Believing it is not proving it

God, if He existed, would have the absolute truth. Elders and the parents may or may not right. What's illogical about not killing or stealing? It's not logical or illogical, or at any rate cannot be shown to be so. It's just a preference of no more significance than our preference for cetain colors or a certain look in the opposite sex or any other of those subjective preferences. Ultimately, it's arbitrary.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-05-2006 08:11 PM

---

"It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson

As you can imagine, I've thought about that a lot.Predominantly, I am simply, profoundly grateful for that gift of life, and do think of it as an act of love...but I also see it in other ways. The poor guy had screwed up: he shouldn't have been where he was; I had often had to wave him away from getting so close to my point position--not only had he come too close again, but he had moved outside the safe track I laid down. I think he knew all that in the instant of that awful *click* and his almost instantaneous reaction of pushing me into the ditch was at once apology, expiation, and the acceptance of responsibility: at last he was all grown up, a split second before he died.Our lieutenant suggested the kid was just trying to push me out of the way so he could run. He lost a lot of respect with that remark; the loss of respect made him reckless; his recklessness got him killed, too. Aren't we strange creatures?As an evolutionist, of course, I have no difficulty in understanding the advantages of altruistic behavior. I could suggest, for example, that I survived to produce progeny with more good sense (or sound instinct) than to act in such a high-risk fashion, whereas he might have produced descendants inclined to get their neighbors killed.Now, as a man of graying years and too many ghosts, I think he was a nice kid who should never have been asked to go and kill people who had more in common with him than the leaders on either side. I had been half-feral since toddling, and a jungle of enmity felt like home to me--I could feel hazard before I could see or hear it, the same instinct that prompted me to leave many bad scenes--bars, parties, deals, family gatherings, managers meetings --before they imploded. Ironically, he was ill-equipped for that jungle because he was a more normal human being. So who was unfit? As always, it is the environment that selects...There was a morality at work that day, a soldier's morality: Thou shalt not get thy buddy killed by fucking up. But I'm not sure that you can get to that credo with logic, and I don't think logic generated human moralities. Our innate capacity for empathy and compassion seem like better candidates to me: we know it is good to love and bad to hurt because we know how good and bad those things feel, and, if we aren't too broken, we can feel the joys and pains of others.

Where do you get such ideas? That has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory.To pass on any evolved traits, all that was needed is for him to have reproduced. Where do you get the idea that according to evolution he was unfit?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can imagine. And your attempt at cohering it leaves you with the best-guess as to why he did it. A jumble of instantaneous realisations on his part (which it seems are possible given ample evidence for life-flashed-before-me/time slowed down in times of emergency). And the fact that you think of it as an act of love.I suggest the latter is evident in your examination because when we look at ourselves and imagine ourselves in that situation then sacrificial love is not the conclusion we would imagine ourselves arriving at having has a slowed-down split second to consider it.He could have pulled you into his path to shield himself from the blast - a la the man on the Titanic who cried "woman and children and me to the lifeboats" That ascribes a purpose which I understood evolution to be void of. Evolution doesn't seek advantage in order that species increase or such thing. What survives survives and evolution is as satisfied when none survive as when some, or many survive. Point being, there is no advantage in his behaviour to his genetic line. As a product of evolution (whether direct genetic or genetic-prone-to conditoning-unto-self-sacrificial-love) his makeup made him unfit for survival. Like you say. And I imagine you have trouble cohering his act of love (because you to some degree see it as such) with his act demonstrating his simple unfitness. Same as me but in the arena of crime. You have to be stupid to get caught. I just became dog-tired with it. Evolutionist-speak Lite. Should God ever come a knocking Omni, do us all a favour and open the door will ya. Then drop me a line. You'd make a good evangelist but there are some tips I always like to give rookies from my position at point here. I'd hate to see you step on land minesThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Apr-2006 12:08 PM

quote:

---

God, if He existed, would have the absolute truth.

---

According to who? Again you are making rules on what God should be. Look at what is, not what you feel should be.

quote:

---

Elders and the parents may or may not right. What's illogical about not killing or stealing? It's not logical or illogical, or at any rate cannot be shown to be so. It's just a preference of no more significance than our preference for cetain colors or a certain look in the opposite sex or any other of those subjective preferences. Ultimately, it's arbitrary.

---

I disagree.Logic is correct reasoning. Who determines what is correct reasoning?Let's look at killing. From an objective standpoint, do all creatures kill? It doesn't matter for what purpose. Now I haven't studied all creatures, so I won't say yes, but let's look at the one creature we do know, Humans.Do humans kill? Yes
Can an elder or a God make a blanket rule not to kill at all? IMO, no.
This is where we get to the circumstances or specific reasons for killing.Since we have a drive to survive, is killing other creatures for food wrong? From a survival standpoint, no.Still with survival in mind; if enemy humans attack and steal your food for the winter, this threatens survival. Is it wrong to kill if other means do not deter the enemy?If the enemy that is attacking also kills the people in your village, is it wrong to kill to protect the lives of your family or tribe?If a member of the tribe or family kills another member over a trivial argument, is it wrong to kill in that instance?These are some possibilities that elders or a God would have to reason through to determine moral rules.Looking at human history, we see that not all leaders made logical or wise rulings and their civilizations suffered.The more people that must coexist together the more complicated the rules get.While I think we can analyze the situation objectively, creating rules are still going to be based on feelings and experiences or subjective. But that doesn't necessarily make the rulings arbitrary or illogical.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The theory of evolution is more complicated than that, iano. There are circumstances in which sacrificing one's apparent interests, up to and including life itself, can promote the survival of one's genetic line. That being so, the altruistic capability/tendency has become well established, and, in my opinion, a strict calculus is not necessary in every instance now that the behavior is in our species' repertoire. Well, no...he was standing on the bloody thing--there was no escape for him. What was remarkable was his ability to act to save another in the same instant he recognized his own doom. No, Iano, that opinion has nothing to do with the ToE: 'Evolutionist' is not my primary identity in life; it is merely a category at this forum. The grounding of morality in empathy and compassion is my own conclusion after years of living in (and observing others in) "the foul rag and bone shop of the heart." You'd be among the first to know.

Then where did you get the idea that God has to be all-good?Most of your concern seemed to involve the Christian God. He is described in the Bible. Where else would you get accurate information as to His characteristics?

From a philosophical examination.

Being a Christian is so much more than being considered a nice person. It requires a level of Faith in the scriptures, a belief in the goodness of those around you. A sense of forgiveness for transgressions against society. An absolute belief that Jesus is the Son of God. His messanger was sent to teach us to love one another. Those of you on the other side of this argument need to know that God loves you and forgives you for your lack of faith in his absolute Love.

how? did you just one day come up with the idea that god can only be good? what led you to this conclusion? why not conclude that god is a bastard, or doesn't care? I mean dozens if not hundreds of people came to that conclusion over the yearsthe only way you could come up with the omni stuff is through the bible or christian teachings

No, that's not the only way I could come up with it. I could think about it and realize that Pagan-style Gods, for example, made no sense.I could realize that any God that could be said to have arisen out of nature was logically extraneous. Then I could ask myself, what would be the attributes of a God that would make Him not logically extraneous, that would not presuppose something behind Him to which he was beholden in some sense, or which created Him.The only sort of God that would work would be an ideal Being, the answer to everything. There would be nothing behind such a God, no standard to which He would have to adhere, nothing which could be said to be before HIm, nothing which created Him.And then I asked myself, what would be the qualities of an ideal Being and came up with these omni-qualities.

So you have created your own idea of God.Interesting. You're an atheist who creates his own idea of God and then deems that that God does not exist because the world doesn't fit your idea of what that God would allow.IMO, it is much easier and less stressful to understand the reality of the God concept.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 04-07-2006 09:01 AM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If I have done that, my logic is wrong. Tell me what's wrong with my logic.

Dear Faith,I wanted to reply to you because, like you, I have dealt with this one-sidedness; and I also tend to make long postings.You must remember that “we are not wrestling with flesh and blood” (The Evolutionists are not the enemy) . but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.I used to get frustrated with the comments made by some of the people who would answer my posting as well; and still do. However, I realized that I was not answering them for their sake (I. E. I know that they, at least for now, would not accept what I was saying because they had already made their minds up that I was a religious quack and not to be taken sinuously.), I was answering them for the sake of those who would read my posting and see that I am giving facts and progressing from a logical bases, and maybe, just maybe, they would see The Truth.Always keep in mind that although we appose ”Marco’ Evolution, the evolutionist is not the enemy, and the tools we should be using are logic, love, understanding, Facts, the Uncompromising Truth, and the Hope we have in Y’Shua the Messiah (Jesus who is the Christ). The Name of Y’Shua means, "Yah’vah (the eternal existing One) Saves.

​

Ephesians 6:12:
12For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.
Amplified Bible

And on that note, this thread fades into the sunset.

---