On Nature, morality, and God

[methamaniac]

Ok ( minus sarcasm for most part)

How do you get the moral authority to judge me as a judger........forget that dont matter.

I apologise because I think you honestly dont understand and not trying to avoid giving theory
( hope im right)

I used the qoute both ways.
But not at same time ( thats the key point you are missing)
I used it in context of God
Because in giving my theory I argue you must postit God. Yes this is true.

Before and after I laid my theory down I knew someone would call foul. So I used quote without the assumption as God as fact.
This is also true.
They dont falsify each other.

I even went as far to substitute ( what I would argue) the only real two choices besides the assumption of big G. ( substitute your own supreme authority that remains objective)

You and nature.

Futheremore, I showed why these two choices fail.
And why I subscribe to immutable moral laws.
Irregardles of whether I obey these moral laws or not.
Which is why I stated makes me guilty.
Gives the moral law giver authority because I agree with objective moral laws.
Then I explainded good and evil in depth and how
they work.

Ok, I hope I have cleared this up.
Im not asking you to agree with my concept of God.
Just asking you to be resonable as to my logic.
And if you dont think it is right, falsify it.

Now, I have patiently answered questions because I think you are now being sincere.
Can you please give your theory.
YOU dont need to give one. If you are just going to give a version of humanism that has already been stated, I see why u wouldnt want to.
Not saying that as a smart ass, just that nature fails as an objective moral law giver-----God

The whole dam point I was trying to make in making this thread.
You dont have to agree

 

[methamaniac]

^^^
My friend,
This world can be a crappy place.
Obviously from my original post I think it can be depressive to say the least.
Its easy to get caught up in war of words on net cause you dont have to look someone in the eyes.
The internet dehumanizes folks.
Kinda proves my point about humans being moral law givers.
But there is a better moral law giver thankfully.
I submit.
Dont want to get all preachy tho.
I know if you dont want to hear it can be frustrating.
BUT anywho, dont let people on the get to ya.
I honestly believe same people i argue with
( and I am guilty of what I am acussing of)
would probably help someone they're arguing with in a live setting.

Hang in there man, Ive been yelled at by everyone here about, but I just look at it getting
another layer of skin.

 

[methamaniac]

^^^
Sorry bout mom
My mom has been my rock since brother died.
Thats a hard bond to loose
pm if u ever need to talk

 

[RichardMooner]

I never said anything (whatsoever) about divine experiences involving a "male Christian God".
I'm not Christian, and God - although referred to commonly as He - is genderless.
Christians don't believe that God has a penis. That's something that atheists and non-Christians assume about Christianity, based on the title.

The Abrahamic God is very commonly depicted as male among Christians. Not to say they are correct in thinking so, but saying "Christians do not believe that God is male"; is a sweeping generalization. I've never met a Christian who thought God had a penis, but I've met many who definitely saw God as male.

Edit: Also, Biological Sex is not a necessity of Gender. Believing that God is absent of a penis - would not be a contradiction to the belief that he is male.

 

[swilow]

The Abrahamic God is very commonly depicted as male among Christians. Not to say they are correct in thinking so, but saying "Christians do not believe that God is male"; is a sweeping generalization. I've never met a Christians who thought God had a penis, but I've met many who definitely saw God as male.

Edit: Also, Biological Sex is not a necessity of Gender. Believing that God is absent of a penis - would not be a contradiction to the belief that he is male.

Good post Richard, and good to have a Christian opinion on it (at least I think you are Christian...?) I find the assignation of masculinity to god to be slightly troubling, if it is accepted as being merely symbolic to most Christians. What else is just symbolic and how can we tell?

It could be that god is an anthropocentric interpretation of the natural world as manifested on Earth.

 

[ForEverAfter]

(Will reply to meth via PM, to avoid further nonsense.)

Chook, I'm sorry that you're in a bad place at the moment. But, that's not my fault.
I wasn't abusive towards you, at all. I have reported your posts, because I think they're inappropriate.
If you're not going to contribute to this thread, please stick to private messages or take your issues up with a moderator.
(If I've been abusive towards you and insulted you, then I will be penalized. Moderators can read deleted posts.)

The Abrahamic God is very commonly depicted as male among Christians. Not to say they are correct in thinking so, but saying "Christians do not believe that God is male"; is a sweeping generalization. I've never met a Christian who thought God had a penis, but I've met many who definitely saw God as male.

Edit: Also, Biological Sex is not a necessity of Gender. Believing that God is absent of a penis - would not be a contradiction to the belief that he is male.

Yes, Christians refer to god with a male title, but how do they perceive him as male? What male attributes does "He" have?

What else is just symbolic and how can we tell?

The male God isn't even in the Bible. But, it (the Bible) is entirely symbolic/allegorical. To take anything literally, particularly mistransliterations, is dangerous - I think.

 

[swilow]

Lets just all be friends

Friends can disagree too

Or:

 

[ForEverAfter]

I didn't mean to upset anyone.

 

[RichardMooner]

Establishing humans, allegorically, as the species on the top of the food chain doesn't mean God "didn't give a fuck".
There are many other passages in Genesis indicating that God did "give a fuck".
And, we are literally on the top of the food chain.



There are many copies of the New Testament, available.
There's no need to buy them together and throw one of them out.

I'm not talking about a literal "throwing out". It was an expression of my wish for the ability to disregard the Old Testament, and still regard the New Testament as valid teachings from God. Or rather, the Non-Pauline Epistles as valid teachings from God.

[/QUOTE]What about Isaiah, Ezekiel & Job? Too "dated" for your tastes?[/QUOTE]

Too "dated"? Try horrific.


[/QUOTE]And more blood has been shed in the name of the NT.[/QUOTE]

Yes, more blood has been shed in the name of Christianity - and China, a capitalist, state inhabited, and class based country - claims to be communist.


Edit: Taking care of the environment because it sustains you; is not giving a fuck about nature - that's giving a fuck about yourself.

 

[RichardMooner]

(Will reply to meth via PM, to avoid further nonsense.)

Chook, I'm sorry that you're in a bad place at the moment. But, that's not my fault.
I wasn't abusive towards you, at all. I have reported your posts, because I think they're inappropriate.
If you're not going to contribute to this thread, please stick to private messages or take your issues up with a moderator.
(If I've been abusive towards you and insulted you, then I will be penalized. Moderators can read deleted posts.)



Yes, Christians refer to god with a male title, but how do they perceive him as male? What male attributes does "He" have?



The male God isn't even in the Bible. But, it (the Bible) is entirely symbolic/allegorical. To take anything literally, particularly mistransliterations, is dangerous - I think.

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". What other attributes do you need?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Richard Mooner, we'll have to disagree about the OT/Torah.

Job, in my opinion, is the best written and developed story in the Bible.
And Isaiah is poetry.

To disregard the Old Testament, is to disregard Judaism.

As for the male attributes that God has in the Bible: "The Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit" aren't masculine attributes. They're allegorical archetypes. What I was asking was: how is God portrayed to be masculine (rather than feminine) in the Torah/NT. I'm not talking about stories in which God - arguably - takes the literal form of a man. I'm following up about the "lack of penis" thing... I don't want to get into another argument. If you don't want to respond, don't feel compelled to. I'm just clarifying my response.

 

[ForEverAfter]

This will be one of my last posts on Bluelight for some time.
I'm going to depart from the forum after today.
It has been made clear that I am not welcome.

meth requested my opinion repeatedly, suggesting that I didn't have one or something, so here it is:

Re: Morality, as it pertains to man/nature/God.

First of all God made nature and God made man, so any attempt to separate anything from God (assuming that you believe in God) is futile. For the sake of this discussion, however, I will attempt do so... by separating each category into "direct" and "indirect" laws

->

Since God made man and man made certain laws, these "man made laws" are indirectly created by God... but let's ignore that and assume that they're not. They will, for the time being, be referred to as man-made laws (1).

