Argggh
God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!
by Number1Anarchist 160 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
hamilcarr
Does this mean that right and wrong evolves? The right that I do today might be the wrong of tomorrow? Who tells me the "right" of today? Who determines the wrong of tomorrow?
Interesting questions, again. I think an evolutionary approach doesn't mean morality evolves but it entails a comparative perspective on different species' morality starting from the premise of common descent. If we do this we see a clear continuity from single-celled organism's cooperation (one needn't be an evolutionist to see this) to humans' altruism. It's logical to conlude there must be a universal adoption of cooperative behaviors, because morality (empathy and reciprocity) has an evolutionary advantage over individual selfish behaviour. For instance, multicellularity, which had led to the origin of humanity, is the result of single-celled cooperation.
This sounds very close to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself". But let's just go with your definition.
All major religions after approx. 7th century BC share such moral guidelines like the golden rule.
Empathy and reciprocity are absolute terms according to which we can measure morality.
-
AllTimeJeff
Thanks for your patience, the Mrs and I had a great dinner out....
The ability to choose right from wrong is not so much the question as: can man live up to any standard of "right" or 'wrong".
I think the answer is YES. This is proven by the amount of governments that have basic standards of right and wrong. Speaking for myself, I believe I live up to a proper standard of law, of right and wrong....
Any standard? Lets be frank, that is the point, because Christians have value systems (i.e. standards) that are different from others.
If we are talking about your chosen value systems, frankly, it comes down to who chooses to submit to your value system. If I do not submit to your standards, but otherwise hurt no one by my decisions, and am an honest responsible citizen, living up to a standard of right and wrong, then yes, I am living up to a high standard of right and wrong, even if it isn't yours, or recognizes your god.
When such value systems are enforced, as in the theocratic governments of the OT, then a standard becomes a matter of tyrannical law. And yes, that goes against the principles of freedom of thought, speech, and worship that we (hopefully) cherish in our Western democracies.
Theists often say that they are promoting what god will enforce. It is quite clear that god is not currently enforcing what his believers adhere to. That is the problem, and why I said in my last post that
History shows only man has enforced morality, often in the name of god, but always in the manifest absence of god.
In the absence of god enforcing his own "stated" standards of right and wrong (which are open to frequent interpretation) the evidence shows that only man enforces codes and morality on man alone. God thus far has not been part of the equation.
To be clear Perry, you have clearly adopted what you would like to believe is Gods standards, but I only hear and read your words.
-
Perry
hamilcarr,
Have you always been reciprocal and empathetic?
-
Perry
YES. This is proven by the amount of governments that have basic standards of right and wrong.
So if a government displays a basic standard of right and wrong, that is supposed to be "proof" that individuals can exactly follow all those rules in that basic standard? That is just fluffyness. I thought the term "I'm just human" was known the world over to mean that Man errs.
Speaking for myself, I believe I live up to a proper standard of law, of right and wrong....
So, YOU believe that. Do you have any enemies who might believe otherwise? What happens when your definition of "proper" conflicts with my definition of proper? Let's say you lie to me... for my own good of course; what role does perception play in these kinds of judgments? Have humans been known to deceive themselves for selfish purposes?
When such value systems are enforced... then a standard becomes a matter of tyrannical law.
So, in your view, values are just suggestions and should not be enforced lest they become tyrannical? Jeff, I am going to hold you to this the next time your house gets broken into, or someone steals your car. This sounds supremely hypocritical.
And yes, that goes against the principles of freedom of thought, speech, and worship that we (hopefully) cherish in our Western democracies.
Quite the opposite. Your subjective notions of right, wrong and lack of punishment would severely limit freedom for others. Unbelievers live in a world that is flying upside down. Because the psychological trauma of living a truly authentic life is so great, they seek blindness..... as a maladaptive survival mechanism. For a long time, there was no other option for man.
However, since Jesus Christ, the option to live authentically has been available.... the ability to fully embrace rule of law without fear of punishment, whether violations are known to other people or not. In Jesus, a person can answer the question honestly, "You who teach do not lie; do you lie? You you teach do not commit adultery; do you commit adultery"? All else is just illusion and untruth.
The truth of the matter is that you want wrongdoers to be punished. I do not believe your answer above that you do not want value systems enforced. When a person rejects Jesus, all a person can do is imagine to himself that (1) he is not a violator of law (as you have imagined), or (2) that God and Judgment Day do not exist, or (3) imagine that there is no such thing as right and wrong ...and hence no requirement for punishment.
-
AllTimeJeff
Another debate with Perry.....
So if a government displays a basic standard of right and wrong, that is supposed to be "proof" that individuals can exactly follow all those rules in that basic standard? That is just fluffyness.
What is the point of "exactly"? Why is "exactly" the point at all? I reject your premise. This equates mistakes, or even personal decisions, as sinful. By whose standard?
If there is no "exactly", there is no "sin". If there is no "sin", there is no need for what you and many other Christians of your type are selling. One major theological weakness to Christian theism is the need for redemption. Sin induces mental illness, and reinforces the religions power over people. Your attempt to make right or wrong about behaving "exactly", "correctly", "perfectly", or whatever semantical flavor you wish to put upon it is a false premise.
Mistakes are different from sin. Crimes are different from sin. Sin can only exist metaphysically, when one chooses to believe that some actions are offensive to an invisible being. As I do not believe in such a being, I do not believe in sin. Sin is a psychosomatic illness imo.
So, YOU believe that. Do you have any enemies who might believe otherwise? What happens when your definition of "proper" conflicts with my definition of proper? Let's say you lie to me... for my own good of course; what role does perception play in these kinds of judgments? Have humans been known to deceive themselves for selfish purposes?
I don't burden myself with what you think of me, nor do I particularly care about what my enemies (if I have any,) may think of me. However, you bring up lying, which is an excellent example. I have no issue saying that lying is wrong. If I lie to you, based on the content and circumstances, then you have a right in practically any society to prove the lie and receive compensation based on the laws of the land as a form of justice. This concept of righting a lie and being honest is not uniquely Christian at all, so no trademark can be given to YHWH or Jesus on this one.
And what does this have to do with bible god? Nothing. I maintain that god doesn't care, and you cannot prove otherwise. Telling me that you feel differently doesn't discharge the burden of proof that is upon you. Or "bible god".
You assert correctly that our definitions of "proper" matter. I would ask, has anything of a personal nature that I have done affected you Perry? If you can answer yes, then you have my attention. But we both know the answer. And since the answer is "my life and personal decisions do NOT conflict with your life", then it doesn't really matter.
Lets take that a step further, a controversial subject with Christians, homosexuality. Did you know Perry that it is a statistical probability that as you read this sentence, 2 gay people are having homosexual sex. And this would be affecting you how? If you do not view homosexuality as proper for you, why then is it not proper for others? If you are offended for god, I would submit that god should do his own talking for himself. As usual, a story from the bible (such as Sodom and Gomorrah) that is designed to scare and raise up prejudice only proves a story was written, not that god exists.
So, in your view, values are just suggestions and should not be enforced lest they become tyrannical? Jeff, I am going to hold you to this the next time your house gets broken into, or someone steals your car.
I probably should have made more clear that in your context, the value systems that I was referring to are uniquely "fundamentalist Christian". On items where we agree and which you allude to in your last response, such as lying or theft, someone is hurt. You and I agree that because personal injury occurs, there needs to be consequences. We agree, and history shows that society's of all types and religious backgrounds have held theft and lying as crimes. This is not a trademark Christian discovery and proves nothing as to the superiority of YHWH or Jesus, or the "values" fundamentalists seem to champion.
In matters of personal decisions that harm no one else is where you and I disagree. Your attempts to tie in personal choices of behavior, like who sleeps with who, and linking them to crimes such as breaking and entering and lying are a false dichotomy. Thus when I refer to values in this context, I am referring to bible condemnation of behaviors that harm no one. I hope you will be able to better understand what I mean now.
Quite the opposite. Your subjective notions of right, wrong and lack of punishment would severely limit freedom for others. Unbelievers live in a world that is flying upside down. Because the psychological trauma of living a truly authentic life is so great, they seek blindness..... as a maladaptive survival mechanism. For a long time, there was no other option for man.
