|
| Thread: Some thoughts in favor Of God |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:10 PM |
|
|
Of course I come from the other side, so-to-speak.
Christians DID do a lot of bad stuff - most of them doubtlessly believing it was right and just and all that.
That's why Quote:
I think the thing that matters is the "intent" or "truth of the heart" and not the actual result or <IMO> Forgiveness would be out-of- bounds
I don't believe in this idea.
What an action is, is - in the end - ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY determined by the result. If you are angry, and someone offends you badly, and you react by shoving him away, and the offender stumbles and sits down on his butt - no problem. Do the same thing and the offender stumbles, falls, hits his head on a sharp edge and dies - same action, world of difference.
Which means, life may offer you a bunch of very difficult decisions, confront you with lots of situations, and if you do the wrong thing, it doesn't help that you did it with the best of or at least no bad intentions.
Which justifies the question, whether there even IS something like good and evil, or whether "evil" isn't just the consequence of pain and suffering, which will lead to always more pain and suffering, and of getting used to pain and suffering when surrounded by it, to become indifferent against it, enabling to let others suffer, and whether the rest of "evil" may not just be illness-related. Think of a rabid dog - it's not evil, it's ill. It's suffering.
Anyway. Just a couple of cents tossed in.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course I come from the other side, so-to-speak.
Christians DID do a lot of bad stuff - most of them doubtlessly believing it was right and just and all that.
And I agreed with you. All sorts of folks have walked that path.
Quote:
Quote:
I think the thing that matters is the "intent" or "truth of the heart" and not the actual result or <IMO> Forgiveness would be out-of- bounds
Quote:
I don't believe in this idea.
What an action is, is - in the end - ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY determined by the result. If you are angry, and someone offends you badly, and you react by shoving him away, and the offender stumbles and sits down on his butt - no problem. Do the same thing and the offender stumbles, falls, hits his head on a sharp edge and dies - same action, world of difference.
Okay. Can we use law instead? <IMO> "Intent" does matter or there would not be "Pre-meditated murder" and "Manslaughter" for someone being killed.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nature seems to like recycling so maybe when all the black holes have united and devoured every last piece of the universe it will all start over? Like a recycling Big Bang?
Hell maybe it'll all be the exact same thing again forever. Maybe we're stuck in a loop that has been going on for eternity?
Can't really know for sure.
Because:
-that model of the universe does not match our observations.
-the amount of usable energy in the universe is continually lessening. Entropy. The universe is still expanding and there is no evidence at all that it will collapse into a central point and another Big Bang will occur. The "Yo-Yo" theroy is pretty much impossible.
Quote:
Restricting myself to just saying "God did it" and delving deeper into that truth would make me stop evolving intellectually I think (just like saying "God did not do it", same thing)
Actually, you can thank Christians for modern science and you seem to be unaware of all the early scientific advancement and funding of science by Christians. Just because we believe God caused it instead of "nuthindidit" does not mean we are not curious about how he did it. To me a person refusing to consider the possiblity that God did it is refusing to delve into the truth and stops evolving intellectually.
Quote:
It is fanaticism, the belief in a perfect and universal truth that killed all the men, women and children when people here say "religion killed this" or "atheism killed that", not the religion itself.
If someone defies your only truth, it is quite natural that you'd be angered.
Well, certainly noone has ever been driven to kill because of the universal truth that man should love his neighbor as himself. Noone who has taken Christ's teachings to heart will murder anyone.
Therefore I advocate an open mind, believe in what you want but explore the other possible explanations.
Oh yes, I believe in keeping an open mind. When I left the denomination of my parents I paid a cost in relationships. Thankfully those have been restored. 
While I have studied the Bible for 36 years I have studied other religions to better understand them. One long time friend is a new age guru though I seldom speak with anymore since we live in different cities now. I'm not Catholic but a good friend of mine is a Catholic priest. From my observations on the forum I am more familiar with the content of the Qu'ran than anyone else who posts in the OSM and have quoted it quite a few times when referencing Muslim beliefs and what the Qu'ran teaches.
