Sapience at times seems ill fitted to the mortal being, and because we are self aware there comes a time in most all of our lives that we are forced to introspect into the purpose of our own existence. This existential crisis leads many to adopt theories and beliefs, religion or certain philosophies, providing a security net for many individuals as it removes the need to continue probing the universe with the question "why?". Why are we here, why do we exist, why does anything exist, etc.

To the individual that still refuses to accept what he cannot logically verify after the course of said existential crisis he can make peace with the fact his life serves no greater purpose other than what he chooses to make of it, were he to see that the life he is born into is one born of nothing but despair and anguish he would have no reason to pursue it further, thus ending it would be the most rational thing he could do, for those who are able to live by experiencing and creating values in his/her life then it stands that there is no reason why he should not live the course of his life, however long that may be. For to think is to exist, to exist is to live, the nihilist has no reason to live and should therefore die. Meaning in life is what you make of it.

igordesu Wrote:Why have we done that? I'm serious about wondering the reason.

Try reading my posts, I have explained it in at least 3 posts now. If you're seriously wondering, read the answers instead of repeating the question

Why do we have social norms? Because we have a society. Why do we have a society? Because humans are social creatures. Why are we social creatures? Because we evolved to realize that being in a group makes us stronger.

You keep saying "That isn't ethics, it's survival of the fittest". And you're right, there's nothing more to it than just that. There is no other reason or explanation needed.

byakko Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:We did not evolve with fangs, poison, claws or an external skeleton to protect us.

Sapience is a far greater weapon than fangs, poison, or claws; for we have domain over them all.

Reason is the pinnacle of our existence as homo sapience. That which promotes life is the good, that which denies it or destroys it is the bad, I'd say that's pretty absolute. Societal laws, or the axioms that define social interaction amongst humans are based on real metaphysical realities, they cannot be changed or wished away, one cannot believe in something contrary to reality and not suffer some causative penalty towards his/ her life.

If you wished to kill babies Igor, then what fate would befall you, your quest would soon end as others have a vested interest in the lives you're taking, others have an interest in the property you steal.

Interestingly Economics is perhaps the most revealing social science one could study as it discusses the benefits of human interaction and trade amongst fellow man at its most basic level, and all other things evolve from this. That a man has a right to his life and his property. Thus we have created laws to protect these things in developed nations, and we prosper the most because of such basic and necessary rights.

If these basic and logical tenets are denied then life will be squandered, existence requires rationality. Should more assume anti life propaganda as truth than those with an absolute and rational view of life then they would be the cause of their own end.

You still failed to answer my question. If our existence is all there is, and we, as the mostly highly developed form/part of the universe, simply value our existence (because that's all we've ever known), then that means that any laws or anything that we've created are simply to prolong that existence. That means *nothing* is right or wrong. It only means that some things may or may not be in accordance with our major goal and therefore laws that we've created to achieve that goal. *Of course* human beings (in this hypothetical situation) are smart enough to use reason and therefore enact laws that promote our existence. You say "that which promotes life is good, that which denies it or destroys it is the bad, I'd say that's pretty absolute." If the universe/box is without a creator, then that's only because we as humans value our existence. It's not an absolute truth. It's not good or bad. It's only something that's needed if we want to continue our existence. That's common sense. That's why it's no coincidence that (if this hypothetical universe without a creator exists) the highest evolved form and most intelligent beings in the universe (humans) have formed societies based on complex rules and "ethics" unlike other species. It's simply needed if you don't want to kill everybody off and you want to prolong a semi-happy existence as a species.

I of course don't really wish to kill babies. However, if I honestly believed in such a universe as described above, I wouldn't see any problem. Any proposed ethics or ways that people tell me to act are just things that people have come up with to prolong existence. And since that's merely a goal of a portion of the box, it's only a representation of the strongest (smartest) fulfilling their goal. survival of the fittest. Why does it make me wrong to oppose what the strongest want? I simply cannot believe in such a universe. Even if I honestly believed in such a universe, I would still have what Sammy (and CS Lewis described earlier). That inner feeling that what I'm doing is wrong.

You choose to derive your ethics based on your religion, in this case your sect of christianity, you choose to abide by that code of rules and regulations, your... ethics, in order to avoid the consequence of hell. To you life, the good, is to be sided with your god, to be evil is to side with satan, that is the death of the soul, everlasting torment. You are no less motivated by what motivates me, we are both looking out for our own best interests.

