Is the world...

[GodsGrace]

I really couldn't agree more with you about the con-trick known as 'the prosperity gospel'. It really is nothing but rich pastors parasitically infecting the poor, and sucking away such meagre resources as they have. But it is symptom of two things, it seems to me: the social emphasis placed on wealth by capitalist societies and championed by tea-party neo-liberals, and the credulity that thinks: if the pastor can quote a few Bible verses, everything he says also must be true.

I ought to say, I am not against capitalism. On a small scale, between mutually consenting individuals, it works very well. On a large scale however, with many millions or even billions of dollars at stake, it has proven to be a complete disaster, and threatens our very existence as a species. (I sometimes think, if Armageddon ever happens, which climate change and a dearth of resources can only hasten, the only survivors on land will be cockroaches and Mormon preppers. And of the two, I rather think I prefer the cockroaches ) So, we need to get back to Jesus' pithy observation that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And consider whether our lives are better spent accruing more and more wealth, or just being good to those who need our help.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You forgot virus.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Apparently you're in agreement with subjective morality.
Of course you're allowed your opinion.

But what makes you think we are unable to justify our objective morality?
Allowing everyone their say is the worst type of social morals.
How does that even create morals if we could all do what we believe to be right?
Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Do you think God gave us laws to imprison us or to live better lives?
Why do you think Moses gave the Israelites laws when they were released from slavery
and crossing the Sinai?

Hmmm. How can you believe in God and still believe morality and ethics are subjective?

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[Edward]

Hmmm. How can you believe in God and still believe morality and ethics are subjective?

Best wishes, 2RM

In todays world, that's an astute observation! It seems like when anyone does the right thing in a situation they want to take the credit for it, lol. I did that because it was the moral thing to do. It does feel good to have done the right thing. But does that make it, my morality? I think not.

Morality is absolutely objective, but if you never read your bible you might not know that, lol. If anyone follow the teachings and principles in that book (the Bible) they will be living a very moral life.

So it wasn't my morality that I did not do the wrong thing that time. It was the grace of God having been given and empowered me to have enough fortitude of spirit to listen to my conscience!

It is God's morality and it is perfect and spotless. Measured out and poured into the scriptures with care so that all we need to do to extract it is to eat it and write it upon our heart.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hmmm. How can you believe in God and still believe morality and ethics are subjective?

Best wishes, 2RM

??

 

[2ndRateMind]

??

OK. Let me back-track a little, and tell you a true story. Once upon a time (all good stories start like that) I was an atheist. Without giving the matter much thought, I just assumed that ethics and morality were just stuff people disagreed about. In the same way we might disagree about politics, or aesthetics. Then, I went through a bad time. It seemed my business partner had been lieing to me for some time, and actually had no intention of keeping his commitments to me, and this put me in a bad position financially. I was, to say the least, more than a little stressed by this situation.

Anyway, then I did start to think a little more seriously about ethics and morality. If they were were just stuff people disagreed about, what right had I to feel aggrieved? I had kept all my commitments to him, but why should I expect him to keep his commitments to me? What right had I to judge his deceptions unethical? So I thought, a moral code to live by is 'a good thing'. And, since I had kept my commitments, and he had not kept his, my moral code was the better of the two, because morals and ethics form the basis of the social glue that keeps civilisations intact. But then I thought, if some moral codes are better than others, there must be some moral code that is best of all. And If some moral codes are good, and others better, clearly it is one of the better ones must be best of all.

And then it struck me. This was exactly what all those tiresome Christians had been trying to tell me all along; that God, being perfectly, infinitely good, must be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical. And to be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical is as good a definition of objectively moral and ethical as you will find anywhere. And so I began to believe, in God, and God's Will, which, because He loves us, and a moral ife is the best kind of life to live, expresses His desire for how we should live out our lives.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

... perfect because it's imperfect? I sometimes like to consider this paradox. If the world was perfect, and had no imperfections, there would be nothing of any importance left to do. I think we would quickly grow bored.

Best wishes to you all. 2RM.

One would have to conclude that sin is perfect in order for this to be accurate.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK. Let me back-track a little, and tell you a true story. Once upon a time (all good stories start like that) I was an atheist. Without giving the matter much thought, I just assumed that ethics and morality were just stuff people disagreed about. In the same way we might disagree about politics, or aesthetics. Then, I went through a bad time. It seemed my business partner had been lieing to me for some time, and actually had no intention of keeping his commitments to me, and this put me in a bad position financially. I was, to say the least, more than a little stressed by this situation.

Anyway, then I did start to think a little more seriously about ethics and morality. If they were were just stuff people disagreed about, what right had I to feel aggrieved? I had kept all my commitments to him, but why should I expect him to keep his commitments to me? What right had I to judge his deceptions unethical? So I thought, a moral code to live by is 'a good thing'. And, since I had kept my commitments, and he had not kept his, my moral code was the better of the two, because morals and ethics form the basis of the social glue that keeps civilisations intact. But then I thought, if some moral codes are better than others, there must be some moral code that is best of all. And If some moral codes are good, and others better, clearly it is one of the better ones must be best of all.

And then it struck me. This was exactly what all those tiresome Christians had been trying to tell me all along; that God, being perfectly, infinitely good, must be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical. And to be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical is as good a definition of objectively moral and ethical as you will find anywhere. And so I began to believe, in God, and God's Will, which, because He loves us, and a moral ife is the best kind of life to live, expresses His desire for how we should live out our lives.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Ok.
Your last post did confuse me because I was agreeing with you,,,thus the question marks.

I find it very interesting how we all get to know God in different ways. The intellectual way is one of them, which is what you experienced.

Great thinking, BTW. In the same way that we seek perfection...if we seek it, it must exist. And it does, in God.

Sam Harris is a nice person that would like to see suffering abolished. He also is one of those that believe God is not necessary for objectively good morals to be put into practice.

According to those with his ideology, it is sufficient for the simple reason that good morals are better for the survival of civilization.

I wonder how such intelligent persons can have these ideas.

If God becomes eradicated from society, how many generations do you think could subsist before chaos or totalitarianism?

Who would decide what is moral or not?

Rhetorical questions, of course.

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

OK. Let me back-track a little, and tell you a true story. Once upon a time (all good stories start like that) I was an atheist. Without giving the matter much thought, I just assumed that ethics and morality were just stuff people disagreed about. In the same way we might disagree about politics, or aesthetics. Then, I went through a bad time. It seemed my business partner had been lieing to me for some time, and actually had no intention of keeping his commitments to me, and this put me in a bad position financially. I was, to say the least, more than a little stressed by this situation.

Anyway, then I did start to think a little more seriously about ethics and morality. If they were were just stuff people disagreed about, what right had I to feel aggrieved? I had kept all my commitments to him, but why should I expect him to keep his commitments to me? What right had I to judge his deceptions unethical? So I thought, a moral code to live by is 'a good thing'. And, since I had kept my commitments, and he had not kept his, my moral code was the better of the two, because morals and ethics form the basis of the social glue that keeps civilisations intact. But then I thought, if some moral codes are better than others, there must be some moral code that is best of all. And If some moral codes are good, and others better, clearly it is one of the better ones must be best of all.

And then it struck me. This was exactly what all those tiresome Christians had been trying to tell me all along; that God, being perfectly, infinitely good, must be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical. And to be perfectly, infinitely moral and ethical is as good a definition of objectively moral and ethical as you will find anywhere. And so I began to believe, in God, and God's Will, which, because He loves us, and a moral ife is the best kind of life to live, expresses His desire for how we should live out our lives.

Best wishes, 2RM.

As I see it, if we are to measure what is morale, then there must be a standard in which to compare, and answer the question, "what is morality. What is, and, is not, moral." This standard, contrary to what other's would have us believe, is not what society deems moral. Furthermore, government isn't the standard in which to measure morality, as it is impossible to regulate, and/or, create laws to encourage what politicians consider morality. So, what then is the standard?

 

[2ndRateMind]

As I see it, if we are to measure what is morale, then there must be a standard in which to compare, and answer the question, "what is morality. What is, and, is not, moral." This standard, contrary to what other's would have us believe, is not what society deems moral. Furthermore, government isn't the standard in which to measure morality, as it is impossible to regulate, and/or, create laws to encourage what politicians consider morality. So, what then is the standard?

Seems to me that's up for rational debate and discussion.

Best Wishes, 2RM

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

Seems to me that's up for rational debate and discussion.

Best Wishes, 2RM

Then we would have to first establish what is rational. And, to do so, there had to be a basis for which we measure what is rational.

 

[Edward]

Then we would have to first establish what is rational. And, to do so, there had to be a basis for which we measure what is rational.

You must be a Lawyer! You sound just like one, lol.

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

You must be a Lawyer! You sound just like one, lol.

LoL. Naw, just a born again believer that tries to think rationally and Scripturally.

 

[Edward]

Even though what you said was valid. You guys do need to be on the same page!

Too many court shows I guess, lol.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Happy Christmas, everyone.

Seasons Greetings, 2RM.

 

[Niblo]

Happy Christmas, everyone.

Seasons Greetings, 2RM.

Thank you.

Likewise.

 

[BB1956]

... perfect because it's imperfect? I sometimes like to consider this paradox. If the world was perfect, and had no imperfections, there would be nothing of any importance left to do. I think we would quickly grow bored.

Best wishes to you all. 2RM.

That's the thinking of an imperfect human. I know if the first human couple had been obedient to the true God, this would have been a very amazing place because there would have been no sickness, or death, no hunger or homelessness, no wars. This planet would have been filled with sinless humans who didn't have a sinful nature. There would have been no divisions among humans as there are today, because there would have been no hatred.

Although now on planet earth there is hatred, sin and death and there are things like sickness and wars, homelessness and hunger.
One day this planet will be filled with sinless humans who don't grow old and die, who don't fight and kill one another, and no human will hunger or be homeless. Humans will live on a paradise earth one day. I don't think that will be boring. Humans beings never growing old and dying and living on a paradise earth is what God purposed for humanity and that purpose will happen.

 

[2ndRateMind]

That's the thinking of an imperfect human. I know if the first human couple had been obedient to the true God, this would have been a very amazing place because there would have been no sickness, or death, no hunger or homelessness, no wars. This planet would have been filled with sinless humans who didn't have a sinful nature. There would have been no divisions among humans as there are today, because there would have been no hatred.

Although now on planet earth there is hatred, sin and death and there are things like sickness and wars, homelessness and hunger.
One day this planet will be filled with sinless humans who don't grow old and die, who don't fight and kill one another, and no human will hunger or be homeless. Humans will live on a paradise earth one day. I don't think that will be boring. Humans beings never growing old and dying and living on a paradise earth is what God purposed for humanity and that purpose will happen.

I think you have that all entirely the wrong way round. We know perfectly well from evolutionary science there was no 'first human couple', no Garden of Eden, no fruit of the tree of knowledge, no speaking serpent, and no fall. Instead, history is the gradual story of the development of humanity from primeval slime to a moral being capable of contemplating His creator. We still have a ways to go, it is true, and challenges to face, such as the world's nuclear arsenal, the threat of climate change and the mass extinction that may bring. But the idea that there ever was a golden age before some original sin is just ancient Jewish myth. If we can sort ourselves out in time, we may yet reach that Golden Age, where there is no hatred, sin or death. But there has never yet been such a state on Earth, and if we want it, we must work to bring it about. And who knows, with a little help from God, we may just achieve it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Then we would have to first establish what is rational. And, to do so, there had to be a basis for which we measure what is rational.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you common English usage. If you really don't know what rational means, I suggest you look it up in a suitable dictionary.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Ok.
Your last post did confuse me because I was agreeing with you,,,thus the question marks.

I find it very interesting how we all get to know God in different ways. The intellectual way is one of them, which is what you experienced.

Great thinking, BTW. In the same way that we seek perfection...if we seek it, it must exist. And it does, in God.

Sam Harris is a nice person that would like to see suffering abolished. He also is one of those that believe God is not necessary for objectively good morals to be put into practice.

According to those with his ideology, it is sufficient for the simple reason that good morals are better for the survival of civilization.

I wonder how such intelligent persons can have these ideas.

If God becomes eradicated from society, how many generations do you think could subsist before chaos or totalitarianism?

Who would decide what is moral or not?

Rhetorical questions, of course.

According to Dawkins, natural selection works at the level of the individual organism, not the tribe, nation, or civilisation. Thus evolution only works on some individual when it confers advantage to that individual. If some civilisation survives the dog-eat-dog, devil-take-the-hindmost Darwinian competition for land and resources, that is an accidental benefit to the individuals comprising it, that owes nothing to evolution.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[BB1956]

I think you have that all entirely the wrong way round. We know perfectly well from evolutionary science there was no 'first human couple', no Garden of Eden, no fruit of the tree of knowledge, no speaking serpent, and no fall. Instead, history is the gradual story of the development of humanity from primeval slime to a moral being capable of contemplating His creator. We still have a ways to go, it is true, and challenges to face, such as the world's nuclear arsenal, the threat of climate change and the mass extinction that may bring. But the idea that there ever was a golden age before some original sin is just ancient Jewish myth. If we can sort ourselves out in time, we may yet reach that Golden Age, where there is no hatred, sin or death. But there has never yet been such a state on Earth, and if we want it, we must work to bring it about. And who knows, with a little help from God, we may just achieve it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

What you and others believe is your choice. You're leaving God out of the picture. I myself don't believe evolutionary science to be fact.