However, since Jesus Christ, the option to live authentically has been available.... the ability to fully embrace rule of law without fear of punishment, whether known to other men or not. In Jesus, a person can answer the question honestly, "You who teach do not lie; do you lie? You you teach do not commit adultery; do you commit adultery"? All else is just illusion and untruth.
On this, we disagree. There is no context for further discussion. If I understand you, you maintain that punishment is necessary for the breaking of a law (i.e. what is right) I agree. But your worldview is to divide between believers and unbelievers.
You made the following statement, and it is really shocking to me, so I wouldn't mind you clarifying it. You said regarding unbelievers
Because the psychological trauma of living a truly authentic life is so great, they seek blindness..... as a maladaptive survival mechanism.
That is a subjective conclusion for which you cannot offer any proof other then you believe what you read in the bible. I know the "Apostle" Paul spoke about this a lot. Paul is also on my shit list for his misogynistic, power consolidating writings. He was not right in the head. (if he actually wrote the books credited to him) I don't recognize his thoughts as binding, thus, I am happily free of the burden of sin. This is not because Jesus died. (I know he died, on this we agree) I am free of the affects of sin because I reject the notion that guilt based on the writings of ancient scrolls are not to be binding on thinking people. My mental health is much better since I have rejected "bible god".
-
Perry
What is the point of "exactly"? Why is "exactly" the point at all? I reject your premise. This equates mistakes, or even personal decisions, as sinful. By whose standard?
Jeff, the question was, can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong? A standard is something that must be met. The term "standard" implies measurability. With the ideas you put forth, I believe it obvious that they are impossible to exactly measure. (Q) Why did you lie to me? (A) It was just a mistake so don't worry about it. (A2) I made a personal decision to not hurt you with the truth, so I lied.
So I reject YOUR premise. Your terms "mistakes" and "personal decisions" are completely subjective and thus synonyms for a lack of standard, which of course was the original question. You could have maintained a logical position by simply stating that that question could not (or should not) be asked of humans. Instead you change the question.
This isn't a beleiver, unbeliever question, it is just a question. The fact that governments exist isn't proof at all that man can follow any standard as you assert, is it? Of course not. I'm not sure why you would even bring that up. It seems totally irrelevant. But since you did, I'll ask you a question about it.
Doesn't the complexity of government actually prove that man cannot live up to the standard "love thy neighbor"? How much govt. would be necessary otherwise? Doesn't man have to be threatened with punishment every day just to function? Even then it barely works (morning traffic for instance). And of course, just a threat isn't enough is it? It has to be actually demonstrated to have an effect doesn't it?
If our governments function this way, why would you deny this responsibility to God? In areas where you and I agree, do you believe that if there is an all seeing God, that he would be derelict if he saw wrongdoing and he did not punish the perp?
-
Perry
Empathy and reciprocity are absolute terms according to which we can measure morality.
hamilcarr,
Can you provide a couple of examples of this in action so I'll know more about how to interpret what you mean?
-
hamilcarr
Have you always been reciprocal and empathetic?
It's both an individual duty and a collective effort.
can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?
Sure, it's contrary to nature not to live up to any standard (cf. previous posts).
Can you provide a couple of examples of this in action so I'll know more about how to interpret what you mean?
Reciprocity= basis for human rights. The mere existence of human rights is evidence of its existence.
In a nutshell = right to just treatment + duty to assure other's right to justice
In practice = I defend your right to profess your faith, you accept my right not to adhere to any religious creed.
-
Perry
Have you always been reciprocal and empathetic?
It's both an individual duty and a collective effort.
Is that a Yes or NO?
Sure, it's contrary to nature not to live up to any standard (cf. previous posts).
Can you provide a clear example of this? Because in every culture I've ever looked at, they were full of people who occasionally failed to live up to various standards, hence the saying..."That's just human nature". For most people, they just accept as an observable fact the opposite of what you seem to assert.
Are you sure you have an example of this? This seems wildly off base.