i'm NOT christian... and proud of it!!!

[Royd 0]

>What one cannot deny is the presence of good and evil.
>This could be broken down even further:

>Generosity vs. selfishness
>Kindness vs. meanness
>Courage vs. cowardice

Quote

Right, but those are all creations of man. The natural world has no hard-and-fast examples of good or evil.

I knew someone would go down that road. Are you saying that the Islamists who cut a persons head off and put it on film so that the world can see, really think that what they do is good?

Are you saying that it is only our perception that makes an action good or evil?

How is it that in all of nature, only the human being does stupid stuff that goes against nature?

Actually, I would say that a male of any given species killing its own young in order to breed again, would be considered evil.

[SpeedRacer 1]

actually no. good and evil are characteristics of human acts.

animals are not considered good or evil. they don't do morality, they're just animals. even if they kill for no good reason.

this gets back to the whole apple in the garden of Eden thing.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,400]

>Are you saying that the Islamists who cut a persons head off and
>put it on film so that the world can see, really think that what they do
> is good?

Yes, they think that's the right thing to do. So did the early Christians who tortured people to death in the name of God. So did McVeigh. So do US troops who torture people to death and then take pictures of their work. So did Japan when they bombed us in 1941. So did we when we dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians and killed 350,000 of them. All those things are inherently evil, and they all had justifications of one sort or another. Most people decide that they are evil or good based on those justifications.

>Are you saying that it is only our perception that makes an
>action good or evil?

Definitely. If a hawk kills a mouse, is that good or evil? It is neither, unless there's a person around to judge its action.

That being said, I prefer to live by a certain moral code. I think it is the correct one. It's pretty close to what most people accept, so it's not much of an issue. I don't think people who have different moral codes are wrong or evil - but if they do things that I consider wrong or evil, then they are evil in my book. It's a subjective judgement, not a scientific or legal one.

>How is it that in all of nature, only the human being does stupid
>stuff that goes against nature?

?? Rabbits will eat and eat until they've eaten every green thing for miles, and then 99% of them will die. Cats torture mice by crippling them then trying to see if they will still run away. Honeybees are nature's "suicide bombers" - they die after they attack. Many species - rats, monkeys, goats - show more homosexual behaviors than man does. Dolphins and chimpanzees masturbate. Hawk chicks push their weaker brothers and sisters out of the nest to die. The ichenumenon wasp lays its eggs inside caterpillars, and the larvae then eat it from the inside out. They eat the nerves and circulatory system last, so the caterpillar survives until the last possible moment (and can feel itself being eaten alive.)

Those things aren't against nature. Those things ARE nature.

>Actually, I would say that a male of any given species killing its own
> young in order to breed again, would be considered evil.

That's fine. I don't think that any animal that obeys its instincts in that way is evil. Good and evil don't really have much meaning unless you can understand the concepts. (For a religious explanation of that, see Genesis.)

[Royd 0]

Are you saying that the Islamists who cut a persons head off and
>put it on film so that the world can see, really think that what they do
> is good?

Quote

Yes, they think that's the right thing to do

That's why they put it on film for the world to see, because it is an act of goodness. These people know exactly what they are doing, and they are full of hate. Another one of those elusive, subjective concepts.

[billvon 2,400]

>That's why they put it on film for the world to see . . .

They put it on film for the world to see because they think it accomplishes their goal, and they think their goal is worthy.

>These people know exactly what they are doing, and they are full of hate.

So were the christians who ran the Inquisition and the Crusades. But they thought they were doing the right thing, too. I think all of them - from Crusaders to Islamic terrorists - are mistaken.

[shaiziel 0]

If god created the world, this... life is worthless to god, and thus worthless to humanity, as it's only purpose is to serve god. Humanity is an afterthought in the "greater scheme things." Your only purpose is to live a life for god so that you may spend your eternal spiritual existence, again, serving god. I further reemphasize the fact that this life is worthless because christians even believe that the things of this world will pass away and you won't think of your life in the world unless, i guess, it's a prelude to your next exaltation of god's great mercy on your soul. The christian agenda is to forego this life so that you may have a blissful eternity.

If there is no god, and there is no afterlife, then this life becomes infinitesimally more meaningful and worthwhile. This is all there is. The life you lead, the people you meet, the things you do, all these things become the highlight of your great story. While not all lives led are has high profile as others, no life is any less for its worth. Everyone born has the opportunity, the chance, to live a life NOONE else will ever live. Your love, your hate, your pleasure, your pain, dance on the stage of your life's experiences. From moment to moment, day to day, year to year, you grow and learn and become this person that no one else will ever be. Everything you do has a strengthened effect on the people around you. The life you live is defined by how you live it. While people may look down on you, it matters not because ultimately, you are responsible for you.

And you know what the best part about a temporary life is? Closure. The fact that when it's all said and done, you don't have to live anymore. You don't have to do anything else. You get to rest. Nothing else matters and you don't have to worry about anything.