Quote:
1910, you miss the point. When a christian is killing someone, he is no longer a christian because Elodin says so.
Your statement does not reflect what I have said many times over. Christ clearly stated that anyone who does not follow his teachings is not his. The New Testament clearly states that no murderer has eternal life. There are times when it is ok to kill someone. Like a soldier justly killing an enemy soldier or a person defending himself or his family. Those instances are not murder.
Quote:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quote:
No, we would live in dark ages, totalitarian and bloodless social system, where the poor, the handicapped and the not lucky will have no other option than die slowly in pain.
Yet there are many thousands of Christian orphanages, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, ect. Sadly atheits have created such organizations as the anti-theistic "Freedom from Religion Foundation" but not matching charitable organizations.
Quote:
I don't understand the fuss with Christians doing right, and if not they are not Christians.
I'm not aware of anyone who says a Christian is incapable of sin. Only that Christians don't hate or murder or live in continual sin. Those are the New Testament teachings and it is the New Testament that defines who is a Christian and who is not. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is.
Quote:
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:34, 19 Nov 2010.
|
@Markkur
Intent matters legally because it is a measure of how likely a person would be to a repeat offender.
But does it matter morally or ethically? I'm not so sure. If you killed my son by smacking him in the head with a baseball bat out of anger, I don't think it would make any difference to my life whether you actually meant to kill him or not, outside of how likely you would be to be apologetic about it.
In the end, intents matter, but ultimately effects matter more directly.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:48 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 18:51, 19 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
But does it matter morally or ethically? I'm not so sure. If you killed my son by smacking him in the head with a baseball bat out of anger, I don't think it would make any difference to my life whether you actually meant to kill him or not, outside of how likely you would be to be apologetic about it.
In the end, intents matter, but ultimately effects matter more directly.
No argument here. I never said it was the only thing. I will say it does matter a "great deal" to me...maybe more than it does to most others. I will also add that I don't want to go very far down this path because I don't see law as "perfect" either and there are <IMO> many difficulties there too. Seems there are with most anything these days.
Edit = I have to add this. Your example made me both sad and sick to my stomach. I have a Son and even the thought of doing that... just had to share that for some reason.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't believe in this idea.
What an action is, is - in the end - ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY determined by the result. If you are angry, and someone offends you badly, and you react by shoving him away, and the offender stumbles and sits down on his butt - no problem. Do the same thing and the offender stumbles, falls, hits his head on a sharp edge and dies - same action, world of difference.
I think most people who disagree that intention does not matter. If you are at a street corner and accidentally bump someone into the path of an oncoming car and he dies you have not committed murder. You may have been careless and negligent but you did not murder him.
The Bible recognizes the difference between accidentally killing an man and doing it deliberately. Deliberate murder carried the death penalty in the Old Covenant. Accidentally causing someone's death did not.
If someone committed a murder he could be hunted by the next of kin, the avenger of blood. A person could flee to a city of refuge if they accidentally killed someone and a trial would be held. If it was found that deliberately killed the person the community would execute the murderer (Exodus 21:12-14.) If he was found innocent the avenger of blood could no longer hunt him and the community would not kill him.
Quote:
Jos 20:9 These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.
Quote:
Which justifies the question, whether there even IS something like good and evil, or whether "evil" isn't just the consequence of pain and suffering, which will lead to always more pain and suffering, and of getting used to pain and suffering when surrounded by it, to become indifferent against it, enabling to let others suffer, and whether the rest of "evil" may not just be illness-related. Think of a rabid dog - it's not evil, it's ill. It's suffering.
Oh yes, there is good an evil. A person rapes someone in a coma. The person in the coma is unaware and thus had no pain or suffering. The rape was still an evil action.
Evil actions are driven by self-centeredness usually. Self is god and who cares what the actions do to another person. Self-centeredness is not a "mental illness."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
Aren't you all (except Corribus) somewhat beside the point? The intentions are nothing without circumstances.
In war I kill DELIBERATELY. I WANT to kill (the enemy). Bad intention? Well, yes, for those killed. But the killers do it in somewhat good intention.
That is, "intention" is somewhat complicated, since "intention" may depend on a lot of factors and how you rate circumstances.
Everything is pretty frigging relative. Killing intentionally is evil - except if you do it to prohibit greater evil. Or if you do it, because you BELIEVE you will prohibit greater evil? What IS greater evil?...
Which is one of the resons why I disagree with you, Elodin. Completely.
See, the good-evil "definition" leads to a plethora of paradoxes - the only possible conclusion here is that the definitions are simply nonsense. The fact that there are so many paradoxes is evidence enough for this. The definitions make no sense.
If your comatose woman was the only woman living, raping her for her to get pregnant and make sure survival of the race was possible, the rape was NOT evil. Or if it was "evil", it didn't matter in the face of the alternative.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Aren't you all (except Corribus) somewhat beside the point? The intentions are nothing without circumstances.
In war I kill DELIBERATELY. I WANT to kill (the enemy). Bad intention? Well, yes, for those killed. But the killers do it in somewhat good intention.
No, wanting to kill an enemy soldier on the battlefield is not a bad intention. Warfare is soldier killing soldier.
Wanting to kill a home invader is not a bad intention. When evil pepole want to kill me or my family I have every right to kill them to prevent it.
An example of an evil killing is to kill a convience store clerk so nobody can identify you as the robber of the store. Or killing an unborn child because you are afraid missing work will cause you to miss out on a promotion. A promotion is a good thing so you could say she wanted a good thing. But her actions were evil nonetheless because she took a human life that she had no right to take.
Quote:
Which is one of the resons why I disagree with you, Elodin. Completely.
See, the good-evil "definition" leads to a plethora of paradoxes - the only possible conclusion here is that the definitions are simply nonsense. The fact that there are so many paradoxes is evidence enough for this. The definitions make no sense.
If your comatose woman was the only woman living, raping her for her to get pregnant and make sure survival of the race was possible, the rape was NOT evil. Or if it was "evil", it didn't matter in the face of the alternative.
No, good-evil definitions lead to no paradox. You assume raping another person to ensure humanity survives is good. I say it is evil. Raping a child because it would somehow cure AIDS is evil. Rape is evil. Which is why I disagree with you. There is absolute right and absolute wrong.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 09:33 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 21:54, 19 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Aren't you all (except Corribus) somewhat beside the point? The intentions are nothing without circumstances.
But I did give "Planned vs Accidental"death. Law is set-up that way to address the different circumstances...its not my thoughts..it's the judgment of the Court of Law. One was intended, the other not, yet a crime happened in both cases and the sentences are not the same.
@ Corribus I don't think I was beside your point. I've made every effort to be concise, but let me know if my response is reading that way.
Edit = Ok JJ I see what I did not do; I did not put a "big qualifier" in my response to you. It should have had "To me" in the line but did indeed read as if it were all "Intent" and should be the "rule" Sorry about the omission. I keep thinking without doing ALL the typing at times.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, you can thank Christians for modern science and you seem to be unaware of all the early scientific advancement and funding of science by Christians.
No I am quite aware of the advances.
However, it can only take us that far. If we want to keep going we have to delve into other possibilites as well. Exploring other beliefs can strengthen your own faith as well as your mind, as you mentioned.
Quote:
To me a person refusing to consider the possiblity that God did it is refusing to delve into the truth and stops evolving intellectually.
I agree, though I do not consider christianity "truth", nor any other belief really. (I'm one of them annoying agnostic types)
Ignoring a possibility because of some sort of personal moral like "believing in god is dumb" or something would be quite ignorant.
