Posted on 11/24/2008 12:56:31 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“Do non-Christian Buddhists burn in hell for all eternity when they die?”
According to the Catholic church,ignorant, virtuous non-Christians go to the same place as unbaptized infants, that is to limbo. See my comment 172. However, if they know about Jesus and fail to convert, then they are candidates for hell.
“66 books in the Bible. Nothing to do with ‘the church’.”
Do some research. Check out the Council of Nicea, and other early gatherings. The in fighting was vicious and sometimes fatal, for example the fighting between the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and the flight to Ethiopia for safety. Arian Heresy, montonists, donatists, and others all suffered. Some of my spellings may not be exact, but there is lots to ponder in the politics of early Christianity. In later centuries there was the sufering of the Albigenses (Cathars), the Jacobeans, and many others. This led to many religious groups emigrating to American to worship (or not) in peace and independent of other people’s belief systems.
Who knows? But why not give the same skepticism to the idea of "there is no God"? All science is a building of knowledge begetting knowledge; and yet we discard the most basic idea of cause and effect.
Which is why I ask - where have you seen something come from nothing? And yet without skepticism, you think it's possible - the causeless effect - matter appearing - governed by laws that came from ...nowhere??
Parallel universes, endless expansion and contraction; all of these are greeted with a "hhmmm... that's an interesting hypothesis, it's possible...yes I like the idea." And this without a single shred or inkling of possibility.
And yet, bring up the idea of a creative mind? Oh, the skepticism - "that's impossible - you're a fool for accepting the idea of a fairy tale."
Everything in our experience points to effects having a cause. Why don't we extrapolate that out when it comes to origins?
Who knows? But why not give the same skepticism to the idea of "there is no God"?
Back up one step and ask, "Where did the universe come from?" Insert your answer, "Who knows?"
You're adding a step that's not needed.
From our perspective - you are correct - we don't know. But as I posited previously, the idea of a creative mind is scoffed at while any "natural" explanation of our universe (parallel universes, expansion, contraction, etc.) is excepted as simply one more plausible explanation.
Please explain to me why otherwise rational individuals will except the wildest explanation for the origin of the universe, and yet reject out of hand the most obvious: that from our own observation - causeless effects are not rational.
Everything we see screams out "created!". And yet the idea of a creator is the stuff of fairy tails.
Where in your experience have you come across the magic of something coming from nothing?
God's word defines morality. I choose to follow His Word and choose to (attempt) to follow His moral code. Not my moral code - God's moral code. My faith is in God, but that does not imply I get to push my faith or His morals on you and never did. Please don't confuse all that.
Self righteousness? For you to say this here provides more info than may be realized....could write tons here.
Self righteousness has nothing to do with attempting to follow God's moral code - rather submitting to His moral code! If someone claims to be in submission to God and at the same time is self righteous......RUN!
If anyone is self righteous, they are the ones who deny they are the created. They do in fact - stand and rely on their own “self” for all things (well who else is there, then?). That....is self righteousness....but I'll bet you do find that surprising.
I don't determine morality on my own - I go with what God's word says.
I'm very curious as to how the Bible can be a ‘great book of morals’, and from your view, not be given by God to men to write, yet these men some how had a reasonable sense of morality.(?) (And oh by the way - you seem to think they are ‘ok’ morals some how?) (It is good tho, that you have read some of the Bible at least!)
This begs the question again that no one is too eager to answer....is where did any or all this morality come from, if not from God? It did not crawl up on a beach. It did not come to being by a billion years of some if-then-else cancellation process.
I'm not asking you to change your morals, I want you to tell me historically how the first decision between good and evil came to pass? Tell me where the very first thought of good and evil came from in human history.
The ‘holiness’ factor I mentioned is in ‘God given’ versus just a bunch of books written by men that happen to contain someone’s version of ‘morals’.
One of the big points here that is apparently not getting across - is that all of you who claim there is no God, and who are adamantly opposed to the idea of submitting to a higher power - need to be able to explain where morals, morale, good and evil knowledge came from.
I don't need to hear of your views of how life began. You can argue all day about big bangs, amoebas, beach scenes and monkeys - but I personally want you all to explain in detail where and how the human mind - uniquely - ‘developed’ knowledge of good and evil. And again, instinct does not apply.
thank you.
While I of course don't expect you to agree with my point of view, I am once again perplexed by the inability of believers to at least UNDERSTAND such a common view.
Ever hear of Aesop's Fables? They don't come from God, they come from tales told among just regular folks, assembled by a slave.
