televangelists, and some cults that have strayed away from Biblical Christianity (I hate to group them together, so I'm sorry; I'm just grouping them together because all of them are different from the Christianity that I practice), then I am in no way affiliated with them. I thought this was supposed to be a civil debate.
I have never, EVER persecuted anyone. I’ve especially never persecuted a homosexual. (since I’ve already said that I refuse to debate about this issue here, this is my last comment on the issue) Maybe some people and churches do. But I don’t, and the Bible doesn’t tell us to persecute them. It teaches that they are sinners like everybody else in need of a savior. We are to love them and pray for them like everybody else.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Dragg,
Yes, life is difficult in all ways for those living on the streets. The mentally ill, those controlled by addiction or for what ever reason, it is life filled with suffering. It upsets me when people brush them off as just lazy. No one would accept that life if they did not have to. It is 24 hour a day, 7 day a week job filled with every form of indignity. I imagine very few of them have I.D. Somehow here in Hawaii they still get food stamps. Perhaps they have someone who interviews the mentally ill and chemically dependant.
But I still maintain government aid is still a form of secular charity and a sign of a compassionate society.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Holy smoke Igor! Delete what is not relevant
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
Tobberoth Wrote:igordesu, it's really quite simple. I don't need God to tell me that it's wrong to kill a human. I don't need anyone to tell me or teach me that. No animal has the instinct to kill another one of its kind, it makes no sense. Do animals kill each other? Yeah, when they have reason to. The difference is that humans are more civilized, we've come up with better ways to handle crimes and conflicts. Humans don't WANT to kill each other, it comes naturally that we are against it. We don't need God or anything else, it did just evolve from out instincts as we became a more advanced species.So, let's be hypothetical. IF there is no God or intelligent designer, then the universe is like a closed box. There's no designer outside it to put stuff inside. Everything in the box develops/developed on its own (and now it has become aware of itself since we developed). Like us. If ethics represent how we *should* behave, then where did that come from? We're just a product of the box. Why should we behave one way or another? To prolong the period of time where the box is aware of itself? To prolong our existence. Since we, as humans, aren't the only ones "aware" of the box, doesn't might make right? Whichever part of the box is strongest gets to do what it wants. No particular part of the box's ethics could change that because, hypothetically, couldn't some amount of "force" or might from another part of the box just overrule it?
I'm a human which gives me automatic empathic ability towards other humans. I know how it feels when someone punches me, I know it feels bad. I know other humans feel the same way since they are humans just like me. Therefor, I do not want to punch another human. It's automatic and built into us from birth. Religion isn't a part of it.
Universal ethic: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. It is completely independant on religion.
That's why I'm saying I think it's more likely that a designer outside of the box created universal rules or whatever. Like, a conscience or something...
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:So, let's be hypothetical. IF there is no God or intelligent designer, then the universe is like a closed box. There's no designer outside it to put stuff inside. Everything in the box develops/developed on its own (and now it has become aware of itself since we developed). Like us. If ethics represent how we *should* behave, then where did that come from? We're just a product of the box. Why should we behave one way or another? To prolong the period of time where the box is aware of itself? To prolong our existence. Since we, as humans, aren't the only ones "aware" of the box, doesn't might make right? Whichever part of the box is strongest gets to do what it wants. No particular part of the box's ethics could change that because, hypothetically, couldn't some amount of "force" or might from another part of the box just overrule it?Nah, it's just that your opinions on what ethics are differ greatly from mine. You seem to think that ethics are some... higher rules that don't need to make sense, they should just be followed becomes SOMETHING tells us to do things like that.
That's why I'm saying I think it's more likely that a designer outside of the box created universal rules or whatever. Like, a conscience or something...
I don't. I find ethic to be a ruleset for how people should act towards each other to experience the maximum amount of happiness possible for everyone. By hurting tons of people around you, you might prosper. But the overall happiness of mankind would suffer, which makes it unethical for you to do so. Since you're equipped with empathy, you realize this and do not.
Ethics, as I see it, requires no one outside of the box, it just demands intelligence and empathy. We can feel how others would feel and thus we can reflect on the concequences of our own actions towards others. That leads us to create ethical rules.
You say if it was just the box, the strong would do as they wish. They do. That's why I eat animals all the time, because humans are stronger than animals, we decide whether we want to eat them or not. We lack empathy for animals to the same degree we do for humans so our ethical rules generally do not apply to them. This is where we actually get discussion on ethics. All people agree that you shouldn't kill your fellow man just to get his money, that's unethical in all instances. However, everyone can't agree whether it's ethical to eat animals or not. IF there was a force outside of the box who put those absolute rules into the box, there would be no such discussion, everyone would agree on what is right and wrong. But there is such discussion, thus proving (IMO) that no God could have possibly made the ethical rules we live by.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
sorry about the long post before. It wasn't meant for everybody, just snispilbor. And it's mostly quotes of stuff that's already been said, so...
