Uhuh

You're not a devil worshipper?

1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.

2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another

You could also replace "God" with "conscience".
An atheist also can have the level of morals which compels him to act decently toward the other, and without even needing a reward for that.

On peut tous se mettre d'accord avec ce simple aphorisme rabelaisien (ah, un stinky!):

Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme.

breizheals,

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. In fact, more than a few of you have spun my words to include things I did not post, and then ask me to defend it. I don't play that game.

As for the HUGE difference between animlas and mankind, I said if you can't see it, there's no reason for me to discuss it. That does not mean I cannot explain it, but I really don't think my effort to do so would be productive. In fact, YOU could probably do it better than I, even if you don't see it. I am not going to go there. Just accept the fact that I do see a HUGE difference, and that difference matters to me.

A few clarifications:

I did not say annimals don't have or experience emotions. I have far too many life experiences of my own to know otherwise. Anyone who has experience with higher animals knows that, especially fuzzy, cuddly pets.

An example would be the common domestic feline. Its been observed that feral cats behave no differently than the larger cats. A cat is a cat. Yet, a domestic cat...one that has been raised among humans is quite different. I won't go into the details. Cat People know this. I imagine the same can be said about dogs (though it is said domestic dogs have an "arrested" behavior limited to the adolescent stage of wild canines). Yet to say these animals can distinguish between "right and wrong" or make a moral decision is a Disney fantasy.

I did not read the primate incest documents, because I do not subscribe to the service to obtain the readings. However, I suspect that the anti-incest behavior is most likely related to some instinctual trait, even if not evident in immature specimens. I don't know. I have not studied primates much. I do know that among the higher primates, a group can learn something and teach the young ones over time and generations. They will teach a skill that works to ensure survival. It has nothing to do with ethics or morality. Its a learned survival skill. Like teaching a cub how to hunt...or perhaps, not to taint the gene pool?

HunchBacked wrote:

1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.

2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another

You could also replace "God" with "conscience".
An atheist also can have the level of morals which compels him to act decently toward the other, and without even needing a reward for that.

What a pile of laughable platitudes one can hear every day in the frongSSh bars!

Replace GOD with "conscience"?What conscience?Individual conscience?Or a global conscience?Does that "conscience" exists by itself?Is it different from intelligence?Does it explain the organized complexity of the world? Tries to answer and reach REALLITY and TRUTH by the mean of WORDS instead of staying at the level of babling children .

Most of the "moral atheists" have been christianized.
BUT Give us some facts backing your affirmation which is rather theorical.I don't know higher level of morality than Jesus-Christ's life.

Last but not least judeo-christianism is NOT firstable a moral but a Wisdom

achilledetroie wrote:

...Replace GOD with "conscience"?What conscience?Individual conscience?Or a global conscience?Does that "conscience" exists by itself?Is it different from intelligence?Does it explain the organized complexity of the world? Tries to answer and reach REALITY and TRUTH by the mean of WORDS instead of staying at the level of babbling children .

While the word "conscience" doesn't begin to explain the "organized complexity of the world" or the nature of reality or such large and external things, I would say that as far as the internal of the individual goes, the word "conscience" used in such a context is nothing more than a word for "God" to people who don't think they believe in a God. Arguably, the only real difference between humans and the other animals is the understanding of right and wrong. That is something that appears to be innate to human beings. Even the most strident atheists have it.

Replace GOD with "conscience"?What conscience?Individual conscience?Or a global conscience?

The individual conscience of everyone being shared by others becomes a global conscience of what's right and what's wrong.

HunchBacked wrote:

The individual conscience of everyone being shared by others becomes a global conscience of what's right and what's wrong.

Where did that come from, and why don't animals have it?

HunchBacked wrote:

The individual conscience of everyone being shared by others becomes a global conscience of what's right and what's wrong.

I suppose that's part and parcel of Jung's "collective unconscious" theory.

GreyUhu wrote:

Where did that come from, and why don't animals have it?

I don't know if I buy into the notion of a global conscience or a collective unconscious, but the higher animals such as the apes seem to have a concept of right & wrong, if you read the accounts of long-time observers like Jane Goodall, Dianne Fossey and the like.

(edit- I know I somewhat contradicted my last post here. I just now thought about the Goodall etc. studies. I also don't want to overstate them. Her observations seem to suggest that chimps have a notion of wrong, most strongly evinced by that creepy chimp family that would steal baby chimps and eat them. I don't mean to equate it with the human notions of good & evil.)

In fact, the most spiritual religion that I know is catharism.
This religion considers that any man is perfectible, and considers that the evil is only temporary (unlike catholicism which considers that evil is permanent).
She gives to god a more divine, immaterial essence than catholicism.
She thinks that in the end only perfection will remain and that the evil will have completely disappeared.
Men reincarnate till they achieve the absolute perfection, and when they have achieved the absolute perfection, they return to god.
And when all men have returned to god, the evil which only exists through the imperfection in men, will completely disappear, and all which will remain will be absolute perfection.
I like this idea, it's very positive.
There are men who seem better than other ones: They have reached a better state of perfection than the other ones.
Sometimes I have the feeling to have already lived a past life, don't you?

Cosmic unconsciousness

HunchBacked wrote:

And when all men have returned to god, the evil which only exists through the imperfection in men, will completely disappear, and all which will remain will be absolute perfection.
I like this idea, it's very positive.

That strikes me as a bit too rosy. I'm inclined to believe that good and evil exist independent of men, they simply manifest visibly in them.

"dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,"

Dunno. I wasn't there.

HunchBacked wrote:


There are men who seem better than other ones: They have reached a better state of perfection than the other ones.

These men are called AMERICANS hunch.

Sometimes I have the feeling to have already lived a past life, don't you?

Were you a fwench idiot in your previous life too?

Stonewall wrote:

[q=HunchBacked]The individual conscience of everyone being shared by others becomes a global conscience of what's right and what's wrong. I suppose that's part and parcel of Jung's "collective unconscious" theory.

That would be the "Force" as explained in Star Wars.

Catharism is scientifically in error, as well as theologically. There are very strong clues that evil has an organic basis, since there is evidence that more is at work in the corruption of the human being than just a traumatic childhood.

I know about these things, because I have studied the books and papers of the Swiss psychoanalyst Alice Miller. Most of the body of her work is devoted to explaining, correctly I might add, that most of the evil that humans inflict on each other derives from trauma, violence, neglect, and abuse of infants and children. These wounds define how they relate to the world later in life, if not in their youth. It affects the way they raise their children and the sickness is passed on across generations. Later in her career, she began to realize that clinically it was being discovered that exceptions to her theories were encountered. So, she would add the proviso to her works about psychoanalysis: that depth psychotherapy is called for PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO ORGANIC BASIS FOR THE ILLNESS.

Sociopaths are people WHO HAVE NO CONSCIENCE. They are incapable of being moral. Are not perfectible. The research into the genesis of sociopathology is not conclusive, but there seems to be at work BOTH organic and behavioral factors involved in the descent of this kind of human being into evil. Sometimes it is an organic factor only. No history of parental or adult neglect, abuse, or violence. In other words - and it has happened, although rare - a human being can be born who is not truly human. He or she is some other kind of creature with the appearance of the human, but the soul of Satan. Some people call these horrible creatures The Watchers. They are sent among us to sow chaos, violence, and cause despair. They are murderers and are very skilled at murder. They get pleasure from it, even to the point of it being an orgasmic experience for them. That, Hunch, is truly frightful.

This dimension is not meant and cannot be a utopia. It isn't perfectible. Some years back I read some scientific articles about the human genome project. There are tragic flaws in all of us that are characterized by some scientists as "like misspellings" and errors in the genetic sequences. This blew me away, which tells me we are dealing with something COSMIC in nature. That is to say, beyond this world. And if we are also glimpsing, for the first time, the organic basis for evil we are also gaining clues that there is a cosmic drama beyond our understanding.

