Joy to the world

[mike777]

This seems an apt quote from a former U.S. military psychiatrist, Dr. M. Scott Peck (1983):

 

"Evil is not commited by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves.  The evil in this world is commited by the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination."

1) Just as earlier in the thread I think the ultimate discussion came down to the Nature of God. Is the nature of the Christian/Hebrew God Just or Unjust?

Google has over 75 million references on the nature of God.

2) I have read Peck for over 20 years. The whole theme of your post and Jimmy's last post touches on the ultimate nature of Mankind. Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral? Google has 244 million references on the nature of Man.

[Winstonm]

1) Just as earlier in the thread I think the ultimate discussion came down to the Nature of God. Is the nature of the Christian/Hebrew God Just or Unjust?

 

Mike,

IMO, the nature of the C/H god is determined by the theology that drives a particular strain of belief.

 

The whole theme of your post and Jimmy's last post touches on the ultimate nature of Mankind. Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

What is the cause of this need to seperate into plus/minus, black/white? From what I have seen, the nature of man is his capacity to be both.

[mikeh]

This seems an apt quote from a former U.S. military psychiatrist, Dr. M. Scott Peck (1983):

 

"Evil is not commited by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves.  The evil in this world is commited by the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination."

1) Just as earlier in the thread I think the ultimate discussion came down to the Nature of God. Is the nature of the Christian/Hebrew God Just or Unjust?

Google has over 75 million references on the nature of God.

2) I have read Peck for over 20 years. The whole theme of your post and Jimmy's last post touches on the ultimate nature of Mankind. Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral? Google has 244 million references on the nature of Man.

Surely one cannot have an 'ultimate' discussion on the nature of God without first resolving the issue of whether there is any such 'God'?

 

For those of a religious persuasion, the question of your stipulated God may well be the ultimate issue. For those of us who do not think that any 'God', as contemplated by the various present and past religions, ever existed, then all the discussion about such a God's nature becomes somewhat irrelevant.

 

This is akin to debating the 'purpose of life'. Many people seem to feel that there has to be some 'purpose'... which is why so many fundamentalists (and some others) cannot allow themselves to accept darwinian evolutionary theory.... that theory negates the very concept of there being any 'purpose' served by the history of life on earth (unless one stipulates for a God who likes to roll the dice, after 'he' created the universe).

 

For those of us not afraid of the idea that maybe the very concept of purpose is irrelevant to any discussion of the universe, or the idea that our brains are unable to entertain the truly pertinent concepts (as the brain of a mouse is incapable of comprehending special relativity.. it didn't evolve the requisite complexity), discussions as to the meaning of life, or the nature of 'God' are trivial distractions. Entertaining, to some degree, but meaningless.

 

We can, of course, create our own purposes... and the construct of religion is one way of doing so. But the fact that the fiction of a God enables many to assuage their insecurities, doesn't make the fiction real.

 

My purposes, to the extent that I have any, are:

 

1) to make my family and friends happy, to the best of my ability

 

2) to contribute to my society's overall happiness

 

3) to live a moral life

 

4) to learn... to acquire more knowledge to feed my sense of wonder

 

Of course, I cannot for a moment pretend that I am constantly living my life in light of these purposes: I have on many occasions acted inconsistently with these purposes, and will no doubt continue to do so. But I do have purpose in my life... purpose that has arisen as a result of my personal reaction to the social conditioning I have undergone and continue to experience. And I do not need the crutch of a fictional God to sustain me.

[pbleighton]

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

I vote mixed, more good than bad but *basically moral and kind* is a bit of an overstatement.

 

Peter

[mike777]

A bit more on the "nature of man." With 244 million references on google there is quite a wide spread of opinion on just what is mans' nature and what the word "nature" even means. Many times it seems people are talking about two very different subjects.

 

Regardless of what you think is the nature of man I wanted in this post to talk about the immutability of that nature. If one's view of mans' nature as unchangeable no matter what the training or education or assistance from the rest of mankind your view of the world and your role in it may be very different from someone who believes mans' nature can or may be improved or changed with some help from mankind.

[Codo]

But I am puzzled by your assertion that some people DO need religion in order to live a moral life.

 

How do you know this?

 

I "know" it because Mike quoted this for himself.

And I know that there are people who like to follow simple rules given by a big authority. Espacially we germans have a "great" history in follwing blindly our leaders. It is much easier to life with given "easy" rules then to think about the ethics yourself.

 

Is there a significant body of evidence to suggest that people who lose religious faith go on to live lives of crime and violence? Or to become cheats, swindlers and thieves?

 

No, I know no statistics about this area.

 

...

. Any assertion of fact, with no evidentiary foundation, is dogma. So, while I appreciate that my tone may offend you (and others), it is not I who is being dogmatic when I take offence at blanket overstatements about the need for religious belief.

 

I think that you can profe my statementbut as Helene and me had agreed before, it is a statement like: Many people need and authority to live a moral life.

And for some this is the state with his rules, with police courts and jails, for others it is a god and there may well be other authorities too.

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether the assertionis valid: what does it have to do with the 'truth' of religious belief?

 

In essence the argument that religion is necessary to preserve societal ethics (and so far it has done a lousy job, if that be its main function), is no argument for any specific religion. Any religion that preaches any form of moral code is as vaild as any other. Yet most of the major religions are intolerant of others. Heck, even the recent signs of tolerance within the Christian groups was dealt a blow by the current Pope who has renewed assertions that his particular sect is the only true church, while, of course, many Muslims believe that any muslim who converts to another faith should be killed.

 

Since, on the 'morality' issue, any faith will do, how can that be an argument for any one faith? I could make up my own gods, so long as they imposed on me a moral code.

 

Actually I absolute agree with you. If I believe in an allmighty god, why did he choose to let millions of people life with different believes without giving them a chance to life the "only real way". So my believe is that there is one god but that we choose very different ways in serving him. There is one god who is bigger then his churches here on earth. But I know that this belive is not shared by most other believers. I am in a small minority.

And I agree that a religion which says: THis is the only way and you will go to hell if you don´t believe in just the way we do is quite silly.

 

If they know the only way and their god is allmighty, why doesn´t he help them to spread their truth so quick that we all may parcitipate? And why didn´t he start to let us know about him in very ancient times?

 

But I doubt that you can create your own gods. :o

 

I also read your post as suggesting that any wars or crimes committed in the name of religion were due to bad leaders.. perhaps leaders who did not really believe in the religion.

 

If I read you correctly, several points seem to arise.

 

1. How is it that so many non-believers or evil people rise to become leaders of religions?

 

2. How is it that the lower rank-and-file of the religious order go along with such distorted leadership?

 

3. How is it that the lay believers fall for the lies, etc?

 

No in most cases it had not been the religious leaders who asked for a war. It had been the political leaders who abused some religions for their purposes.

And men followed them because they liked to or more often simply had to follow them. If your king asks you to free the holy land you must follow him. If G.W. Bush orders that you must invade Iran, you will follow his orders or looses your job as soldier.

But of course there had been some blind and deaf ayathollahs or popes who wanted a war, but this is still the minority and in case of the catholic church, history.

 

. But the Crusades were purely religious in ostensible purpose, and apparently taken as such by the majority of Christians who went along, altho undoubtedly many also saw an opportunity for wealth. But I still maintain that many of the disputes in the world today would be reduced in ferocity if the religious aspects were eliminated.

We should agree to disagree.

Just one more thought about this: The jews, the christians and the muslims all believe that the bible is a holy book. The jews do just believe in the first part, the muslims disagree about the role of Jesus. But they all accept the old part where there had been the ten requirements.

So if you are a true believer, who can you kill for your believes? Seems impossible to me.

And for all the christians: One of the main parts of the newer part of the bible is about the words Jesus said. One of his biggest and most important statements had been: If an opponent strikes you on the left cheek, let him strike you on your right cheek too.

It is simply impossibe to win a war with this attitude. And it is simply impossible to be a christian without it.

So my believe still is that all these crimes and wars had never been made from real believers. It had been made from blind people who did not understand their own religion and did not follow their religion.

 

Anyway, let me end by saying that I don't doubt the sincerity of all posters on this thread, nor the personal ethics of any :)

 

We should agree to agree :)

[luke warm]

A bit more on the "nature of man." With 244 million references on google there is quite a wide spread of opinion on just what is mans' nature and what the word "nature" even means. Many times it seems people are talking about two very different subjects.

 

Regardless of what you think is the nature of man I wanted in this post to talk about the immutability of that nature. If one's view of mans' nature as unchangeable no matter what the training or education or assistance from the rest of mankind your view of the world and your role in it may be very different from someone who believes mans' nature can or may be improved or changed with some help from mankind.

from my worldview, man has a sin nature that can't be changed alone or with the help of any other man (or group of men)... this is apart from any particular man's ethical or moral view of himself, or the view others may have of him

[pbleighton]

If one's view of mans' nature as unchangeable no matter what the training or education or assistance from the rest of mankind your view of the world and your role in it may be very different from someone who believes mans' nature can or may be improved or changed with some help from mankind.

 

Well, *nature* is, from my perspective, determined by our genetic structure, so this doesn't change quickly - though perhaps in the future...

 

By far more important than nature is behavior. Slavery and torture were very common for thousands of years. Our behavior as a species has improved. Moral standards change over time. Southern white American Christians during the time of slavery believed that not only was slavery acceptable, but that it was biblically ordained, a belief reinforced by the Southern Baptist churches. Today this would be unthinkable.

 

The main question from my point of view is whether our ability to improve our behavior (real but slow and uneven) can counterbalance our rapidly improving destructive technology.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"Slavery didn't end during the Civil War. Today, 27 million men, women, and children endure brutal working conditions for no money and under the constant threat of beatings, torture, and rape. Check out Modern Slavery 101 for some fast facts about slavery in the 21st century: where it's happening, why it's happening, and what's been done to stop it."

 

 

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/index.html

[mike777]

As I noted with 244 million reference, on the nature of man, many of them do not even agree what the word or phrase means.

 

Some do define it as behavior. Here is another definition.

 

Etymologically (Latin natura from nasci, to be born, like the corresponding Greek physis from phyein, to bring forth) has reference to the production of things, and hence generally includes in its connotation the ideas of energy and activity. It will be convenient to reduce to two classes the various meanings of the term nature according as it applies to the natures of individual beings or to nature in general.

 

I. In an individual being, especially if its constitutive elements and its activities are manifold and complex, the term nature is sometimes applied to the collection of distinctive features, original or acquired, by which such an individual is characterized and distinguished from others. Thus it may be said it is the nature of one man to be taller, stronger, more intelligent, or more sociable than another. This meaning, however, is superficial; in philosophical terminology and even in ordinary language, nature refers to something deeper and more fundamental. These features are manifestations of a man's nature; they are not his nature. Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources. ............

[pbleighton]

"Slavery didn't end during the Civil War. Today, 27 million men, women, and children endure brutal working conditions for no money and under the constant threat of beatings, torture, and rape. Check out Modern Slavery 101 for some fast facts about slavery in the 21st century: where it's happening, why it's happening, and what's been done to stop it."

 

I'm quite aware of this, Mike, but this is .5% of the world's population, and it is all in the third world. Affluence, education, and democracy are critical to behavioral progress, and I expect that a century from now slavery will be virtually eradicated.

 

Do you deny my basic point about improved behavior of the species?

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

Some do define it as behavior.

 

Just so that you understood my post, I did not do so.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"Slavery didn't end during the Civil War. Today, 27 million men, women, and children endure brutal working conditions for no money and under the constant threat of beatings, torture, and rape. Check out Modern Slavery 101 for some fast facts about slavery in the 21st century: where it's happening, why it's happening, and what's been done to stop it."

 

I'm quite aware of this, Mike, but this is .5% of the world's population, and it is all in the third world. Affluence, education, and democracy are critical to behavioral progress, and I expect that a century from now slavery will be virtually eradicated.

 

Do you deny my basic point about improved behavior of the species?

 

Peter

"The CIA estimates 14,500 to 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States every year"

 

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/coun...orts/index.html

 

 

Many modern countries have it also, see France or India or China.

 

I have my doubts that behavior has improved the last 100 years compared to the previous 100 years or 1000 years before that.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

 

OF course war is just one bad behavior...I am not sure about the rest of the bad behavior, I do have my doubts.

[pbleighton]

Mike:

 

1. Imported from the third world.

 

2. Would you please answer my question, or is it too inconvenient?

 

Peter

[mike777]

As I said I do not know, I will concede that there may be less bad behavior or that behavior may have improved. If that is because of religion or inspite of it I have no facts.

 

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

[pbleighton]

Wars go on, don't they?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

 

though we've done pretty well over the last fifty years.

 

My concern was:

 

The main question from my point of view is whether our ability to improve our behavior (real but slow and uneven) can counterbalance our rapidly improving destructive technology.

 

We'd better get better. Technology has raised the stakes. See 9/11, or better yet, Hiroshima.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

A bit more on the "nature of man."  With 244 million references on google there is quite a wide spread of opinion on just what is mans' nature and what the word "nature" even means. Many times it seems people are talking about two very different subjects.

 

Regardless of what you think is the nature of man I wanted in this post to talk about the immutability of that nature. If one's view of mans' nature as unchangeable no matter what the training or education or assistance from the rest of mankind your view of the world and your role in it may be very different from someone who believes mans' nature can or may be improved or changed with some help from mankind.

from my worldview, man has a sin nature that can't be changed alone or with the help of any other man (or group of men)... this is apart from any particular man's ethical or moral view of himself, or the view others may have of him

Jimmy,

 

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

 

What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

[Winstonm]

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

 

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

[helene_t]

Surely one cannot have an 'ultimate' discussion on the nature of God without first resolving the issue of whether there is any such 'God'?

I would say you can. One of my favorite teachers once said "we must know what we're discussing before we can discuss it". An analogy: is there a polynomial-time algorithm that solves an MP-complete problem? If not, is there a proof for its non-existence? You must first clarify the terms (as it happens, the terms have been clarified) before you can debate the issues.

 

My aunt says that "God is love" and it appears that she means that literally. Under that definition, even I would accept the existence of God, although not as a physical entity. Then again, although my aunt's position is probably extreme, I think many believers think of God as something non-physical.

 

I could call myself a "semantic agnostic" in the sense that I have no opinion on the existence of God because I consider the issue ill-defined. Given a coherent definition I may or may not have an opinion (probably a negative one since I tend not to believe in the existence of entities other than those whose existence is non-controversial). As I understand it, most scientist who are profilic about this issue think that the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins is an exception.

[luke warm]

Jimmy,

 

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

 

What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

 

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

 

What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

 

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Jimmy, I had hoped you would have noticed the word "rational" in my question. I am not asking for a biblical reason. I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

 

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.

 

 

The nature of man.

I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

 

Some of the most profound wisdeom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

 

Time takes time.

Live and let live.

One day at a time.

 

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

 

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?

Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?

Would you curse man for human frailty?

 

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

[mike777]

Jimmy,

 

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

 

What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

 

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Jimmy, I had hoped you would have noticed the word "rational" in my question. I am not asking for a biblical reason. I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

 

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.

 

 

The nature of man.

I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

 

Some of the most profound wisdeom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

 

Time takes time.

Live and let live.

One day at a time.

 

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

 

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?

Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?

Would you curse man for human frailty?

 

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

1) Your question or questions in the post have been answered time and time again. Just reread those posts. :)

2) Your last question I think is huge. How can mankind be punished for doing what is it's nature?

 

I do not have a full answer to this. For what little I understand it has to do with all of mankind, including the unborn, participating in the originial freedom of choice to sin. To sin( or commit the worst crime thinkable) to such a horrible, horrible degree that the only "Just" sentence is death and damnation. IF this answer to your final question seems incomplete, I agree.

 

Again only a partial answer but if someone kills and kills and rapes and rapes because of an uncontrollable compulsion, does Justice still demand a stiff punishment including death? IF you only send them to prison and they continue to kill and rape inside the prison does Justice demand a stiffer punishment? If so what compared to the 1000 years of prison they already have?

[Winstonm]

1) Your question or questions in the post have been answered time and time again. Just reread those posts.

 

Mike, I don't think it has ever been answered on a non-religious basis, which is the point to the re-ask.

 

The second question is really part of the first - subracting religious dogma, what would be the need for punishment for following one's nature? Again, what is the need for sacrifice?

 

These are hard questions and I don't profess to know the answers - but it doesn't, to me, attempt to answer the questions by quoting verses from a book of which many do not accept as a reliable resource. or to profess learned theology - that tells me what you may believe, what you may have learned and memorized, but it does not tell me what you think.

 

You bring up a valid question regarding murder and killing. Here's another thought. It is (IMO) a psychological fact that a sociopath is created by his environment - is this person in need of salvation for horrible acts he may commit? After all, it was not a choice to be a sociopath.

 

I believe there is considerable difference in discussing morality and justice in a society versus individual morality and justice on a spiritual basis.

[Al_U_Card]

Jimmy,

 

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.

 

 

What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

 

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

 

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Since our basic philosophy is similar, (except for the religious/spiritual notions) just what exactly do you consider to be "God"?

[Winstonm]

My aunt says that "God is love" and it appears that she means that literally. Under that definition, even I would accept the existence of God, although not as a physical entity. Then again, although my aunt's position is probably extreme, I think many believers think of God as something non-physical.

 

You may find some interest in the manner that "a higher power" is introduced in Alcoholics Anonymous. The concept introduced is simply that there is one, but it is up to the person to create that being. One man I know made his dog his higher power. Another made a doorknob his higher power. Some come to believe that god is simply a hidden part of themselves, an untapped inner man; some find god to be nature; others take a more conventional route.

 

The entire concept is that the psychological disease of alcoholism is caused by self-rule, making oneself god, if you will. The entire object of the dog god or doorknob god is to admit helplessness to conquer the disease alone, by will.

 

If there is a higher power, this release of control allows that higher power to act. "God is love" is as good as any other definition. But the key in the process is actions - it has nothing to do with belief or faith. Most who start down this road have no belief whatsoever. They just do what they are told because they are desperate. The actions come first; the results lead over time to belief.

 

"The only thing that stands between me and you, and me and god, is self." A New Pair of Glasses.