We are not in disagreement.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 11:47 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Of course, intention does matter. But it matters not because of itself but because it often leads to an action. Distinguishing between accidental death and murder is necessary because the intent to murder can lead to murder. But intention by itself, without an accompanying action, means nothing. Suppose some guy intends to shoot his boss, but then gets distracted along the way and goes to a bar instead. No punishment there, because there's nothing to punish.
And of course rape is evil. But allowing the continued existence of AIDS isn't good, either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 11:49 PM |
|
|
Rape, why is it evil? That is to ask if you, Elodin, have arguments beyond: "It's evil because it's evil."
When you deny the significance of the results of the rape (saving mankind, curing aids, causing harm to the beraped) in the moral value of rape, you step into the lands of deontology.
Deontological ethics, in comparison to teleological ethics, are about the value of acts themselves instead of their results. The big problem, however, is philosophically justifying the claims made on the nature of these acts.
Is there a way to evaluate the act on itself?
Perhaps you could claim that people can intuitively tell what acts are evil. There is the problem that people have different intuitions. What would make yours any better than theirs?
On the other hand you might invoke the authority that God has on the matter, which is then a question of the existence of God and of what He's like and also, the meat of the matter:
Why would God think that rape is evil?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 06:10 AM |
|
|
@Keksimaton - Falls under the category lust, which is a deadly sin.
@Elodin - Check your HCM
All the others keep it clean.
____________
Message received.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 12:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Rape, why is it evil? That is to ask if you, Elodin, have arguments beyond: "It's evil because it's evil."
Why would God think that rape is evil?
You know that I cannot speak for God. I have seen and heard rape victums. The way they look and the sound of their voice answer that for me. If lowly Markkur is capable of that compassion than I must assume a "greater love" than mine is going to see and know, far more than me. I will never be able to prove that and would not even try but I do believe God's "Spark" is in all of us and we can see him "in that way".
@ Everyone
How would you define Evil? I would define it at least for starters; "An act that harms another person".
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 02:07 PM |
|
|
As I said, I wouldn't.
Good and evil, in my opinion, are concepts that are based on wrong ideas, which explains the problems in defining it. The concepts are, if you think about it, purely hypothetical and mere assumptions.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said, I wouldn't./quote]
I know JJ. I wasn't attempting anything more than tring (in a poor fashion) to explain something deep inside me.
Quote:
Good and evil, in my opinion, are concepts that are based on wrong ideas, which explains the problems in defining it. The concepts are, if you think about it, purely hypothetical and mere assumptions.
To JJ and @
I agree to a degree. And that is one of OUR most difficult problems in talking about anything. As I wrote in the "Rules of Conduct" with many more words We are all at "distances" from each other. We all have so many things that can alter what a given word "means" to us.
Let me take this "my" direction. Not meaning the course of this discussion nor the thread..."Target is me...Markkur the Mage"
I was once told that I was a "good guy" and didn't need my "new" Faith. Needless to say I know me better than they do and I knew that was a load of BS. Good? By what def.? You know the answer....none given...just a..."feeling"?
Well that wasn't good enough for me and I have long since been on a path ever-since to define it in a real tangible way by my actions towards others.
I.e. "Yielding w/ my children when it's not life or death, to a need of their's to go get cut-up the same way I did." Was that decision "Good"? That would depend on who I asked. But "To me" it was because "with my ruling def. of "Good" being "doing something for the benefit of others" I yielded when I realized they could not and would not know the experince without feeling the fire. As much as I would have liked them to bypass the futility (at first glance)it was not about me, the focus was on them.
So, even though my def.s on G and E are debateable I'm more concerned if they are "workable".
Just a side note: I don't even like terms like Christian, Rep.Dem, etc. (Any term these days) because they are too often inaccurate.
Saying I am a Liberal or Conservative is a "blanketing-label" to me. I vary, depending on the topic and I think most do. So, even the way "conflicts are approached" can begin with serious misunderstandings before either "side" (another dislike) utter/type a word.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 04:26 PM |
|
|
Any worldview that can't account for rape as evil is somewhat suspect.
