I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason some people don't know for sure if they are going to Heaven when they die is because they just don't know. The good news is that you can know for sure you are going to Heaven. May 20, 2005 8:34:30 pm

Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 10:42:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well then God bless you, sir!
> >> >>
> >> >> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
> >> >> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
> >> >> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
> >> >
> >> >If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
> >> >makes you feel good?
> >>
> >> Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
> >> being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
> >> a lot of religious hypocrites.
> >
> >Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> >opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> >yourself.
>
> I was once in extremely dire circumstances through no fault of my own.
> I happened to be in a place with others that were in the those same
> circumstances. Everyone was playing the "why me" game and trying to
> understand how their lives had been utterly torn apart with no
> warning. I looked around and saw that although I was a total mess
> that others were worse off than I. I began helping others. I found
> that helping others helped me as well. You should try it. It might
> help you.
>

If I didn't believe in God, then I might take your position of intended
to help myself by helping others.

> >Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
>
> Yes, but I find it hard to imagine how one could actually accomplish
> that unless one was forced into doing so. At that point it would not
> be altruism.

If there is no God, then one's feelings would be all that matters...so
I can understand how some would feel that way.

Do you really not see how people do things that they dislike for good
which is beyond their own gratification?

Also, are you saying that the altruism about helping others becomes
void when personal benefit is removed?

>
> >What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> >hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
>
> I've already done that. Have you?

Yes, thanks for asking.

>
> >Would you say that someone who enjoys going out of his way to
> >purposefully NOT help others is wrong?
>
> Yes, I would. Although we all have choices we can make, watching
> others suffer when we have the ability to help is cruel. While it is
> true that I certainly can't help everyone on the planet that need
> help, true charitable works by individuals towards others seems to be
> something that is in short supply. Perhaps you feel that putting a
> few bucks in your church's collection basket is helping out or
> donating some money to organized charities. Try personally helping
> someone else in need. I think you'll find there is a great difference
> between those two types of giving.

If there is no God, then who are you to say what is wrong? Without a
cosmic standard of good and evil, then people on their own determine
was is cruel, inhumane, or evil, right?

In my opinion, putting excess cash into some basket that is
conveniently passed by me in some church service is about the lowest
form of charity that there is.

You're correct about the different levels of service. One requires a
little bit of excess money and a convenient basket. The other demands
time, energy, money that could be used elsewhere, and discomfort.

But, if there is no God, then what does charity matter anyway?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:35:30 -0400, Brian Siano
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>>>>makes you feel good?
>>>
>>>That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
>>>improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
>>
>> But, why do all these things if there is no God?
>
>You require a God in order to do these things? You're saying that you
>are incapable of doing nice things unless there's some God telling you
>to do them? That's pretty sad.
>
>Me, I do then because I feel better when I do them, and they usually
>improve the lives of others. I guess that means I'm intrinsically a
>better person than you are.

And one who is not afraid to make his own choices in life based on his
innate ability to discern the difference between good and evil.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:17:53 GMT, peachy ashie passion
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Spaza wrote:
>>
>> Honestly, if God doesn't exist, then I would be much more likely to
>> lie, cheat on my wife, abuse my body with drugs and alcohol, hurt
>> others as I saw fit, and live for momentary pleasure. After all, if
>> God doesn't exist, then why not live such a lifestyle?
>
> How about you don't cheat on your wife because you love your
>wife, and it would cause her pain?
>
> You don't lie because it would cause pain to others around you?
>
> If the only reason you have not to cause others pain is that God
>will disapprove, if you do not care about others for their own sake,
>then God doesn't much approve of you anyay.

Amen, Peachy. My feelings exactly.

On 27 May 2005 10:42:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well then God bless you, sir!
>> >>
>> >> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
>> >> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
>> >> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
>> >>
>> >> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
>> >
>> >If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>> >makes you feel good?
>>
>> Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
>> being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
>> a lot of religious hypocrites.
>
>Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
>opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
>yourself.

I was once in extremely dire circumstances through no fault of my own.
I happened to be in a place with others that were in the those same
circumstances. Everyone was playing the "why me" game and trying to
understand how their lives had been utterly torn apart with no
warning. I looked around and saw that although I was a total mess
that others were worse off than I. I began helping others. I found
that helping others helped me as well. You should try it. It might
help you.

>Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?

Yes, but I find it hard to imagine how one could actually accomplish
that unless one was forced into doing so. At that point it would not
be altruism.

>What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
>hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?

I've already done that. Have you?

>Would you say that someone who enjoys going out of his way to
>purposefully NOT help others is wrong?

Yes, I would. Although we all have choices we can make, watching
others suffer when we have the ability to help is cruel. While it is
true that I certainly can't help everyone on the planet that need
help, true charitable works by individuals towards others seems to be
something that is in short supply. Perhaps you feel that putting a
few bucks in your church's collection basket is helping out or
donating some money to organized charities. Try personally helping
someone else in need. I think you'll find there is a great difference
between those two types of giving.

Colonel Forbin wrote:

> In article <KG9ne.10630$qJ3.3997@trnddc05>,
> peachy ashie passion <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> ALL my emails?
>>
>> ALL of them? good gosh!
>>
>> *gigglesnort*
>> I don't have that kind of time!
>
>
> Use the grep, Luke.
>
>

*blink*

Is there a translation to English for that?

--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 13:37:39 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
> >> >determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
> >> >sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
> >> >every second of it.
> >>
> >> You would do that? Unbelievable! Are you ever disillusioned. I
> >> actually feel sorry for you that your faith in God is so strong you
> >> would commit murder for it.
> >
> >Technically, it wouldn't be murder if God said to do it. In any event,
> >if God were to appear before you with all the angels in Heaven singing
> >in the background and order you to do something, would you not obey or
> >at least try to regardless of the detestfullness? Let's assume that
> >you absolutely knew that it was God Himself and not some apparition or
> >illusion.
>
> Have you any idea how many people are in prison today for doing
> exactly what you are discussing? Murder is murder, Jim. I would like
> to see you argue this case before a court saying that God, and you
> were a gazillion percent sure it was the "real God", told you to
> murder so-and-so and since you did this on God's orders you are
> innocent.
>
> Just listen to yourself for a minute. You've gone well beyond
> rational.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?

What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
that was told of you?

Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 13:44:24 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
> >> >something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
> >> >not something that is against God's will?
> >>
> >> You really don't know, do you?
> >
> >Yes. I know what we, as humans, consider to be evil. Things such as
> >murder, child abuse, rape, theft, assault, etc. are all things that I
> >view as evil. These are all based on my genetics, environment, and
> >personal choice.
> >
> >But, I also know, given the Bible, what God's will is, at least in
> >general terms. And when/if these conflict with one another, then,
> >because I fear God more than any human or entity, I defer to God's
> >will.
>
> The Bible? What do you actually know about the writings in the bible
> other than the fact you believe them with blind faith? I suggest you
> do a little research on when things were *actually* written and by
> whom. You might be very surprised at what you find out. I am not
> attempting to sway you away from your faith. I'm just suggesting you
> don't know all the details behind what you have been taught.

I am actually translating the Old Testament from Biblical Hebrew to
modern English to make sure that the King James version of the Bible is
as accurate as possible. I am also studying the Dead Sea Scrolls and
other ancient manuscripts. I really am trying to verify everything as
much as possible.

Learning Biblical Greek and translating the New Testament comes next.

>
> >It is God's will that is the cosmic standard of good and evil, in my
> >opinion.
>
> In which cosmos are you living?

Same one that you're in unless my internet connection is more powerful
that was originally advertised.

Jim Spaza wrote:
> What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> that was told of you?

I saw that once. It was during a production of "Angels in America."
Great show. And the FX guys did marvelous work.

Now then, being new girl on the block, I've been researching Usenet.
Who'd have guessed? I have a brain and can think for myself. At the
risk of generating a much larger post than is considered correct in
polite - or perhaps no so polite company, I'd like to share something I
found which seems to apply directly to this particular scenario:

> An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the
> Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset
> people.

> Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their
> bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real
> people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of
> digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the
> pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater
> their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity
> of the net allows trolls to flourish.

To be fair here - I think Troll Jim honestly has our very best
interests at heart. But Jim? If I wanted your help, I would have asked.
I am here in this forum to have fun. If and when I am ready for Divine
Assistance, I'll be checking in with a being who might have just a bit
more impact. God and I are mates, and He understands why I do what I
do.

> Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You
> cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or
> compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel
> remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of
> courtesy or social responsibility.

> Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something
> I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by
> mere words.

> When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a
> polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet
> users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely
> behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant
> manner, they usually calm down.

> However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being
> unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:

> The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
> others not to respond to trolls.

> When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he
> wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't
> handle is being ignored.

*sighs* Well, I had to make an attempt - even if it is an effort in
futility. The premise of the First Amendment is to promote open
discourse, and allow for differences of opinion. Which brings up this
nifty little bit: having the "right" to say something, doesn't make it
right to say in the wrong environment.

> The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may
> have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the
> right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that
> your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have
> the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster
> tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain.
> This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services
> offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking
> for a refund.)


Thus speaketh SummersFrenzy, quoting heavily from
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2005 13:37:39 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He
> >> >> >alone
> >> >> >determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
> >> >> >sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
> >> >> >every second of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You would do that? Unbelievable! Are you ever disillusioned. I
> >> >> actually feel sorry for you that your faith in God is so strong you
> >> >> would commit murder for it.
> >> >
> >> >Technically, it wouldn't be murder if God said to do it. In any event,
> >> >if God were to appear before you with all the angels in Heaven singing
> >> >in the background and order you to do something, would you not obey or
> >> >at least try to regardless of the detestfullness? Let's assume that
> >> >you absolutely knew that it was God Himself and not some apparition or
> >> >illusion.
> >>
> >> Have you any idea how many people are in prison today for doing
> >> exactly what you are discussing? Murder is murder, Jim. I would like
> >> to see you argue this case before a court saying that God, and you
> >> were a gazillion percent sure it was the "real God", told you to
> >> murder so-and-so and since you did this on God's orders you are
> >> innocent.
> >>
> >> Just listen to yourself for a minute. You've gone well beyond
> >> rational.
> >
> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
> >
> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.

Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have conflicting
beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW that
their version of right and wrong is correct?

In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they KNOW
to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct good?

>
> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> > that was told of you?
> >
> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had to
> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one for
> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.

Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.

>
> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some important
> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be treated,
> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they don't.

Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think that
it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
others suffer. Who is right?

>
> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God on
> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God sanctioned
> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can you
> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?

I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in their
shoes.

This begs a question, what is wrong with such murder if the murderers
themselves believed it to be a good thing?

BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
> >> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> >> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
> >> >
> >> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
> >
> > Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have conflicting
> > beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW that
> > their version of right and wrong is correct?
> >
> Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes they
> don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the destruction of
> the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of which
> were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in what way
> is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?

You didn't answer whether your knowing what is wrong is a function of
logic or feeling.

You also didn't answer how to determine which good is the real good
when two people have different views of good.

People not abiding by and using a set of rules for their own immoral
purposes may not have anything to do with the significance of the rules
themselves. This goes for a highway speed limit as well as God's laws.

>
> > In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
> > cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they KNOW
> > to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct good?
> >
> Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave people
> who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent superiority
> to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that the
> people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God from any
> other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is unerringly
> correct and the other is inconsistent.

I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.

And you aren't answering any of the questions.

> >>
> >> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> >> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> >> > that was told of you?
> >> >
> >> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
> >> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had
> >> to
> >> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one
> >> for
> >> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
> >> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
> >> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
> >> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
> >
> > Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
> >
> >>
> >> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
> >> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
> >> important
> >> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
> >> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
> >> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
> >> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
> >> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
> >> treated,
> >> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
> >> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
> >> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
> >> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
> >> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they
> >> don't.
> >
> > Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think that
> > it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
> > others suffer. Who is right?
> >
> There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and deserve to
> be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to let
> others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?

Who is right? How do you determine who's good is the good that should
be followed when there is a conflict?

>
> And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
> existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some very
> deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that thinking could
> have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being -- all that
> would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It could even
> credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral teaching in
> the book.

I believe that the issue of good and evil speaks directly to the
possibility of the existence of God. Without a God, why do most people
on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong? Is it genetic
then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it is
somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?

> >>
> >> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God
> >> on
> >> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
> >> sanctioned
> >> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
> >> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
> >> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can
> >> you
> >> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
> >
> > I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in their
> > shoes.
> >
> So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened to the
> moral guidepost?

I can't tell you unless I know all of the details. Once the details
are known, then good and evil become apparent. There is no moral
relativism. It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
absolute truth, especially in the area of killing. The difference
between self-defense and murder may be a single thought that goes
through a man's head.

>
> > This begs a question, what is wrong with such murder if the murderers
> > themselves believed it to be a good thing?
> >
> What's wrong with it is that it violates a philosophical recognition of the
> inherent worth of each individual. That recognition has nothing to do with
> a supreme being.

What if the murderer doesn't believe that such an act violates the
inherent worth of an individual? What happens if the majority of a
community doesn't believe it either and does away with any law against
murder? Is the murderer and community wrong?

>
> Here's one for you -- What is wrong with recognizing marriages between
> people of the same sex? Pretty much every religion rejects it. Is this
> another one where a 2000-year-old code of morality has to dictate our
> behavior today?

If there is no God to say what is good and evil, then same gender
marriages are not inherently right or wrong. They are exactly what the
majority of the population says that they are. Right now, it seems
that the majority of the voting population says that such marriages are
not good. Does that mean that such marriages are wrong in your mind
given that people determine their own right and wrong?

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> > directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> > determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
> >
>
> You haven't yet explained how to determine what is right
> presuming there IS a Supreme Being.

We can discuss God in a moment. First, let's deal with the premise
that good and evil are just constructs of the human mind.

So? How do humans create their own ideas of right and wrong? If
notions of right and wrong are encoded at the genetic level, then why
are there so many different ideas of good and evil?

>
>
> Assume the world is what you say it is.. there is a Supreme
> Being, and he cares about our actions and has beliefs on right and
> wrong.
>
> There are millions of people in the world that disagree with your
> interpretation of what those rights and wrongs are. And they say
> God told them so.
>
> Who is right?

