sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 That's the real question, isn't it. Is your motivation entirely extrinsic to your humanity? Aside from the Eternal Reward thing (again, a childish Santa Clause kind of motivation), do you do good just to offer it up to Him, or do you think that what the heck, good for the sake of good has its own intrinsic value for us in the here and now? My beliefs are firmly planted in the latter viewpoint. Well the thing about the Christian religion, it places an emphasis on both sides. The problem with the church (the church as a whole) is that we've lost focus of Jesus. We've taken the emphasis off of his message and placed it in things like the bible and the virgin mary. (note: I'm not saying those things don't hold value to the church and the believer. I think the bible is the written essence of God, but clearly not GOD himself. and while mary was specifically chosen to mother over Jesus, c'mon, there's a handful of sentences about her in the bible. clearly she's special, but once again, NOT GOD) Most people know more about what Christians are against, than what they are for. If the church really lived out the book of Acts, it would revolutionize the way we think and conduct life. I think the biggest turn off of people towards church in america is church itself; christians themselves. The words i could write about this subject.... aye yay yay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Sweet, let the sinful ways again commence I say - God's giving us a pass this time around! FlaSoxxJim... you are here ----> X ["The Point" 5 miles back] | | | | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 FlaSoxxJim... you are here ----> X ["The Point" 5 miles back] | | | | Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I believe religion is the service and worship of God/the supernatural, either a personal or institutionalized commitment to faith in a higher power. And I think temporal aspects of consequences are relative. If there is nothing after your finite human life, then life in incarceration or voiding your life is about as consequential as it can get for you on a personal level. That is a lasting punishment if the standard of measure is a human life span. Sure there's an out in that the pennance is finite, but then again so is personal existence for secular folks. ok, so the length of life is the primary determination of success of existence? because if we're constantly evolving and I develop both sex organs the ability to reproduce with myself (huh huh, cool...I'd never leave my house... ) but the problem is that I died at age 35 (breeding age) so that my child could feast on my body for food, that doesn't seem like a very successful life. I guess, what I'm not getting is that, yes, I think it's the utmost importance that we treat each other well and good, but in order to make anything of yourself in life, it seems that "playing the game" and working your way up the ladder is the only way. The problem with that, however, is someone always ends up losing. Someone always ends up the loser. There is a constant give and take in the world. With that, there has to be something inherantly "bad" that drives people to act accordingly....but "good" has to exist in order for that bad to be understood as bad, otherwise, what's good for you may be bad for me, and relativism is the most illogical thought process ever. with all that being said, what more can I say than that I believe there has to be some basic for of good and evil in the world. genetic malformities didn't led hitler to exterminate millions of innocent lives, Jeffery Dahmer didn't eat people because of evolution gone bad. Being a scientist, isn't it clear that nurture plays an equal role in the equation as nature does. no where else in nature do you see this seperation and understanding of right and wrong. my weeds don't think its wrong that they're growing in the garden. A father hamster (sorry fan!) eats it's children if you don't seperate them from the offspring. etc.... There has to be some explaination to this... (I have no idea, really....just a big hunch) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Hey Shiva, is that a tiger in your crotch or are you just happy to see me? "so I said, 'do you love me?' and she said, 'no, but that's a really nice ski mask'" (dumb and dumber) just seemed to fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Actually the father hamster doesn't, but the mother hamster will. The father gets away from the mother as much as possible because she will kill the father to protect the young. Also, there are generally 2 cases where the mother hamster will eat the young - inexperience as a mother and 2) they die and to protect the surviving young from predators that smell the dead baby. I know that wasn't your point, but can't help adding in when hamsters or Queen is mentioned lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 FlaSoxxJim... you are here ----> X ["The Point" 5 miles back] | | | | "I knew I shoulda taken that left toin at Albacurque..." Yeah, I get the distinction in that the Big Vengeful of the OT said, OK no more humanity-destroying floods, but never suggested there was not an eternal accountability for the wicked ways of man. In point of fact, I was turning PA's current No God = No real consequences stance back on him but with a secular bent. If the prospect of no Divine Agent/Eternal consequence can lead a faith-oriented person to say, 'well what's the point of acting morally on Earth?', then the prospect of a Divine Agent taking a breather from doling out deluges and whatnot in the physical realm can also be viewed as an existence without "meaningful" negative consequences for the secular-oriented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Actually the father hamster doesn't, but the mother hamster will. The father gets away from the mother as much as possible because she will kill the father to protect the young. Also, there are generally 2 cases where the mother hamster will eat the young - inexperience as a mother and 2) they die and to protect the surviving young from predators that smell the dead baby. I know that wasn't your point, but can't help adding in when hamsters or Queen is mentioned lol. I knew I should have consulted a hamster expert... southsider and Texsox were unavailable for comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 28, 2004 Author Share Posted April 28, 2004 I knew I should have consulted a hamster expert... southsider and Texsox were unavailable for comment Hey I resent that! I am the chicken expert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 "I knew I shoulda taken that left toin at Albacurque..." Yeah, I get the distinction in that the Big Vengeful of the OT said, OK no more humanity-destroying floods, but never suggested there was not an eternal accountability for the wicked ways of man. In point of fact, I was turning PA's current No God = No real consequences stance back on him but with a secular bent. If the prospect of no Divine Agent/Eternal consequence can lead a faith-oriented person to say, 'well what's the point of acting morally on Earth?', then the prospect of a Divine Agent taking a breather from doling out deluges and whatnot in the physical realm can also be viewed as an existence without "meaningful" negative consequences for the secular-oriented. That is why the old Law is no longer applied to Christians and the new covenant of Jesus is what we follow. I think God was just making a point that left to our own devices (i.e. the Israelites) we mess up at every corner. Judges, is an excellent book for this point. Over and over, the people would pray for God to act and free them from their captors, and over and over again once He did, they slipped back into worshipping idols and neglecting God. edit: so the point is God doesn't take breathers, we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 personal note: I feel so inadequate in this discussion, so please don't hold it against me. I can't wait to apply for Grad school. I'm looking at this daul graduate program that gives you Masters in Divinity and a Masters in Business Administration. it sounds so cool (I think I mentioned this before) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 personal note: I feel so inadequate in this discussion, so please don't hold it against me. I can't wait to apply for Grad school. I'm looking at this daul graduate program that gives you Masters in Divinity and a Masters in Business Administration. it sounds so cool (I think I mentioned this before) They teach spelling as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 personal note: I feel so inadequate in this discussion, so please don't hold it against me. I can't wait to apply for Grad school. I'm looking at this daul graduate program that gives you Masters in Divinity and a Masters in Business Administration. it sounds so cool (I think I mentioned this before) When I listen to people like Vince or FlaJim talk, I feel pretty stupid too. That being said, I don't think the answers to this debate lie in the books of any graduate school program. I don't think they exist anywhere on Earth, or, if they do, we don't know how to interpret them. I like having this discussion, but I'm really only doing it for sake of arguing, because I believe that humans are too low on the ethereal ladder to understand the means and rationale of whatever put us here(or put our single-celled ancestors here, if you will), and that's the way it always will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 28, 2004 Author Share Posted April 28, 2004 And actually I have loved reading this thread. 100+ posts, 8 pages, and no personal attacks really. Now lets talk about life starting in Israel with the Jews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 And actually I have loved reading this thread. 100+ posts, 8 pages, and no personal attacks really. Now lets talk about life starting in Israel with the Jews somebody should ban your sorry butt. like yourself. go ban yourself. And by the way, this is a great thread - lots of really really good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 When I listen to people like Vince or FlaJim talk, I feel pretty stupid too. That being said, I don't think the answers to this debate lie in the books of any graduate school program. I don't think they exist anywhere on Earth, or, if they do, we don't know how to interpret them. I like having this discussion, but I'm really only doing it for sake of arguing, because I believe that humans are too low on the ethereal ladder to understand the means and rationale of whatever put us here(or put our single-celled ancestors here, if you will), and that's the way it always will be. I agree, but I don't really feel too inadequate in my knowledge, because we are all still learning. I feel inadequate in my writing ability and being able to put in words what I feel and "know" in my heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I knew I should have consulted a hamster expert... southsider and Texsox were unavailable for comment For that matter, infanticide in primates is a regular occurrence, if the offspring does not belong to the dominant male. Killing another male's offspring will allow the female to come into estrus more rapidly and hopefully sire the offspring of the dominant male. None of this is to say there are moral implications in what the animals do (ditto for the hamsters of course). The same actions that have a perfectly reasonable genetic/fitness based grounding for animals are morally and societally unacceptable for us, as well they should be. As Rosie (Kate Hepburn's character) said in African Queen: "Nature, Mr. Allnot, is what man was put on this Earth to rose above." (Hey, does that count as a Queen reference ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 They teach spelling as well? suque mai bawls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 When I listen to people like Vince or FlaJim talk, I feel pretty stupid too. Vince is so smart and well-read it scares me – though I some day want to go toe-to-toe with him in a trivia smackdown. As for me, I just transcribe what my 6-year old tells me to say – she's very advanced for her age (and plays a mean 2B on her T-ball team too!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 For that matter, infanticide in primates is a regular occurrence, if the offspring does not belong to the dominant male. Killing another male's offspring will allow the female to come into estrus more rapidly and hopefully sire the offspring of the dominant male. None of this is to say there are moral implications in what the animals do (ditto for the hamsters of course). The same actions that have a perfectly reasonable genetic/fitness based grounding for animals are morally and societally unacceptable for us, as well they should be. As Rosie (Kate Hepburn's character) said in African Queen: "Nature, Mr. Allnot, is what man was put on this Earth to rose above." (Hey, does that count as a Queen reference ) Animals have instinctual behaviors that dictate their actions, yet dogs eat their own crap. you really believe that they have any idea of the differences of right and wrong? I'm just saying that humans are clearly distinctive in language, culture, etc. to animals. How could this just "happen", and why are we the only ones to show signs of these factors? how are monkeys more adaptive to their surroundings than austaliopithosis, aka "lucy"? shouldn't their be physical living evidence of our alledged ancestors? Why would the missing link between us and our branch sharing binobo relatives be the ones to fail to subsist on the earth? I think that's my biggest problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Yeah, I get the distinction in that the Big Vengeful of the OT said, OK no more humanity-destroying floods, but never suggested there was not an eternal accountability for the wicked ways of man. Okay, I was going to stay out of this, but two HUGE things I have to say: Is the God of the Old Testament really that much more vengeful--or is creating a hell in the NT ultimately the greatest act of vengence? Sheol is not hell, so that's a gift of the gracious and loving God of the NT. I also find it interesting that PA said earlier that we need to live like the people in Acts did or that we take Pauline ethics as the prime source. Well, lots of the stuff Jesus said were not 100% in line with Paul--and while Acts is helpful, if we all adopted the Ethics of Jesus that would be the most transforming of all (sell everything and live to help, not just convert, but help; forgive everyone no matter what--as our prayers will not be heard without that rightness we get from forgiving; listen and respect the social outcasts and attempt to help them; give up our desire for retribution; stop living by the sword; loving all of our neighbors as ourselves). The other thing I would like to point out is that many things throughout the Ethics of Christianity have been anything but moral and ethical according to JESUS (i.e. crusades, long-time--now reversed--support of death penalty, judging our non-Christian neighbors, and of course the truly disgusting fact that everything Hitler did to the Jews was based on Christian ideals or laws that were passed in Christendom). If those types of actions are what we are called and guided to do from God, then, hm, maybe athiests or non-believers are just as moral. I think that many non-Christians are guided by the power of what is best for humanity and just a general betterment of the world. Sure, they have no eternal reason to be good--but we all live in the world and have to share it with others and we want to be treated well--and that I think is a dang fine reason to be moral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 you really believe that they have any idea of the differences of right and wrong? No I don't, and I posted as such. Reread please. I'm just saying that humans are clearly distinctive in language, culture, etc. to animals. How could this just "happen", and why are we the only ones to show signs of these factors? The point of all the preceding evolutionaly discussion is that it didn't 'just happen.' Nothing in evolution, aside from the initial spontaneous mutations that are the source of variation, 'just happens,' and that is the whole point. shouldn't their be physical living evidence of our alledged ancestors? Why would the missing link between us and our branch sharing binobo relatives be the ones to fail to subsist on the earth? I think that's my biggest problem. There's heaps of physical NONLIVING evidence of our phyletic forebears, even if the magic bullet 'missing link' still eludes us. And 95% of all species that have ever existed are now gone - they failed to subsist [sic] on Earth from their day to the present. Some lines evolved into something else, and many others died out. The mere fact that 95% of all species ever are now gone,a nd that phyletic lines have changed over time is a big bite in the ass to any Creationist trying to hold up a notion of a Divinely ordained natural world created in total perfection. Extinction and speciation would not be required or anticipated if perfection existed from the outset. As far as an incomplete fossil record - yep, a very frustrating fact. It's really friggin unlikely that fossilization events will occur subsequent to the death of an organism, so gaps are undesirable but wholly expected. Molecular and genomic techniques are gaining wider use now though, and these gaps are becoming less intractable. Our cells contain plent of 'living fossils' in the coding and non-coding portions of our nuclear DNA, in our non-nuclear ribosomal RNA, in the "junk genes" that are no longer expressed and so continue to mutate and drift in a random but chronologically meaningful manner. My, but these are glorious tools now at our disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 I think that many non-Christians are guided by the power of what is best for humanity and just a general betterment of the world. Sure, they have no eternal reason to be good--but we all live in the world and have to share it with others and we want to be treated well--and that I think is a dang fine reason to be moral. Hot Damn! I'm not alone on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Hot Damn! I'm not alone on this. Nope, I got your back Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Okay, I was going to stay out of this, but two HUGE things I have to say: Is the God of the Old Testament really that much more vengeful--or is creating a hell in the NT ultimately the greatest act of vengence? Sheol is not hell, so that's a gift of the gracious and loving God of the NT. I also find it interesting that PA said earlier that we need to live like the people in Acts did or that we take Pauline ethics as the prime source. Well, lots of the stuff Jesus said were not 100% in line with Paul--and while Acts is helpful, if we all adopted the Ethics of Jesus that would be the most transforming of all (sell everything and live to help, not just convert, but help; forgive everyone no matter what--as our prayers will not be heard without that rightness we get from forgiving; listen and respect the social outcasts and attempt to help them; give up our desire for retribution; stop living by the sword; loving all of our neighbors as ourselves). The other thing I would like to point out is that many things throughout the Ethics of Christianity have been anything but moral and ethical according to JESUS (i.e. crusades, long-time--now reversed--support of death penalty, judging our non-Christian neighbors, and of course the truly disgusting fact that everything Hitler did to the Jews was based on Christian ideals or laws that were passed in Christendom). If those types of actions are what we are called and guided to do from God, then, hm, maybe athiests or non-believers are just as moral. I think that many non-Christians are guided by the power of what is best for humanity and just a general betterment of the world. Sure, they have no eternal reason to be good--but we all live in the world and have to share it with others and we want to be treated well--and that I think is a dang fine reason to be moral. First of all, just prior to Jesus' ascension, He sent the Holy Spirit of God upon his apostles...actually it was pentacost, but you get the idea. I think we've forgotten the Holy Spirit and what He's capable of. We've missed the fact that He is 1/3 of God and therefore shares equal power and Glory. Paul's writings are 100% filled by the Holy Spirit. I say that because he had nothing to gain by writing these things except for the edification of the church, and all the while, he was nicely nestled into his prison; I think that just furthers the point. sell everything and live to help, not just convert, but help; forgive everyone no matter what--as our prayers will not be heard without that rightness we get from forgiving; listen and respect the social outcasts and attempt to help them; give up our desire for retribution; stop living by the sword; loving all of our neighbors as ourselves here goes: Acts 1:8 Acts 2:42-47 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and 13 1 Corinthians 12:12 and 21-28 Ephesians 4:2-6 and 26-27 Galatians 5:16-26 WAY out of line with what Jesus said.......................... I understand your point, and we're called by God to test the spirit of things...but Paul's writings are tested again and again, and should be consumed, regurgitated, digested again and repeat. It's made it thus far for a reason. it is a true example of church Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.