Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington

March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

Bruce, I thank you as well. Even within its irrational context of subjectivism, Pantheism makes no sense. If I am God, why am I so ignorant and lacking in wisdom? As someone once said, “I can understand why a fool could play God, but why would God play a fool like me? If I am God, how can I also be a part of God? A part cannot also be the whole of which it is a part. Even if it were granted that I was a part of God, how can one part be at war with the other? Are Christians one part of God, atheists another, and Muslims yet another? If God generates everything in a dream, why would a perfect God dream an imperfect dream? If, as we are told, evil is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Is it evil to have succumbed to that illusion? If not, what’s wrong with the illusion? How do I distinguish the dream, which is alleged to be real, from the illusion, which is alleged not to be real? Also, I haven’t even begun to address the irrational ethics that comes out of this unfortunate world view. Is sexual addiction consistent with our “essential nature?” Presumably, the pantheistic answer is yes. We must face the facts. Pantheism is an intellectual madhouse.StephenB_{March 8, 2011
March
03
Mar
8
08
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB and Bornagain: One last comment: A fundamental difference between me and the two of you, as I see it, is how we each view the power of the faculty of reason. You both appear to be quite certain that if one applies reason correctly, the only valid conclusion that can be reached is that Christianity (as you understand it) is true. I, on the other hand, am equally certain that reason BY ITSELF is powerless to arrive at any truth whatsoever. In my view (and taking a cue from Euclid), reason can only reach valid conclusions when it has something to work with, namely propositions that are taken as true without proof. ("Valid" here means following from the initial assumptions.) It should be obvious that in this view, the conclusions reached will only be as true as are the initial assumptions. This to me is the basic nature of the impasse between us.Bruce David_{March 8, 2011
March
03
Mar
8
08
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Bornagain and StephenB: Just so you know, I do not come by my understandings in a vacuum. The sources that have influenced my thinking include far more than just Conversations with God, although the latter ties everything together more completely and with greater clarity than anything else I have yet encountered. My pantheism is based on the realization that there actually is only mind and the contents of mind--thoughts, emotions, sense impressions, memories. The physical doesn't really exist. The physical universe is an illusion, a kind of virtual reality in which God performs the role of the computer that manages it all. One of the best arguments for this perspective can be found in Bishop Berkeley's Three Dialogues. Also, Maharishi (of Transcendental Meditation) was fond of saying that the ground of being is Creative Intelligence. My former teacher, Reshad Feild, had a teacher, Bulent Rauf, who was said to have "worn the hat" of Ibn al 'Arabi, perhaps the greatest mystical philosopher that ever lived. Bulent once said, "The single most important point that must be understodd by someone who wants to know is that there is only One infinite, absolute existence...God shows you He is you. Then little by little, He shows you how He is everything else." So my understanding is that God, in His transcendent aspect, is pure mind, pure creative intelligence. Then, "in the beginning" He created billions of souls within Himself, each in His "image and likeness", each one being Him occupying a given point of view, as it were. And He gave each of these souls (each a piece of Himself) free will. (This, by the way, is the only part of all this that I don't fully understand--how He gave each of us free will. However, I take it on faith based on the revelation that I recognize, Conversations with God.) Then He created physical existence, which as I said, is actually an illusion, existing only in the mind of God (His immanent aspect) and our own minds, which are part of Him. When we take human form, we agree to forget all this, so that the illusion seems very real (it's a very persuasive illusion). The reason we forget is so that God's purpose for the creation can be fulfilled as we gradually remember over the course of many physical incarnations. I have explained this elsewhere, so I won't go over it in detail again. I'll stop here. There is more, much more, to this metaphysics, some of which we have gone over before. I say all this to let you know that 1) my ideas fit with several long and valid intellectual/spiritual traditions, and 2) I have certainly devoted a lot more than "a minimum of introspection" to my views (Bornagain). You may disagree with my views, but there is nothing logically inconsistent about them if they are understood properly. Thank you both also for quite an interesting discussion.Bruce David_{March 8, 2011
March
03
Mar
8
08
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you state; 'I really don’t need StephenB’s or your validation of my belief system.' No you don't, and indeed many people believe whatever they want because they are free to do so, but at the very least I would hope that you would apply a minimum of introspection to your personally chosen beliefs to see the fatal flaw of your 'everything is god' belief. For instance, besides the complete failure of moral responsibility in your belief system, why should anyone presuppose a 'higher dimensional' afterlife in your belief system? For in your 'everything is god' beliefs there is absolutely no reason to presuppose that this would be so. Yet, we have very good empirical evidence to see that an afterlife for the 'soul' is reasonable to infer. Whereas in in your 'plastic' beliefs you may take pains to include this, but the point is that it is not warranted from your starting presupposition. Moreover these empirical findings are directly presupposed into Theism, especially Christian Theism; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/question-how-can-we-know-one-belief-selected-for-by-evolution-is-superior-to-another/#comment-373533bornagain77_{March 8, 2011
March
03
Mar
8
08
2011
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, I will start winding down. Meanwhile, I would like to extend my sincere thanks for an interesting discussion. About the challenge of being consistent with one's essential self, you wrote, "The reason is that it is more satisfying, more loving, and more joyful. There is no moral “should” involved. (That is precisely the point–there is absolutely no MORAL imperative whatsoever to being true to oneself.)" I agree with much of what you say here. Many of the Greeks believed that virtue is its own reward, and I agree with that point. Even if there were no afterlife, a virtuous person[my term not yours] will be happier than a non-virtuous person, independent of any reward or punishment system coming from the outside. In order to act according to our nature, however, we have to know what our nature and we have to know what we are created for. The two points are inseparable. Once we know that we were created to know, love, and serve God in this world and to be happy with him in the next world, the next order of business is to find out how we can make that happen. This is the essence of the moral life. On the theological front, you wrote this: "But in order to understand how God can be both the creator and the created, you need to understand that God has two aspects: the transcendent and the immanent." Yes, I do understand the difference, however, I am not persuaded that you do. A pantheistic God is immanent but is not transcendent. Pantheism rules out a transcendent God. If you believe in a God that is both, then you are not a pantheist. Deism [and Islam] = Transcendence without immanence. Pantheism [and eastern religions] = immanence without transcendence. Christianity = Transcendence and immanence. No one can logically say, as you do, that he believes in a transcendent God and also say that he thinks "we are God." Please trust me on this if you do not accept anything else that I say. On the matter of sexual morality [my word] you wrote this: "As for the questions regarding sex, I don’t believe that it would be at all fruitful to get into a discussion with you on those topics. You appear to me to be thoroughly entrenched in your positions, and I can see no profit in butting heads on yet another subject matter." My purpose for pushing the matter was to make it clear that matters of sexuality are, indeed, of primary importance and we cannot, in spite of your claims to the contrary, be true to our nature by simply doing what comes naturally. Pornographic addiction is the result of uncritically doing what comes naturally. Thanks again for being such a good sport.StephenB_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Sonfaro. I'm enjoying this conversation, however (so far, anyway). StephenB: "You say that God created us in his image, but you also say, in effect, that God is the image that was created. If you cannot see the contradiction there, then you really aren’t trying." I could create an image of myself in a dream, say, that would of necessity be contained within me. If I can do it, why not God? But in order to understand how God can be both the creator and the created, you need to understand that God has two aspects: the transcendent and the immanent. "If there is no natural moral law, why should we act in ways that are 'consistent with our essential nature?'" The reason is that it is more satisfying, more loving, and more joyful. There is no moral "should" involved. (That is precisely the point--there is absolutely no MORAL imperative whatsoever to being true to oneself.) As for the questions regarding sex, I don't believe that it would be at all fruitful to get into a discussion with you on those topics. You appear to me to be thoroughly entrenched in your positions, and I can see no profit in butting heads on yet another subject matter. Regarding your wanting to educate me on the subject of natural moral law, I appreciate the offer, but I have been too busy to take you up on it just yet. I will when I get some free time. Bornagain: "Bruce, I wasn’t taking a cheap shot, I was highlighting the inanity of your belief. It is a huge problem for you, for as StephenB pointed out, your position reduces to something like God creating God in the Big Bang." Ain't no problem for me, my intense friend. This may come as a shock, but I really don't need StephenB's or your validation of my belief system. I know my beliefs are logically sound, and I have a pretty good idea why you and StephenB don't see it that way. It doesn't bother me. vividbleau: Of course what we believe ultimately is irrelevant. The truth is the truth and what we believe about it won't change it. On the subject matter under discussion here, we will each find out when we die. Bornagain accused me of being angry about the way God has set things up. I was simply explaining why I had no reason to be.Bruce David_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

...Hey gang. Could we agree to disagree on this one? We're all friends here. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I wasn't taking a cheap shot, I was highlighting the inanity of your belief. It is a huge problem for you, for as StephenB pointed out, your position reduces to something like God creating God in the Big Bang.bornagain77_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Bruce RE 98 "I’m not mad. The God I believe in loves me " As if that means anything. The God you believe in may not exist, the God I believe in may not exist. If God exists God is an objective being and what we may or may not believe about that God does not change Gods objective being. Vividvividbleau_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: “You continually try to make what I say into a contradictory straw man that you can then tear down. It doesn’t work." Doesn't work? You say that God created us in his image, but you also say, in effect, that God is the image that was created. If you cannot see the contradiction there, then you really aren't trying. --"When I talk about acting in ways that are consistent with our essential nature, I am not describing natural moral law.” But you continue to beg the question. If there is no natural moral law, why should we act in ways that are “consistent with our essential nature?” Is there anything wrong with not acting in such ways? If so, what makes it wrong? If not, then what does it matter what we do? ---“ I have made the distinction between my view of moral law and our essential nature quite clear: (one more time) moral law is imposed from outside, and requires punishment to enforce it, whereas acting out of harmony with our essential nature merely implies that we need a reminder that we have forgotten who we really are. Punishment is never an appropriate response when someone acts in ways that are inconsistent with their essential nature. (Consequences can be, however, depending on the situation.)” I have asked you some specific questions which remain unanswered. Are you OK with 10-year-old children having sex on a school bus? Are you OK with internet porn? Are you OK with porn addiction? Since you will not address these questions, I have to assume that you think these activities are, as you put it [or your author puts it] “consistent with our essential nature.” I have also asked you to learn something about the natural moral law and even provided you with a resource to make that possible. You obviously have no interest in becoming familiar with the subject matter. Don’t you think that is a bit odd?StephenB_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: God is also you and the chair you're sitting in and the rocks in your garden and your cat, if you have one. You know I'm a pantheist. Why are you trying to score cheap points? The Sufis have a saying, "Everywhere you look, there is the face of God."Bruce David_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, you claim you are not 'mad' but then state,,, The God I believe in,,, indeed IS me You don't mind if I run a little test to see if you are God would you??? How about you come over to my place and walk on the Mississippi River so as to calm my doubts of your divinity??? Bruce you are much 'madder' than you realize! :)bornagain77_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: I'm not mad. The God I believe in loves me unconditionally (that means no matter what I do), is with me always and in all ways, will never punish me, indeed IS me (since He/She/It is All That Is). What in the world is there to be mad about? I am merely pointing out that the God you believe in is self-contradictory (for the hundredth time, it seems, since you never get it). StephenB: "On the one hand, you claim that the natural moral law doesn’t exist. On the other hand, you describe its limitations, boundaries and conditional aspects as if it did exist." You continually try to make what I say into a contradictory straw man that you can then tear down. It doesn't work. When I talk about acting in ways that are consistent with our essential nature, I am not describing natural moral law. I have made the distinction between my view of moral law and our essential nature quite clear: (one more time) moral law is imposed from outside, and requires punishment to enforce it, whereas acting out of harmony with our essential nature merely implies that we need a reminder that we have forgotten who we really are. Punishment is never an appropriate response when someone acts in ways that are inconsistent with their essential nature. (Consequences can be, however, depending on the situation.) "I argued that Darwinists and pantheists reject the natural moral law and try to create their own morality so that they can become a law unto themselves. You objected to those comments, but as as your ongoing comments indicate, my original characterization aptly describes your philosophy of life." So now you understand what makes me tick, huh? Are you psychic, then? I have explained my reasons for believing the way I do a number of times. Not the least of my reasons is my requirement that the God I believe in not be a contradiction in terms. Silly me. Beyond that, the understanding of reality that Conversations with God evokes in me is at once breathtaking and crystal clear. It just makes so much sense!Bruce David_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

---Bruce………….” and I have not contradicted myself.” On the one hand, you claim that the natural moral law doesn’t exist. On the other hand, you describe its limitations, boundaries and conditional aspects as if it did exist. That is a contradiction. On the one hand, you declare that God created us in his image. On the other hand, you declare that God is, himself, the creation, which would mean that He cannot also be the Creator. That is a contradiction. ----”In my view, there is nothing that human beings naturally feel is immoral about sexual activity UNLESS THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK SO,]. So, you are OK with ten-year-old children having "natural" sex on the school bus? So, you are OK with internet pornography? So you are OK with pornographic addiction? ---“What I reject is the notion that God has laid down moral laws that we are required to follow, on pain of eternal damnation if we don’t.” That’s not surprising. Having created your own morality, it would follow that you would fashion an imaginary God that would approve of your morality. Indeed, this whole discussion started when I argued that Darwinists and pantheists reject the natural moral law and try to create their own morality so that they can become a law unto themselves. You objected to those comments, but as as your ongoing comments indicate, my original characterization aptly describes your philosophy of life. And, dare I mention it, you have repeatedly failed to read "Illustrations of the Tao," which means that you have not yet even become acquainted with the subject that you are trying to refute.StephenB_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Bruce, and your gripe is exactly what??? You are mad at God for being perfect and you/us being imperfect??? And that only God could pay the price of perfection required to redeem fallen man to a right relationship with him??? You are mad that your works or money will never be enough to earn the priceless gift of eternity with God??? You are mad that God had to clearly demonstrate this obvious point through Christ??? This is weird, on the one hand you say God is unconditionally loving and could forgive all sins (even though, when its convenient for you, you don't admit that sin even really exists), and yet when I show you that the unconditionally loving God did make a way to forgive all sins, all of the sudden this is 'not good enough' for you??? And now you would rather treasure the blatant fallacies in 'Conversations with God' than gratefully accept the priceless gift God has offered you, and all men, through Christ??? Bruce clearly you are embracing a worldview that is completely blind to consequences, and is thus divorced from reality! Myself, I choose to follow the one who defeated death and tells me exactly like it is, rather than follow one who will tell me anything I want to hear just so as to comfort my 'itching ears' that find the 'hard' truth offensive! Shroud of Turin in 3-D - The Holographic Experience http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5833152/ Revelation Song (song by Kari Jobe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahhg1LFGyPAbornagain77_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Bornagain: So this, then, is the way God set it up: He laid down this moral law, which we all must follow to avoid going to Hell. However, every sect of every religion has a different idea of what that law is exactly, which basically means that it is impossible to know precisely what we must do to avoid going to Hell. Furthermore, God created us imperfect beings, so that even if we knew exactly what the law was, we would still be unable to follow it completely, so we are still going to Hell. Then, 2000 years ago, God relented and sent His son to earth to suffer for our sins so we don't have to, but there is a catch: you have to "believe on him". Otherwise, you're still going to Hell, which for all practical purposes puts salvation out of the reach of the vast majority of people born into Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist (or indeed any non-Christian) cultures. And you call this an unconditionally loving God? I'll stick with Conversations with God, thank you very much. At least it's logically consistent.Bruce David_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB, since you touched on it, I think you might enjoy towards the end of this short video clip, where David Barton speaks of 'morality beginning with our thoughts'; Removal Of Prayer From School - The Devastating Effect - Barton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6063727/bornagain77_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you wrote; 'What I reject is the notion that God has laid down moral laws that we are required to follow, on pain of eternal damnation if we don’t.' That is exactly the point; no one is perfect in keeping God's moral law, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).,, and yet “,,,the wages of sin is death”,,, So we are in quite a dilemma!!!, though some may do more 'moral works' than the next guy, they still fall short of the perfection needed to meet the perfect justice of God!,,, thus,, In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ” ,,,Simply believe on Him as the one who bore your sin, died in your place, was buried, and whom God resurrected. His resurrection powerfully assures that the believer can claim everlasting life when Jesus is received as Savior. ,,,Though not letting us off the hook for morality, it is only through our acceptance of Christ that God's perfect justice is satisfied, our works will NEVER be good enough. i.e. there is ONLY one primary requirement for 'going to heaven', acceptance of what Christ has done on our behalf!bornagain77_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

StephenB: I should have said "natural moral law" in the previous post. It's the conjunction of "moral" and "law" that is crucial for me. What I reject is the notion that God has laid down moral laws that we are required to follow, on pain of eternal damnation if we don't. When I use the term "essential nature", I mean that we are made of love and a high regard for truth, so that when we act in accordance with those qualities, we are not being "moral", we are simply being true to our own nature. (Which by the way is also God's nature. As I keep pointing out, we are made in His image and likeness.).Bruce David_{March 7, 2011
March
03
Mar
7
07
2011
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Please read my post to Sonfaro (#78) for what I see as the distinction between natural law and our essential nature. It's a very big difference in my eyes, and I have not contradicted myself. As far as treating someone as a sexual object goes, my point is that the sexual aspect has nothing to do with whether or not it conflicts with our basic nature. It is treating the person as an object that is the problem. If I treat a store clerk as a sales person object instead of a person I have done essentially the same thing.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "As for adultery, I believe that what makes it in conflict with our essential nature is that it constitutes a broken promise (and usually involves lying as well), unless it doesn’t." So, now you are saying that a broken promise violates the same natural moral law that you once declared didn't exist? ---"Using another person or relating to them as an object I agree is also in violation of our essential nature, but that will be true whether or not the context is sexual." Did I say that treating someone as an object in a non-sexual way was not a problem? No, I said that treating someone as a sexual object or thinking of them that way is a problem, which you now seem to acknowledge, and which contradicts your earlier position [”In my view, there is nothing that human beings naturally feel is immoral about sexual activity UNLESS THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK SO,]. I really think you should take time out to visit the website that I recommended so that you can become familiar with the subject matter that we are discussing.StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB: See my response to Sonfaro above (#78) for my view on the difference between "moral law" and "essential nature". As for adultery, I believe that what makes it in conflict with our essential nature is that it constitutes a broken promise (and usually involves lying as well), unless it doesn't. I believe that it is entirely possible for two people to choose to experiment with a sexually open marriage in a given lifetime and not be in conflict with their essential natures, as long as both freely choose it and there is no dishonesty or manipulation involved. Using another person or relating to them as an object I agree is also in violation of our essential nature, but that will be true whether or not the context is sexual.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "That is easy to say in the abstract, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, the concept of sin becomes decidedly fuzzy. Is it limited only to the list that StephenB sent me earlier (lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and committing murder)?" I did not say that Christian morality is limited to those things, or even come close to saying that. Please reread my comments @86---carefully!StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: you said, "...sin CANNOT dwell in the presence of a infinitely holy God". That is easy to say in the abstract, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, the concept of sin becomes decidedly fuzzy. Is it limited only to the list that StephenB sent me earlier (lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and committing murder)? If so, then what about all the other things that Christians normally think of as sins? If not, what exactly constitutes sin? Is it sin for two single people to sleep together? How about if they are the same sex? What if I use contraceptives when I make love to my wife? What if I sin in thought but not in deed? What if I go out dancing and listen to rock and roll? What if a woman wears a dress that shows her knees? etc, etc, etc. What exactly constitutes that which cannot exist in the presence of God? How do I know which list compiled by which Christian sect is the correct one? How the Hell do YOU know, for that matter? I have explained to you my position, that what we label sin is solely for the purpose of allowing us to experience that we are good, and thus in God's eyes, it is all good because it all contributes to the purpose of physical reality (which is merely a dream and an illusion anyway). The fact that you cannot get past your certainty that sin is real (and bad) reminds me of the Darwinists who cannot see how ID could be true because they simply cannot imagine a non-material world. (See, two can play that game.)Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: Ok, if you limit the scope of “natural moral law” to lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and committing murder then I won’t argue with you too much, although I do have two comments to make about it." OK. ---"I believe that it is simply part of our being created in His image and likeness that each of us has certain standards of behavior built into us, which we sometimes allow our wants and needs to override. So I would not call it moral law at all, but rather our essential nature." Let me tweak that just a little bit. Because we have a human nature, we discover that there is a morality appropriate to that nature. That is why they call it a "natural" moral law, it pertains to our nature. For that same reason, we have "natural rights," because they, too, are appropriate to our nature. The two are related: Because we have inherent dignity, we deserve to be free; because we are bound by the natural moral law, that freedom can be exercised responsiblty. --"Further, I believe that all such standards of behavior are based on just two aspects of our natures–1) love, and 2) a high regard for truth. To my way of thinking, the way to determine the appropriate action in any given circumstances in which one might find oneself is simply to answer the question, “What would love do now?” If your standard is informed by the natural moral law, then it is a good one. Someone once expressed it this way: In any given situation we can ask ourselves, "What is the most loving thing I can do." That sounds almost exactly like yours. However, and this is key, that principle will not suffice to inform us about what a loving act would be like. For that we need the natural moral law and reason. Even more important that what we do is why we do it. If I help an old lady across the street because I am trying to impress someone, I have just transformed a potentially moral act into an immoral act. Without the aid of reason, we would never know this. ---"Notice that there is nothing about sex in your list." That is only because I didn't include them in my abbreviated list. In keeping with that point, I encourage you to visit the website I provided so you could get a better feel for what we mean by the natural moral law. You might be surprised to find out how much you agree with it. ---"This is one area (and it includes such diverse topics, as homosexuality, promiscuity, and contraception) where Christians (and most other religions too) have strong opinions. In my view, there is nothing that human beings naturally feel is immoral about sexual activity UNLESS THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK SO, which they almost always are." Well, no. We have plenty of natural feelings that we ought not to honor and plenty of itches that we should not scratch. Adultery is a great offense. Using another person or even looking at them as a mere sexual object is an offense. Indeed, once one becomes familiar with the natural moral law in its most basic sense, we soon become familiar with higher levels of morality. That, by the way, is why the Old Testament [The Ten Commandments] provides only the basics, while the New Testament [Sermon On the Mount] provides more advanced principles. One cannot advance to the level of loving his enemies [Christian morality] without first having resolved not to murder them [natural moral law].StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

Bruce sin CANNOT dwell in the presence of a infinitely holy God! You are simply cherry picking the attributes of God that you find comforting and ignoring the rest. Besides infinitely loving, which He demonstrated in that he died for us while we were yet sinners so as to save us from separation from Him, God IS ALSO infinitely just. But in your 'molded' view of your god you have simply remade your god to one that renders justice impossible. In fact you have stated that 'everything is god', but clearly sin is not God, and thus you have simply redefined your worldview in which sin does not exist. Yet in doing so you have completely divorced yourself from reality. In your 'absolute' view, the holocaust was not evil, and Mother Teressa's orphanages were not good. The were both just different aspects of your god, which is all good in your view. The incoherence is shocking, and is a crystal clear example, right alongside neo-Darwinists, of the lengths people will go to to delude themselves into thinking they are being objective, when really it is in reality just wishful thinking for a preferred philosophical worldview.bornagain77_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: The characteristic of unconditional love is that it is, well, without conditions. If someone rejects it, it still continues to love all the same. And if you love someone unconditionally, you don't cast them into Hell, even if they did reject your love. And if they continue to separate themselves from you, you still continue to love them and wait patiently for their return (which, if they are made in the image and likeness of God, they will).Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

@Bruce, "Ah Sonfaro, you’re great. You actually can allow me to have a difference of opinion (a difference of belief?) and still honor me as a person. Thanks." No problem. "Do unto others-" and all. ;-) - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

And Bruce, if someone rejects the unconditional love of God that was poured into Christ in His death and resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins, then there is nothing left for the unconditional love to do to save us from the fallen/separated state from God when we die!!! You see Bruce sin CANNOT dwell in the presence of a infinitely holy God!bornagain77_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Ah Sonfaro, you're great. You actually can allow me to have a difference of opinion (a difference of belief?) and still honor me as a person. Thanks.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply