Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by GT WT, Apr 10, 2012.
That's a good point, Dionysus. Loyalty is rarely a virtue.
Ironically, though, your contention that people follow the religion of the cultural upbringing is minimized by the fact that you left your own. Mans behavior, like pragmatism, will never be a measure of truth.
I propose fulfilled prophecy. Matthew 16:18 and Acts 1:8 are two compelling ones in my view.
I second your proposal, stormhorn, and would add Matthew 20:18-19, Mark 10:33-34 and Luke 18:31-33 to your list of prophecies fulfilled. IHG.
In reply to:
Good to see you Coelacanth,
Good to see you, GT.
Good stuff there, Coel. Really makes you think - enlightening. I figured a topic like this fits your wheelhouse of philosophical experience very well. Hopefully I’ll think of something intelligent to add, but at this point, I’m struggling to find a way to push your discussion further forward. – and it’s finals week, so I really don’t have the time. Good stuff. Look forward to any insight from GT, too.
This is untrue. We as a society musr stop seeing God as a mostly mad, mostly sad Dad that wants to smack us. What does God say in John 10:10 (NKJV)10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
There is no way to assign malaria to God.
Being a Christian is not about asking God to give you strength to help you get over life's hurdles. Being a Christian is asking Christ to live in you and BE your strength. When you go to the airport you do not ask the ticket agent to give you the ability to fly to your destination on your own, you ask to be flown. No one is able to live a righteous life on their own. Becoming a Christian means trusting Christ to get you through life by leaning entirely on Him. Proverbs 3 vs. 5-6 says: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."
Nature, and the universe, is indifferent: there is no love and there is no hate with those entities. Those are merely labels applied by us humans to either help us understand things, or more likely, to make us feel better about our place in the universe.
Perham, I'd prefer you apply your analytic knife to the more general substance of my most recent post, so that we can begin to determine whether it has any value, or to what degree it has value. Going off in some new direction about dogma is perhaps interesting, but why would I follow you down that road when there's still plenty of argument to process from my most recent post, and I assume there's plenty there that can be refuted, especially by someone as wise and intelligent as yourself. If I go off down this new road and chase the dogma diversion and work up some thoughtful response, I worry that you'll simply dart off to some other dark corner of theodicy and leave my response un-processed.
We have plenty to work with. Let's just be patient with the argument that's in front of us for now.
Part of a reasoned and respectable conversation or debate with an opposing view is to respect the beliefs of others. Most any person of faith would capitalize "God" or "Allah" or "Buddha". It may not bother others but it would go a long way in showing your are willing to have an honest respectable discussion. Even Hitchens did it.
No point responding to F until my responses to A, B, C, D, and E get some feedback.
I'll leave rah to someone who still believes you're after the truth.
Every once in a while a thread surprises you.
Coel covered a lot of it, particular the issue of assigning our definition of love and our perception of how a "loving God" has to act. But I do want to address this:
GT, I was hoping you would respond to Coel's response to you on April 29th, 2012. He left it only 8 hours after you wrote. Did he cover everything?
I remember this one provoked me to read a bit more on this subject, so let me share some things I’ve learned. Now – I know we’re all smart enough to prove our points, so not really wanting to open up a big endless dialog, but just demonstrate some stuff I learned and how Darwin explains our reactions to this topic.
When God kills in the Bible (Egyptians and the Moses Crusades), we acknowledge that as for the greater good. For who’s greater good? For the greater good of the Hebrews - not the “others”. We associate ourselves with the group of Hebrews, not the group of Egyptians who lost their most precocious and sacred innocent children. Imagine another group who claimed their God killed your child – and what a great thing it was. And then, to celebrate this as some great event every year.
When we kill innocents in war, we don't see that as evil - but collateral damage for the greater good. Muslims see our “mistakes” as evil manifestations. They see our selective decisions to go to war as evil and greed. They see our Vietnam and Hiroshimas as evidence we are a nation ruled by a false God. We killed countless innocent people through our wars, yet we don’t denounce our military as “evil” where someone outside of our tribe does. We are against those tragedies, but we don’t stand on pulpits to heavily criticize our government for these actions. It simply wouldn’t be good for us individually because our tribe would see it as a betrayal.