Let me say this. A god that would have me live a life of hell to have an eternal life in heaven is no god I want to serve. A god that would have me forsake all I love, whether it be a wife, or kids, or other family, or my happiness, my health, whatever, to prove his "point", I just find to be so absurd. I wouldn't lose a moment of my life, my love, or my pain, for anything. It's made me what I am today and that's something no one else will ever be. I have no regrets except the mistake of not doing more in life.

----------------------------------------
6.8% - Almost there!

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

You're right. And that's my point. It's because the goal itself is worthy that we as human beings even survive. Because we know it's gotta be good for something.

What do you mean? Do you think that if there wasn't some form of cosmic purpose then everyone would just lay down and die?

Quote

Where does that spark come from? What makes us think we're worth any more than a dog on the street? How are we able to recognize good and evil when we see it, no matter what name it goes by?

Worth more than a dog in what way? Dogs cost hundreds of dollars to keep each year - surely more than most owners give to humanitarian charities.

And if you think there is a unifying code of morality innate in all men - then I think you are mistaken. Its all relative.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

So do US troops who torture people to death and then take pictures of their work.

What exactly are you talking about? Shouldn't you be calling the Pentagon or someone important about this?

[Royd 0]

Quote

god created the world, this... life is worthless to god, and thus worthless to humanity, as it's only purpose is to serve god.Blah, blah, blah.

If I still smoked, I'd have to light one up to understand all of that.
maybe I can remember my mantra and do a little TM.

[Royd 0]

[billvon 2,400]

>What exactly are you talking about?

In case you haven't been reading the news for a few years, see the pictures of US troops posing with dead Iraqis at Abu Ghraib below.

[shaiziel 0]

Quote

Quote

god created the world, this... life is worthless to god, and thus worthless to humanity, as it's only purpose is to serve god.Blah, blah, blah.

If I still smoked, I'd have to light one up to understand all of that.
maybe I can remember my mantra and do a little TM.

It's just english man. Sorry if my train of thought is overly-elaborate/complicated/eloquent/convoluted. I just do my best to help make sure people read what I wrote as I intend it. It's probably a good idea to pay attention to the commas. Just sayin.

----------------------------------------
6.8% - Almost there!

[Royd 0]

Quote

>What exactly are you talking about?

In case you haven't been reading the news for a few years, see the pictures of US troops posing with dead Iraqis at Abu Ghraib below.

I know some soldiers went to prison for prisoner abuse, but not torture. I do not remember any stories of murder coming from Abu Ghraib. Do I actually need to check?

[billvon 2,400]

>I know some soldiers went to prison for prisoner abuse, but not torture.

Well, let's see. If you consider beating someone to death, crippling them, and sodomizing them with a stick is just abuse and not torture - you have a somewhat creative definition of torture.

> I do not remember any stories of murder coming from Abu Ghraib. Do I actually need to check?

If you like. Google Manadel al-Jamadi if you want to know the story of a man who was beaten to death in Abu Ghraib, and who is featured in those pictures.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Well, let's see. If you consider beating someone to death, crippling them, and sodomizing them with a stick is just abuse and not torture - you have a somewhat creative definition of torture.

Just taking your lead on good and evil. It's subjective, right?

[billvon 2,400]

>Just taking your lead on good and evil. It's subjective, right?

The definition of words is not subjective; you can look them up in a dictionary, and the dictionary doesn't change depending on one's morals. Whether what those words describe is good or bad _is_ subjective.

Now, we might decide that torturing someone to death is OK morally. If so, though, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on when we complain about insurgents torturing and killing US soldiers. But personally I don't think it is OK, and I don't think we as a country should tolerate it - whether we do it or someone else does it to us.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Dolphins and chimpanzees masturbate.

um,,, I'm trying to imagine how a dolphin would masturbate.

.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,400]

>I'm trying to imagine how a dolphin would masturbate.

Google it. They use whatever's handy.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Google it.

No.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Nightingale 0]

I googled it. I found WAY more information than I was looking for.

[shaiziel 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, let's see. If you consider beating someone to death, crippling them, and sodomizing them with a stick is just abuse and not torture - you have a somewhat creative definition of torture.

Just taking your lead on good and evil. It's subjective, right?

Speaking of posts that don't make any sense...

Here is the nature of subjective morality.

Actions themselves do not have a moral polarity. That is to say, that no action is good or evil. An action is an action, nothing more. But the thing that makes one say "Well that was evil" or "Well that was good" are:

A. the consequences and how they affect other people, and their perspective of the consequences.
B. your personal position on whether an action is good or evil based on your ideas/beliefs/convictions/emotions/thoughts.

Both of these things are what frame an action in the context, and ultimate the context of the action dictates whether people say the action is good or evil.

If you don't believe morality is at least, at it's root, subjective, the simplest way to explain it is with killing.

If a man walks into a house and kills the wife of a couple who he doesn't even know, for no reason other than a psychotic rampage, that would widley be regarded as "evil." So in retaliation, the husband of the murdered wife kills the man. In the context of the stated scenario, the man who killed in retaliation is justified and most would see what this man did as "good."

So in the period of a minute of time, we've had two people kill, and one of them is evil, the other is good, or at least justified.