Save that the judging of your deeds over the course of your life is relegated to your deathbed, whereas we must judge and be judged everyday in order to exist, to live.

igordesu Wrote:Why does it make me wrong to oppose what the strongest want?

Because you are weak. How physically strong you are isn't important, humans have evolved beyond that. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strong, it means survival of the smart and survival of the groups.

You are alone. If you kill babies and the rest of us find that to be wrong, we will do something about it. To give a simple uncivilized example, you kill babies, we kill you. It's selfdestructive for you to kill babies, you know it isn't acceptable in the social norm. Since it's a selfdestructive act, only someone who is insane would do it, a sane person values their survival and existance.

Tobberoth Wrote:Since it's a selfdestructive act, only someone who is insane would do it, a sane person values their survival and existance.

Sanity is too subjective to say, a sane person would do this an insane person would do that.

@ igordesu

You make it sound as if a "survival of the fittest" world is awful, but isn't that basically the same worldview as what you are living in now? Christians make up only a small part of the "box" and yet because they have been historically stronger they have been allowed to push around the other parts of the box until very recently. I would argue that most Christians follow the general rules of the natural "survival of the fittest" and they have also had a fairly rigid hierarchy of power in which "lower" parts of the box are deemed inferior or demonically influenced.

The only major difference I see is that Christians made up a personified God outside the box to justify what they do within it. Having a God endorse your tribe actually allows you to become less tolerant of other areas of the box, because unless you can convert them, they are only harming themselves and others. (Which is the worldview I believe caused periods such as the Spanish Inquisition and Medieval Crusades.) You are prolonging your tribe's own survival by suppressing the others. For example, do you really think that Christianity would be as strong as it is today if it wasn't for the barbaric conquistadors storming the "New Worlds"

Having a God with Absolute Laws tell you what you "should" do doesn't necessarily make the world a friendlier or better world to live in. I guess I'm not sure why you *need* that feeling. Some crazy people can and will kill babies with or without Christianity. There aren't going to be less baby-killers with Christian dominance throughout the lands.

Tobberoth Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:Why does it make me wrong to oppose what the strongest want?

Because you are weak. How physically strong you are isn't important, humans have evolved beyond that. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strong, it means survival of the smart and survival of the groups.

You are alone. If you kill babies and the rest of us find that to be wrong, we will do something about it. To give a simple uncivilized example, you kill babies, we kill you. It's selfdestructive for you to kill babies, you know it isn't acceptable in the social norm. Since it's a selfdestructive act, only someone who is insane would do it, a sane person values their survival and existance.

I'm sorry if I made the "survival of the fittest" thing unclear. I agree that it can mean physical strength of intelligence. Whatever it takes to get on top.

So you're saying (in the hypothetical situation of a universe without a creator) that, if I did that, it wouldn't be wrong. It would simply anger other members of the box and prompt retaliation. Of course, if it's destructive to my own existence, in this case that would be my decision. It would be my own existence to do with whatever I want. And it wouldn't be insane. It would only seem insane since it is contrary to your goal set. So, overall, it's still not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of strength. Like I said. There are no true ethics.

Dragg Wrote:@ igordesu

You make it sound as if a "survival of the fittest" world is awful, but isn't that basically the same worldview as what you are living in now? Christians make up only a small part of the "box" and yet because they have been historically stronger they have been allowed to push around the other parts of the box until very recently. I would argue that most Christians follow the general rules of the natural "survival of the fittest" and they have also had a fairly rigid hierarchy of power in which "lower" parts of the box are deemed inferior or demonically influenced.

The only major difference I see is that Christians made up a personified God outside the box to justify what they do within it. Having a God endorse your tribe actually allows you to become less tolerant of other areas of the box, because unless you can convert them, they are only harming themselves and others. (Which is the worldview I believe caused periods such as the Spanish Inquisition and Medieval Crusades.) You are prolonging your tribe's own survival by suppressing the others.

Having a God with Absolute Laws tell you what you "should" do doesn't necessarily make the world a friendlier or better world to live in. I guess I'm not sure why you *need* that feeling. Some crazy people can and will kill babies with or without Christianity. There aren't going to be less baby-killers with Christian dominance throughout the lands.