The "greater good" based morality on evil is derived through our social biology. People not in our perceived "in group" are of lesser consequence. Muslims do this to Christians very overtly (as an easily understood example). Christians did this to Muslims a century or so ago. During the Puritan times (or later local municipalities with theocratic governments – Salem), Christians killed anyone seen as a threat to the tribe’s belief.
Damage to us is “evil”. The damage “we” propagate to others is a necessary goal to promote our tribe and protect us from the other tribe’s intent to steal our resources. It’s okay and even funny to see “OU SUX!!” but seen as rude and ignorant to hear “TEXASS SUCKS!!”. Political party and college affiliation is just a manifestation of our deep seated need to be in a group.
This social makeup of the human species that makes us so powerful. We are not fast or strong, but we do form extremely tight social groups (like other animals). Since our frail human body didn’t have fast legs, sharp teeth, or strong claws, our species developed great social capabilities to compete. We needed a big brain to perfect that skill, and as Darwin predicted, here we are. Social systems are not unique to modern humans, but we did perfect it. I don't think anyone would have predicted that the ability to "be social" was such a key in making us the most powerful species on the planet.
Christians defend their tribe from attacks like Darwinism because without the tribal instinct, we wouldn't be where we are today. Irony
Selflessness, honesty, and loyalty are our most important traits (all these traits are benefits to the tribe), and those traits are not unique to Christians - but what all humans say in their various beliefs/philosophies (to benefit the tribe). Without those traits, we banish you from the tribe. Good luck getting laid now! However, there is a seed of selfishness needed for survival, so we still have that, too.
I don't think it can be refuted that, in Christian theology, the Christian god created malaria. Dionysus pretty much "proved" the Biblical foundation upthread.
What's dangerous to civilization is the idea that in such a negative thing, there somehow lurks a "greater good". That philosophy leads to much mischief and unbounded evil.
sin is parasitic upon righteousness. i believe disease is parasitic upon that which is naturally good. malaria is a distortion of something good or it is merely the parasitic expression of evil in a physical form. Dionysius appealed to Isaiah 45:7, but the word in the Hebrew (Transliterated "rah") is a word that means quite a few things. "Evil" is one translation, but so is "calamity, disaster" etc. In other words, when translated to English in the context of Isaiah 45, which is speaking primarily of natural disasters, it would be better to translate it as "calamity or disaster" and most translators since the KJV have chosen that understanding. This is not an ethical evil but a natural disaster concept.
well, I, for one, am glad we got all that straightened out.
The problem of evil is a double edged sword that cuts both directions. I actually heard a presentation by an Episcopal priest last summer who had become an atheist and a journalist who was confronted with the problem of evil in Rwanda or Somalia (I can't remember which). After seeing the horrible evil in the world, he considered that only a worldview that contains God in it could explain the moral outrage and disgust he felt at evil when he saw it. He took a journey and became a follower of Jesus and eventually a priest. It was a fascinating talk, but I have long thought that not believing in God because of evil is equivalent to believing in God because of evil.
interesting take. I agree. I am constantly amazed at the ability for either great good or great evil to surface even in my own thoughts, motives or intentions.
Ain’t it the truth. It’s like the little angel sitting on one shoulder and a little devil on the other, constantly trying to coax us in the direction of good behavior or bad.
David Stove, and atheist philosopher does a pretty good job of explaining how evolution does not and can not explain why humans are the way we are. He also rejects any claims of there being a god, but he came to the realization that Darwin got it pretty much all wrong in terms of human development, nature, and civilization. His book is called Darwinian Fairytales.
I don’t know what Stove’s central argument is, but I have heard Richard Dawkins say that “strict” Darwinism no longer necessarily applies since we have developed complex brains and culture and social structures, and that these work together to moderate some of the genetic imperatives that have driven so much of our past biology and behavior. Maybe this is the epigenetic effect at work.
DIon, Stove argues that Darwinian theory is incapable of describing how humans got to this point developmentally. He goes further calling into question whether human society was ever as neoDarwinian claims it was. So the issue isn't just explaining human behavior today which it is partly, but the characterization of humanity "before civilization". It goes a little deeper.
Plus, even to your point, if natural selection really is the driving force behind evolution/biology, if that is the natural law we living creatures are bound to, then it won't change. Just like the gravitational doesn't change.
It would be interesting to know what Dawkins is saying though. In most of his books he talks about humans and all creatures as somehow at the mercy of our genes. Why would that now not be the case?