I'm not comparing these to the Bible in any way except to say these are morality tales, and they at no time have been said to come from God.
They came from the accumulated wisdom and observation of...people.
Again--you don't have to agree with my point of view, but it's bewildering to me why you can't simply understand what I mean when I put forth my belief that the Bible tales are invented stories meant to show what some have decided is morality based on the ethical beliefs that emerged over thousands of years of human behavior, during which a society or societies saw what, in their view, worked for them, what didn't; what actions were justified and which weren't.
The Bible says there are some actions which are justified, even killing, and others which are not; there are countless moral codes of lands, tribes, nations, religions which do the same, and they don't come from the god you choose to believe in.
You label your moral code as superior because it comes from God the Creator. Fine. Others say your god isn't the creator, and guess what? Their opinion matters TO THEM as much as yours matters to you.
You can say "But MINE is the right one!" all you like, and it doesn't change the situation, which is one person claiming his is THE God, his THE morality.
You're perfectly within your rights to do so. But that doesn't change for one second that I don't believe it, nor do I have to believe it.
Again, I'm not asking you to like it--I don't care whether you do or you don't. But can't you at least understand the position?
Just to be clear, I've addressed this--it came from the human experience of that behavior which benefits the individual while at the same time allowing society to function based on local custom and prefered behavior. I never said anything about instinct, so I don't know why you brought that up to me.
Darkwolf377...
I’m probably the last person you want to hear from and a delayed response at best!
I know I come across harshly for which I apologize. I also apologize if it is inappropriate to answer and divert from the original subject matter, but I see this happening with all kinds of subject matter in FR, so I assume it is acceptable to some degree(?).
For brevity - here are your quotes, and then I’ll make a comment or two about them on the whole afterward:
“They (morality tales) came from the accumulated wisdom and observation of...people.”
“Bible tales are invented stories meant to show what some have decided is morality based on the ethical beliefs that emerged over thousands of years of human behavior, during which a society or societies saw what, in their view, worked for them, what didn’t; what actions were justified and which weren’t.”
“...it (morality, good/evil) came from the human experience of that behavior which benefits the individual while at the same time allowing society to function based on local custom and prefered behavior...”.
Ok - let me clarify that I do understand people make choices in what they believe and I don’t want to come across as beligerant and telling you - you are dead wrong. That is not at all what I want to say.
Certainly I cannot and will not force or push my stuff onto you.
So, it is good tho, to attempt to prove things out and/or at least discuss, right?
Your three quotes above are your answers to questions I posed in asking you (anyone) to explain how those first beings in the human chain (at any point) came up with that ‘sparkle’ to even consider intangibles such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’?
I need this explained in really simple terms. Fuzzy terms like “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior” just doesn’t tell me a thing about that one ‘person’ that first came up with ‘good’ and ‘bad’. That initial spark of knowledge of something not seen, not ever even thought of prior to a certain moment in ‘evolutionary history’, yet it “emerged” some how, some way.
That is the moment I need explained in detail. I need for you to tell me what put the bug in their ear that made them consider something inconceivable prior to that moment in all of world history. This knowledge of good and evil emerged from what exactly?
Also, several of you seem to place this event or ‘emergence’ of knowledge of good and evil in relatively modern days and not something that would or could(?) have occured with our cavemen friends from the past, or even earlier in the chain. It would be interesting to hear how any evolutionist would arrive at a time frame within such a monumetal event could have occured - this kodak moment when that first ‘person’ suddenly thought of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
You can say it emerged all day, but it had to emerge from someone somewhere at a specific moment the first time.
So if I hear correctly from your standpoint, humankind went from the basics of eating, sleeping, reproducing surviving existence - basically the animals life as it had been for.....a long time........to the one unique set in the ‘animal kingdom’, and one individual from that set of animal life at some point in time conceived from nowhere, this notion of good and/or evil?
I’m going to say it one more time. The emergence came from somewhere the first time it occured. Tell me all about that moment, please.
(And I must say, the third quote of yours sounds like it is straight out of a book or dictionary.)
While this definition would suffice as the ‘end all’ giving some a nice warm fuzzy, it does nothing to provide an answer as to the origination of morality from a point in time when - just before that moment - was never dreamed of by these human animals....or wait....is it animal humans?
It is difficult to absorb your point of reference when you speak of humans rather than us as - just animals. We are in fact - just ‘animals’ by the default rule of evolution - once wild, then magically ‘domesticated’ over time and accrued this thing known as morality. Or have we acheived something higher than the plane of the animal kingdom?