Well, true biblical Christianity isn't really about justifying what we do because someone outside the box/universe said it's okay. I realize some people may have done that over the course history in claiming to be Christians or in the name of Christianity. True biblical Christianity is more like...creation rejecting creator and rules set down by creator. Creator still loves creation so Creator provides a way to come back to the creator. That sort of thing? Maybe that's an oversimplification, but, you know.

igordesu Wrote:So you're saying (in the hypothetical situation of a universe without a creator) that, if I did that, it wouldn't be wrong. It would simply anger other members of the box and prompt retaliation. Of course, if it's destructive to my own existence, in this case that would be my decision. It would be my own existence to do with whatever I want. And it wouldn't be insane. It would only seem insane since it is contrary to your goal set. So, overall, it's still not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of strength. Like I said. There are no true ethics.

Of course you'd be wrong. In my opinion and according to my ethics. See, that's the whole point. Religious people talk about absolutes. You need an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT" and an "ABSOLUTE WRONG". There are no such things. It's all viewpoints, opinions. This is right for some, it's wrong for some. According to you, being a christian, it's right to turn the other cheek if someone punches you. According to others, that's being a coward and you shouldn't let people trample you. Whom is right, whom is wrong? That depends on who you are asking. That's the thing about ethics, they AREN'T absolute. It just happens to be that all humans share some characteristics (empathy) and those lead to the universal ethics that pretty much every single sane person agrees on. If suddenly 20% of all people completely lost the sense of empathy, it would be a very different story.

@ igordesu

You are right. There are no true ethics if you define them to require absolute laws of a personified creator. I don't think anybody is arguing with you on that point.

Dragg Wrote:@ igordesu

You are right. There are no true ethics if you define them to require absolute laws of a personified creator. I don't think anybody is arguing with you on that point.

Gotcha. That's all I was wondering.

But if the Creator loves the WHOLE box, why do some things in the box appear to get the shaft in terms of the rules set out by the creator?

For example, why isn't there much mention of how people should treat animals or the environment well? Instead there is a much more general feeling of God granting dominion and control over animals and the earth to humans. When Christians pray over cooked meat, they tend to thank God for control over the animal and not thank the animal itself!

In my opinion, these unfair rules also extend to people. When the New Testament outlines all these rules for ethical treatment of slaves, it forgets to give an important rule: Let the slaves go free!

Some religions simply don't back this kind of dominance scheme so I can't understand why you would choose to believe in it if you claim to care for the whole box.

There is something about the bible I've always wondered about.

God is perfect right? In all ways flawless(except the jealousy and control issues of course) right? Man on the other hand has flaws, all of his works are flawed compared to works of god.

Then why is the bible considered the living breathing word of god? Languages were invented by man. There is no way a fully perfect being could express himself perfectly in a flawed system made by men. A perfect being would have so many concepts and ideas we wouldn't even have words for because we've never needed to express them. The living breathing word of god could not be captured by man made languages. So even if the bible is a downgraded version of the word of god that would have to make it flawed by it's very nature.

Cracky, the living, breathing Eternal Word of God is Jesus Christ. This is one place where Catholics sort of agree and sort of disagree with Igordesu's stance. Because yes, the Bible is really God's word, but to express everything God would want to say to people and show them would take more than sounds and ink. It would take a flawless person who could both be God and be human . . .

Jesus's apostles knew him personally and they both passed down what they knew and entrusted it to leaders that would follow them. A large part was passed down through the New Testament, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians also have apostolic succession -- the ordination of bishops is in a direct line from the apostles. (ref. 2 Tim. 2:2)

Bodhisamaya, some Catholics may believe in reincarnation on their own because of some influence from other religions, but the Church doesn't teach reincarnation. Wouldn't it conflict with the idea that every individual has a unique soul?

KristinHolly Wrote:Cracky, the living, breathing Eternal Word of God is Jesus Christ. This is one place where Catholics sort of agree and sort of disagree with Igordesu's stance. Because yes, the Bible is really God's word, but to express everything God would want to say to people and show them would take more than sounds and ink. It would take a flawless person who could both be God and be human . . .