"Physical law" derives from the nature of space, time, and matter. Likewise "natural law" derives from the nature of man and the world. A philosopher can choose to disbelieve in the law of gravity but he will nonetheless be unable to fly because of his own nature and the nature of the universe. Likewise a society can be built that rejects natural law and it will fail.
Man is a maker of things and an owner of things. Each man is a unique individual. Man is a social being. But unlike a bee man does not become a mindless drone in his association with others. He will work with and cooperate with others but desires to "be his own man." Natural law then follows from human nature and the nature of the world around us. Man has the desire and right to live, to be free and to peruse his dreams. The fruits of a man's life are his to rejoice in or to greave over. He can chose to share his prosperity with others. He can chose to ask others to help him. He can chose to stand alone.
Man knows or can discover what he needs to do in order to lead the life that he is physically fitted to live just as mere animals can do. It is within the capacity of man to know how to form relationships with others without harming them. Natural law is discoverable by rational man.
Natural law does not derive from the customs of civilized people. Natural law provides a basis for judging whether or not a people is civilized.
The Ten Commandments are God declaring that natural law was his idea. The way he purposefully made things. God ratifying natural law and saying man will be held accountable for it.
Quote:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law [of Moses] shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law [of Moses], do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rape is obviously evil because every good man cries out in outrage when he hears of rape. Rape is obviously evil. "Thou shalt not rape" is natural law that is easily discoverable or already within man.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Everyone
How would you define Evil? I would define it at least for starters; "An act that harms another person".
I would start by not defining it.
The fact that people think there is such a thing as "evil", is just stupid. What "evil" is, is nothing more than a black and white morality where "evil" is the side you are not suppose to be on.
People hate people, and people is really good at gruesomely killing people. People are good at hating and discriminating, at some long time line perspective we can claim that it hurts society, and from that claim its a bad thing.
But if we do lack a black and white morality, we would just see a few things as bad qualities.
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 17:02, 20 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
@ Everyone
How would you define Evil? I would define it at least for starters; "An act that harms another person".
Quote:
I would start by not defining it.
That's fine, but for my intentions, If I want to give a person something to cuss/discuss "with me", I have to make give sort of definition.
Quote:
But if we do lack a black and white morality, we would just see a few things as bad qualities.
If I am understanding you correctly;
I don't care lots for Black and white thinking at times and most of the time it is because Gray is Not allowed. But, <IMO> it is used in all sorts of ways "for many purposes" to make communication possible. If Definitions of the words that we all use were not in Black and White (pre-decided)than every word in a sentence like this could have thousands of defs. and communication would be impossible about anything. History, Higher Math etc. Again only <imo> Concepts "almost by default" require this "first effort". even more than single-words.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 06:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In stead of defining evil, maybe just define what is "not" good?
Define what is good and all exception of this, don't call it evil, just call it 'not good'.
Now notice it's not black/white. It's not, if it isn't good it must be evil. An action could be considered neutral, or maybe something completely else! Only your imagination sets a limit, really.
For me personally, I'd like that everyone have the possibility to get what they want without limiting what others want. Hopefully in a system,where the limit that follows from "without limiting what others wnat" is actually zero, thereby meaning you can do whatever you want, without ever being able to in anyway limit others through their senses in form of experience, emotions and whatever else there may be.
Good response. Your "Neutral" is my Gray". Your last sentence of definition is another way (more detailed) and is "in agreement" with "this indiviudals meaning" of "My concept of Not doing Evil" meaning doing the long list of good things and avoiding all the long list of not-good things.
What I think is sortof coming on my radar-screen within this discussion is "Change". Here's what I mean;
Evil is only a rope "to me". It is handy to corral up all the undersirable stuff. But I am a product of something "like" this; Time(Age I lived and Age)+Cultures+Influences+Individuality.
At no time, no matter my beliefs, has Evil been an undesirable term to me. Yet, clearly it is to many others.
I think we are closer together than farther apart but that's just a thought. Saying the same thing to a degree with the rest being individuality.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