So when I replace all your references of “human” with “animal” - then attempt to come up with a point in time that a single animal (that first one) came up with this good/bad thing...it truthfully becomes quite silly....
What is fuzzy about the expression “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”? It is rather juvenile to think that our entire morality just popped into existence in one person. Our political system, our sciences, our art, our civilization didn't just happen all at once, so what is so confusing about the idea that as humans gradually moved from tribal to community cohabitation that certain attitudes and behaviors would develop?
It is rather simplistic to say as you do that if I can't come up with the name of the one person who suddenly discovered morality (which I never claimed to have because I never claimed such a person existed) than the only answer is that a being who somehow was never born and has always existed dropped it on our heads like a rock. It's like people who believe UFO's are alien spaceships--just because I can't explain what that light in the sky is, how does one make the leap to saying "Ah ha, an alien spaceship!" without any evidence at all?
One only need look at how human behavior, ethics and community has evolved in the period of recorded history to see that people do indeed change their behavior over time to accomodate different ideas as acceptable and others are not in terms of human behavior. As I said previously, you don't have to ACCEPT the point of view I have, but to say you don't even UNDERSTAND it shows one is either stupid (which I don't believe you are) or simply willfully ignoring alternate points of view.
Your mistake, I think, is refusing to budge from your rather odd idea that the ONLY conceivable origin of morality is if one single human was given the idea as a gift from above.
I'm not trying to force you to believe my position, which is something many religious folks do try to do. I'm just trying to get you to accept that an idea you may not agree with is not so crazy as you seem to want to believe it is. Based on thousands of years of human civilization, which even you must agree shows we have evolved in our thinking about MANY things (humanity didn't just accept Christianity in one weekend), I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that the concept of morality (which you must agree has MANY interpretations, many of which we can both agree are abhorent) is the sum of centuries of thinking, action, and exchange of thoughts and ideas.
In comparison, claiming that an invisible god just dropped the idea of morality from the sky seems silly to me.
DARK-
“What is fuzzy about the expression “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”? It is rather juvenile to think that our entire morality just popped into existence in one person. Our political system, our sciences, our art, our civilization didn’t just happen all at once, so what is so confusing about the idea that as humans gradually moved from tribal to community cohabitation that certain attitudes and behaviors would develop?”
Fuzzy is ‘emerged’. Fuzzy is that you are attempting to relate science and art and pol systems and civilizations - every one of which can be touched and seen and developed over time out of the imagination of our minds.
Morality (knowledge of good and evil) emerging from wild ape-dom in a single ‘animal’ set is not and cannot be related to the items you list here.
No, I’m not literally asking you to name the person who came up with morality. You are missing the intent. You are saying morality emerged from wild animal ape-dom and has ‘evolved’ to what it is today.
You jumped out on me by saying ‘our entire morality popped into existence in one person’. No, I didn’t say that. I said that it didn’t come from no where. It had to start in someone somewhere and in fact, someone did have to start that ball rolling at some point. It didn’t happen randomly, simultaneously all over the place either.
In the same way the elements that make up this universe didn’t come from just no where, neither did morality. Are you going to say the universal elements emerged over time from nothing too?
“Your mistake, I think, is refusing to budge from your rather odd idea that the ONLY conceivable origin of morality is if one single human was given the idea as a gift from above.”
You hit the nail on the head. Except that it is not a mistake and really not so odd when there are millions who believe precisely that morality did ‘come from above’. The mistake that I hope you don’t find ‘odd’ later on is in those whose pride and intelligence exceeds the gift offered to all who will choose the gift.
Here it is in all its fundamentality:
Adam and Eve made a choice and ate of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Yes, then...the knowledge of good and evil did drop right out of the sky because God made it so. Don’t forget that it was their choice.
You....are not willing to believe (so far in your life) that God had man write these things, let alone that those things written in the Bible are even remotely true.
It is truly simple. You either believe it, or you don’t.
And I’m not forcing anything on you. You hang here an aweful lot. The choice is and has always been yours in what you will believe. All I want you to do is be exposed to maybe one thought you haven’t considered in life’s quest for knowledge.
None of this has any relevance to my acceptance or unwillingness to hear alternative views that you keep bringing up.
There is truth and there is everything else. Bible based faith for the believer is truth. If God does exist - uh yes he does - then nothing you or I believe will change his plan. We either accept his plan out of love for the truth and his son or not. The choice for us is what are we doing with our brief lives?