Jesus's apostles knew him personally and they both passed down what they knew and entrusted it to leaders that would follow them. A large part was passed down through the New Testament, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians also have apostolic succession -- the ordination of bishops is in a direct line from the apostles. (ref. 2 Tim. 2:2)

Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation.

Then shouldn't the bible be taken with a grain of salt though? Since it wasn't written by Jesus and was passed down by men. I mean shouldn't the only thing that would be absolute would be things Christians actually heard Jesus say?

cracky Wrote:Then why is the bible considered the living breathing word of god? Languages were invented by man. There is no way a fully perfect being could express himself perfectly in a flawed system made by men. A perfect being would have so many concepts and ideas we wouldn't even have words for because we've never needed to express them. The living breathing word of god could not be captured by man made languages. So even if the bible is a downgraded version of the word of god that would have to make it flawed by it's very nature.

Absolutely 100% correct. This is similar to my point on an earlier post, that since the foundation of the Christianity is clearly flawed one can't really trust any of it.

igordesu - This has been quite a strange thread where you haven't understood some things simply because your assumption base is different to everyone elses. This is why these threads never change anyones mind, because everyone has a different set of assumptions they assume "cant be wrong", meaning that anything built on those assumptions are going to be different between people but yet impossible to resolve.

Your comment here was telling:

Quote:So, overall, it's still not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of strength. Like I said. There are no true ethics.

Its one of those funny things where someone can apply logic to a situation to get a completely correct answer, but then immediately discard it because it contradicts a founding assumption (in your case, that there is such a thing as "true ethics" and that evolution wasn't what created us)

Because of your set of assumptions, you cannot easily see and understand what everyone else is saying, and even if you understand the words you discard the results due to your own base assumptions.

True ethics, as you are looking to explain, absolutely does not exist. This is fairly obvious, all different countries/societies/religions whatever define ethics differently. If you commit a crime in one country you may be stoned to death or you may just have to pay a small fine, in some places two men can marry and in other places they can't etc. There is also another obvious point, people do "unethical" things all the time, which merely demonstrates that something that is "ethical" to most people is not the same as the one that commit the crime.

igordesu - what I would ask of you is to attempt to read through all the posts again but try to change your default assumptions. I'm not saying you should stop believing what you believe, I'm saying that for a purpose of truly understanding the people here you need to read what they say whilst not invalidating anything due to contradictions in the bible (your base assumption). If more Christians were more open minded about this, then I think they would be suprised at just how well theories fit together and how they probably are accurate (theory of evolution being one).

In defense of Igordesu, he's put a lot of effort and thought into his statements and responses here, and he's not had a lot of support from others in the thread. It's true that everyone here is working with assumptions. If we ask Igordesu to change his default assumptions, shouldn't we ask that of everyone?

Cracky: "Then shouldn't the bible be taken with a grain of salt though? Since it wasn't written by Jesus and was passed down by men. I mean shouldn't the only thing that would be absolute would be things Christians actually heard Jesus say?"

Christians believe that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. The earliest Christians did go by what people had actually heard and seen, but before too long, they had to write things down to make sure that the story could be passed down accurately. So that's more or less where the Gospels come from, and much of the rest of the New Testament consists of pastoral letters from apostles to other Christians addressing questions or problems in the early church or sharing insights and guidance.

Interpretation of the Bible can go in a lot of different directions, some of them pretty far from what was meant by the authors. That's one reason that Catholics interpret the scriptures with the help of Tradition and guided by the Church, with apostolic succession and with some major decisions and documents put out at different points.

KristinHolly Wrote:Bodhisamaya, some Catholics may believe in reincarnation on their own because of some influence from other religions, but the Church doesn't teach reincarnation. Wouldn't it conflict with the idea that every individual has a unique soul?

Yea, the official church view is that consciousness began at conception. My ex-wife was ex-communicated from the church because she was divorced (20 years ago in a conservative Polish church) and so kept her Catholic faith but began to interpret the Bible on her own. She also had some, well, unexplainable abilities to know things that the rest of us don't. I witnessed some spooky things a few times. Don't want to get into wooji wooji stuff so I will leave it at that. I am not sure that would contradict the belief in a soul (though the existance of an individual soul is another point of debate). That "soul" drops one body and enters the womb of another.

That's interesting. I imagine "wooji wooji stuff" could take this thread into entirely different directions.