The Bible is the only accurate written source. But, coming to that
conclusion takes a lot of effort. You'd have to eliminate all the
other religions just to make sure. 90% of the world's religions can be
easily dismissed as false given their internal contradictions and
reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of truth.
The other 10% will be seen as false given their inconsistencies over
origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

>
> How do you decide what God really wants, and which one of you is
> the raving looney?

Ah! That takes effort. The basics are in the Bible. The more
advanced wisdom comes in response to prayer and experience (both
natural and supernatural).

>
>
>
> --
> The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
> stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
>
> God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire
>
> http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Jim Spaza wrote:
> BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> > "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
> > >> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> > >> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
> > >> >
> > >> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
> > >
> > > Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have conflicting
> > > beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW that
> > > their version of right and wrong is correct?
> > >
> > Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes they
> > don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the destruction of
> > the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of which
> > were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in what way
> > is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?
>
> You didn't answer whether your knowing what is wrong is a function of
> logic or feeling.
>
For me, it's both. My sense of morality is not based on any belief in
a supernatural being, but based on simply a belief in people's inherent
value. How did I arrive at this? Lots of sources. My parents taught
me their morality. I found through interaction with other people that
some things that people did made me feel bad and I realized that I did
not think it was right to make people feel that way. Everyone finds
their morality themselves -- and certainly believing in God is as valid
a way to get there as any other. My kids believe in Santa Claus and
they become very careful around Christmas to be nice and not naughty.

> You also didn't answer how to determine which good is the real good
> when two people have different views of good.
>
There is no "real" good. It might be nice if everyone abided by the
same idea of good and evil, but as you say, they don't. Some are
knowingly violating an internal moral code that they have inside them;
some either don't have any moral code or have one that is substantially
different than the one current in the west.

> People not abiding by and using a set of rules for their own immoral
> purposes may not have anything to do with the significance of the rules
> themselves. This goes for a highway speed limit as well as God's laws.
>
Are you saying that the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were
immoral? Personally I believe that most of the people who were
involved in the latter, anyway, were quite sincere and motivated by a
belief that they were called to do what they did by God. Do you have
some pipeline to the almighty that allows you to judge them to be
immoral (not in accordance with God's law) or are you just viewing
their actions now using your modern understanding? If it's the latter,
I don't disagree -- I think that the spanish inquisition and crusades
were both immoral exercises because they both were about imposing a
belief system on others

> >
> > > In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
> > > cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they KNOW
> > > to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct good?
> > >
> > Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave people
> > who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent superiority
> > to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that the
> > people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God from any
> > other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is unerringly
> > correct and the other is inconsistent.
>
> I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
>
> And you aren't answering any of the questions.
>
I'm questioning the premise behind them. The premise is that God gives
his believers a moral compass and without God there is no certain moral
direction. I can't accept that because I don't think God provides a
consistent moral direction. At the very most the Bible can be given
credit for giving moral direction (though the bible can be quoted for
both sides of pretty much any debate) and I don't dispute that the
Bible is a great source of moral teaching. But you're making a jump
that I don't think makes sense by pointing to God as the source of the
wisdom of the bible.
> > >>
> > >> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> > >> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> > >> > that was told of you?
> > >> >
> > >> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
> > >> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had
> > >> to
> > >> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one
> > >> for
> > >> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
> > >> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
> > >> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
> > >> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
> > >> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
> > >> important
> > >> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
> > >> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
> > >> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
> > >> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
> > >> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
> > >> treated,
> > >> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
> > >> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
> > >> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
> > >> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
> > >> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they
> > >> don't.
> > >
> > > Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think that
> > > it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
> > > others suffer. Who is right?
> > >
> > There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and deserve to
> > be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to let
> > others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?
>
> Who is right? How do you determine who's good is the good that should
> be followed when there is a conflict?
>
There is no "right." There is only philosophy. You're looking for an
absolute, and if that's what you need, God is a good thing to invent
because He is, by definition, absolute.
> >
> > And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
> > existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some very
> > deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that thinking could
> > have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being -- all that
> > would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It could even
> > credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral teaching in
> > the book.
>
> I believe that the issue of good and evil speaks directly to the
> possibility of the existence of God.

Not really. "Directly" would mean, to me, some evidence that
unambiguously has to do with God's existence. My birth certificate is
direct evidence that I exist (or existed). The fact that people have
certain beliefs in common could have lots of different sources, most of
which are not supernatural.

> Without a God, why do most people
> on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong?

Like what? Killing? Maybe because people have affection for each
other and felt hurt when one of their loved ones were killed. I think
that it has more to do with the nature of living within a society than
with the existence of some mythical being.

> Is it genetic
> then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it is
> somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?
>
No. It's the nature of society. When people don't interact with each
other there is no real need for moral direction. The need is generated
by people interacting.
> > >>
> > >> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God
> > >> on
> > >> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
> > >> sanctioned
> > >> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
> > >> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
> > >> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can
> > >> you
> > >> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
> > >
> > > I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in their
> > > shoes.
> > >
> > So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened to the
> > moral guidepost?
>
> I can't tell you unless I know all of the details. Once the details
> are known, then good and evil become apparent.

OK. Well, let's assume that Jim Jones was certain that God told him to
create Jonestown, and he considered the arrival of the congressional
delegation investigating it a threat to it's continuation, and believed
that God would rather have everyone there dead than for Jonestown to be
disbanded. The premise is that he had a sincere belief that God would
rather have hundreds die by drinking poisoned cool aid than for
Jonestown to be called a scam. Good or evil?


> There is no moral
> relativism.

that's all there is.

> It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
> absolute truth,

See -- you say there is no moral relativism, all you need is absolute
truth. If there was absolute truth I'd agree. Would you agree that
absolute truth is not something that is within the ability of humans to
comprehend? Isn't absolute truth something that only God could
understand? The only absolute truth that I can think of is the old
"cognito ergo sum" and pure mathematics.

> especially in the area of killing. The difference
> between self-defense and murder may be a single thought that goes
> through a man's head.
>
True enough.
> >
> > > This begs a question, what is wrong with such murder if the murderers
> > > themselves believed it to be a good thing?
> > >
> > What's wrong with it is that it violates a philosophical recognition of the
> > inherent worth of each individual. That recognition has nothing to do with
> > a supreme being.
>
> What if the murderer doesn't believe that such an act violates the
> inherent worth of an individual? What happens if the majority of a
> community doesn't believe it either and does away with any law against
> murder? Is the murderer and community wrong?
>
It depends.
> >
> > Here's one for you -- What is wrong with recognizing marriages between
> > people of the same sex? Pretty much every religion rejects it. Is this
> > another one where a 2000-year-old code of morality has to dictate our
> > behavior today?
>
> If there is no God to say what is good and evil, then same gender
> marriages are not inherently right or wrong. They are exactly what the
> majority of the population says that they are. Right now, it seems
> that the majority of the voting population says that such marriages are
> not good. Does that mean that such marriages are wrong in your mind
> given that people determine their own right and wrong?

Of course, the reason behind the voting majority is the same religious
dogma -- its a circular argument. And interestingly, the source of the
move in the direction of righting this wrong is the existence of a
constitution that includes the principle of equal justice.

Philip Buchan wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> > > "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
> > > >> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> > > >> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
> > > >> >
> > > >> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have conflicting
> > > > beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW that
> > > > their version of right and wrong is correct?
> > > >
> > > Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes they
> > > don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the destruction of
> > > the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of which
> > > were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in what way
> > > is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?
> >
> > You didn't answer whether your knowing what is wrong is a function of
> > logic or feeling.
> >
> For me, it's both. My sense of morality is not based on any belief in
> a supernatural being, but based on simply a belief in people's inherent
> value. How did I arrive at this? Lots of sources. My parents taught
> me their morality. I found through interaction with other people that
> some things that people did made me feel bad and I realized that I did
> not think it was right to make people feel that way. Everyone finds
> their morality themselves -- and certainly believing in God is as valid
> a way to get there as any other. My kids believe in Santa Claus and
> they become very careful around Christmas to be nice and not naughty.
>
> > You also didn't answer how to determine which good is the real good
> > when two people have different views of good.
> >
> There is no "real" good. It might be nice if everyone abided by the
> same idea of good and evil, but as you say, they don't. Some are
> knowingly violating an internal moral code that they have inside them;
> some either don't have any moral code or have one that is substantially
> different than the one current in the west.
>
> > People not abiding by and using a set of rules for their own immoral
> > purposes may not have anything to do with the significance of the rules
> > themselves. This goes for a highway speed limit as well as God's laws.
> >
> Are you saying that the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were
> immoral? Personally I believe that most of the people who were
> involved in the latter, anyway, were quite sincere and motivated by a
> belief that they were called to do what they did by God. Do you have
> some pipeline to the almighty that allows you to judge them to be
> immoral (not in accordance with God's law) or are you just viewing
> their actions now using your modern understanding? If it's the latter,
> I don't disagree -- I think that the spanish inquisition and crusades
> were both immoral exercises because they both were about imposing a
> belief system on others

As far as the Crusades and Inquisition are concerned, I believe that
these were against God's will and, thus, evil.

A pipeline to God? No. I wish that I did. I do have the Bible and
have received wisdom in answer to prayer, wisdom that I didn't learn on
my own. I try not to view actions using my own modern understanding.

>
> > >
> > > > In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
> > > > cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they KNOW
> > > > to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct good?
> > > >
> > > Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave people
> > > who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent superiority
> > > to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that the
> > > people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God from any
> > > other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is unerringly
> > > correct and the other is inconsistent.
> >
> > I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> > directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> > determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
> >
> > And you aren't answering any of the questions.
> >
> I'm questioning the premise behind them. The premise is that God gives
> his believers a moral compass and without God there is no certain moral
> direction. I can't accept that because I don't think God provides a
> consistent moral direction. At the very most the Bible can be given
> credit for giving moral direction (though the bible can be quoted for
> both sides of pretty much any debate) and I don't dispute that the
> Bible is a great source of moral teaching. But you're making a jump
> that I don't think makes sense by pointing to God as the source of the
> wisdom of the bible.

I believe that God is the only One who CAN provide a consistent moral
direction. Any other source is limited, fallible, changing, and
imprecise.

Why would you think that my "jump" that God is the source of the
Bible's wisdom is illogical?

> > > >>
> > > >> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> > > >> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> > > >> > that was told of you?
> > > >> >
> > > >> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
> > > >> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had
> > > >> to
> > > >> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one
> > > >> for
> > > >> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
> > > >> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
> > > >> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
> > > >> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
> > > >> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
> > > >> important
> > > >> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
> > > >> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
> > > >> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
> > > >> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
> > > >> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
> > > >> treated,
> > > >> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
> > > >> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
> > > >> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
> > > >> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
> > > >> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they
> > > >> don't.
> > > >
> > > > Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think that
> > > > it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
> > > > others suffer. Who is right?
> > > >
> > > There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and deserve to
> > > be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to let
> > > others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?
> >
> > Who is right? How do you determine who's good is the good that should
> > be followed when there is a conflict?
> >
> There is no "right." There is only philosophy. You're looking for an
> absolute, and if that's what you need, God is a good thing to invent
> because He is, by definition, absolute.

True, unless, of course, God does indeed exist.

> > >
> > > And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
> > > existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some very
> > > deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that thinking could
> > > have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being -- all that
> > > would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It could even
> > > credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral teaching in
> > > the book.
> >
> > I believe that the issue of good and evil speaks directly to the
> > possibility of the existence of God.
>
> Not really. "Directly" would mean, to me, some evidence that
> unambiguously has to do with God's existence. My birth certificate is
> direct evidence that I exist (or existed). The fact that people have
> certain beliefs in common could have lots of different sources, most of
> which are not supernatural.

I believe that the existence of good and evil is evidence for the
existence of God given that good and evil would otherwise be functions
of one's imagination. If functions of one's imagination, then why does
the same basic notion of right and wrong perpetuate and not waiver much
at all over 6,000 years?

>
> > Without a God, why do most people
> > on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong?
>
> Like what? Killing? Maybe because people have affection for each
> other and felt hurt when one of their loved ones were killed. I think
> that it has more to do with the nature of living within a society than
> with the existence of some mythical being.

Why would it then be easier for people to act selfishly rather than put
out effort to help others?

>
> > Is it genetic
> > then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it is
> > somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?
> >
> No. It's the nature of society. When people don't interact with each
> other there is no real need for moral direction. The need is generated
> by people interacting.

But, where talking about inherent drives and desires. Wouldn't such
interaction and its supposed effect on these drives require a logical
intelligence on a conscious level?

> > > >>
> > > >> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God
> > > >> on
> > > >> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
> > > >> sanctioned
> > > >> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
> > > >> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
> > > >> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can
> > > >> you
> > > >> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
> > > >
> > > > I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in their
> > > > shoes.
> > > >
> > > So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened to the
> > > moral guidepost?
> >
> > I can't tell you unless I know all of the details. Once the details
> > are known, then good and evil become apparent.
>
> OK. Well, let's assume that Jim Jones was certain that God told him to
> create Jonestown, and he considered the arrival of the congressional
> delegation investigating it a threat to it's continuation, and believed
> that God would rather have everyone there dead than for Jonestown to be
> disbanded. The premise is that he had a sincere belief that God would
> rather have hundreds die by drinking poisoned cool aid than for
> Jonestown to be called a scam. Good or evil?

Well, according to humanistic thinking, good. According to God's will,
evil.

>
>
> > There is no moral
> > relativism.
>
> that's all there is.

What if others disagree? What if others say that there are absolutes?
Wouldn't moral relativism dictate that such beliefs are good because
some believe in them?

>
> > It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
> > absolute truth,
>
> See -- you say there is no moral relativism, all you need is absolute
> truth. If there was absolute truth I'd agree. Would you agree that
> absolute truth is not something that is within the ability of humans to
> comprehend? Isn't absolute truth something that only God could
> understand? The only absolute truth that I can think of is the old
> "cognito ergo sum" and pure mathematics.

Yes, I would agree that absolute truth is created and dispensed by a
source outside of humanity.

No, absolute truth can be understood by humans to the extent that God
allows it to be.

Cognito ergo sum? Pure mathematics? Both true. But, why are they
true? Couldn't the recognition of one's own existence be nothing but
an illusion? Could not mathematics be merely a construct of the human
mind which may not itself exist?

