- Thread starter
- #21
LOL! I doubt that being a neocon changes anything about a person, except their political beliefs. But thanks for the encouragement.Dr Grump said:You're not. He's a neocon. 'Nuff said?:gross2:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL! I doubt that being a neocon changes anything about a person, except their political beliefs. But thanks for the encouragement.Dr Grump said:You're not. He's a neocon. 'Nuff said?:gross2:
Matrixx8 said:That's quote a loaded question, RA, but I'll tell you what I think. The only answer I know is the one that evolutionary science explains. Moral codes are survial tools. Eating healthy food is "right"; eating poisionous food is "wrong". Tit for tat is a common human emotion. Treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect. The evolutionary version of the Golden Rule! Killing people is the antithesis of survival ethics. The earliest hunter-gatherer societies understood that and developed codes to punish those who murdered, raped, stole or broke the tribal rules. Without such codes, they would not have survived and you or I would not be here to write about it.
Your "aberrant sexual orientation" is a value judgment about a human activity that reflects a personal choice and has little or no effect on other people. Such behaviour, whether one tolerates, approves or disapproves of it, does not harm other human beings, if the activity is voluntary. There are even evolutionary explanations about the role of homosexuals as extended family, much like explanations about the role of religion as a psychological tool for dealing with catastrophes and traumas.
As to whether or not I'm closed minded, you'll have to judge for yourself. I've taken the time to answer your question, even though it expresses an attitude that I personally find unenlightened.
On the other hand, I could be wrong.
Dr Grump said:I though God has no image. He/she is what she/he is?? I see both the OT and NT and the Koran etc as nothing more than allegorical (in most cases)....
rtwngAvngr said:Not image literally, but created with capacities to appreciate and amplify his love.
rtwngAvngr said:It's like knowing the bus schedule, but not knowing who will be on board each segment of the route.
jillian said:That's actually an interesting analogy, because it sort of fits with what I believe, which is He isn't a micro-manager (so all this stuff about thanking Him for one's Oscar or Emmy or Superbowl win is kinda funny) but sort of lays out a grand plan.
jillian said:There are those who believe we're actually in the image of the Hebrew letters for His name when they are written vertically.
rtwngAvngr said:That's trippy!
rtwngAvngr said:Yeah. He's kind of like the trusting dad, who will give you enough room to screw up, but who will also cheer you on when you're down, and point you the way.
jillian said:That's actually an interesting analogy, because it sort of fits with what I believe, which is He isn't a micro-manager (so all this stuff about thanking Him for one's Oscar or Emmy or Superbowl win is kinda funny) but sort of lays out a grand plan.
Thanks, RA. I agree with you about pedophilia. But I don't think it's as much a moral issue as it is a bio-chemical malfunction. I would put it in the same category as kleptomania or other compulsions, for example, except that the consequences of pedilfilia are much more dangerous.rtwngAvngr said:Good stuff. And I mostly agree, except for pedophiles who's behavior is unfair to innocent children. These are gods rules too.
Abbey Normal said:I agree. When people do that, I often wonder if they thought it through, because it would sort of mean that God doesn't like the other team very much, wouldn't it? But it is nice to see people give some of the glory to God for their situation, instead of taking it all for themselves. It's as subtle difference, I'll admit.
jillian said:How do you put that together with the concept that everything is planned and can't be changed?
Dr Grump said:hhmmmm...intersting insight. Wouldn't it have been better for an omnipotent being just to get those to do what he wants without free will. I know you will probably answer, "well, then he/she wouldn't be god if that were the case". I'm still trying to figure out why the big "get" is to love and believe in him/her unconditionally. Can't get my head around it.
Matrixx8 said:Indeed. Nor does it preclude the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden.
5stringJeff said:I think I know what you're getting at... everything isn't planned out per se, but God, being omniscient, knows everything that will happen. However, this isn't a contradiction, because God isn't the immediate cause of every choice that is made or every event that occurs.
<br>According to the Bible, Exodus 21:7, you may sell your daughter into slavery.5stringJeff said:According to the Bible, God is love (see 1 John 4:10). It's not that God has the attribute of love, like He has the attribute of omnipotence or omnibenevolence; He is love, in His very being. That's why God acts in love towards His creation - it would be impossible for Him to act contrarily. It would be like telling God to quit being eternal or quit being infinite.
This is an interesting point, one that Harris deals with in his essay. How would you respond to this statement?5stringJeff said:I think I know what you're getting at... everything isn't planned out per se, but God, being omniscient, knows everything that will happen. However, this isn't a contradiction, because God isn't the immediate cause of every choice that is made or every event that occurs.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish Gods goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
Dr Grump said:But being God fearing, does it ever make you wonder why evil exists? Why a God allows it?
Matrixx8 said:<br>According to the Bible, Exodus 21:7, you may sell your daughter into slavery.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev. 25:44, you may own slaves.
<br>According to the Bible, Exodus 35:2, people who work on Sundays should be put to death.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev.24:10-16, the punishment for blaspheme is stoning.
<br>According to the Bible, Lev. 20:14, the punishment for sleeping with in-laws is burning to death.
<p>
What criteria do you use, I wonder, to decide which Biblical pronouncements you will follow and which you will not?