If I take the standpoint that I believe in all God says he is and does - what have I to lose for placing my faith in him? What is so valuable about this life that so many are willing to ignore a gift from God?
It all seems silly? What will you do when you find out is isn’t silly?
I never once said anything about apes or apedom.
It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to respond to what I WROTE and insists, repeatedly, on telling ME what *I* said, and then asking me to back up HIS twisting of my words.
So your big "evidence" is that "millions believe it".
By that "logic," since Islam is now the most popular religion on the planet, you'll be converting any day now. How could billions be wrong?
People who use popularity as their ultimate go-to for their beliefs have no logic or facts to stand on, only emotion.
“So your big “evidence” is that “millions believe it”.
By that “logic,” since Islam is now the most popular religion on the planet, you’ll be converting any day now. How could billions be wrong?
People who use popularity as their ultimate go-to for their beliefs have no logic or facts to stand on, only emotion.”
I never came close to saying my ‘big evidence’ was just that millions believe it. You are over simplifying me to justify your own stance.
The evidence to support belief is a Creator God is endless and has absolutely nothing to do with popularity. You’ve added the popularity idea to this conversation, not me.
Take all your Islam and popularity jibber jabber somewhere else.
Billions are in fact wrong....who actually think and believe all this is the result of chaos. There is zero logic in chaos, chance and the concept of evolution.
The choices are simple - you believe in chaos and chance, but can’t prove them, or you believe in a Supreme Being who created it all and yet, I cannot “prove” God because I cannot touch Him or show him to you (although his creation proves him - read Romans 1). In either case - faith and belief are requirements. What are you going to believe in?
Too simple for you? Leave it to mans ‘intelligence’ to complicate a simple existence....
“Man is without excuse...”
You are right Dark, here is what you said:
(knowledge of good and evil)“emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...
and you said you, “...never once said anything about apes or apedom.”
Now it sounds like you are implying humans are not from apes? Do you believe in evolution? Or are you saying this emergence of good and evil is a really modern emergence long after we dwelled in caves?
Please explain. What time frame did humans gain this knowledge of good and evil?
There is no rational discussion on this point when you cannot prove your point. You have no text or data whatsoever that can come close to explaining why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of good and evil. It is all your theory or a complacency to accept any glossy losely termed ‘explanation’ as long as its under the evolutionary umbrella.
I can tell you and show you good and evil exist. I can show you what the Bible says about its origins. I can tell you only humankind possesses knowledge of good and evil. And I can tell you that if you think we are merely a modern segment in a long chain of animal evolution, we would NOT have magically “emerged” at any point in time....with any form of a moral code. If so, prove it well beyond your words here: “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...
I do believe in evolution, or something like it. I just don't think it has anything to do with this discussion.
What time frame did humans gain this knowledge of good and evil?
I have no idea.
There is no rational discussion on this point when you cannot prove your point.
Which point?
You have no text or data whatsoever that can come close to explaining why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of good and evil.
The same reason why only a single species on the planet has the knowledge of the automobile.
And you have only one text and no data outside that single text that "proves" your belief in god, which is the same as no proof--but of course, you have faith, which is the opposite of proof. So you are asking me for proof, yet you don't believe in the need for proof in your own belief. Apples and oranges.
It is all your theory or a complacency to accept any glossy losely termed ‘explanation’ as long as its under the evolutionary umbrella.
You assume I think I know where the world came from and have all the answers. I don't. Neither do you. The difference is, I admit it.
I can tell you and show you good and evil exist.
So can I.
I can show you what the Bible says about its origins.
Meaningless. You point to a book as your authority, yet I don't recognize that single book's authority, so it means nothing to me.
I can tell you only humankind possesses knowledge of good and evil.
When did I claim other animals had such knowledge?
And I can tell you that if you think we are merely a modern segment in a long chain of animal evolution, we would NOT have magically “emerged” at any point in time....with any form of a moral code.
Of course you can tell me that. You can assert anything. You have not a shred of evidence outside of one religious book to back up your interpretation, though. And since I don't believe in the validity of that text as a holy book, it's meaningless to me. You can assert all you like and it wouldn't convince me of a thing.
If so, prove it well beyond your words here: “emerged over thousands of years of human behavior”...
I could fill a library with books proving my point. All you have is one book asserting yours.
From from post 211:
2Wheels:Except that it is not a mistake and really not so odd when there are millions who believe precisely that morality did ‘come from above’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.