>
> > especially in the area of killing. The difference
> > between self-defense and murder may be a single thought that goes
> > through a man's head.
> >
> True enough.
> > >
> > > > This begs a question, what is wrong with such murder if the murderers
> > > > themselves believed it to be a good thing?
> > > >
> > > What's wrong with it is that it violates a philosophical recognition of the
> > > inherent worth of each individual. That recognition has nothing to do with
> > > a supreme being.
> >
> > What if the murderer doesn't believe that such an act violates the
> > inherent worth of an individual? What happens if the majority of a
> > community doesn't believe it either and does away with any law against
> > murder? Is the murderer and community wrong?
> >
> It depends.
> > >
> > > Here's one for you -- What is wrong with recognizing marriages between
> > > people of the same sex? Pretty much every religion rejects it. Is this
> > > another one where a 2000-year-old code of morality has to dictate our
> > > behavior today?
> >
> > If there is no God to say what is good and evil, then same gender
> > marriages are not inherently right or wrong. They are exactly what the
> > majority of the population says that they are. Right now, it seems
> > that the majority of the voting population says that such marriages are
> > not good. Does that mean that such marriages are wrong in your mind
> > given that people determine their own right and wrong?
>
> Of course, the reason behind the voting majority is the same religious
> dogma -- its a circular argument. And interestingly, the source of the
> move in the direction of righting this wrong is the existence of a
> constitution that includes the principle of equal justice.

peachy ashie passion wrote:

> Is it a sin to dance?

Is it a sin to respond to trolls?

In article <0iane.16824$tv3.15416@trnddc06>,
peachy ashie passion <[email protected]> wrote:
>Colonel Forbin wrote:
>>
>> Use the grep, Luke.
>
> *blink*
>
> Is there a translation to English for that?

Unix.

On 27 May 2005 16:02:42 -0700, "SummersFrenzy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Krzewinski wrote:
>> It counts to me now and I really don't care whether it counts a
>> thousand years from now.
>>
>> Bill is right. I'm not going to continue on this topic. I'm posting
>> in a humor newsgroup and this is way, way off topic.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Applause, applause.

Normally I'd bow, but do you know how difficult it is to do that in
Usenet.

"Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Larry Krzewinski wrote:
>> On 27 May 2005 13:37:39 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He
>> >> >alone
>> >> >determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
>> >> >sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
>> >> >every second of it.
>> >>
>> >> You would do that? Unbelievable! Are you ever disillusioned. I
>> >> actually feel sorry for you that your faith in God is so strong you
>> >> would commit murder for it.
>> >
>> >Technically, it wouldn't be murder if God said to do it. In any event,
>> >if God were to appear before you with all the angels in Heaven singing
>> >in the background and order you to do something, would you not obey or
>> >at least try to regardless of the detestfullness? Let's assume that
>> >you absolutely knew that it was God Himself and not some apparition or
>> >illusion.
>>
>> Have you any idea how many people are in prison today for doing
>> exactly what you are discussing? Murder is murder, Jim. I would like
>> to see you argue this case before a court saying that God, and you
>> were a gazillion percent sure it was the "real God", told you to
>> murder so-and-so and since you did this on God's orders you are
>> innocent.
>>
>> Just listen to yourself for a minute. You've gone well beyond
>> rational.
>
> Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
> killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
>
Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.

> What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
> angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
> that was told of you?
>
No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had to
kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one for
me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
who told me to do something that I know is wrong.

This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some important
philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be treated,
you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they don't.

There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God on
earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God sanctioned
the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can you
be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?

"Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
>> > > "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however,
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
>> > > >> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have
>> > > > conflicting
>> > > > beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW
>> > > > that
>> > > > their version of right and wrong is correct?
>> > > >
>> > > Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes
>> > > they
>> > > don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the
>> > > destruction of
>> > > the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of
>> > > which
>> > > were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in
>> > > what way
>> > > is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?
>> >
>> > You didn't answer whether your knowing what is wrong is a function of
>> > logic or feeling.
>> >
>> For me, it's both. My sense of morality is not based on any belief in
>> a supernatural being, but based on simply a belief in people's inherent
>> value. How did I arrive at this? Lots of sources. My parents taught
>> me their morality. I found through interaction with other people that
>> some things that people did made me feel bad and I realized that I did
>> not think it was right to make people feel that way. Everyone finds
>> their morality themselves -- and certainly believing in God is as valid
>> a way to get there as any other. My kids believe in Santa Claus and
>> they become very careful around Christmas to be nice and not naughty.
>>
>> > You also didn't answer how to determine which good is the real good
>> > when two people have different views of good.
>> >
>> There is no "real" good. It might be nice if everyone abided by the
>> same idea of good and evil, but as you say, they don't. Some are
>> knowingly violating an internal moral code that they have inside them;
>> some either don't have any moral code or have one that is substantially
>> different than the one current in the west.
>>
>> > People not abiding by and using a set of rules for their own immoral
>> > purposes may not have anything to do with the significance of the rules
>> > themselves. This goes for a highway speed limit as well as God's laws.
>> >
>> Are you saying that the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were
>> immoral? Personally I believe that most of the people who were
>> involved in the latter, anyway, were quite sincere and motivated by a
>> belief that they were called to do what they did by God. Do you have
>> some pipeline to the almighty that allows you to judge them to be
>> immoral (not in accordance with God's law) or are you just viewing
>> their actions now using your modern understanding? If it's the latter,
>> I don't disagree -- I think that the spanish inquisition and crusades
>> were both immoral exercises because they both were about imposing a
>> belief system on others
>
> As far as the Crusades and Inquisition are concerned, I believe that
> these were against God's will and, thus, evil.
>
> A pipeline to God? No. I wish that I did. I do have the Bible and
> have received wisdom in answer to prayer, wisdom that I didn't learn on
> my own. I try not to view actions using my own modern understanding.
>
At the time the Crusades and the Inquisition were believed to be a holy
quest and basically an evangelical mission. Yes, many thousands died, but
from the perspective of the church they were either unrepentant heathens,
and many more were forcibly converted.

If the Bible is an unerring expression of the word of God, and basically all
of christianity was behind the Crusades (at least initially, until they
overran the Orthodox areas), how is it that you can have a different
interpretation now? Was the error that they didn't get the Almighty's
directive, or is it that you are reading the bible differently?
>>
>> > >
>> > > > In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
>> > > > cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they
>> > > > KNOW
>> > > > to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct
>> > > > good?
>> > > >
>> > > Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave
>> > > people
>> > > who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent
>> > > superiority
>> > > to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that
>> > > the
>> > > people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God
>> > > from any
>> > > other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is
>> > > unerringly
>> > > correct and the other is inconsistent.
>> >
>> > I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
>> > directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
>> > determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
>> >
>> > And you aren't answering any of the questions.
>> >
>> I'm questioning the premise behind them. The premise is that God gives
>> his believers a moral compass and without God there is no certain moral
>> direction. I can't accept that because I don't think God provides a
>> consistent moral direction. At the very most the Bible can be given
>> credit for giving moral direction (though the bible can be quoted for
>> both sides of pretty much any debate) and I don't dispute that the
>> Bible is a great source of moral teaching. But you're making a jump
>> that I don't think makes sense by pointing to God as the source of the
>> wisdom of the bible.
>
> I believe that God is the only One who CAN provide a consistent moral
> direction. Any other source is limited, fallible, changing, and
> imprecise.
>
> Why would you think that my "jump" that God is the source of the
> Bible's wisdom is illogical?
>
I understand your point of view, but it's circular. You presume the
existence of a supreme being with an unerring moral direction (though
apparently the direction has changed in the last thousand years, since what
was a moral imperitive sanctioned by both the pope and the orthodox church
is, in your view, immoral). For instance, let's consider a hypothetical
(and from your perspective, a counterfactual): Let's presume that God did
not inspire the bible, and that the biblical writers were inspired, instead,
by some earthly source -- wanting to inspire morality in their people,
creating a common history for a group of people, etc. If that were the
case, would the teachings in the bible switch from being moral to immoral?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance
>> > > >> > with
>> > > >> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do
>> > > >> > anything
>> > > >> > that was told of you?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I
>> > > >> would not
>> > > >> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that
>> > > >> I had
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an
>> > > >> easy one
>> > > >> for
>> > > >> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill
>> > > >> my son.
>> > > >> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would
>> > > >> be OK,
>> > > >> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied
>> > > >> someone
>> > > >> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
>> > > >
>> > > > Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right"
>> > > >> argument is
>> > > >> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
>> > > >> important
>> > > >> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that
>> > > >> they are
>> > > >> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the
>> > > >> equation.
>> > > >> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it
>> > > >> isn't any
>> > > >> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is
>> > > >> that
>> > > >> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
>> > > >> treated,
>> > > >> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to
>> > > >> suppose the
>> > > >> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and
>> > > >> rewards.
>> > > >> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that
>> > > >> humans are
>> > > >> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to
>> > > >> heaven
>> > > >> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but
>> > > >> they
>> > > >> don't.
>> > > >
>> > > > Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think
>> > > > that
>> > > > it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
>> > > > others suffer. Who is right?
>> > > >
>> > > There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and
>> > > deserve to
>> > > be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to
>> > > let
>> > > others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?
>> >
>> > Who is right? How do you determine who's good is the good that should
>> > be followed when there is a conflict?
>> >
>> There is no "right." There is only philosophy. You're looking for an
>> absolute, and if that's what you need, God is a good thing to invent
>> because He is, by definition, absolute.
>
> True, unless, of course, God does indeed exist.
>
>> > >
>> > > And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
>> > > existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some
>> > > very
>> > > deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that
>> > > thinking could
>> > > have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being --
>> > > all that
>> > > would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It
>> > > could even
>> > > credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral
>> > > teaching in
>> > > the book.
>> >
>> > I believe that the issue of good and evil speaks directly to the
>> > possibility of the existence of God.
>>
>> Not really. "Directly" would mean, to me, some evidence that
>> unambiguously has to do with God's existence. My birth certificate is
>> direct evidence that I exist (or existed). The fact that people have
>> certain beliefs in common could have lots of different sources, most of
>> which are not supernatural.
>
> I believe that the existence of good and evil is evidence for the
> existence of God given that good and evil would otherwise be functions
> of one's imagination. If functions of one's imagination, then why does
> the same basic notion of right and wrong perpetuate and not waiver much
> at all over 6,000 years?
>
This is a logical fallacy. You are suggesting that one of two explanations
MUST be true, and that therefore if you can find a reason that one is more
likely than not untrue, then the other must be true. Rather than trying to
prove the truth of the God theory, you decide that disproving the
"imagination" theory is sufficient. But of course, "imagination" is not
really a very believable counter theory. For instance, you don't account
for the fact that during much of that same 6000 years there was a consistent
written moral code that was followed from generation to generation. There
are similar codes in other religions that do not believe in God or conceive
of god or gods quite differently. Isn't it more likely that there is some
inherent sense that other people have value that accounts for much of the
uniformity across religions and cultures?

As for the "basic notions of right and wrong" over 6000 years -- actually,
there have been a lot of variations. If you are specifically talking about
judeochristian tradition (as I think you are) we've moved from a culture
where multiple wives and concubines was the norm to one of monogomy. In the
bible, theft was vastly rewarded -- remember Isaac and Esau?

>>
>> > Without a God, why do most people
>> > on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong?
>>
>> Like what? Killing? Maybe because people have affection for each
>> other and felt hurt when one of their loved ones were killed. I think
>> that it has more to do with the nature of living within a society than
>> with the existence of some mythical being.
>
> Why would it then be easier for people to act selfishly rather than put
> out effort to help others?
>
Many in our society who claim to be christians are big advocates of
selfishness in the form of raw capitalism. But again -- I help people
pretty frequently, and it isn't because I am guided by a belief in a supreme
being. I just get satisfaction out of being helpful. You really aren't
going to win an argument with me by arguing that unless you believe in God
you can't possibly care about anyone but yourself. I don't believe, but I
care quite a lot.
>>
>> > Is it genetic
>> > then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it is
>> > somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?
>> >
>> No. It's the nature of society. When people don't interact with each
>> other there is no real need for moral direction. The need is generated
>> by people interacting.
>
> But, where talking about inherent drives and desires. Wouldn't such
> interaction and its supposed effect on these drives require a logical
> intelligence on a conscious level?
>
We're talking about what motivates people to distinguish different moral
views of some action. I don't know at what level those decisions are made.
Freud would argue that the superego was the source of moral limits on the
ego, but I think he's full of shit. I really don't think people go through
life having to consciously decide whether to tell the truth or not -- it's a
subconcious reaction.

Incidentally, I haven't seen anything yet that made any argument for the
existence of God. You've been pretty intent on showing that there is only
one source for consistent morality, but since all your arguments about
history are referring to a history where there was a bible, you really can't
show that God, and not the philosophical underpinning of the bible, is
responsible for morality.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to
>> > > >> represent God
>> > > >> on
>> > > >> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
>> > > >> sanctioned
>> > > >> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or
>> > > >> wrong?
>> > > >> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these
>> > > >> people
>> > > >> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them
>> > > >> orders, can
>> > > >> you
>> > > >> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
>> > > >
>> > > > I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in
>> > > > their
>> > > > shoes.
>> > > >
>> > > So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened
>> > > to the
>> > > moral guidepost?
>> >
>> > I can't tell you unless I know all of the details. Once the details
>> > are known, then good and evil become apparent.
>>
>> OK. Well, let's assume that Jim Jones was certain that God told him to
>> create Jonestown, and he considered the arrival of the congressional
>> delegation investigating it a threat to it's continuation, and believed
>> that God would rather have everyone there dead than for Jonestown to be
>> disbanded. The premise is that he had a sincere belief that God would
>> rather have hundreds die by drinking poisoned cool aid than for
>> Jonestown to be called a scam. Good or evil?
>
> Well, according to humanistic thinking, good. According to God's will,
> evil.
>
You know God's will? Are you in a state of Grace?
>>
>>
>> > There is no moral
>> > relativism.
>>
>> that's all there is.
>
> What if others disagree? What if others say that there are absolutes?
> Wouldn't moral relativism dictate that such beliefs are good because
> some believe in them?
>
Sure. And I don't begrudge you or others your beliefs, any more than I do
my many religious relatives theirs. As you can imagine, an Atheist has the
greatest possible interest in allowing everyone freedom of belief and
worship. I'm not trying to talk you out of anything -- just finding out how
you got to where you are.
>>
>> > It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
>> > absolute truth,
>>
>> See -- you say there is no moral relativism, all you need is absolute
>> truth. If there was absolute truth I'd agree. Would you agree that
>> absolute truth is not something that is within the ability of humans to
>> comprehend? Isn't absolute truth something that only God could
>> understand? The only absolute truth that I can think of is the old
>> "cognito ergo sum" and pure mathematics.
>
> Yes, I would agree that absolute truth is created and dispensed by a
> source outside of humanity.
>
> No, absolute truth can be understood by humans to the extent that God
> allows it to be.
>
> Cognito ergo sum? Pure mathematics? Both true. But, why are they
> true? Couldn't the recognition of one's own existence be nothing but
> an illusion?