We, at this point, have established a line of subjectivity. One man killed for a reason society sees as evil, the other man killed for a reason society would see as good. The action is the same, but the context is different and as a result, we have established that the action has no polarity in and of itself.

To put it in a christian perspective. God told the Israelites to take the land of Canaan and kill every man, woman, and child as well as their livestock. God essentially said, "Eradicate this group of people so you may take the land I've given you." And what happened when they didn't? God punished them by not allowing them to take the land of Canaan and forced them to wander around the wilderness for a few more years. Why? Because god explicitly told them to do something, and they didn't do it.

So we have a dilemma. Were the Israelites evil for killing the Canaanites? Were they evil for not killing (presumably for their own selfish reasons)? Evil in action? Evil in inaction? The 10 commandments states that man should not kill or, for semantics nuts, murder (yes I know the difference, I'm getting there). So here we have god telling his chosen people to kill a bunch of "not so chosen" people so they could take the land god promised them. Let me restate this. They killed a bunch of people for land. Lets restate it again. They killed a bunch of people for self-gain. They were explicitly told to kill everything and everyone, children included, for land that god promised them. In my opinion, that's pretty fucking evil. But you would say "The will of God surpasses our understanding so we can't judge the situation from the holy perspective that god holds since he is righteous. We are to follow his will and if you step outside of his will you are sinning." You're telling me, it's evil to not kill when god tells you to kill. Right?

What

The

Fuck!?

Regardless of this atrocity (and others like it that followed, see: inquisition) it again shows that actions aren't evil unless they are framed in context that shades the action as evil.

Here's all I can say. Morality is anything but subjective for christians, so you are in no position to be making subjective statements or taking subjective positions about anything. Your only position on the morality of an action should be the position god takes. I don't know how god feels about abuse or torture, but if there is any christian that gets a chubby about it, I don't want to deal with them. Laughing at Abu Gharib and the other incidents at our interment camps is, in my opinion, just as indignant, disrespectful, and unnecessary as a bunch of middle eastern men laughing at the world trade center. I'd rather just beat both their asses.

Whatever though, just put in your Jesus ear plugs

----------------------------------------
6.8% - Almost there!

[SpeedRacer 1]

tell you what:

read Pope John Paul II books & tell me if you're dealing with a mindless
Bible-thumping dogmatist.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're right. And that's my point. It's because the goal itself is worthy that we as human beings even survive. Because we know it's gotta be good for something.

What do you mean? Do you think that if there wasn't some form of cosmic purpose then everyone would just lay down and die?

Sort of... but not a cosmic purpose, in fact, not even remotely cosmic. I mean that if every person didn't feel at least some vague inkling of a purpose, it wouldn't even occur to us to question it. This would not be a debate of any kind. There would be no need for God in anyone's life. And yes, there would be no reason not to lay down and die when things seem impossible.

Some people do that as it is because they've lost all sense of hope and purpose. They feel they have nothing good to give.

Quote

Quote

Where does that spark come from? What makes us think we're worth any more than a dog on the street? How are we able to recognize good and evil when we see it, no matter what name it goes by?

Worth more than a dog in what way? Dogs cost hundreds of dollars to keep each year - surely more than most owners give to humanitarian charities.

And if you think there is a unifying code of morality innate in all men - then I think you are mistaken. Its all relative.

I was referring to intrinsic human worth, not how much it costs to have a dog.

And yes, I think there is a code of morality within us all based on how we want to be treated, and yes, it is all very very relative because a lot of people out there don't like themselves very much.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

• Quote

[hairyjuan 0]

those documents the vatican keeps 'hidden away' back up everything i've said or will ever say on this subject.

I have examined all known superstitions of the world, and i do not find in our particular superstition of christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables andmythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of christanity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
Thomas Jefferson

The godspell(origin of gospel) story is an artificial, non-historical work. It has been fabricated from source materials that can identified and traced to their incorporation into the godsells. There is not a particle of hard evidence that "jesus of nazareth"ever existed.
Harold Leidner, the fabrication of the christ myth

NAZA-reth, rene is the origin of NAZI, even in bible dictionaries

II Timothy 3:15,16--...the 'holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto through faith which is in jesus christ,

all scripture is given by inspiration of god, and it is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.


Psalm 19:7 (originally Akenaten's hymn to the
SUN)
thelaw ofthe lord is perfect, converting the soul;the testimony of the lord is sure, making wise the simple.
An intelligent, reasonable being KNOWS a book cannot prove itself. this is also the ONLY foundation of their assertion that the bible is true

Exodus 20:5 ...for i the lord thy god am a JEALOUS god....

this 'god' is about LOVE, not even

While you sit onyour duffs praying for your mythical saviour to return Thomas Jefferson's Prophecy has been totally fufilled. I present it for your education here. enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How many times has paj linked to 'are you a good person', at least a hundred. he needs pied

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

Elsewhere in these religion threads someone asked, 'i wondered what chuteless would have to say.' this is what chuteless had to say when he and i had this conversation, "What a sorry example of a human you are...and to think that you may be jumping out of airplanes...you must be a hazard to everyone around you."


immediately there after he stopped posting. i sent him everything you,ve seen linked here, a year ago!

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish