Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 3:52 AM
20 online now:
Dr Adequate, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,106 Year: 5,143/19,786 Month: 1,265/873 Week: 161/460 Day: 6/97 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Author Topic:   Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Quran and Bible.
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 361 of 375 (761535)
07-02-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by ringo
07-02-2015 11:56 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
ringo

"But it can't force them to change their doctrine."

Think about Waco Texas.

Our countries are ruled by governments, not by religions, and the government can do whatever it deems fit to and against any religion.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ringo, posted 07-02-2015 11:56 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by ringo, posted 07-03-2015 11:41 AM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16357
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 362 of 375 (761624)
07-03-2015 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Greatest I am
07-02-2015 1:36 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Greatest I am writes:

Our countries are ruled by governments, not by religions, and the government can do whatever it deems fit to and against any religion.


No it can't. The government is ruled by law and freedom of religion is the law. In Waco, the government acted on the behaviour of the members, not on the doctrines of the religion. You can not legislate radicals into moderates. You can only deal with radical behaviour.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Greatest I am, posted 07-02-2015 1:36 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 363 of 375 (761644)
07-03-2015 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tangle
07-02-2015 3:14 AM


Re: True altruism
Tangle writes:

I'm going to list the things that I am assuming we can agree on. I've asked you some of these before, but you've avoided answering me which doesn't make for a useful debate.

1. biological altruism is an accepted fact in science

OK but I think that it is more about finding out that co-operation works, and that could be either genetic or social.

Tangle writes:

2. it's found in many species that live in groups from ants to apes

Obviously
Tangle writes:

3. evolution is a fact


OK
Tangle writes:

4. people are an evolved species that live in groups

Sure and sometimes to our detriment.

Tangle writes:

The article you quoted agrees with you, an ant or bee is not a conscious being and is not making a calculation when it helps its group. But as explained, this fact does not help you. The ant's altruism is instinctive - it's a reflex that it can't control. People have similar - but different instincts. 'Normal' people - that is those people that are not mentally ill or suffering from a brain injury - have instinctive, reflex reactions to suffering. We can't help ourselves feeling sorry for people who suffer and wanting to help them. It's a response that can be seen happening in the brain with fMRI scans when they are shown pictures of people in pain or babies crying and so on. Can you accept that? If so, you accept that

5. human empathy is a reflex

and because of agreeing the earlier premises you must consider that this is the next logical conclusion

6. because people are an evolved species, the reflex of empathy in people is also evolved function

No-one is claiming that human atruism is the same as that shown by say, an ape. Ours is far more advanced, modified by our culture which is a function of our conscious brain and our social development. But equally, because we can show that when our brains lack that reflex the people who are otherwise 'normal' simply don't understand why they should help others we can say that altruism is simply another evolved function - at least at the basic level. Not a god given special quality that religious minded people want it to be.

I'm actually fine with that particularly when you say;

quote:
Ours is far more advanced, modified by our culture which is a function of our conscious brain and our social development.

You are now talking not about Genes but the memes or social replicators that Dawkins talks about. The thing is I find that completely consistent with the Christian message.The Christian ideal that we are to love others and that in doing so we infect the world so that hearts are changed and mankind evolves morally and altruistically.

The point is whether or not the seed for altruistic behaviour has a intelligent/moral root or whether the root is mindless. The Christian message is that we have gained, however God did it, the understanding of good and evil and given the choice as humans to move freely between the two. I also suggest that as a part of human consciousness we have a conscience and it is my contention that our conscience is the still small voice of God that silently suggests that we choose good over evil - a voice that we are free to reject.

Yes, that is my subjective belief for which there is no scientific evidence, but the belief that there is only a mindless root to true altruism is every bit as subjective as mine.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2015 3:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2015 4:27 PM GDR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6744
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 364 of 375 (761652)
07-03-2015 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by GDR
07-03-2015 3:14 PM


Re: True altruism
GDR writes:

You are now talking not about Genes but the memes or social replicators that Dawkins talks about. The thing is I find that completely consistent with the Christian message.The Christian ideal that we are to love others and that in doing so we infect the world so that hearts are changed and mankind evolves morally and altruistically.

It's not 'the Christian' message - it's a universal feeling, common to all humanity; people of all religions and none.

The point is whether or not the seed for altruistic behaviour has a intelligent/moral root or whether the root is mindless.

We've already agreed that we can never know whether some intelligence was behind all this at the beginning. I'm trying to get you to follow the logic of the science that altruism is another naturally occurring phenomenon, like other evolved traits, not something injected supernaturally only into Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago.

The Christian message is that we have gained, however God did it, the understanding of good and evil and given the choice as humans to move freely between the two.

I know what the Christian message is. it's fundamentally the same as all religious messages, only the supposed messenger and his employer differs

I also suggest that as a part of human consciousness we have a conscience and it is my contention that our conscience is the still small voice of God that silently suggests that we choose good over evil - a voice that we are free to reject.

You can suggest anything you like. You can say with equal certainty of belief that the tooth fairy did it. The differene between us is that I've presented you with a logic flow, each step of which can be evidenced. And the weird thing is, that you don't disagree with it, you just get to the end of it and say 'well, anyway, I believe this other thing that has nothing to support it.' But if you were born in the Hindu Kush you wouldn't believe that, you'd believe something else.

Don't you get how utterly irrational all that is?

Yes, that is my subjective belief for which there is no scientific evidence

So why are you arguing?

but the belief that there is only a mindless root to true altruism is every bit as subjective as mine.

For God's sake man, that is not the conclusion. The fact that altruism is a naturally occurring phenomenon does not determine the prime cause.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by GDR, posted 07-03-2015 3:14 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by GDR, posted 07-03-2015 7:23 PM Tangle has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 365 of 375 (761660)
07-03-2015 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Tangle
07-03-2015 4:27 PM


Re: True altruism
GDR writes:

You are now talking not about Genes but the memes or social replicators that Dawkins talks about. The thing is I find that completely consistent with the Christian message.The Christian ideal that we are to love others and that in doing so we infect the world so that hearts are changed and mankind evolves morally and altruistically.

Tangle writes:

It's not 'the Christian' message - it's a universal feeling, common to all humanity; people of all religions and none.

I have agreed previously it is a universal truth that is generally accepted. The difference between the humanist view and the Christian view is that there is an ultimate purpose for altruistic behaviour, and not something that is good for us now but will be of no consequence when life as we know it ends.

Tangle writes:

We've already agreed that we can never know whether some intelligence was behind all this at the beginning. I'm trying to get you to follow the logic of the science that altruism is another naturally occurring phenomenon, like other evolved traits, not something injected supernaturally only into Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago.

I have yet to see a science that supports the evolution of true altruism within humans. As I pointed out earlier Dawkins explanation was memes or social replicators which is not scientific. Memes are more philosophical or even theological that scientific. As I said, even the site that you linked to show me the science was a philosophical site.

Tangle writes:

I know what the Christian message is. it's fundamentally the same as all religious messages, only the supposed messenger and his employer differs.

Maybe that is cause to think that there is more to it than simply mindless evolution. Religions are man's attempt to understand the nature of God, what His purposes are and what that means to us in this life. None of us have all the answers but I believe that the best answers can be found in the life and teachings of Jesus and I believe that is confirmed by the belief that He was resurrected by God. I can't have absolute knowledge but I have sufficient confidence in the truth of those beliefs to base my worldview on them.

Tangle writes:

You can suggest anything you like. You can say with equal certainty of belief that the tooth fairy did it. The differene between us is that I've presented you with a logic flow, each step of which can be evidenced. And the weird thing is, that you don't disagree with it, you just get to the end of it and say 'well, anyway, I believe this other thing that has nothing to support it.' But if you were born in the Hindu Kush you wouldn't believe that, you'd believe something else.

Don't you get how utterly irrational all that is?

No I don't. Just because much of the world is Hindu does not deny the truth of any understanding of the nature of God. Sure, if I had been born elsewhere I would likely believe something different which is irrelevant. I am also not claiming that a Hindu from the Hindu Kush is going to be damned.

I also don't accept that there is nothing to support my views. There is nothing scientific but there are accounts written which we can choose to believe or disbelieve.

Tangle writes:

For God's sake man, that is not the conclusion. The fact that altruism is a naturally occurring phenomenon does not determine the prime cause.


How do you tell the difference between a naturally occurring phenomenon and a deity that continuously touches us through the still small voice that is our conscience?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Tangle, posted 07-03-2015 4:27 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2015 2:57 AM GDR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6744
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 366 of 375 (761671)
07-04-2015 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by GDR
07-03-2015 7:23 PM


Re: True altruism
GDR writes:

The difference between the humanist view and the Christian view is that there is an ultimate purpose for altruistic behaviour, and not something that is good for us now but will be of no consequence when life as we know it ends.

Are you expecting to see chimpanzees and Homo habilis in heaven? At what point in human evolution did this god given alruism get injected? Or is it done on a case by case basis? If so, why did some people miss out on it?

I have yet to see a science that supports the evolution of true altruism within humans.

Of course you have, you've just decided to deny it.

Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October 2006,[26] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[27]

Therefore this 'still small voice of god' is actually an evolved biological function like all the rest. If those functions are damaged otherwise normally functioning people are unable to feel empathy. Those people are called psychopaths - their brains are different. These people have to learn how to behave socially because they can't do it naturally and we know how many of these unfortuante people end up. How do you explain this?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by GDR, posted 07-03-2015 7:23 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by GDR, posted 07-05-2015 12:54 PM Tangle has responded

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 367 of 375 (761691)
07-04-2015 10:28 AM


Tangle, GDR et all.

http://www.upworthy.com/...neaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.cbsnews.com/...elp-unlock-the-origins-of-morality

As you can see from the links, we are naturally bias and that since it appears at such an early age, we can say that it is a part of our instincts and selfish gene that knows the best survival path thanks to the thousands or millions of years it has taken man to develop.

I don't think science knows exactly how far back in time our genetic roots began. There is too much genetic material that we share with lower animals.

Regards
DL

Edited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.


  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 368 of 375 (761774)
07-05-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Tangle
07-04-2015 2:57 AM


Re: True altruism
Tangle writes:

Are you expecting to see chimpanzees and Homo habilis in heaven?

One of the problems I have with Christian fundamentalists is that the primary point of their faith the concept of how to get to heaven. That again makes it all about how can I get God to do what I want him to do for me. It is 180 degrees from what Jesus teaches. Ironically enough, although they teach it is about God's grace they are actually teaching salvation by works in that they have turned faith into a work.

Paul says this in Ephesians:

quote:
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

The point of that is that it isn't about getting to heaven but about a renewal of ALL things and our job as humans is to care for all life and the planet itself in anticipation of what will happen at the end of time.

So the answer to the question is quite likely, but there are limits to my knowledge.

Tangle writes:

At what point in human evolution did this god given alruism get injected? Or is it done on a case by case basis? If so, why did some people miss out on it?

My subjective belief is that it is part of our non-physical consciousness and then it grows and evolves through something like Dawkins memes. We are culturally and socially influenced to become more or less altruistic.

Here is the study you quoted.

quote:
Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October 2006,[26] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[27]

This study hardly supports your view. First off they had to find somebody who was actually freely doing something altruistic in order to study them. Just how do you do that. Do you wire up somebody walking down the street just before he is going to walk by a homeless person in the hopes that he will do the altruistic thing? Does the fact that he knows he is being tested affect the brain patterns? They couldn't compare it to somebody who decided resented doing the altruistic thing.

Of course some people find pleasure in doing the truly altruistic thing and that will show up in the brain as being pleasurable. But so what. If this is strictly a biologically evolutionary process then why is it so incredibly uneven?

Tangle writes:

Therefore this 'still small voice of god' is actually an evolved biological function like all the rest.

That again is your subjective opinion.

Tangle writes:

If those functions are damaged otherwise normally functioning people are unable to feel empathy. Those people are called psychopaths - their brains are different. These people have to learn how to behave socially because they can't do it naturally and we know how many of these unfortuante people end up. How do you explain this?

I don't claim that the brain doesn't affect our behaviour. That has nothing to do with the idea that altruism is strictly an evolved biological function.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2015 2:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2015 1:23 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6744
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 369 of 375 (761775)
07-05-2015 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by GDR
07-05-2015 12:54 PM


Re: True altruism
GDR writes:

So the answer to the question is quite likely, but there are limits to my knowledge.

Obviously you've just made this up, but even so.....you realise that if Chimpazees can be 'saved' they must have souls? So there's nothing special about man. This is getting quite bizarre.

My subjective belief is that it is part of our non-physical consciousness and then it grows and evolves through something like Dawkins memes. We are culturally and socially influenced to become more or less altruistic.

I don't know what a non-physical consciousness is - if you just mean our consciousness then you'd be correct and also correct that it is influenced by the environment that the individual is brought up in. In other words it's part instinct, part learnt behaviour. That's not a subjective belief, it's evidence based.

This study hardly supports your view. First off they had to find somebody who was actually freely doing something altruistic in order to study them.

Well yes, just like when we test the effects of drugs, we find someone who is using the drugs. (???)

Just how do you do that. Do you wire up somebody walking down the street just before he is going to walk by a homeless person in the hopes that he will do the altruistic thing? Does the fact that he knows he is being tested affect the brain patterns? They couldn't compare it to somebody who decided resented doing the altruistic thing.

Hells bells! These are neuroscientists at the National Academy - do you think that they don't know how to use an fRMI scanner and do proper tests? I'll look the paper up if I get time.

Of course some people find pleasure in doing the truly altruistic thing and that will show up in the brain as being pleasurable. But so what. If this is strictly a biologically evolutionary process then why is it so incredibly uneven?

Why are some people 5 feet tall and some 6 feet 3? But I'll ask you back, why, if it's god given, is it so unevan (if it is?) Why are there psychopaths?

I don't claim that the brain doesn't affect our behaviour. That has nothing to do with the idea that altruism is strictly an evolved biological function

The brain is an evolved organ is it not? We can see that parts of the brain that are doing the work when an act of altruism is being considered. Why could alruism not have evolved like every other emotion?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by GDR, posted 07-05-2015 12:54 PM GDR has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 370 of 375 (761780)
07-05-2015 4:59 PM


Off Topic Palooza
This topic has waundered in the desert for forty days and forty nights.

Greatest I AM--as the topic originator would you like to steer us back on topic or summarize and close.


God created war so that Americans would learn geography. Mark Twain
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 371 of 375 (761863)
07-06-2015 10:45 AM


Phat

Indeed.

We, our attitudes and morals, are all created or formed by all we learn from books, others and personal experience.

It is my view that, since in the past, we have altered and changed the books we read, including the various translations of the Qur'an, and there are quite a few given the various Islamic sects, then to promote change is not out of the question as it has been acted on before.

A new Qur'an is thus quite possible and since the old ones are proving to produce jihadists, I would think that a new and morally improved Qur'an would serve us well.

The literalism and idol worship of the Qur'an which most Muslims presently adopt would need to be diminished but as Christianity has shown, the number of literalist believers can be relegated to a smaller % of the faith. A smaller right wing fundamental Islam would thus produce less jihadists than what it presently does.

I do not pretend that it will be an easy task as Christianity had to itself rebel against itself when the left wing finally reared it's more tolerant and thus beautiful side of Christianity.

Naysayers have not convinced me otherwise and have not proposed anything other than education as a remedy. --- and to that I would certainly agree, --- but the education that Muslims get of their religion is the Qur'an and to leave them to learn something that produces so many militant jihadists is not how we can use education to change their mind set.

Regards
DL

Phat

Close her up my friend.

Edited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Tangle, posted 07-06-2015 11:51 AM Greatest I am has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6744
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 372 of 375 (761882)
07-06-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Greatest I am
07-06-2015 10:45 AM


Well I disagree, the solution is to rid the world of all those divisive books, and we're making reasonable progress towards it by finding improved secular mechanisms for understanding ourselves and our world. Religious beliefs are gradually moderating and becoming anachronistic, replaced by secular institutions concerned with law, politics, social justice and so on.

If we're not taken over by the rediculous fundamentalists, religious beliefs will be a minority interest a dozen generations.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Greatest I am, posted 07-06-2015 10:45 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Greatest I am, posted 07-06-2015 12:39 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 373 of 375 (761897)
07-06-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Tangle
07-06-2015 11:51 AM


Tangle

Not that long my friend. They estimate that the tipping point of belief will be 2050.

I did have a link to the clip on it but Through the Wormhole or Discovery Chanel pulled it.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Tangle, posted 07-06-2015 11:51 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 374 of 375 (762041)
07-07-2015 6:43 PM


Well, one enemy is the misuse of religious books. I know, I know, who decides what is misuse. I can only assert that we can spot the misuse when it justifies violence.

I am not very familiar with the Qu'ran, (although I could quote verses that support a the idea of a peaceful Islam), so I'll stick to the Bible. I suggest it is wrong to treat the Bible as one book. It is a collection of books that progressively tell the story of one society's understanding of the nature of God with that story culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus brought a message of peace, love, charity, mercy forgiveness and justice. If we want a better world then follow the teachings of Jesus. The world would be much poorer without the Bible.

I know that there are those like Tangle who look at religion as the root of our problem. I vehemently disagree. The problem is the lust for pride and power. It starts on the individual level and spreads to the societal level.

People are tribal and in societies that are void of religious influence the lust for power continues. If the world really is as Tangle believes then I fear for its future. If conscience is guided solely by biological evolution then I really don't see much hope. If there is only biological evolution without that still small voice of a theistic god then there is nothing to prevent it evolving in the wrong direction. One country does something that hurts the pride of the country next door and then a physiological need arises to regain lost pride. Other nations get involved and everything deteriorates.

Sure there will always be those that will misuse religion as a means to a personal end. However , I contend if there was no religion then they would find some other justification, which would likely be nationalism.

I think one should be careful about what they wish for IMHO.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 375 of 375 (762077)
07-08-2015 1:13 PM


Two words come to mind.

Dark Ages and Inquisition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&l...

The seeking after a God is good.

Finding one and turning to idol worship like Christianity and Islam have done is evil.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Regards
DL


  
RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019