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
Who created the box where the creator who created our box came from?
Where does this God get his/her motivation for ethics if there is no fear of hell for that being? If our consciousness requires a creator for existence, why did our creator not require the same?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - playadom - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:sorry about the long post before. It wasn't meant for everybody, just snispilbor. And it's mostly quotes of stuff that's already been said, so...That's the longest post I've ever seen on the RTK forum, hands down!
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
@ tobby
"But the overall happiness of mankind would suffer, which makes it unethical for you to do so."
Says who? Why does that make it unethical? If I (hypothetically) don't agree and could care less about what other people feel and do so anyways. So nobody else in the box likes me. And?
Edit: Does the majority rules nature of everybody else in the box in this case make me the "unethical" one?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
bodhisamaya Wrote:Who created the box where the creator who created our box came from?First, did you mean conscience* instead of consciousness? Just wondering for clarity.
Where does this God get his/her motivation for ethics if there is no fear of hell for that being? If our consciousness requires a creator for existence, why did our creator not require the same?
I'm not sure. (BTW, what follows if purely my own conjecture, so...) But, since the creator created this box, perhaps he created the rules of logic that govern this box, too. IF that's so, then maybe the rules of time that we have don't exist outside of the box and He's outside our time frame. He could always have been there or something. As far as His own conscience, I'm not sure why God is the way He is. That's like people who say God just pulled the ten commandments out of His butt and made them up on the fly. And he could change them whenever He wanted. I don't know, but maybe I don't think so. I think they're that way because they're consistent with His all-good nature. Why His nature is that way, I'm not sure.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Tobberoth - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:@ tobbySays who? I do. People do. It doesn't matter, it's nothing individual, it's humanity over all. It's just empathy. As long as you recognize something to be the same as yourself, you will feel empathy towards it and that's where the ethics are born. If you're white and consider blacks inferor, your ethics will not include them so it will be okey to hurt them because they aren't like you. Just like you could decide you care less about all other humans because they are inferior to you, your ethics won't apply to them. That's the whole point. As long as you feel empathy for people, your ethics include them. You act nice towards them for them to be nice towards you. That's just how humans work. We don't like pain and suffering (pure instincts, shared by all animals) so we act to minimise it.
"But the overall happiness of mankind would suffer, which makes it unethical for you to do so."
Says who? Why does that make it unethical? If I (hypothetically) don't agree and could care less about what other people feel and do so anyways. So nobody else in the box likes me. And?
I really don't see where you get the God part from at all, it isn't even in the least bit important. This is a human trait, it has evolved over thousands of years. You could say God invented empathy and gave it to us, but that won't change the fact that religion isn't a part of the process what so ever.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-29
I meant consciousness.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Dragg - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:@ tobbyIts just so blatantly obvious that certain things are unethical on account that we are social animals and that what hurts others can indirectly hurt us. Nobody HAS to say so. For example, we have evolved as a species to aid each other in processes such as gathering food and raising families. For this reason, murder is instinctually a negative thing as it screws up our ability to gather food if the person is our own tribe. If we murder members of another tribe, its not as big of a deal. Apparently some individuals deal with murdering other tribes better than others. I believe there is some variance in instinct because each individual is slightly different from a genetic and biological perspective.
"But the overall happiness of mankind would suffer, which makes it unethical for you to do so."
Says who? Why does that make it unethical? If I (hypothetically) don't agree and could care less about what other people feel and do so anyways. So nobody else in the box likes me. And?
Edit: Does the majority rules nature of everybody else in the box in this case make me the "unethical" one?
To answer your question, I believe that the instincts of the majority make up ethics, but only after the majority acknowledge (at least in a democracy) the opinion of dissenting minorities within our tribe since we are social enough that we sort of respect them.
And yes, if you are too divergent in your views, nobody in the box will like you. And if you are WAY too divergent you may even go to prison.
EDIT: Not every species is as social as us. If we were highly evolved reptiles there is a good chance that our definitions of ethics would be considerably different.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - Jeromin - 2008-12-29
The argument "Ethics need a creator" resembles the argument "The universe needs an originator".
The Universe seems to need an originator, since otherwise it would have always been there, which is counter intuitive to our race of food growers, tool makers, word smiths and doers in general. Homo Faber. Yet somehow, the question of who made the maker does not usually pose a problem. Why? After all, If god was always there, why could the universe not have always been there, too? Perhaps because, in our experience, builders are conscious beings, and any creator god(s) is/are always ( in the creation myths I'm familiar with, at least ) more or less anthropomorphic. A non sentient, non built Universe does not correspond to our human experience, which might explains why the concept of evolution took so long to be developed.
Equally, ethics needs a creator because in our experience, we are told by our elders what is right or wrong. Morality originates from the words and actions of humans, just like things are built by humans. Maybe our human diversity makes agreement in anything more that basic rules impossible, so we need to draft universal, clear cut rules, particularly in more complex, specialised, hierarchical societies. And since these are only clear cut when written, or at least recited out loud by lawgivers, we assume an ultimate, supreme law maker, just like we assume a world maker.
But is our moral compass so weak that we cannot rely on it? It certainly seems to vary alarmingly from person to person. Had we all come equiped with the clear moral sense of the best among us, there would be no need for a Law, or indeed for the threat of Hell. So maybe we need to follow spelled out rules to compensate for the poorly designed blueprint for and shoddy manufacturing process of the said compass (we are in the industrial era, we might as well update our creation myths: The Assembly Line of Eden ). Unfortunately, the behaviour, historically, of monotheistic believers is hardly supportive of their moral rectitude, unless moral rectitude is measured by their ability to exterminate unbelievers. Generally, religiously aggressive people, measure the depravity of the wicked by their love of pleasure and the tolerance of difference in a society, and the level of goodness of the righteous by their martial self denial and conquering prowess. So perhaps moral diversity with the ensuing uncertainty is the lesser of two evils
I should really be studying Kanji know or be off to bed. My goodness what a rant!
J
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - alyks - 2008-12-29
Good people will be good without religion. Bad people will still be bad with religion. Now, for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - stehr - 2008-12-29
igordesu Wrote:@ tobbyHe's talking about the survival/success of the human race. Wouldn't this be the end of the human race? I mean, if there was no ethics, anarchy, and everyone was trying to kill each other without any reason behind it. It goes against our group minded nature, which is a survival tactic. This was in place long before the bible.
"But the overall happiness of mankind would suffer, which makes it unethical for you to do so."
Says who? Why does that make it unethical? If I (hypothetically) don't agree and could care less about what other people feel and do so anyways. So nobody else in the box likes me. And?
Edit: Does the majority rules nature of everybody else in the box in this case make me the "unethical" one?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
Just keep in mind that atheists can suffer more discrimination than any other social group. So if you question for one in a group, he'd generally not stand up. I would never do that and I know more people that would not do it.
Asking atheists where they get their ethics from is one example of prejudice. One do not need to believe in good to trust other people.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-29
Just for the sake of clarity, *ethics* are, by definition (and I'm not making this poop up, either), how beings *should* or *ought* to act. Morals are, by definition, how beings really do act. I just say this because there seems to be a little bit of overlap in the use of the terms so far in this thread.
I'm still not convinced that beings in this "box" "should" act one way or another, if the box is hypothetically without a creator on the outside. Regardless of which way we have "evolved" or if we are "social animals", any so-called ethics are just pretend, you know? Like, it's still the majority of the box telling the minority of the box (however small) to take a hike because these are the "real ethics". Then the majority does things like restrain, imprison, and prevent the minority of the box from expressing what they want to do based on the ethics that have been created by the majority. That's really just "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest", isn't it?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-29
Yes igordesu. You pretty much summarized religion in my point of view.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-30
BTW, just out of curiosity. As far as the metaphor as the box metaphor for the universe, what do you think are all of the possible different beliefs about the box that have been presented in the world so far (in the form of philosophy, religion, whatever...) Examples: Some think the box is the product of a creator on the outside. Some think from that, that the creator is still involved directly in things in the box. Some think that the creator is no longer involved directly in events in the box. Some think there is no creator, and the box has developed on its own. You know. What are some different views that you guys can think of?
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-30
mentat_kgs Wrote:Yes igordesu. You pretty much summarized religion in my point of view.Oh! But don't get me wrong! Lol. I don't actually believe that. I'm just saying that's why I believe there is a creator outside the box.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - mentat_kgs - 2008-12-30
Just because you believe doesn't mean there is one.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - bodhisamaya - 2008-12-30
mentat_kgs Wrote:Just keep in mind that atheists can suffer more discrimination than any other social group.I think Muslims suffer much worse.
Continuation of tangent discussion/civil debate about religion thread - igordesu - 2008-12-30
@mentat: I know. And just because you don't believe doesn't mean there isn't one.