Might YOUR Christian God be a multitasker......

[PawDawg]

If there is a politics board (other sandbox) thread......
That has already exhausted this topic, I have no need to beat any such dead donkey.

I do not recall any such thread. But if you lead me to it, I promise to read it top to bottom before deciding if I my thoughts regarding a Good, Bad and Ugly flamer's thread may escape any echoes of redundancy.

Cheers.

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...oral+absolutes

[RhythmDawg]

Your question PRESUMES......
That everyone in history has not subjectivey subscibed to the same theory!

If I decide to author a flaming Good, Bad, and Ugly thread, I sincerely hope you will eagerly bring all such thoughts to any ensuing discussion/debate. :icon_wink:

Cheers.

But spin, I guarantee that not everyone subscribes to the theory in the totalitarian manner in which it was stated and used to make a point.

[RhythmDawg]

Definitely not country.

(You're going to love this)

But what about your parents, siblings, spouse, or children? Would you die for them? That is the ultimate in self-sacrifice. You can't say that it would better your life because it contradicts your definition. Is it that perhaps you love them? Why? Where does love come from? What is it? And why would you love them? Woundn't it only make sense for you if they love you?

And how do they really know that you love them? How do you know they really love you? Because you say it to each other? How do you and they know they aren't lies?

I wonder if faith has a role here...

[johnnylightnin]

My first thought is that this list is a list of attributes of the Judeo-Christian conception of God as there is no mention of Christ...which is what truly sets the Christian God apart as he is one essence made manifest in the three persons of the Father (The G-d of Israel), the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the two issues I will raise, the attributes you've listed are SOME of the attributes of the Father and his relationship to His creation, but it should be said from the outset that the list is by no means comprehensive. Depending on where the conversation goes, other attributes may become pertinent.

Now on to the issues.

1. There are men that are created in the image of God that are not capable of knowing right from wrong. Among them are the insane and the severely mentally handicapped. Those would be minor exceptions to your statement. A MAJOR exception to your statement is that there is no evidence that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong until they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had not been exposed to evil until then and there is NO evidence that Eve recognized the serpent as the Evil one. So, I would contend with this claim.

2. 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 says, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This verse seems to contradict the second statement that I've quoted. I would also like to point out that man is finite in that he had a beginning. Christian belief is that men will either spend eternity with the Father or they will spend eternity separated from the Father, but men are eternal even though, having a beginning, they can never be infinite.

Spin? Where are you?

[Guisslapp]

I wonder if faith has a role here...

Genetic programming, more likely.

[dawg80]

I have yet to see ANYONE give me a satisfactory answer to my question(s) about the root of moral convictions. Basically, if there is no God, then where do morals come from? Was that the invention of some early Greek philosopher who was merely expressing his personal feelings? If yes, then why should any of us be expected to embrace them? Who is (was) he that I should give a rat's ass about his personal point of view?

I hope I am expressing my "questions" properly, so you'll see where I am going with this. Basically, I (and neither should you) cannot argue with the teachings of a supreme being, God. But, I certainly am free to reject ANY opinions and points of view of a peer, a mere mortal human being, like myself.

So, I ask atheists, why should ANY of us adhere to anything other than what we personally view as right/acceptable, if not for a God?

Still waiting for a good response to this question. Perhaps no one currently posting on this forum is capable of formulating a convincing argument.

[hoppinmad]

Genetic programming, more likely.

More likely a little of both .... consider the possibility that belief isn't required about some matters.

[Guisslapp]

Still waiting for a good response to this question. Perhaps no one currently posting on this forum is capable of formulating a convincing argument.

I gave you the correct answer. The fact that you are unconvinceable on the subject speaks more to your inadequacies than the persuasive skills of others.

[Guisslapp]

(You're going to love this)

But what about your parents, siblings, spouse, or children? Would you die for them? That is the ultimate in self-sacrifice. You can't say that it would better your life because it contradicts your definition. Is it that perhaps you love them? Why? Where does love come from? What is it? And why would you love them? Woundn't it only make sense for you if they love you?

And how do they really know that you love them? How do you know they really love you? Because you say it to each other? How do you and they know they aren't lies?

I wonder if faith has a role here...

A rational egoist should not make the sacrifice where their own death is certain. The rational egoist may believe at the time that they would rather die, but that is a lapse in judgment undoubtedly resulting from an emtional reponse to a condition. When facing the consequences of substantial personal loss (e.g., loss of a loved one) no one wants to feel powerless.

[RhythmDawg]

A rational egoist should not make the sacrifice where their own death is certain. The rational egoist may believe at the time that they would rather die, but that is a lapse in judgment undoubtedly resulting from an emtional reponse to a condition. When facing the consequences of substantial personal loss (e.g., loss of a loved one) no one wants to feel powerless.

But what is the source of the emotional response? And who or what did the genetic programming? Where did the code come from?

[Guisslapp]

But what is the source of the emotional response? And who or what did the genetic programming? Where did the code come from?

Years and years of human evolution. The tribes of the human ancestors that were willing to put their life at risk to protect their offspring or female members may have grown at a faster rate than ones where the man ran. More recently, egoists probably reproduce much less frequently. There are many reasons why this trait would have evolved.

[RhythmDawg]

Years and years of human evolution. The tribes of the human ancestors that were willing to put their life at risk to protect their offspring or female members may have grown at a faster rate than ones where the man ran. More recently, egoists probably reproduce much less frequently. There are many reasons why this trait would have evolved.

This is fun. I would have thought that by your reasoning they would have eaten their young.

[Guisslapp]

This is fun. I would have thought that by your reasoning they would have eaten their young.

I am sure some did, but for obvious reasons, those genes are unlikely to be passed on.

[detltu]

Whoever is most qualified.

To expand just a tad further......
From a fellow who is neither an athiest or a Christian.

There are Christians who are able to be as FREE of any notion of "this world" morality as any athiest, if given your "will not get caught by mortal man" certainty/assumption.

They are the self-proclaimed SAVED christians who......
Claim they have "ACCEPTED" Jesus......
Regularly read, cite and "unerringly" interpret BOTH testaments of their bible......
And DEMAND near perfection from others......
While forgiving themselves EASILY for theft, or murder, or coveting, or any other moral lapse......
With little more than a PRAISE JESUS effort.

Cheers.

While certainly no one would suggest discriminating against someone on the basis of race, age, sex, sexual preference or religion; this is just a hypothetical question and as such I will modify it thusly:

Given candidates who are equal in seemingly every way(including qualifications) except the issue of religous preference, and of course the knowledge that no one would ever know your reason for hiring this person, Who would you hire?

On the one hand as Spin points out, many a Christian (including myself) have stolen, lied, cheated, etc. in our own interest. As we often like to say: "no one is perfect". We as Christians are particularly good at justifying our actions by convincing ourselves that it isn't really stealing, or deciding that it is in the interest of the greater good that we ______ (fill in the blank).

I would still submit that a devout Christian (or any devout religous person) would be less likely, statisticly, to steal from their employer than someone without such beliefs.

[Guisslapp]

I would still submit that a devout Christian (or any devout religous person) would be less likely, statisticly, to steal from their employer than someone without such beliefs.

Are you comparing a devout Christian to a devoutly moral atheist? If so, I disagree. If you are comparing a random Christian to a random atheist, I would also disagree. Now, if you are comparing a devout Christian to an atheist that has not developed a set of ethics/morals, then you may be right.

If you run into someone who confidently professes atheistic beliefs in a Christian society, chances are, that they have given just as much thought to their ideals, if not more, than the average undisturbed Christian.