alexey Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Of course my argument is that the very fact that we care is not because of some naturally evovled empathy which seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary "survival of the fittest", but instead that humanity being created in the image of God which is about being built to love but that sin has corrupted much if this world which results in the brokenness we see. "survival of the fittest" means different things for social vs non-social animals. Social interaction is what made us who we are. Having said that, there is nothing contradictory between humans created through evolutionary mechanisms and humans created in the image of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 double post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Makes sense. Humans are different. For example, I don’t think my dogs wonder “where did dogs come from, how did we get here?” – Whether it’s science or religion, humans by their very nature are inquisitive about their existence and will look for answers. The evolution of a prefrontal cortex that is large enough for abstract thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I do think it is the way we are raised. If you are raised in a particular religious household or culture more than likely you will follow suit. You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. I have seen countless individuals who were raised in religious households who have gone in the opposite direction & are now atheistic or agnostic. Without debating the multiple reasons why people turn away from their religious backgrounds, I have also seen the opposite where people who were raised in a non or even ANTI religious home are now very religious. How we are raised, IMHO & experience, has very little to do with ones religious choices. That being said, people often see me as a "religious fanatic" because I am very strongly Christian, as can be noted by my signature. However, I am NOT a "religious fanatic". I'm not going to sit here & give you reasons why I see myself different from how you see it, but I can tell you, with great confidence that Christianity, in it's true form, is NOT a religion. Unfortunately, however, people are people & get hung up in their own traditions & beliefs based on their own experiences & tend to spend considerable amounts of energy trying to convince others that they are right & far too often they spend a lot of time focused on the wrong things (ie. whether women wear too much make-up or men have hair that's too long or tattoos or piercings or eating red meat or drinking alcohol, etc., etc.). I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, & I profess my faith in Him boldly & proudly...but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people that are not open to my beliefs that what I believe is the right way. Further, I am not an advocate of any religion, but rather a person. If that means that I am "crazy", then fit me for a new jacket & lock me away...cause I'm crazy as a loon!!! Just sayin... ---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 01:12 AM ---------- The dollar rules the hearts of most, drugs are the easiest way to it and god is the excuse to get away with murder. Well, the Bible does say that "the love of money is the root fo all evil". People will do anything for an extra buck when they are focused on themselves & their evil desires. You are right that people will use God as their excuse to get away with...well, a multitude of things & it is disgusting. Of course, just as many people will say "the devil made me do it". The truth is, we are commanders of our own actions. God would not contradict His own Word. What good could possibly come from something like that? I'll write a book of rules based on moral judgment, then routinely break those rules & tell those who question it, "Deal with it. I'm God!"??? What sense does that make? But, part of the reason why there are more crimes in places where there are multiple churches is because church (especially in America) has become a chore. Something we do to please our parents or spouses. Something we do to make the rest of the people around us think we are better than they are. Then we leave church & go back to our sinful lives, going to bars, cheating on our spouses & abusing those around us. Church people have done more harm to our society then anyone else. Spouting religious rhetoric while showing no proof of the Love of God, which is the whole purpose of Christianity in the first place. It is a sad situation. I live in a place where there are churches on just about every street corner & murder is also rampant. It is because the church people decided to keep their "religion" to themselves instead of fulfilling the "Great Commission". Saving their favorite seat in the pew has become more important then sharing the gift God has given them. That is why crime is rampant in places where churches are seemingly everywhere. Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy. Just wanted to add my :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Which does not answer why they do what they do, is it empathy or societal guilt, or the desire for more power and influence.Of course my argument is that the very fact that we care is not because of some naturally evovled empathy which seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary "survival of the fittest", but instead that humanity being created in the image of God which is about being built to love but that sin has corrupted much if this world which results in the brokenness we see. Didn't see you answer the question about NK. (If answering my reply to your post you turned hard right there). I bet the women of Egypt are not walking the streets at their own peril for influence and power. I am also willing to bet we didn't pour into indonesia or Haiti or Iran or any other country with humanitarian aid for power. The Sin you talk about is the Christianity big bang theory. I'm not touching that one as its about faith/belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The greatest nation in the world with the majority of its population believing that we are not the results of eons of lucky accidents and coincidences but "intelligent design" is a good thing for the rest of the world because of that annoying thing called a moral foundation which is tied to the Judeo Christian principles. It is reallly sad there are pathetic nations do not embrace them as it would reduce nation sponsored human trafficking and get them involved in rape and child abuse. The people of our great nation without government or elitist interference always takes the lead when it comes to helping out their fellow man, woman, child and stray pets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I applaud you for your rational response. I believe in the ability of the human race to become supreme one day... things of "sicence fiction" we posses the power to make them reality. In other words... I'm free spirited and take life for what it is... infinate potential. Whoa, I dont agree, understand, or see objective evidence for your claims. Therefore I think you are crazy and should be tested for mental stability. See, two can play that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Didn't see you answer the question about NK. (If answering my reply to your post you turned hard right there). Sure I did, Christopher Hitchens would probably say something to the effect of, "the reason people give to NK is due to a perceived societal guilt, or a way to alleviate their own guilt laid upon them by the controlling narrative of the fraud called the church, and the members of the church would give not out of empathy but out of a desire to influence NK with their brand of lies called religion", and most definitely the reason that nations would give to NK is in order to influence political control over a strategic nation. I bet the women of Egypt are not walking the streets at their own peril for influence and power. Sure they are, more power and independence for themselves as women instead of being told what to do by a government. I am also willing to bet we didn't pour into indonesia or Haiti or Iran or any other country with humanitarian aid for power. See the response to NK. The Sin you talk about is the Christianity big bang theory. I'm not touching that one as its about faith/belief. It is as much a statement about faith/belief as the liberal (not a slur) idea that humanity is empathetic and good by nature, as the evidence points to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Which does not answer why they do what they do, is it empathy or societal guilt, or the desire for more power and influence.Of course my argument is that the very fact that we care is not because of some naturally evovled empathy which seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary "survival of the fittest", but instead that humanity being created in the image of God which is about being built to love but that sin has corrupted much if this world which results in the brokenness we see. We acquired the knowledge of good and evil at the same time Asbury and I believe this was sometime after man was created in God's image. Animals also show the ability to care for each other and I've seen a dog pull an injured dog off a freeway and a female monkey mourn the loss of her young. What separates man is not the ability to do good or care. What separates man from the animal world is similar to what separates God from man. We can act purely out of good or evil, reshape our world entirely, and understand these concepts over vast stretches of time. In our case time that extends beyond our own individual existence. We are God like in that we can shape life and creation as we know it to an extend that is entirely beyond other things in nature. We are limited to our world over which we were granted dominion and by our short life span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devastate Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 That on the scale of ignorance, that's a 7. On the scale of offensiveness, its a 9. Bump each of those numbers up 3 and I think you've got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Sure I did, Christopher Hitchens would probably say something to the effect of, "the reason people give to NK is due to a perceived societal guilt, or a way to alleviate their own guilt laid upon them by the controlling narrative of the fraud called the church, and the members of the church would give not out of empathy but out of a desire to influence NK with their brand of lies called religion", and most definitely the reason that nations would give to NK is in order to influence political control over a strategic nation.Sure they are, more power and independence for themselves as women instead of being told what to do by a government. See the response to NK. It is as much a statement about faith/belief as the liberal (not a slur) idea that humanity is empathetic and good by nature, as the evidence points to the contrary. Are you still playing devil's advocate or do you actually believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 A few comments. While acknowledging the thoughtful and benign posts in this thread and many past threads like it, I usually stay out of these topics for the most part because I just can't beat the ignorant-but-opinionated posts out of my brain fast enough and it briefly sullies my love for mankind. The quality of comment I refer to usually occurs on both sides, in roughly similar ratio to the size difference of their representaitve demographics. Also, it's been the holdiay season, so good cheer rulz. But I am going to remind the typical people who jump into such "frays" randomly and reply to the OP that he was banned for trolling early on, so make your point (or whatever crippled cognition you take to be a point :evilg:) but understand that he won't reply. Now it is true many posts are made with little interest in discussion as opposed to just "getting theirs out for everyone to see", so that's not a problem for everyone. I have some related surprises I hope to share later about some posters, but even if I don't, I hope to find time to address just a little more of the recent numbness (at the moment, from the "believer" side) later. Christmas is over and I do feel some obligation. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Are you still playing devil's advocate or do you actually believe this? Ask yourself why a United Methodist pastor would be quoting Christopher Hitchens in the affirmative and then get back with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Ask yourself why a United Methodist pastor would be quoting Christopher Hitchens in the affirmative and then get back with me. Ok cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Ok cool Except for the last line....that one is true. It is as much a statement about faith/belief as the liberal/Enlightenment (not a slur) idea that humanity is empathetic and good by nature, as the evidence points to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Oh well that's a shame because that's what I found most troubling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Oh well that's a shame because that's what I found most troubling LoL! I know that strikes at the very core of (and we seriously need another name for this) liberal thought, we're told all the time that we have evolved as humans, and that society has helped us evolve into more caring creatures, yet that isn't what we see, in fact as I was playing Devil's Advocate one poster even stated that within a larger society empathy becomes less prominent and self interest more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisn1 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 LoL! I know that strikes at the very core of (and we seriously need another name for this) liberal thought, we're told all the time that we have evolved as humans, and that society has helped us evolve into more caring creatures, yet that isn't what we see, in fact as I was playing Devil's Advocate one poster even stated that within a larger society empathy becomes less prominent and self interest more so. Yet as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this notion. In fact, I believe the onus is on you to provide evidence that humans and their societies have not formed around caring creatures. There is both good and evil in the world, but societies all over the world (both Christian and not) have "evolved" towards a more empathetic culture. I understand that empathy can be reduced in larger society, but that is also a fallacy. Individual empathy is reduced in terms of the fact that we can ignore the effect that our actions have. But that ignores the response that societies have when injustices are brought about. Women's rights, slavery, disaster relief, and environmentalism are all examples of an injustice that we our society seeks to eliminate (or alleviate) when we can. I hear about societal guilt, but in the age of anonymity, it seems less plausible as people are less likely to know if you helped or not. Additionally, societal guilt is a form of empathy as it shows that our society valued empathy, and only a person with empathy would care to follow it. Again, it seems to me that humans are good by nature considering the vast majority of nations are good. There are countries all over the world, each with their own cultures and religions that form stable societies dedicated to helping their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 LoL! I know that strikes at the very core of (and we seriously need another name for this) liberal thought, we're told all the time that we have evolved as humans, and that society has helped us evolve into more caring creatures, yet that isn't what we see, in fact as I was playing Devil's Advocate one poster even stated that within a larger society empathy becomes less prominent and self interest more so. Doesn't make sense, God endowed us with the ability to love did he not? Isn't love, that which directs our passions to the good and the beautiful? Is that different than empathy and goodness? Well probably, but it's close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Doesn't make sense, God endowed us with the ability to love did he not? Isn't love, that which directs our passions to the good and the beautiful? Is that different than empathy and goodness? Well probably, but it's close enough. Sin has corrupted it. ---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 03:15 PM ---------- Yet as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this notion. In fact, I believe the onus is on you to provide evidence that humans and their societies have not formed around caring creatures. So the onus is on me to prove a negative? How convenient. Sorry, but I'm not the one making that claim, and I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that every time people of faith make certain claims that they are told to prove it. So...prove it. Meanwhile I'll be watching the evening news about, murder, oppression, tyranny, war, greed, and abuse all perpetrated by self interested societies. There is both good and evil in the world, but societies all over the world (both Christian and not) have "evolved" towards a more empathetic culture. Really? Societies have evolved to more empathetic...ok...prove that too. I understand that empathy can be reduced in larger society, but that is also a fallacy. Individual empathy is reduced in terms of the fact that we can ignore the effect that our actions have. But that ignores the response that societies have when injustices are brought about. Women's rights, slavery, disaster relief, and environmentalism are all examples of an injustice that we our society seeks to eliminate (or alleviate) when we can. And that ignores the fact that women's rights, civil rights, ending slavery, disaster relief were first championed by the faithful. I will fully admit that in America the church dropped the ball on environmentalism, but that was mostly because for awhile we thought that the Republican party was a Christian denomination....but we're feeling much better now. What's more is that what started as small groups began to gather others around them to force the changes upon others, and the others in many cases only changed when their self preservation was threatened. I hear about societal guilt, but in the age of anonymity, it seems less plausible as people are less likely to know if you helped or not. Additionally, societal guilt is a form of empathy as it shows that our society valued empathy, and only a person with empathy would care to follow it. Or at least that societies WANT to have empathy, so when they don't they feel guilty. Again, it seems to me that humans are good by nature considering the vast majority of nations are good. If good is defined as benign then we might agree, but so far as goodness is a means of doing good things without regard for self...then no. There are countries all over the world, each with their own cultures and religions that form stable societies dedicated to helping their people. See self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rblgenius Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Religion appeals to man's need to be "saved". We are mortal beings. We fear our mortality. Religion "saves" us from these fears. I am raised a Christian so I do still believe in a higher "being". I am a Physicist by trade so I also am a man of science. It is hard to come to grasp that our creation could very well be a series of very lucky collisions and the evolution of simple particles. If you haven't already, watch "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" episode on "is there a god?". Some interesting theories put forth in that series. Our brain is hardwired for when we search for a "savior" to feel pleasure -- dopamine in our brain is released at the thought. This is due to evolution of human beings to feel sympathy of another human being. Without this evolution, humans could not form a society. We evolved to this state as a result of natural selection. We feel morally compelled to protect another human being because that is how we survived against the primitive threats of animals and starvation. This evolution of feeling "sympathy" extends to the supernatural. We feel safe in the arms of our parents as a child because they are our saviors. We are helpless at a young age to protect ourselves but we feel safe and secure in the presence of our parents. This feeling never goes away in the adult. We feel safe and secure knowing their is another "father" looking after us. This is my opinion. I may be wrong and I may be right. Regardless, I see merits on both sides of the spectrum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 And that ignores the fact that women's rights, civil rights, ending slavery, disaster relief were first championed by the faithful. I do not think it is entirely accurate to claim that faith is responsible for these advances of humanity. (you are not saying that outright, but the suggestion appears to be there) Can we say that America was founded by the faithful? Well yes it was - everybody could be called "faithful" back then. Yet our "faithful" founding fathers did not read the Bible to study the philosophy of government and lay the foundation for our country. They read John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. ---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 03:49 PM ---------- Religion appeals to man's need to be "saved". We are mortal beings. We fear our mortality. Religion "saves" us from these fears. I am raised a Christian so I do still believe in a higher "being".... This is my opinion. I may be wrong and I may be right. Regardless, I see merits on both sides of the spectrum Pragmatism says that "true" is what "works"... so you may be right even if you are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I do not think it is entirely accurate to claim that faith is responsible for these advances of humanity. (you are not saying that outright, but the suggestion appears to be there) You're right the suggestion is there, and intentionally so (Devil's Advocate hat off) because as I stated earlier, humanity was created to love and be in harmonious relationships with one another, this is not an evolved thing for our survival it is the way we were created to be, so who best to follow the leading of our created nature than those who are most in tune with their creator. Now, before someone burps out saying, "then you're saying that non-believers cannot love or live in harmony" I suggest a careful reading of what I just wrote. Can we say that America was founded by the faithful? Well yes it was - everybody could be called "faithful" back then. Yet our "faithful" founding fathers did not read the Bible to study the philosophy of government and lay the foundation for our country. They read John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 We have records that go back to the beginning of time that show original sin happend but then 8000 years later Jesus died and fixed that? No take backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 We have records that go back to the beginning of time that show original sin happened but then 8000 years later Jesus died and fixed that?No take backs. Ummm...kay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.