Same goes for nature. God created life, in all of it's diversity (regardless of whether or not you literally believe in Genesis, this is what the word God generally implies) and each species has developed its own idiosyncratic "laws" which it must obey in order to function. These are "natures laws". (2)

Finally, the theoretical laws obtained by a species that has achieved social enlightenment are God's laws. These are commonly referred to in holy texts, philosophical works and speculative fiction... Some animal species eat their young. For a relatively enlightened species, such as ours, this is barbaric and horrible... If we take that logic a step further, and introduce another hypothetical species much more enlightened than the human race (typically, this is a future version of our race, that we have envisioned but sometimes it is also alien) that highly enlightened species looks at mankind and considers it to be barbaric also. (3)

(1) does not overlap with (3) as much as (2) overlaps with (3).

In other words: as we approach enlightenment, we approach God's "direct" laws.

...

We have a vision of what (3) would be like and it is a relatively common/consistent vision shared by many different members of the human race. The ratio of commonalities to anomalies increases as we depart from "nature" and approach enlightenment.

(1) There are countless animal species that act outside of how an enlightened species would act. Eating their young, abandoning their young, murdering members of their own species for territorial reasons, etcetera.

This category (1) has little consistency in terms of what is "right and wrong".

(2) There are some races left in the world that partake in cannibalism. We consider them, objectively, immoral/barbaric/unenlightened.

This category (2) has far more consistency in terms of what is "right and wrong", but there are still considerable anomalies.

(3) A theoretical enlightened species (interchangeable with God) would never justify an inarguably needless act that causes harm and serves no function.

This theoretical category (3) has a clearly defined "right and wrong". The rules are simple and consistent...

Although I mentioned speculative fiction, I did that for illustrative purposes because what I'm trying to explain is potentially confusing. Pointing out inconsistencies in how (2) envisions (3), doesn't defeat my point... In other words, saying that writers of speculative fiction disagree about the actions of an enlightened species proves nothing... (2) is not (3) yet, so utter consistency can not be demanded/expected.

...

To state, conclusively, that there are no objective morals (note, regarding (2) and (3): morals also overlap with instincts\practicalities) is blind. Although there are an enormous amount of inconsistencies between races and species there are also a lot of consistencies within each species, including (2).

All major religions, when broken down, have the same basic ethical code. Whether or not it is defined symbolically through allegorical tales, and misunderstood to be something else, or literally stated within allegories so that it can't be misunderstood (the 10 commandments), there is - undeniably - a common ground for what we - as a species - think is "right and wrong".

People have been attempting to simplify this discussion down to one answer, and prove/disprove it either way by not taking into account the complexity of the issue at hand. To conclude that because there are subjective moral laws, there are no objective moral laws is erroneous logic... and vice versa. Similarly, to argue that either God definitely exists or he definitely doesn't, by means of logic and limited examples, is ludicrous.

Attempting to prove God, through fallacious logic (meth) is a waste of time and it proves nothing.
Attempting to disprove God, by similar means (Dystopia et al) is - also - utterly futile.

These are exercises in self-delusion: to try and prove or disprove God (who, by definition, cannot be proved/disproved) with logic is - really - just people convincing themselves of their perspective by desperately attempting to convince others. Which comes across as insecure and uncertain, either way.

This is why I've been arguing against both sides.
I'm not doing it for the sake of arguing.
I'm doing it because: both sides are wrong.

The same thing goes for the evolution thread. Some people were arguing that evolution (and science, in general) disproves God. Others - meth - were arguing that evolution (and, by implication, science in general) is wrong... But, as mabzie pointed out, they (science and God) are not mutually exclusive.

God created man who discovered science. If evolution exists, which is becoming increasingly difficult/stupid to deny, then it is either a function of God's plan or a function of the universe. (Depending on your religious orientation.) No matter what science discovers, it doesn't (and cannot) prove or disprove God.

...

I hope that's an adequate answer, meth.