Not according the Rene Descartes. I don't think you'll find a lot of
philosophers claiming that this escape from solipsism was illusory. The
reason is obvious -- how can someone who does not exist be fooled into
thinking that he DOES exist?

> Could not mathematics be merely a construct of the human
> mind which may not itself exist?
>
I think that George Bush's Office of Management and Budget believe that.
But even if I try really hard it isn't possible for me to believe that 2 + 2
=5. It's much easier, anyway, for me to believe that there is no God.

Let me tell you what bothers me about God. If He is a supreme being who is
all powerful and created everything and is eternally just and moral, why
does he care or want us to pray to him? Why would he make his existence a
matter of faith rather than a certainty? What does he gain by playing these
games? It seems like, if he is as you say, he towers over us as I tower
over the ants. Why would he care what we thing or do? And why would he
want worship above all?

The whole thing sounds very 4000 years ago. A lot of the first five books
of the bible were about how exactly to prepare "burnt offerings" for God.
At some point he decided he was happy with people just peppering him with
requests. I'll tell you, watching John Paul's funeral made me really wonder
about organized religion. . . I mean, I think John Paul did this stuff all
day every day -- begged God to take him into heaven, listened to choirs and
religious music, and prayed and prayed and prayed. To each his own, I
guess, but I couldn't handle it.

Larry Krzewinski wrote:

> On 27 May 2005 16:02:42 -0700, "SummersFrenzy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry Krzewinski wrote:
>>
>>>It counts to me now and I really don't care whether it counts a
>>>thousand years from now.
>>>
>>>Bill is right. I'm not going to continue on this topic. I'm posting
>>>in a humor newsgroup and this is way, way off topic.
>>>
>>>Larry
>>
>>Applause, applause.
>
>
> Normally I'd bow, but do you know how difficult it is to do that in
> Usenet.


Especially with me standing behind you.

--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Bill Colmers wrote:
> "peachy ashie passion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Y0_me.16215$Ri3.4200@trnddc09...
>
> Peachy, honey, ain't no sense in wrestling with a pig. You get dirty and the
> pig likes it!
>
> Bill
>
> PS check all your emails please
>
>

ALL my emails?

ALL of them? good gosh!

*gigglesnort*
I don't have that kind of time!

--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

"Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however, the
>> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
>> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
>> >
>> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
>
> Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have conflicting
> beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW that
> their version of right and wrong is correct?
>
Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes they
don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the destruction of
the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of which
were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in what way
is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?

> In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
> cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they KNOW
> to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct good?
>
Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave people
who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent superiority
to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that the
people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God from any
other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is unerringly
correct and the other is inconsistent.
>>
>> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance with
>> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do anything
>> > that was told of you?
>> >
>> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I would not
>> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that I had
>> to
>> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an easy one
>> for
>> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill my son.
>> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would be OK,
>> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied someone
>> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
>
> Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
>
>>
>> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right" argument is
>> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
>> important
>> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that they are
>> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the equation.
>> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it isn't any
>> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is that
>> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
>> treated,
>> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to suppose the
>> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and rewards.
>> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that humans are
>> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to heaven
>> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but they
>> don't.
>
> Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think that
> it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
> others suffer. Who is right?
>
There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and deserve to
be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to let
others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?

And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some very
deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that thinking could
have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being -- all that
would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It could even
credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral teaching in
the book.
>>
>> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to represent God
>> on
>> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
>> sanctioned
>> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or wrong?
>> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these people
>> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them orders, can
>> you
>> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
>
> I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in their
> shoes.
>
So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened to the
moral guidepost?

> This begs a question, what is wrong with such murder if the murderers
> themselves believed it to be a good thing?
>
What's wrong with it is that it violates a philosophical recognition of the
inherent worth of each individual. That recognition has nothing to do with
a supreme being.

Here's one for you -- What is wrong with recognizing marriages between
people of the same sex? Pretty much every religion rejects it. Is this
another one where a 2000-year-old code of morality has to dictate our
behavior today?

Greg Evans wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>> Is it a sin to dance?
>
> Is it a sin to respond to trolls?


It should be.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

Colonel Forbin wrote:
> In article <0iane.16824$tv3.15416@trnddc06>,
> peachy ashie passion <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Colonel Forbin wrote:
>>
>>>Use the grep, Luke.
>>
>> *blink*
>>
>> Is there a translation to English for that?
>
>
> Unix.
>
>

Well, THAT certainly isn't English!

I'm WAY too much a weenie to go Unix.

--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Jim Spaza wrote:


>
> I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
>

You haven't yet explained how to determine what is right
presuming there IS a Supreme Being.


Assume the world is what you say it is.. there is a Supreme
Being, and he cares about our actions and has beliefs on right and
wrong.

There are millions of people in the world that disagree with your
interpretation of what those rights and wrongs are. And they say
God told them so.

Who is right?

How do you decide what God really wants, and which one of you is
the raving looney?



--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Jim Spaza wrote:

>
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>>Jim Spaza wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
>>>directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
>>>determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't yet explained how to determine what is right
>>presuming there IS a Supreme Being.
>
>
> We can discuss God in a moment. First, let's deal with the premise
> that good and evil are just constructs of the human mind.

You want to argue the opposite because you can't prove your own
premise?

>
> So? How do humans create their own ideas of right and wrong? If
> notions of right and wrong are encoded at the genetic level, then why
> are there so many different ideas of good and evil?
>

There aren't.

There are varying cultural taboos, and a lot of that is sound
because survival characteristics vary based on culture and environment.

The basics... the ones about human dignity, those are nearly
universal.

The pieces that are not? Your religion based definitions don't
help there either.

You yourself used "enslaving" as an example of bad, but that's
not biblically based. The bible does not speak out against slavery.


>>
>> Assume the world is what you say it is.. there is a Supreme
>>Being, and he cares about our actions and has beliefs on right and
>>wrong.
>>
>> There are millions of people in the world that disagree with your
>>interpretation of what those rights and wrongs are. And they say
>>God told them so.
>>
>> Who is right?
>
>
> The Bible is the only accurate written source. But, coming to that
> conclusion takes a lot of effort. You'd have to eliminate all the
> other religions just to make sure. 90% of the world's religions can be
> easily dismissed as false given their internal contradictions and
> reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of truth.
> The other 10% will be seen as false given their inconsistencies over
> origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.


Most folks would include the Bible in that easily eliminated
category.

Reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of
truth? Fallible humans like Paul? Or Moses?

Where would your Bible be without fallible humans?

>
>
>> How do you decide what God really wants, and which one of you is
>>the raving looney?
>
>
> Ah! That takes effort. The basics are in the Bible. The more
> advanced wisdom comes in response to prayer and experience (both
> natural and supernatural).
>

Why is it then that the Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostal and
Methodist churchs all rely on that same Bible and have such vastly
different ideas on what behavior is okay?

Is it a sin to dance?
Should priests marry?
What do we use for communion?
Gay rights?
Is the death penalty right or wrong?
Is war ever okay?
Is it really a sin to intermix crops?
What should be the penalty for rape?

Thousands of religions all using the same book and coming to
different conclusions..

And that is just based on the book, you haven't even brought in
your advanced wisdom from prayer - which by the way puts us back to
fallible human beings, doesn't it?


--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire

http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

"peachy ashie passion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Y0_me.16215$Ri3.4200@trnddc09...

Peachy, honey, ain't no sense in wrestling with a pig. You get dirty and the
pig likes it!

Bill

PS check all your emails please

In article <KG9ne.10630$qJ3.3997@trnddc05>,
peachy ashie passion <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> ALL my emails?
>
> ALL of them? good gosh!
>
> *gigglesnort*
> I don't have that kind of time!

Use the grep, Luke.

On 27 May 2005 13:44:24 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
>> >something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
>> >not something that is against God's will?
>>
>> You really don't know, do you?
>
>Yes. I know what we, as humans, consider to be evil. Things such as
>murder, child abuse, rape, theft, assault, etc. are all things that I
>view as evil. These are all based on my genetics, environment, and
>personal choice.
>
>But, I also know, given the Bible, what God's will is, at least in
>general terms. And when/if these conflict with one another, then,
>because I fear God more than any human or entity, I defer to God's
>will.

The Bible? What do you actually know about the writings in the bible
other than the fact you believe them with blind faith? I suggest you
do a little research on when things were *actually* written and by
whom. You might be very surprised at what you find out. I am not
attempting to sway you away from your faith. I'm just suggesting you
don't know all the details behind what you have been taught.

>It is God's will that is the cosmic standard of good and evil, in my
>opinion.

In which cosmos are you living?

On 27 May 2005 13:59:34 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have been called a moron, fool, etc. for believing as such. But,
>science didn't turn me from a drunk, liar, thief, and adulterer into a
>changed man. My accepting Jesus as Lord and having God's Holy Spirit
>indwell my soul did.

Jim, you changed you. You can credit whatever you choose but you
decided to change and you did. I think that you can attribute that to
your desire to change rather than some supreme entity.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:52:28 GMT, peachy ashie passion
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> ALL my emails?
>>>
>>> ALL of them? good gosh!
>>>
>>> *gigglesnort*
>>> I don't have that kind of time!
>>
>> Use the grep, Luke.
>
> *blink*
>
> Is there a translation to English for that?

No.

On 27 May 2005 13:37:39 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
>> >determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
>> >sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
>> >every second of it.
>>
>> You would do that? Unbelievable! Are you ever disillusioned. I
>> actually feel sorry for you that your faith in God is so strong you
>> would commit murder for it.
>
>Technically, it wouldn't be murder if God said to do it. In any event,
>if God were to appear before you with all the angels in Heaven singing
>in the background and order you to do something, would you not obey or
>at least try to regardless of the detestfullness? Let's assume that
>you absolutely knew that it was God Himself and not some apparition or
>illusion.

Have you any idea how many people are in prison today for doing
exactly what you are discussing? Murder is murder, Jim. I would like
to see you argue this case before a court saying that God, and you
were a gazillion percent sure it was the "real God", told you to
murder so-and-so and since you did this on God's orders you are
innocent.

Just listen to yourself for a minute. You've gone well beyond
rational.

"Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We can discuss God in a moment. First, let's deal with the premise
> that good and evil are just constructs of the human mind.
>
> So? How do humans create their own ideas of right and wrong? If
> notions of right and wrong are encoded at the genetic level, then why
> are there so many different ideas of good and evil?

Assuming that there is no supernatural source of the notions
of "good" and "evil," then I would think that it is most reasonable
to assume that those concepts, or more properly the sorts of
behaviors and beliefs categorized as such, evolved based on
what is most conducive to the long-term survival of the culture or
society in question. In other words, those societies tend to survive
which have a code of conduct or "morality" which is most conducive
to the survival of the society. What's difficult about that?

Actually, the notion that "good" and "evil" are defined externally
from humanity (e.g., by a supernatural being or deity) has its own
problems. For one, it simply moves the question one step back -
where did that external entity get his/her/its notions of good and
evil to then impose upon humanity? Further, we are then forced
to question if that entity DEFINES "good" and "evil," and if so,
if said entity is "always good" or "always evil." Conventional
Christian theology would assert that yes, God defines good and
evil, and is always good. But these leads to further problems.
If good and evil are defined by the whim of God, then either they
are subject to change (and are not therefore absolutes in the strong
sense of the word), or God essentially had only one shot at them
and from that point on has no choice (from the "God is always
good" assertion). Either that, or God is "aways good" (leaving no
free will on the part of God) and "good" and "evil" ARE externally-
defined absolutes even from God's perspective - but if THAT is
so, then we are again left with the problem of where they came
from in the first place!

The philosophy of morality has all sorts of fun like this, if you
just think it through a bit.

> The Bible is the only accurate written source. But, coming to that
> conclusion takes a lot of effort. You'd have to eliminate all the
> other religions just to make sure. 90% of the world's religions can be
> easily dismissed as false given their internal contradictions and
> reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of truth.
> The other 10% will be seen as false given their inconsistencies over
> origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

However, these same assertions will be made by those religions
with respect to Christianity; how is one to objectively determine
which is correct? The notion that the Bible "is the only accurate
written source" cannot be properly supported by referring to the
Bible's own claims in the matter, as this would be a clearly circular
argument ("I am telling the truth because I say I am telling the
truth"). Yet if the Bible is to be taken literally, and compared with
objective evidence, there also appears to be conflict. On the
other hand, if the Bible is NOT to be taken literally but instead is
open to interpretation, then its "truth" cannot be unambiguously
determined as no one would agree on just what it is saying in the
first place. (And so it goes, of course, for any other religions
based on similar sorts of "holy texts.")

Bob M.

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> >
> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >
> >>Jim Spaza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> >>>directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> >>>determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You haven't yet explained how to determine what is right
> >>presuming there IS a Supreme Being.
> >
> >
> > We can discuss God in a moment. First, let's deal with the premise
> > that good and evil are just constructs of the human mind.
>
> You want to argue the opposite because you can't prove your own
> premise?

No. The analysis of good and evil as constructs of the human mind is
just one part. Since most of you are atheists or just skeptical, why
not begin right here?

>
> >
> > So? How do humans create their own ideas of right and wrong? If
> > notions of right and wrong are encoded at the genetic level, then why
> > are there so many different ideas of good and evil?
> >
>
> There aren't.
>
> There are varying cultural taboos, and a lot of that is sound
> because survival characteristics vary based on culture and environment.