Technically it's not that consciousness begins at conception -- that wouldn't really work too well in terms of what we know about fetal development. It's more that the soul is created at the moment of conception. That doesn't make much difference as far as what you were saying, but just to preempt the scientific objections . . .

KristinHolly Wrote:Cracky: "Then shouldn't the bible be taken with a grain of salt though? Since it wasn't written by Jesus and was passed down by men. I mean shouldn't the only thing that would be absolute would be things Christians actually heard Jesus say?"

Christians believe that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. The earliest Christians did go by what people had actually heard and seen, but before too long, they had to write things down to make sure that the story could be passed down accurately. So that's more or less where the Gospels come from, and much of the rest of the New Testament consists of pastoral letters from apostles to other Christians addressing questions or problems in the early church or sharing insights and guidance.

I understand this part but this is where it seems to start going towards the faith for no reason domain. It seems like somebody questioning the validity of the bible came first and then people said "Oh well, the authors were divinely inspired so it's still good." Accepting Jesus is fine but then you also have to accept that these authors had no intentions of their own when they wrote the bible.

Shouldn't the bible then be presented differently? More like a theory is presented in science or how historians look at possible scenarios. Shouldn't it be analyzed critically and scoured to find what bits might be true and what might not? So you don't end up believing what some man wanted you to believe instead of what Jesus intended.

Cracky, like I said, that's why Catholics and Orthodox have formal structures and tradition passed down from the early Christians. Because if it just comes down to a book by itself, people will just fight forever over the interpretations. Sort of like on this thread.

But, yes, there scholars studying the Bible scientifically and trying to pick apart which parts are more or less likely, etc. Check Wikipedia on "Quest for the historical Jesus." The thing is that scholars and scientists are no more free of assumptions and agendas than anyone else, so you need to take everything with a grain of salt even when it has a nice bibliography.

Bodhisamaya, I just thought of a book you might enjoy. Deep River 深い河 is a novel by a Japanese Catholic but it explores the ideas of reincarnation, heresy, memory, sacrifice, cannibalism, guilt, cultural differences, poverty . . . Japanese tourists are on a group tour to the Ganges River in India, each with their own motivations for visiting and their own memories and life stories. The author is Endo Shusaku 遠藤周作. This is a novel, definitely not a statement of what Catholics believe or anything like that, but it's pretty interesting.

KristinHolly Wrote:Bodhisamaya, I just thought of a book you might enjoy. Deep River 深い河 is a novel by a Japanese Catholic but it explores the ideas of reincarnation, heresy, memory, sacrifice, cannibalism, guilt, cultural differences, poverty . . . Japanese tourists are on a group tour to the Ganges River in India, each with their own motivations for visiting and their own memories and life stories. The author is Endo Shusaku 遠藤周作. This is a novel, definitely not a statement of what Catholics believe or anything like that, but it's pretty interesting.

Thanks

Just for a little clarification on the Buddhist view of re-incarnation. They prefer the term re-birth because there are actually only two forms in which one can re-incarnate or "take flesh again" and those are the human and animal. The other four re-births one does not have a physical body. The Buddhists group 6 major (with countless sub-groups) re-births one can take. Proud Gods, Jealous Gods, Humans, animals, ghosts, and hell beings. It is believed we have all taken form in each of these rhelms numerous times. One's pre-dominate emotion is the main factor as to which re-birth one will take.

For Evangelicals. Japan is only 2% Christian. Of that, the vast majority are Philipino and Brazilian Catholic. So if you walk the streets of Japan and look around, do you really think, "Every one I see will be in hell one day."? 127 million people in Japan. Almost no one who believes as you do. I just feel there must be some logical part inside you that goes, "Something is not right in my thinking". There has to be some spark inside somewhere waiting desperately to explode.

I don't want to offend. But, I have to put in my 2.5 cents.

I do not see how the Bible can be taken as the word of God. It seems to me like whimsical game of telephone. I've read-over the history of the Bible. Before it was translated (several times) it was much much longer. After that, several councils got together and voted on what was canon and what wasn't. Anyone who disagreed was excommunicated. This repeated for several hundred years until a predecessor of the modern bible was agreed upon on Greek. This is not even looking at the history of the old testament.

btw, Jesus was a Jew. That's all I'm saying

back to kanji, peace