 

[Foreigner]

Most of our more concrete morals are primordial. They were formed instinctually on the basis of our survival as a species and as individuals. Ego itself probably evolved to accompany our complex (in comparison to most other species) minds, to manage it, and to apply a meaningful (yet subjective) order to our surroundings. Most species seem to have their own moral order attached to the way they survive. Lions wouldn't think twice about killing something, including one another, if survival or competition demanded it. Most human morals are of the same ilk. Despite our cravings for egoistic individuality, we are rather robotic in how these morals play out. Additional morals are implemented by other humans to maintain control and supremacy; we know this because humans higher up on the hierarchy break these rules all the time, simply because the rules don't apply to them. There's some propaganda about morality as it is taught systemically. Humans, at their core, are relatively lawless beyond what is required for survival and social bond. I don't feel that God has anything to do with this, because God also governs the animals who, within each species, have their own sets of rules and values.

In the grand scheme? There are no laws or morals. There's just the universe doing itself, over and over. That we see patterns in it ourselves and apply meaning to those patterns, to me is not very significant. Mind is endless. We can play with our minds forever and never be finished -- that's the power and weakness of mind. Take away mind, and there is only One Thing happening, and it is totally Empty of self. It's infinitely connected yet without meaning.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Well said. Not sure if you read/comprehended what I was trying to say. Or, if you're ignoring it (which you're free to do).

I don't feel that God has anything to do with this, because God also governs the animals who, within each species, have their own sets of rules and values.

This is an over simplification and it doesn't disprove God. I explained why. Each species has its own set of rules and laws, but as a species becomes more enlightened it starts to consider the universe beyond its own survivalism. There are (good) things that the human race do that are counter-intuitive towards the survival of our species... What about the commonalities of how we envision an enlightened species, though, and the "selfless" ideals that we (some of us) are striving towards?

 

[Foreigner]

Well said.

What about the commonalities of how we envision an enlightened species, though, and the "selfless" ideals that we (some of us) are striving towards?

Depends on if you believe in spirit or not. I do, so I believe that spirit is evolving through working with the human species. Therefore, those ideas are probably worthwhile. I believe consciousness affects DNA, as well as environmental factors. All that "junk DNA" is resonating according to what consciousness is choosing to do. Then that work is procreated into the next generation. Some crap gets through, and some marginally more enlightened DNA gets through. Eventually it culminates into something greater, I would hope.

But that's speculation. This could be a roller coaster without end. If you subscribe to the eastern scriptures, our collective fate is not linear... we are caught in cycles upon cycles.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't see how subscribing to the evolution of spirit is any different to subscribing to the evolution of species, in terms of God.

I mean... none of them are mutually exclusive of the others, are they?

In other words, in terms of "objective morals": perhaps it is God's plan (or, in the absence of God, "fate") for us to evolve into a more enlightened species (regardless of whether or not you differentiate between spiritual and biological evolution) and, therefore, narrow in on what is "right and wrong" beyond our own practicalities and selfish needs?

Eventually it culminates into something greater, I would hope.

Me, too. Either way, I don't see how it - on a theoretical level - serves to indicate the presence of, or disprove, God in any way.

This could be a roller coaster without end.

Yes, I like to think so. I do subscribe to the idea of a cyclical universe/timeline.

The idea of an "end" to all things doesn't make very much sense.
But, there will be an end to my contributions to this thread.

(In 4 hours, I'm taking a 6 month break from this forum.)

 

[rickolasnice]

The Abrahamic God is very commonly depicted as male among Christians. Not to say they are correct in thinking so, but saying "Christians do not believe that God is male"; is a sweeping generalization. I've never met a Christian who thought God had a penis, but I've met many who definitely saw God as male.

Edit: Also, Biological Sex is not a necessity of Gender. Believing that God is absent of a penis - would not be a contradiction to the belief that he is male.

Yahweh was male.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

 

[ForEverAfter]

There are lots of male and female Gods... Hindu gods have genitals. They have sex and have children. Same goes for Greek gods, and lots of other Ancient religions... Although there's a connection between Yahweh and the Torah/OT, Christianity is not Judaism. Nor is Christianity Zoroastrianism. Religions have often adopted aspects of other religions.

Still, the Christian/Judaic God doesn't have a penis.

(13 minutes, and counting.)

 

[rickolasnice]

(13 minutes, and counting.)

Is that aimed at me?

 

[Abject]

(In 4 hours, I'm taking a 6 month break from this forum.)

hmm