Really? The need to survive and how it is done forms the standards of
good and evil on a per-culture basis?

You know, maybe you're correct. The U.S. went to war against the Iraqi
government because of its belief that doing so would enable the U.S. to
survive. Yet, many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics say that this war
is unjust, unneeded, and poorly executed. So, who is right...if
societies determine their own right and wrong based on survival?

>
> The basics... the ones about human dignity, those are nearly
> universal.

Do you not see that such an almost universal belief is evidence for the
existence of the human soul with God's fingerprints still on it?

>From a skeptical standpoint, isn't there an axiom of skeptical thought
which states that the existence of something is not tied to the number
of people believing in it?

>
> The pieces that are not? Your religion based definitions don't
> help there either.
>
> You yourself used "enslaving" as an example of bad, but that's
> not biblically based. The bible does not speak out against slavery.

The Bible is not a scientific manual written with every contingency in
mind and full of if-then statements. It's written in a historical and
sometimes poetic manner. Maybe some people are used to learning
through scientific white papers and design schematics.

Is not the command to love your neighbor enough to get started? Does
everything else have to be spelled out?

>
>
> >>
> >> Assume the world is what you say it is.. there is a Supreme
> >>Being, and he cares about our actions and has beliefs on right and
> >>wrong.
> >>
> >> There are millions of people in the world that disagree with your
> >>interpretation of what those rights and wrongs are. And they say
> >>God told them so.
> >>
> >> Who is right?
> >
> >
> > The Bible is the only accurate written source. But, coming to that
> > conclusion takes a lot of effort. You'd have to eliminate all the
> > other religions just to make sure. 90% of the world's religions can be
> > easily dismissed as false given their internal contradictions and
> > reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of truth.
> > The other 10% will be seen as false given their inconsistencies over
> > origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.
>
>
> Most folks would include the Bible in that easily eliminated
> category.

Most? I don't think so. Even other religions, especially Islam,
respect the Bible as a holy book. The Koran actually teaches its
readers to study the obey the Bible. Of course, this is one reason to
dismiss Islam as anything accurate in dealing with God. You can't
teach, as the Koran does, that Jesus was just a good prophet who did
miracles and that the Bible should be obeyed when the Bible itself says
that Jesus is God.

>
> Reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of
> truth? Fallible humans like Paul? Or Moses?

When their teachings come from their own intelligence? No. When they
are simply messengers of a divine message? Yes. How do you tell the
difference? Read the Bible for yourself so that you will know if you
are being lied to.

>
> Where would your Bible be without fallible humans?

There would have been no need for a Bible if there were no fallible
humans to read and obey it.

>
> >
> >
> >> How do you decide what God really wants, and which one of you is
> >>the raving looney?
> >
> >
> > Ah! That takes effort. The basics are in the Bible. The more
> > advanced wisdom comes in response to prayer and experience (both
> > natural and supernatural).
> >
>
> Why is it then that the Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostal and
> Methodist churchs all rely on that same Bible and have such vastly
> different ideas on what behavior is okay?

First of all, the Catholics add some books to their Bible and have
different translations to suit their tastes.

Second, all Christians are in agreement as to the basics of good and
evil. The differences become apparent when some begin to mix their own
notions of good and evil with that of the Bible and when they
compromise Biblical principles for political or cultural expediency.

>
> Is it a sin to dance?

Sometimes. When the dancing becomes sexual in nature with someone to
whom you are not married. When it causes others, such as those
watching, to be tempted to do or think of things that are evil.

> Should priests marry?

Some priests should. Others shouldn't. It doesn't depend on whether a
person is a priest. It depends on whether you are one of those rare
people that God has called on never to marry.

> What do we use for communion?

The type of bread (or whatever) used is probably irrelevant to God.
What matters is what's in a person's heart when they are performing
that ritual.

> Gay rights?

Marriage is designed for a man and woman. Anything else is evil.
Should homosexual couples be given the same legal status as
heterosexual married couples? Not if you want God's blessing to be
upon the government that is deciding such laws.

> Is the death penalty right or wrong?

Right as long as the person is truly guilty of murder. Death penalty
for treason which has not been proved to result in the death of others?
Wrong.

> Is war ever okay?

Yes.

> Is it really a sin to intermix crops?

For the Jewish people, yes.

> What should be the penalty for rape?

What does the Bible say about it?

>
> Thousands of religions all using the same book and coming to
> different conclusions..

Thousands? Come on, now.

Why the variations in resulting ideas of good and evil? Many religions
and religious people treat the Bible as a salad bar, taking what they
want and leaving the rest. Many treat the Bible as a guide which can
be overridden by personal choice and tradition when necessary.

>
> And that is just based on the book, you haven't even brought in
> your advanced wisdom from prayer - which by the way puts us back to
> fallible human beings, doesn't it?

True. But God designed the more advanced knowledge to only be
available to those who truly seek Him and His wisdom. It takes more
than reading the Bible a few times a year to seek Him.

>
>
> --
> The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
> stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
>
> God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire
>
> http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com

Bill Colmers wrote:
> Peachy, honey, ain't no sense in wrestling with a pig. You get dirty and the
> pig likes it!
>
> Bill
>
> PS check all your emails please

Email? You sent emails? Well gosh and I feel picked on - no email
from Bill!

Greg Evans wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
> > Is it a sin to dance?
>
> Is it a sin to respond to trolls?

Can we ask Mos to add this to the verboten list at his religion?

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > We can discuss God in a moment. First, let's deal with the premise
> > that good and evil are just constructs of the human mind.
> >
> > So? How do humans create their own ideas of right and wrong? If
> > notions of right and wrong are encoded at the genetic level, then why
> > are there so many different ideas of good and evil?
>
> Assuming that there is no supernatural source of the notions
> of "good" and "evil," then I would think that it is most reasonable
> to assume that those concepts, or more properly the sorts of
> behaviors and beliefs categorized as such, evolved based on
> what is most conducive to the long-term survival of the culture or
> society in question. In other words, those societies tend to survive
> which have a code of conduct or "morality" which is most conducive
> to the survival of the society. What's difficult about that?

Nothing. It makes sense...if there is no God. In an atheistic
worldview, this seems quite logical.

>
> Actually, the notion that "good" and "evil" are defined externally
> from humanity (e.g., by a supernatural being or deity) has its own
> problems. For one, it simply moves the question one step back -
> where did that external entity get his/her/its notions of good and
> evil to then impose upon humanity? Further, we are then forced
> to question if that entity DEFINES "good" and "evil," and if so,
> if said entity is "always good" or "always evil." Conventional
> Christian theology would assert that yes, God defines good and
> evil, and is always good. But these leads to further problems.
> If good and evil are defined by the whim of God, then either they
> are subject to change (and are not therefore absolutes in the strong
> sense of the word), or God essentially had only one shot at them
> and from that point on has no choice (from the "God is always
> good" assertion). Either that, or God is "aways good" (leaving no
> free will on the part of God) and "good" and "evil" ARE externally-
> defined absolutes even from God's perspective - but if THAT is
> so, then we are again left with the problem of where they came
> from in the first place!

Sir, this is the best logical response that I have ever received.
Thank you.

As far as moving the question back, if God always existed, then He has
always had this notion of good and evil and didn't receive it (or have
a need to receive it) from any other source.

Yes, God defines good and evil Himself. And said entity is inherently,
always good.

God does not change His nature. Thus, His dictates of good and evil do
not change. If He were to have simply defined them on a whim somewhere
in the past and if God changes His nature all the time, then, you would
be correct. Such a God would "be stuck" with those definitions.
However, the Bible is quite clear that His nature nevers changes, ever.

God is "good" because it is inherent in His nature to be good, not
because He chooses from a set of standards from an external source and
uses those standards to run the cosmos.

Someone once defined God as the only Being in the universe whose
purpose for existence is within Himself. This would explain His nature
AND His notions of good and evil. It is understandably very difficult
for us to mentally handle such a concept given our existence here on
Earth is filled with external factors which change us constantly.

>
> The philosophy of morality has all sorts of fun like this, if you
> just think it through a bit.

You're correct. And it gets to be a bit mind-boggling at times,
especially when you deal with concepts of infinity.

>
> > The Bible is the only accurate written source. But, coming to that
> > conclusion takes a lot of effort. You'd have to eliminate all the
> > other religions just to make sure. 90% of the world's religions can be
> > easily dismissed as false given their internal contradictions and
> > reliance on fallible human beings as leaders and dispensers of truth.
> > The other 10% will be seen as false given their inconsistencies over
> > origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.
>
> However, these same assertions will be made by those religions
> with respect to Christianity; how is one to objectively determine
> which is correct? The notion that the Bible "is the only accurate
> written source" cannot be properly supported by referring to the
> Bible's own claims in the matter, as this would be a clearly circular
> argument ("I am telling the truth because I say I am telling the
> truth"). Yet if the Bible is to be taken literally, and compared with
> objective evidence, there also appears to be conflict. On the
> other hand, if the Bible is NOT to be taken literally but instead is
> open to interpretation, then its "truth" cannot be unambiguously
> determined as no one would agree on just what it is saying in the
> first place. (And so it goes, of course, for any other religions
> based on similar sorts of "holy texts.")

How can one objectively determine that Christianity is correct? First,
let me say that it is impossible to do so without becoming personally
involved.

You can test the Bible for accuracy and authenticity as far as the
nature events and entities are concerned. Of course, science is
incapable of dealing with the supernatural events in a testable,
objective way as though a material were being analyzed.

You can analyze Christianity and alternative religions and look for
logical consistency across the spectrum of origin, meaning, morality,
and destiny. Islam is inconsistent, for example, because it instructs
its readers to obey the Bible yet declares that Jesus was just a
prophet and not Lord and Savior. Yet the Bible declares Jesus to be
Lord and Savior. Thus, the Koran is inherently contradictory.

Without a time machine, much will remain unproven for the time being.

If you wish to get personally involved and see things for yourself, you
can test the promises of the Bible yourself and see if they won't come
true when its precepts are obeyed.

And, of course, you can try calling out in faith to the many different
gods to see who shows up. Aside from some demonic attempt to deceive
you, only God will respond. Be ready and patient. You never know how
and when God will respond. Want to know how and when God will show up?
Examples are spread throughout the Bible.

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty
things, which thou knowest not." - Jeremiah 33:3

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." -
Romans 10:13

The Bible says that the Name of the Lord is Jesus. It is very
important to pray in the Name of Jesus given that it was His sacrifice
on the cross that allows people to pray to God the Father in the first
place.

>
> Bob M.

BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >> Jim Spaza wrote:
> >> > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> >> > > "Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Is not murder, however,
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > killing of a human being with legitimate cause? Who sets that
> >> > > >> > legitimacy if not a Supreme Being?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> Your own sense of morality. You KNOW it's wrong.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is it a feeling? Logic? What happens if two people have
> >> > > > conflicting
> >> > > > beliefs in good and evil? What happens if two people both KNOW
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > their version of right and wrong is correct?
> >> > > >
> >> > > Happens all the time. Sometimes they believe in God, and sometimes
> >> > > they
> >> > > don't. If God can be used to justify 9/11, the crusades, the
> >> > > destruction of
> >> > > the Inca and Aztec civilizations, and the spanish inquisition, all of
> >> > > which
> >> > > were engaged in with the best intentions of promoting His glory, in
> >> > > what way
> >> > > is belief in God any kind of guidepost for morality?
> >> >
> >> > You didn't answer whether your knowing what is wrong is a function of
> >> > logic or feeling.
> >> >
> >> For me, it's both. My sense of morality is not based on any belief in
> >> a supernatural being, but based on simply a belief in people's inherent
> >> value. How did I arrive at this? Lots of sources. My parents taught
> >> me their morality. I found through interaction with other people that
> >> some things that people did made me feel bad and I realized that I did
> >> not think it was right to make people feel that way. Everyone finds
> >> their morality themselves -- and certainly believing in God is as valid
> >> a way to get there as any other. My kids believe in Santa Claus and
> >> they become very careful around Christmas to be nice and not naughty.
> >>
> >> > You also didn't answer how to determine which good is the real good
> >> > when two people have different views of good.
> >> >
> >> There is no "real" good. It might be nice if everyone abided by the
> >> same idea of good and evil, but as you say, they don't. Some are
> >> knowingly violating an internal moral code that they have inside them;
> >> some either don't have any moral code or have one that is substantially
> >> different than the one current in the west.
> >>
> >> > People not abiding by and using a set of rules for their own immoral
> >> > purposes may not have anything to do with the significance of the rules
> >> > themselves. This goes for a highway speed limit as well as God's laws.
> >> >
> >> Are you saying that the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were
> >> immoral? Personally I believe that most of the people who were
> >> involved in the latter, anyway, were quite sincere and motivated by a
> >> belief that they were called to do what they did by God. Do you have
> >> some pipeline to the almighty that allows you to judge them to be
> >> immoral (not in accordance with God's law) or are you just viewing
> >> their actions now using your modern understanding? If it's the latter,
> >> I don't disagree -- I think that the spanish inquisition and crusades
> >> were both immoral exercises because they both were about imposing a
> >> belief system on others
> >
> > As far as the Crusades and Inquisition are concerned, I believe that
> > these were against God's will and, thus, evil.
> >
> > A pipeline to God? No. I wish that I did. I do have the Bible and
> > have received wisdom in answer to prayer, wisdom that I didn't learn on
> > my own. I try not to view actions using my own modern understanding.
> >
> At the time the Crusades and the Inquisition were believed to be a holy
> quest and basically an evangelical mission. Yes, many thousands died, but
> from the perspective of the church they were either unrepentant heathens,
> and many more were forcibly converted.
>
> If the Bible is an unerring expression of the word of God, and basically all
> of christianity was behind the Crusades (at least initially, until they
> overran the Orthodox areas), how is it that you can have a different
> interpretation now? Was the error that they didn't get the Almighty's
> directive, or is it that you are reading the bible differently?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't know what their thinking was.

Given their governmental and religious structure, it wouldn't surprise
me if most, if not all, of the big decisions, such as the Crusades and
Inquisition, were made by a few men at the top and passed down to
everyone else with "the blessing of God". Most people didn't even know
what the Bible said due to the Roman Catholic church's attempts to
control the Bible and dispense it as they saw fit. And we know that
government and religion were completely intertwined at that time.

What is a commoner supposed to think? He knows he is supposed to be
obedient to God and his king. The government and religious hierarchy
controlled much of their daily existence. How would the commoner, and
even those with some power, know that the king, who was revered as
almost a god himself, was partially or completely going against the
Bible? And, who knows? Maybe the church influenced the king to
support what they erroneous thought was the right thing to do. Maybe
the Roman Catholic church put far more emphasis, just like today, on
their traditions and personal desires than on the Bible itself.

Obviously, we have the benefit of knowing exactly what the Bible says.
We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. And we do not have our daily
livelihood threatened by an oppressive church/government system, at
least in the Western countries. Three big advantages.

> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > > In some cultures, people treat each other with respect. In other
> >> > > > cultures, they enslave and eat each other...all based on what they
> >> > > > KNOW
> >> > > > to be good. Why is there is discrepancy? Which is the correct
> >> > > > good?
> >> > > >
> >> > > Until fairly recently, christianity was used as an excuse to enslave
> >> > > people
> >> > > who were not Christian, in a belief that christianity's inherent
> >> > > superiority
> >> > > to any belief system that those people had made up for the fact that
> >> > > the
> >> > > people were slaves. You really aren't distinguishing belief in God
> >> > > from any
> >> > > other system that provide moral direction. It's not like one is
> >> > > unerringly
> >> > > correct and the other is inconsistent.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not trying to talk about the specifics of Christianity (unless
> >> > directly answering a question). I'm trying to talk about how you
> >> > determine what is right if there is no Supreme Being.
> >> >
> >> > And you aren't answering any of the questions.
> >> >
> >> I'm questioning the premise behind them. The premise is that God gives
> >> his believers a moral compass and without God there is no certain moral
> >> direction. I can't accept that because I don't think God provides a
> >> consistent moral direction. At the very most the Bible can be given
> >> credit for giving moral direction (though the bible can be quoted for
> >> both sides of pretty much any debate) and I don't dispute that the
> >> Bible is a great source of moral teaching. But you're making a jump
> >> that I don't think makes sense by pointing to God as the source of the
> >> wisdom of the bible.
> >
> > I believe that God is the only One who CAN provide a consistent moral
> > direction. Any other source is limited, fallible, changing, and
> > imprecise.
> >
> > Why would you think that my "jump" that God is the source of the
> > Bible's wisdom is illogical?
> >
> I understand your point of view, but it's circular. You presume the
> existence of a supreme being with an unerring moral direction (though
> apparently the direction has changed in the last thousand years, since what
> was a moral imperitive sanctioned by both the pope and the orthodox church
> is, in your view, immoral). For instance, let's consider a hypothetical
> (and from your perspective, a counterfactual): Let's presume that God did
> not inspire the bible, and that the biblical writers were inspired, instead,
> by some earthly source -- wanting to inspire morality in their people,
> creating a common history for a group of people, etc. If that were the
> case, would the teachings in the bible switch from being moral to immoral?

It would switch from being moral to immoral if 1) there was a God who
did not inspire the Bible and 2) the teachings in the Bible were
different from those of God. People do good, moral deeds just by
chance without ever having believed in God. I'm not sure that God
would appreciate such deeds since the Bible teaches that all good and
evil starts in a person's heart. If an atheist, therefore, does a good
deed on his own, God does not see it as the same as when a believer
does it with God in mind, even if it is the exact same thing.

Also, please note that the Bible says that God never changes His nature
or notions of good and evil. Thus, the church can change its mind all
day long, but God's standards of good and evil always remain the same.

> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > What would it take for you to obey God? An actual appearance
> >> > > >> > with
> >> > > >> > angels and lightning and thunder? Would you then obey and do
> >> > > >> > anything
> >> > > >> > that was told of you?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> No. First, there is no such being, so if one were to appear I
> >> > > >> would not
> >> > > >> accept his allmightiness without question. If "god" told me that
> >> > > >> I had
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> kill my eldest son to express my faith in him, that would be an
> >> > > >> easy one
> >> > > >> for
> >> > > >> me -- I don't HAVE any faith in god so I certainly wouldn't kill
> >> > > >> my son.
> >> > > >> And if he struck me down for not believing, at least my son would
> >> > > >> be OK,
> >> > > >> right? And at least I would have done the moral thing and defied
> >> > > >> someone
> >> > > >> who told me to do something that I know is wrong.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Fair enough. Sounds resonable from an atheistic standpoint.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> This whole idea that "it's right because God says it's right"
> >> > > >> argument is
> >> > > >> circular. And while I certainly think that there have been some
> >> > > >> important
> >> > > >> philosophical results from the belief in God, I don't think that
> >> > > >> they are
> >> > > >> any less important if you take the supernatural part out of the
> >> > > >> equation.
> >> > > >> The Golden Rule isn't golden because God gave it to us, and it
> >> > > >> isn't any
> >> > > >> less worth following if God doesn't exist. If all you believe is
> >> > > >> that
> >> > > >> people are equal and deserve to be treated as you would want to be
> >> > > >> treated,
> >> > > >> you get a long way in terms of morality and you don't have to
> >> > > >> suppose the
> >> > > >> existence of some judge in the sky who hands out punishments and
> >> > > >> rewards.
> >> > > >> You don't have to believe, contrary to every indication, that
> >> > > >> humans are
> >> > > >> different from and better than other animals and that we all go to
> >> > > >> heaven
> >> > > >> but they can't, and that we have a soul and an eternal life but
> >> > > >> they
> >> > > >> don't.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well reasoned...except, reality is different. Some people think
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > it's good to help others. Some people think that it is good to let
> >> > > > others suffer. Who is right?
> >> > > >
> >> > > There are people who believe that people are inherently equal and
> >> > > deserve to
> >> > > be treated as they would want to be treated who believe it's good to
> >> > > let
> >> > > others suffer? So they would want others to allow them to suffer?
> >> >
> >> > Who is right? How do you determine who's good is the good that should
> >> > be followed when there is a conflict?
> >> >
> >> There is no "right." There is only philosophy. You're looking for an
> >> absolute, and if that's what you need, God is a good thing to invent
> >> because He is, by definition, absolute.
> >
> > True, unless, of course, God does indeed exist.
> >
> >> > >
> >> > > And more importantly, this really doesn't address the question of the
> >> > > existence of God. I don't dispute that religion has resulted in some
> >> > > very
> >> > > deep thinking on morality over the millenia. But all of that
> >> > > thinking could
> >> > > have been accomplished without the existence of a supreme being --
> >> > > all that
> >> > > would be needed is a book of parables teaching moral lessons. It
> >> > > could even
> >> > > credit a supreme being with the final authority behind the moral
> >> > > teaching in
> >> > > the book.
> >> >
> >> > I believe that the issue of good and evil speaks directly to the
> >> > possibility of the existence of God.
> >>
> >> Not really. "Directly" would mean, to me, some evidence that
> >> unambiguously has to do with God's existence. My birth certificate is
> >> direct evidence that I exist (or existed). The fact that people have
> >> certain beliefs in common could have lots of different sources, most of
> >> which are not supernatural.
> >
> > I believe that the existence of good and evil is evidence for the
> > existence of God given that good and evil would otherwise be functions
> > of one's imagination. If functions of one's imagination, then why does
> > the same basic notion of right and wrong perpetuate and not waiver much
> > at all over 6,000 years?
> >
> This is a logical fallacy. You are suggesting that one of two explanations
> MUST be true, and that therefore if you can find a reason that one is more
> likely than not untrue, then the other must be true. Rather than trying to
> prove the truth of the God theory, you decide that disproving the
> "imagination" theory is sufficient. But of course, "imagination" is not
> really a very believable counter theory. For instance, you don't account
> for the fact that during much of that same 6000 years there was a consistent
> written moral code that was followed from generation to generation. There
> are similar codes in other religions that do not believe in God or conceive
> of god or gods quite differently. Isn't it more likely that there is some
> inherent sense that other people have value that accounts for much of the
> uniformity across religions and cultures?

Well, I'm not saying that proving the "imagination" theory is
sufficient, by any means. It's just one more piece in the puzzle to
unwrapping the mystery about the origins of good and evil.

It is a legitimate theory that all cultures just have some "sense" that
people have value. What I ask is from where this sense comes. In my
opinion, every human has a soul with God's fingerprints on it. Thus,
regardless of culture, people do have some basic sense of right and
wrong, which includes a basic sense of the value of human life.

Some skeptics have suggested that there is a genetic cause to this
sense. I'm not so sure. It seems that genetics do not drive
conscious, complex intentions and thoughts, but rather affect subtle
emotions and base desires. And the sense of human worth seems to be
more than a subtle desire like an inclination to like certain foods.
Hmmm... I don't know for certain. Is such an inclination towards
foods or other stimuli on the same order as a sense for the value of
human worth?

>
> As for the "basic notions of right and wrong" over 6000 years -- actually,
> there have been a lot of variations. If you are specifically talking about
> judeochristian tradition (as I think you are) we've moved from a culture
> where multiple wives and concubines was the norm to one of monogomy. In the
> bible, theft was vastly rewarded -- remember Isaac and Esau?

True, but those things were never God's desire, intention, or plan for
those people (or any people). God allowed a lot of evil to go on in
the Bible. His allowing these things cannot be assessed as a condoning
or desire for those evils to occur. Remember, it is free will that God
has given us. God allows a good portion of our existence to be
affected by our (and others') choices.

In the case of Isaac and Esau, was the result really a reward from God?
It seemed that the one of the two deeply lamented his decision to
steal the blessing from his brother, right? The Bible says that
material riches may be a blessing from God or may not. Many people
have perished because they obtained material wealth.

>
> >>
> >> > Without a God, why do most people
> >> > on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong?
> >>
> >> Like what? Killing? Maybe because people have affection for each
> >> other and felt hurt when one of their loved ones were killed. I think
> >> that it has more to do with the nature of living within a society than
> >> with the existence of some mythical being.
> >
> > Why would it then be easier for people to act selfishly rather than put
> > out effort to help others?
> >
> Many in our society who claim to be christians are big advocates of
> selfishness in the form of raw capitalism. But again -- I help people
> pretty frequently, and it isn't because I am guided by a belief in a supreme
> being. I just get satisfaction out of being helpful. You really aren't
> going to win an argument with me by arguing that unless you believe in God
> you can't possibly care about anyone but yourself. I don't believe, but I
> care quite a lot.

Oh, no. I don't believe nor would ever argue that you have to believe
in God to help others, be a good person, or be unselfish. And
satisfaction can come from manner deeds having nothing directly to do
with God.

> >>
> >> > Is it genetic
> >> > then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it is
> >> > somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?
> >> >
> >> No. It's the nature of society. When people don't interact with each
> >> other there is no real need for moral direction. The need is generated
> >> by people interacting.
> >
> > But, where talking about inherent drives and desires. Wouldn't such
> > interaction and its supposed effect on these drives require a logical
> > intelligence on a conscious level?
> >
> We're talking about what motivates people to distinguish different moral
> views of some action. I don't know at what level those decisions are made.
> Freud would argue that the superego was the source of moral limits on the
> ego, but I think he's full of shit. I really don't think people go through
> life having to consciously decide whether to tell the truth or not -- it's a
> subconcious reaction.

Well, some people DO have to make an effort to tell the truth. For
some, the desire to lie to get out of a difficult situation, for
example, is almost overwhelming. It seems that the conscious mind,
more times than not, has to override some rather selfish behaviors. I
see this somewhat in adults, but especially in children. Do we have to
teach children to lie or be selfish, lazy, and rebellous? Usually, we
spend time disciplining our kids to be just the opposite of those.

>
> Incidentally, I haven't seen anything yet that made any argument for the
> existence of God. You've been pretty intent on showing that there is only
> one source for consistent morality, but since all your arguments about
> history are referring to a history where there was a bible, you really can't
> show that God, and not the philosophical underpinning of the bible, is
> responsible for morality.

True. It is difficult to provide concrete evidence for God's existence
using just the subject of morality. The Bible would have to be proven
to be accurate about everything that is natural to be of any evidence
that it speaks accurately of the supernatural and absolute morality.

This morality angle is just one piece in the puzzle of mankind's
existence.

> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> There have certainly been a few people who have claimed to
> >> > > >> represent God
> >> > > >> on
> >> > > >> earth -- Jim Jones, David Koresh -- who have told people that God
> >> > > >> sanctioned
> >> > > >> the killing they were going to do in his name. Were they right or
> >> > > >> wrong?
> >> > > >> Since you can't possibly know whether God came down and gave these
> >> > > >> people
> >> > > >> orders, or if they at least BELIEVED that God had given them
> >> > > >> orders, can
> >> > > >> you
> >> > > >> be sure that they were NOT following God's plan?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I cannot be sure unless I was there myself and walked a mile in
> >> > > > their
> >> > > > shoes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > So it's really another instance of moral relativism. What happened
> >> > > to the
> >> > > moral guidepost?
> >> >
> >> > I can't tell you unless I know all of the details. Once the details
> >> > are known, then good and evil become apparent.
> >>
> >> OK. Well, let's assume that Jim Jones was certain that God told him to
> >> create Jonestown, and he considered the arrival of the congressional
> >> delegation investigating it a threat to it's continuation, and believed
> >> that God would rather have everyone there dead than for Jonestown to be
> >> disbanded. The premise is that he had a sincere belief that God would
> >> rather have hundreds die by drinking poisoned cool aid than for
> >> Jonestown to be called a scam. Good or evil?
> >
> > Well, according to humanistic thinking, good. According to God's will,
> > evil.
> >
> You know God's will? Are you in a state of Grace?

Yes. Not because I have earned it, am that good a person, or have done
some ritual. I am forgiven by God of all my sins because I have
accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have freely accepted what Jesus
did on the cross as payment for my sinning against God.

When a person does this, he/she will be indwelled by God's Holy Spirit.
God then gives various amounts of wisdom, insight, and discernment to
that Christian. Some wisdom comes right away. Some comes later in
life. Some may never be bestowed given God's earthly plan for that
person.

The biggest reason why much of the Bible is difficult to comprehend
without accepting Jesus is the following:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they
are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

> >>
> >>
> >> > There is no moral
> >> > relativism.
> >>
> >> that's all there is.
> >
> > What if others disagree? What if others say that there are absolutes?
> > Wouldn't moral relativism dictate that such beliefs are good because
> > some believe in them?
> >
> Sure. And I don't begrudge you or others your beliefs, any more than I do
> my many religious relatives theirs. As you can imagine, an Atheist has the
> greatest possible interest in allowing everyone freedom of belief and
> worship. I'm not trying to talk you out of anything -- just finding out how
> you got to where you are.

You're much more professional and courteous than others with whom I
have debated. Thanks.

> >>
> >> > It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
> >> > absolute truth,
> >>
> >> See -- you say there is no moral relativism, all you need is absolute
> >> truth. If there was absolute truth I'd agree. Would you agree that
> >> absolute truth is not something that is within the ability of humans to
> >> comprehend? Isn't absolute truth something that only God could
> >> understand? The only absolute truth that I can think of is the old
> >> "cognito ergo sum" and pure mathematics.
> >
> > Yes, I would agree that absolute truth is created and dispensed by a
> > source outside of humanity.
> >
> > No, absolute truth can be understood by humans to the extent that God
> > allows it to be.
> >
> > Cognito ergo sum? Pure mathematics? Both true. But, why are they
> > true? Couldn't the recognition of one's own existence be nothing but
> > an illusion?
>
> Not according the Rene Descartes. I don't think you'll find a lot of
> philosophers claiming that this escape from solipsism was illusory. The
> reason is obvious -- how can someone who does not exist be fooled into
> thinking that he DOES exist?

Excellent point.

>
> > Could not mathematics be merely a construct of the human
> > mind which may not itself exist?
> >
> I think that George Bush's Office of Management and Budget believe that.
> But even if I try really hard it isn't possible for me to believe that 2 + 2
> =5. It's much easier, anyway, for me to believe that there is no God.
>
> Let me tell you what bothers me about God. If He is a supreme being who is
> all powerful and created everything and is eternally just and moral, why
> does he care or want us to pray to him? Why would he make his existence a
> matter of faith rather than a certainty? What does he gain by playing these
> games? It seems like, if he is as you say, he towers over us as I tower
> over the ants. Why would he care what we thing or do? And why would he
> want worship above all?

Well, God wants us to pray to Him because He desires to have
interaction with us. The problem is that He has removed much of His
existence from this Earth because He hates the sin that permeates the
planet. For some reason, God does not like (to use a human term) to be
where people are rebellious.

Why faith and not certaint? Honestly, I don't know. My best guess is
that there is something about acting on faith that shows true love and
devotion as opposed to affection based on shock and awe of His
existence. Don't we exhibit a somewhat similar attitude when we do
things for others "just because" as opposed to in response to that
person's prior benevolence? Ask any woman. The "just because" flowers
mean so much more to her than those in response to something that she
did for us or in an attempt to do marital damage control for something
we screwed up.

God doesn't "play these games". The Bible says that He has a reason
for everything that He does or allows. Just because Adam and Eve ate
the apple and sinned, thus throwing all of mankind into turmoil,
doesn't mean that God stopped wanting to have some kind of relationship
with us.

>
> The whole thing sounds very 4000 years ago. A lot of the first five books
> of the bible were about how exactly to prepare "burnt offerings" for God.
> At some point he decided he was happy with people just peppering him with
> requests. I'll tell you, watching John Paul's funeral made me really wonder
> about organized religion. . . I mean, I think John Paul did this stuff all
> day every day -- begged God to take him into heaven, listened to choirs and
> religious music, and prayed and prayed and prayed. To each his own, I
> guess, but I couldn't handle it.

And you're touching on the most important aspect of God's relationship
with every human. He wants it to be heartfelt, not some mindless
ritual or religious checklist. God is more pleased with a child's
short, simple yet heartfelt prayer than with a thousand priests burning
tons of incense and chanting for days at a time without any love of God
and humility in their hearts.

You have already realized that which thousands of Christians every day
get wrong. Worship of God in the body and mind is useless without the
heart being in the right place. That's why God commanded people to
make right that which is wrong and get rid of sin in one's own life
before trying to worship Him.

"LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy
hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and
speaketh the truth in his heart. [He that] backbiteth not with his
tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach
against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but
he honoureth them that fear the LORD. [He that] sweareth to [his own]
hurt, and changeth not. [He that] putteth not out his money to usury,
nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things]
shall never be moved." - Psalm 15:1-5

"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before
the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift." - Matthew 5:24-24

By the way, God specified exact instructions to the Jewish priests for
many reasons, one of which was as a lesson to them that He cares about
every aspect of our existence and relationship, including worship, of
Him.

peachy ashie passion
> SummersFrenzy wrote:
>> Bill Colmers wrote:
>>>PS check all your emails please
>> Email? You sent emails? Well gosh and I feel picked on - no email
>> from Bill!
> *blush*
> I started it. I sent first.
>
*blinks*
*pouts*
*sulks*

"Jim Spaza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> BoMaGoSh Yndit wrote:

>> At the time the Crusades and the Inquisition were believed to be a holy
>> quest and basically an evangelical mission. Yes, many thousands died,
>> but
>> from the perspective of the church they were either unrepentant heathens,
>> and many more were forcibly converted.
>>
>> If the Bible is an unerring expression of the word of God, and basically
>> all
>> of christianity was behind the Crusades (at least initially, until they
>> overran the Orthodox areas), how is it that you can have a different
>> interpretation now? Was the error that they didn't get the Almighty's
>> directive, or is it that you are reading the bible differently?
>
> Honestly, I don't know. I don't know what their thinking was.
>
> Given their governmental and religious structure, it wouldn't surprise
> me if most, if not all, of the big decisions, such as the Crusades and
> Inquisition, were made by a few men at the top and passed down to
> everyone else with "the blessing of God".

You would be correct in that. Most europeans of the time were illiterate.
Although actually there were a number of popular movements that were born in
the grassroots at the time. The Children's Crusade, for instance, was
inspired by the belief that children, who were free of sin, could lead a
crusade to the holy land and triumph with the power of God behind them.
They disappeared and I don't think it's known exactly what happened to the
thousands of children who left going east and south. Most probably died or
were enslaved.

> Most people didn't even know
> what the Bible said due to the Roman Catholic church's attempts to
> control the Bible and dispense it as they saw fit. And we know that
> government and religion were completely intertwined at that time.
>
The Roman Catholic church was the only church of any kind in the west. Are
you saying that christianity was essentially rudderless until the
reformation? Were the popes inspired by God as you are or were they just
all wrong? How about Peter and Paul?

> What is a commoner supposed to think? He knows he is supposed to be
> obedient to God and his king. The government and religious hierarchy
> controlled much of their daily existence. How would the commoner, and
> even those with some power, know that the king, who was revered as
> almost a god himself, was partially or completely going against the
> Bible?

In your judgement. They read it differently. It's entirely a matter of
interpretation.

> And, who knows? Maybe the church influenced the king to
> support what they erroneous thought was the right thing to do.


> Maybe
> the Roman Catholic church put far more emphasis, just like today, on
> their traditions and personal desires than on the Bible itself.
>
Or maybe there isn't really a God and all this is about is interpreting a
book that has many contradictory messages. I think it's interesting that
the most likely explanation -- that there isn't really any supreme being --
is the one you steer around. You're willing to throw all of christianity
for the first nearly 3/4ths of the existence of the religion, but not the
underlying flawed premise.

> Obviously, we have the benefit of knowing exactly what the Bible says.

Do we? Are you including the apocrypha or the new texts found as part of
the dead sea trove? Considering that the bible you refer to was assembled
by the Catholic Church, which excluded some traditional texts, are you
confident that this bible is the right bible -- the one God wants us to
consider authoritative? Because you didn't think that the catholic church
was guided by God during the crusades or the inquisition, right? Did they
go in and out of being guided by God -- for instance, guided by God in the
instances you like (selection of Holy texts to include in the Bible) and not
guided by God in other instance you didn't like (crusades, inquisition)?
With that kind of insight, you seem to have a Godlike sense of right and
wrong all by yourself. Maybe YOU are actually God and we're all figments of
your imagination!'

As Jack Gurney, the mad fourteenth Earl of Gurney, said, when asked how he
knew he was God: "Simple. When I pray to Him, I'm talking to myself."

> We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. And we do not have our daily
> livelihood threatened by an oppressive church/government system, at
> least in the Western countries. Three big advantages.
>
I don't think that the Catholic Church was perceived as oppressive or
unduely involved in the operations of the governments -- indeed, people
would have been shocked by a leader who did not consider himself subject to
the church. I don't see what advantages you have on the midieval popes.
It's true that the translations of the bible are probably more accurate now
than they were then. Are you contending that the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition were mere errors of translation? What specifically did they get
wrong that would have prevented them from seeking to conquor the holy land,
or to forcibly convert jews to christianity in Spain? How does the benefit
of 20/20 hindsight affect an all knowing God? To me this seems like a lot
of special pleading. Really, it sounds like the people who apologize for
erroneous predictions by astrologers and fortune tellers -- "Ah! I did not
notice that the moon was in the second house!" If God is all powerful and
he has a plan to extend salvation to all people, why did he rely on the
Catholic Church as his primary messenger on earth for 1500 years?
>> >>
>> > Why would you think that my "jump" that God is the source of the
>> > Bible's wisdom is illogical?
>> >
>> I understand your point of view, but it's circular. You presume the
>> existence of a supreme being with an unerring moral direction (though
>> apparently the direction has changed in the last thousand years, since
>> what
>> was a moral imperitive sanctioned by both the pope and the orthodox
>> church
>> is, in your view, immoral). For instance, let's consider a hypothetical
>> (and from your perspective, a counterfactual): Let's presume that God
>> did
>> not inspire the bible, and that the biblical writers were inspired,
>> instead,
>> by some earthly source -- wanting to inspire morality in their people,
>> creating a common history for a group of people, etc. If that were the
>> case, would the teachings in the bible switch from being moral to
>> immoral?
>
> It would switch from being moral to immoral if 1) there was a God who
> did not inspire the Bible and 2) the teachings in the Bible were
> different from those of God.

OK, actually the hypothetical is that 1) there is no God to inspire the
Bible; and 2) the bible says exactly the same thing as it does now.

> People do good, moral deeds just by
> chance without ever having believed in God.

This is probably true, but it is also true that people who never believed in
God do good moral deeds because they choose to do so. I don't believe in
God, but I'm more moral in many senses than many Christians.

> I'm not sure that God
> would appreciate such deeds since the Bible teaches that all good and
> evil starts in a person's heart. If an atheist, therefore, does a good
> deed on his own, God does not see it as the same as when a believer
> does it with God in mind, even if it is the exact same thing.
>
As an atheist, I don't think God sees anything at all or has any judgement,
good or bad, of anything. He's make believe.

> Also, please note that the Bible says that God never changes His nature
> or notions of good and evil.

Of course not. Why invent a God who is all powerful but also fickle?

> Thus, the church can change its mind all
> day long, but God's standards of good and evil always remain the same.
>
Sure. He's whatever you say he is, right?
>> >> > > >>
<snip>

>> > I believe that the existence of good and evil is evidence for the
>> > existence of God given that good and evil would otherwise be functions
>> > of one's imagination. If functions of one's imagination, then why does
>> > the same basic notion of right and wrong perpetuate and not waiver much
>> > at all over 6,000 years?
>> >
>> This is a logical fallacy. You are suggesting that one of two
>> explanations
>> MUST be true, and that therefore if you can find a reason that one is
>> more
>> likely than not untrue, then the other must be true. Rather than trying
>> to
>> prove the truth of the God theory, you decide that disproving the
>> "imagination" theory is sufficient. But of course, "imagination" is not
>> really a very believable counter theory. For instance, you don't account
>> for the fact that during much of that same 6000 years there was a
>> consistent
>> written moral code that was followed from generation to generation.
>> There
>> are similar codes in other religions that do not believe in God or
>> conceive
>> of god or gods quite differently. Isn't it more likely that there is
>> some
>> inherent sense that other people have value that accounts for much of the
>> uniformity across religions and cultures?
>
> Well, I'm not saying that proving the "imagination" theory is
> sufficient, by any means. It's just one more piece in the puzzle to
> unwrapping the mystery about the origins of good and evil.
>
No -- of course not. You are setting up a logic trap, but one that you
would never agree was dispositive.

> It is a legitimate theory that all cultures just have some "sense" that
> people have value. What I ask is from where this sense comes.

Lots of possibilities. Humans are social creatures; their accomplishments
have always come from their ability to cooperate and work together to
achieve a common goal. This was certainly the case with early humans who
archeological evidence shows cooperated to hunt animals, to build buildings
out of stone, and to create laws, social institutions and religions to
regulate the conduct of their people and explain the natural phenomena
around them. So the first and most likely reason for these beliefs is that
holding some belief in the value of others was an evolutionary benefit.
People who cooperated and lived by rules of behavior overran less organized
neighbors. We saw it in Roman society, for instance. Rome conquored a huge
territory that was subject to the roman laws. People actively sought to
become citizens of Rome, and Rome expanded quickly to overcome less
organized neighbors.

> In my
> opinion, every human has a soul with God's fingerprints on it. Thus,
> regardless of culture, people do have some basic sense of right and
> wrong, which includes a basic sense of the value of human life.
>
And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. To me, that falls as a
needlessly complex theory to explain behaviors that are explainable as
natural processes. It's not necessary to construct entire realms of
existence to explain good and evil -- or should I say, it's only necessary
to do so if the good/evil discussion is only a means to get to a
pre-determined result. And by the way -- Are you postulating that everyone
has this inherent good/evil sense given to them by God, but that atheists
only randomly do good things? Doesn't this seem a little incoherent? You
use the universal sense of right and wrong to prove the existence of God,
but though people who are unbelievers apparently have this same sense, their
acts in conformity with it are random and abberations, and God is not
pleased by them? This God you're inventing is a very fickle fellow!

> Some skeptics have suggested that there is a genetic cause to this
> sense. I'm not so sure. It seems that genetics do not drive
> conscious, complex intentions and thoughts, but rather affect subtle
> emotions and base desires. And the sense of human worth seems to be
> more than a subtle desire like an inclination to like certain foods.

> Hmmm... I don't know for certain. Is such an inclination towards
> foods or other stimuli on the same order as a sense for the value of
> human worth?
>
Freud hit all this 100 years ago. Id, Ego, Superego. The moral sense
sublimates the base desires. But since I don't really buy Freud either, I
don't know what to tell you. That's a drawback of recognizing that there
isn't any supernatural being watching over all of us: there aren't simple
answers or answers derived simply by postulating the existence of God, and
then using that to derive that logically, God must exist.
>>
>> As for the "basic notions of right and wrong" over 6000 years --
>> actually,
>> there have been a lot of variations. If you are specifically talking
>> about
>> judeochristian tradition (as I think you are) we've moved from a culture
>> where multiple wives and concubines was the norm to one of monogomy. In
>> the
>> bible, theft was vastly rewarded -- remember Isaac and Esau?
>
> True, but those things were never God's desire, intention, or plan for
> those people (or any people). God allowed a lot of evil to go on in
> the Bible. His allowing these things cannot be assessed as a condoning
> or desire for those evils to occur. Remember, it is free will that God
> has given us. God allows a good portion of our existence to be
> affected by our (and others') choices.
>
Remember, from my perspective free will isn't given us by anyone. I realize
that dropping back to "free will" is a good way to explain the inconsistency
of the bible, but the fact is -- Isaac stole Esau's inheritance, and as a
result fathered the Hebrew tribes. Esau basically disappeared in the mist
of time; Isaac's legacy is still with us. If God hates sin, and theft is a
sin (what is that -- the 4th commandment or so?) why did God reward this
sinful behavior with long life and great fertility?

> In the case of Isaac and Esau, was the result really a reward from God?
> It seemed that the one of the two deeply lamented his decision to
> steal the blessing from his brother, right?

I don't think he really lamented much -- where is that part? He stole,
fathered the tribes, had more than one wife . . . that's living la vita
loca.

> The Bible says that
> material riches may be a blessing from God or may not. Many people
> have perished because they obtained material wealth.
>
No doubt, but considering that God made Isaac's decendents his Chosen
People, it's pretty hard to argue that God was punishing him for stealing!
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Without a God, why do most people
>> >> > on the planet believe that certain actions are wrong?
>> >>
>> >> Like what? Killing? Maybe because people have affection for each
>> >> other and felt hurt when one of their loved ones were killed. I think
>> >> that it has more to do with the nature of living within a society than
>> >> with the existence of some mythical being.
>> >
>> > Why would it then be easier for people to act selfishly rather than put
>> > out effort to help others?
>> >
>> Many in our society who claim to be christians are big advocates of
>> selfishness in the form of raw capitalism. But again -- I help people
>> pretty frequently, and it isn't because I am guided by a belief in a
>> supreme
>> being. I just get satisfaction out of being helpful. You really aren't
>> going to win an argument with me by arguing that unless you believe in
>> God
>> you can't possibly care about anyone but yourself. I don't believe, but
>> I
>> care quite a lot.
>
> Oh, no. I don't believe nor would ever argue that you have to believe
> in God to help others, be a good person, or be unselfish. And
> satisfaction can come from manner deeds having nothing directly to do
> with God.
>
I thought you just argued that God did not credit atheists' good acts and
that their good acts were random since they were not the result of trying to
follow God's will. Isn't that what you said before?

>> >>
>> >> > Is it genetic
>> >> > then? How about environmental? What about the possibility that it
>> >> > is
>> >> > somehow written into their souls, if you believe in such a thing?
>> >> >
>> >> No. It's the nature of society. When people don't interact with each
>> >> other there is no real need for moral direction. The need is
>> >> generated
>> >> by people interacting.
>> >
>> > But, where talking about inherent drives and desires. Wouldn't such
>> > interaction and its supposed effect on these drives require a logical
>> > intelligence on a conscious level?
>> >
>> We're talking about what motivates people to distinguish different moral
>> views of some action. I don't know at what level those decisions are
>> made.
>> Freud would argue that the superego was the source of moral limits on the
>> ego, but I think he's full of shit. I really don't think people go
>> through
>> life having to consciously decide whether to tell the truth or not --
>> it's a
>> subconcious reaction.
>
> Well, some people DO have to make an effort to tell the truth. For
> some, the desire to lie to get out of a difficult situation, for
> example, is almost overwhelming. It seems that the conscious mind,
> more times than not, has to override some rather selfish behaviors. I
> see this somewhat in adults, but especially in children. Do we have to
> teach children to lie or be selfish, lazy, and rebellous? Usually, we
> spend time disciplining our kids to be just the opposite of those.
>
I agree with this -- but at least for me, I have a hard time, not only not
telling the truth, but even failing to tell people what they ask me. Once I
had two mortgage brokers who were both bidding for my loan, and one asked me
what the other's interest rate was. Being honest, I told him, and he
immediately jacked his rate to be just slightly better than the one I told
him, rather than considerably better.
>>
>> Incidentally, I haven't seen anything yet that made any argument for the
>> existence of God. You've been pretty intent on showing that there is
>> only
>> one source for consistent morality, but since all your arguments about
>> history are referring to a history where there was a bible, you really
>> can't
>> show that God, and not the philosophical underpinning of the bible, is
>> responsible for morality.
>
> True. It is difficult to provide concrete evidence for God's existence
> using just the subject of morality.

Yeah, apparently -- but this is what YOU chose as the way to explain the
issue. I thought that you were getting to this point but apparently you
weren't moving in that direction. Can we talk about that now?

> The Bible would have to be proven
> to be accurate about everything that is natural to be of any evidence
> that it speaks accurately of the supernatural and absolute morality.
>
That's a pretty high standard. That would mean that the bible being
inaccurate in any respect would bring question about the entirety of the
book -- at least, it couldn't be taken on faith. I agree with this point.
It's why there is so much controversy about Darwin. If the "days" of
creation aren't literal days; if the process that God undertook was not in
the order listed; if it can be shown that events that were described are
based on older legends of civilizations that occurred before the bible was
written rather than inspired transcriptions of actual occurrances -- then
the rest of the bible can't be assumed to be true, either.

> This morality angle is just one piece in the puzzle of mankind's
> existence.
>
>> >> OK. Well, let's assume that Jim Jones was certain that God told him
>> >> to
>> >> create Jonestown, and he considered the arrival of the congressional
>> >> delegation investigating it a threat to it's continuation, and
>> >> believed
>> >> that God would rather have everyone there dead than for Jonestown to
>> >> be
>> >> disbanded. The premise is that he had a sincere belief that God would
>> >> rather have hundreds die by drinking poisoned cool aid than for
>> >> Jonestown to be called a scam. Good or evil?
>> >
>> > Well, according to humanistic thinking, good. According to God's will,
>> > evil.
>> >
>> You know God's will? Are you in a state of Grace?
>
> Yes. Not because I have earned it, am that good a person, or have done
> some ritual. I am forgiven by God of all my sins because I have
> accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have freely accepted what Jesus
> did on the cross as payment for my sinning against God.
>
> When a person does this, he/she will be indwelled by God's Holy Spirit.
> God then gives various amounts of wisdom, insight, and discernment to
> that Christian. Some wisdom comes right away. Some comes later in
> life. Some may never be bestowed given God's earthly plan for that
> person.
>
Fascinating. Totally different from the beliefs that were held in the
middle ages, of course. Joan of Arc was asked if she was in a state of
grace in her interrogation when she was being examined on charges of heresy
after claiming to hear divine voices that compelled her to lead the armies
of France. If she had claimed either that she was in a state of grace or
said that she was not, she would have been guilty of heresy, by claiming to
know the will of God. Joan, an uneducated country teenager, answered: ""If
I am not, God put me there; if I am, please God so keep me." Any other
answer would have been immediate death. Incidentally, if you want to see a
really remarkable film, get "the Passion of Joan of Arc." It's a silent
film with some of the most amazing cinematography ever, and one of the most
amazing performances ever captured on film.

> The biggest reason why much of the Bible is difficult to comprehend
> without accepting Jesus is the following:
>
> "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
> they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they
> are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
>
Yeah. There are lots of things that, if you don't buy into them before you
start looking into them make no sense. But that doesn't mean that, by
buying into them, you glimpse some eternal truth. If you assume that the
bible is true, then you also assume that God is allpowerful and perfectly
moral, and therefore the confusing and contradictory things that happen in
the bible are all consistent with some unknowable plan of the almighty.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > There is no moral
>> >> > relativism.
>> >>
>> >> that's all there is.
>> >
>> > What if others disagree? What if others say that there are absolutes?
>> > Wouldn't moral relativism dictate that such beliefs are good because
>> > some believe in them?
>> >
>> Sure. And I don't begrudge you or others your beliefs, any more than I
>> do
>> my many religious relatives theirs. As you can imagine, an Atheist has
>> the
>> greatest possible interest in allowing everyone freedom of belief and
>> worship. I'm not trying to talk you out of anything -- just finding out
>> how
>> you got to where you are.
>
> You're much more professional and courteous than others with whom I
> have debated. Thanks.
>
Like I say -- I know lots of religious people and I know lots of people who
use different things to get through their lives. Life is difficult. If
religion is what you need, there's nothing wrong with it in my view. I feel
the same way about people using a little weed or having a drink -- as long
as you aren't hurting others, why not?
>> >>
>> >> > It's all a function of knowing before speaking what is
>> >> > absolute truth,
>> >>
>> >> See -- you say there is no moral relativism, all you need is absolute
>> >> truth. If there was absolute truth I'd agree. Would you agree that
>> >> absolute truth is not something that is within the ability of humans
>> >> to
>> >> comprehend? Isn't absolute truth something that only God could
>> >> understand? The only absolute truth that I can think of is the old
>> >> "cognito ergo sum" and pure mathematics.
>> >
>> > Yes, I would agree that absolute truth is created and dispensed by a
>> > source outside of humanity.
>> >
>> > No, absolute truth can be understood by humans to the extent that God
>> > allows it to be.
>> >
>> > Cognito ergo sum? Pure mathematics? Both true. But, why are they
>> > true? Couldn't the recognition of one's own existence be nothing but
>> > an illusion?
>>
>> Not according the Rene Descartes. I don't think you'll find a lot of
>> philosophers claiming that this escape from solipsism was illusory. The
>> reason is obvious -- how can someone who does not exist be fooled into
>> thinking that he DOES exist?
>
> Excellent point.
>
>>
>> > Could not mathematics be merely a construct of the human
>> > mind which may not itself exist?
>> >
>> I think that George Bush's Office of Management and Budget believe that.
>> But even if I try really hard it isn't possible for me to believe that 2
>> + 2
>> =5. It's much easier, anyway, for me to believe that there is no God.
>>
>> Let me tell you what bothers me about God. If He is a supreme being who
>> is
>> all powerful and created everything and is eternally just and moral, why
>> does he care or want us to pray to him? Why would he make his existence
>> a
>> matter of faith rather than a certainty? What does he gain by playing
>> these
>> games? It seems like, if he is as you say, he towers over us as I tower
>> over the ants. Why would he care what we thing or do? And why would he
>> want worship above all?
>
> Well, God wants us to pray to Him because He desires to have
> interaction with us.

Well, personally, I would HATE my interaction with someone I love to be in
the form of them worshiping me.

> The problem is that He has removed much of His
> existence from this Earth because He hates the sin that permeates the
> planet. For some reason, God does not like (to use a human term) to be
> where people are rebellious.
>
> Why faith and not certaint? Honestly, I don't know. My best guess is
> that there is something about acting on faith that shows true love and
> devotion as opposed to affection based on shock and awe of His
> existence. Don't we exhibit a somewhat similar attitude when we do
> things for others "just because" as opposed to in response to that
> person's prior benevolence? Ask any woman. The "just because" flowers
> mean so much more to her than those in response to something that she
> did for us or in an attempt to do marital damage control for something
> we screwed up.
>
> God doesn't "play these games". The Bible says that He has a reason
> for everything that He does or allows.

Yeah, I know, but that is the same circular argument. He's perfect and he
does everything for a reason, therefore the reason he seems to act in odd
unexplainable ways that makes it impossible to tell whether he actually
exists or not is because he has a reason.

> Just because Adam and Eve ate
> the apple and sinned, thus throwing all of mankind into turmoil,
> doesn't mean that God stopped wanting to have some kind of relationship
> with us.
>
>>
>> The whole thing sounds very 4000 years ago. A lot of the first five
>> books
>> of the bible were about how exactly to prepare "burnt offerings" for God.
>> At some point he decided he was happy with people just peppering him with
>> requests. I'll tell you, watching John Paul's funeral made me really
>> wonder
>> about organized religion. . . I mean, I think John Paul did this stuff
>> all
>> day every day -- begged God to take him into heaven, listened to choirs
>> and
>> religious music, and prayed and prayed and prayed. To each his own, I
>> guess, but I couldn't handle it.
>
> And you're touching on the most important aspect of God's relationship
> with every human. He wants it to be heartfelt, not some mindless
> ritual or religious checklist. God is more pleased with a child's
> short, simple yet heartfelt prayer than with a thousand priests burning
> tons of incense and chanting for days at a time without any love of God
> and humility in their hearts.

Again -- I don't know how you can presume to know what God likes or doesn't
like. Isn't his intellect far beyond your ability to comprehend? Isn't
claiming to know what he wants a way of claiming godlike status?
>
> You have already realized that which thousands of Christians every day
> get wrong. Worship of God in the body and mind is useless without the
> heart being in the right place. That's why God commanded people to
> make right that which is wrong and get rid of sin in one's own life
> before trying to worship Him.
>
> "LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy
> hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and
> speaketh the truth in his heart. [He that] backbiteth not with his
> tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach
> against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but
> he honoureth them that fear the LORD. [He that] sweareth to [his own]
> hurt, and changeth not. [He that] putteth not out his money to usury,
> nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things]
> shall never be moved." - Psalm 15:1-5
>
> "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
> that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before
> the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then
> come and offer thy gift." - Matthew 5:24-24
>
> By the way, God specified exact instructions to the Jewish priests for
> many reasons, one of which was as a lesson to them that He cares about
> every aspect of our existence and relationship, including worship, of
> Him.
>
Well, apparently. It would be simpler in some ways if I would suddenly
believe in God but I could never do it sincerely -- I realized when I was a
child that I thought the whole thing was nonsense, and though I have read a
lot about the bible, biblical history and the history of the writing of the
bible, I haven't found anything to make me think differently.