Jesus summons us to practice selfless love, compassion, and prayerful, generous, hard-working, and intelligent lives. Somehow, within the limitations we have inherited, we are to labor to make life better. But it will never be heaven here. There will never be a Kingdom of God on earth. I made that mistake many years ago: believing in Liberation Theology and revised Marxist thought. And we have to accept the fact that Satan is in our midst. Even takes human form, to lay waste to us, lie to us, make us believe in lies, and convince us he doesn't exist.

I've battled theodicy (the problem of Evil) in a period of struggle with my faith. I've come out on the other side a stronger Christian for it, having faced the dark night of the soul. For a brief period of my life I despaired, but I recovered when I realized that the Creator is good, loves us, but also, for reasons we will never know, allows Evil to roam in our dimension as well in the cosmic dimension. Evil somehow even serves a higher purpose I do not fathom or understand.

I have met evil people. The vast majority of people are not evil. They are, like me, weak and struggling to make sense of life. Some fall more on the side of serious sinner and others on the other side of the not so serious sinner. But we are all wounded and we are sinners. Some worse than others. The absolutely worst among the worst are The Watchers. Run from them if you see one of them. Get away as quickly as you can. But first, learn to recognize the signs of the evil person. Some are more obvious; others more subtle.

I consider people like Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, AND MUHAMMAD to be Watchers: the Devil's own. I believe Muhammad was the Devil's most perfect creation, because in him and through him Satan passes off evil as a religion. And many fall for it.

"Allah" IS Satan.

Grey, thanks for your answer.

The problem is that your post is a remarkable illustration of anthropocentrism. To make it short, and I'll use the case of incest avoidance amongst primates' societies (Cf. Chapais and other articles I posted above), what you imply is that when monkeys do not practice incest it's all about group surviving, but when humans avoid it, it's because they are morale beings, able to distinguish between Right (Good) and Wrong (Evil). Sounds like a genuine double-standard to me.

So, tell me again, what's that HUGE difference that exists between animals and human beings you mentioned earlier? I do think this is just an emic point of view. In all objectivity, or from an etic standpoint, there is no fundamental difference between us and them.

I didn't bother to read all the posts, so maybe somebody has already made this point.

There has not been a US President or Vice President that did not profess Christian faith. Obama said he prays to Jesus every night.

Fundamental tenants of this faith are:
-God impregnated a virgin who gave birth to a deity in human form.
-Jesus was killed and rose from the dead.
-Jesus ascended into heaven
-All who don't profess this faith are doomed to eternal damnation.

Why don't you guys ask Obama if he believes all Jews, Hindus and muslims are doomed to hell? Ask Obama to scientifically explain rising from the dead, walking on water and healing the blind.

BTW, my European friends, your outdated, old-world misogyny is showing. Don't be afraid, it will be OK.

breizheals wrote:

what you imply is that when monkeys do not practice incest it's all about group surviving, but when humans avoid it, it's because they are morale beings, able to distinguish between Right (Good) and Wrong (Evil). Sounds like a genuine double-standard to me.

I did not comment at all on the nature of the incest taboo among humans. (Please don't interject things I didn't say or imply) As for primates, I only guessed. As I said, I have not studied this, so my opinion is based on conjecture.

As for the incest taboo among humans, my opinion there would also be based on conjecture. It certainly is not a universal taboo among all societies. As you may well know, human societies differ greatly. I suspect it had similar origins as a survival trait, which later became codified in "law". Lot's daughters slept with him, because they thought they were the last people on Earth (according to the Bible) and bore him sons. Were they condemned for it? Beats me. Were the daughters then planning on boinking their sons? I dunno. Were they hoping for daughters so Daddy could boink them? Maybe Noah and his sons and daughters have the answer. For that matter, ask Adam & Eve and who their children boinked.

Lots of things get codified into law. Some things involve morality (Thou shalt not murder) other things...not. Hell, even what constitutes incest varies within our own societies. In some places, first cousins can marry. In others, in-laws cannot get married nor even step-siblings. Where do you draw the line? Well, isn't that what the whole abortion debate is about?

GreyUhu,

In the Christian tradition marriage is a sacred bond. It is a spiritual thing - or is supposed to be. If it isn't, normally the marriage does not last. That is why arranged marriages or marriages of convenience or based on some other superficial quality tend to fail. The bond is not just physical, but spiritual as well, when the marriage is based on love and freedom.

HunchBacked wrote:

In fact, the most spiritual religion that I know is catharism.
This religion considers that any man is perfectible, and considers that the evil is only temporary (unlike catholicism which considers that evil is permanent).
She gives to god a more divine, immaterial essence than catholicism.
She thinks that in the end only perfection will remain and that the evil will have completely disappeared.
Men reincarnate till they achieve the absolute perfection, and when they have achieved the absolute perfection, they return to god.
And when all men have returned to god, the evil which only exists through the imperfection in men, will completely disappear, and all which will remain will be absolute perfection.
I like this idea, it's very positive.
There are men who seem better than other ones: They have reached a better state of perfection than the other ones.
Sometimes I have the feeling to have already lived a past life, don't you?

Sadly,cathar practiced suicide en masse(and suicide attacks). Exactly like the extremist muslims.

french catholic killed them all. (a little bit sad because their religion was interesting)

Catharism was based on the heresy of Pelagius. I know this, because in my religious thought I used to be, although not aware of it at the time, a Pelagian heretic.

This is what Palin believes in:

Creationism

This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.
Why does the Assemblies of God hold a strong position on creationism? Could the evolution theory or portions of it fit into the Bible’s account of creation? Also, why is our origin so important?

The Assemblies of God has a deep commitment to creationism–that God is the Author and Creator of all life (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5,6; Isaiah 40:26,28; 1 Peter 4:19). By the power of His Word, He created everything out of nothing (Hebrews 11:3). The visible was created out of the invisible, the material out of the nonmaterial, and the tangible out of the intangible.

However, by what means was His creative work accomplished? More specifically, did God employ a gradual process by which the world came into being? Did higher forms of life progress from lower forms of life? The advocates of gradual process are called theistic evolutionists. For them, God’s creative days recorded in Genesis may well have been eons of time.

Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: "And there was evening, and there was morning." This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided. Furthermore such a literal view of God’s creation process requires no more faith than theories of science–that our world evolved to its current state by the accidental collision of molecules.

For Christians, the question of origin is most critical. If mankind has merely evolved from lower forms of life, one cannot possess the special imprint of God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27; 2:7). If all of life is but the result of natural forces as told through various strains of evolution, it then becomes impossible to understand and know God through His creation.

Ultimately for most Christians it comes to this: if God is not Author and Creator of all that is, life offers little meaning or purpose for mankind. In evolution there is no judgment, and therefore no punishment or reward for the way we live. Through the view of evolution, lifestyle choices don’t matter. Instead life and creation simply evolve. But from the view of creationism, recognizing God’s handiwork and order, life takes on great meaning and renders significant eternal reward.

CONCERNS:

Much of the moral and spiritual decline of modern society is traceable to the skepticism that has formed around creation. From the Bible’s account of creation we first understand that the very nature of God is creative. We also see that He possesses supernatural power through His ability to "make something out of nothing." Through Scripture we come to understand that the earth was created by God, and that the birds, fish, and animals were likewise His creation. Most importantly, we learn that mankind in the form of male and female were created by God, and that each has unique needs and purposes. We also see that mankind is given domain over all the earth, its resources, and other creatures. Also in the creation account we learn that work and rest are good for man. We learn that in spite of good, evil also exists, and that mankind by nature is bent to evil. But God has made provision for man to be freed from evil through the death of His Son Jesus.

From this perspective we believe to remove God as the Source of creation is to erode the basis for moral and ethical values. For this reason a biblical account of creation must remain uncompromised.

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching. The official delineation of this position is found in the Assemblies of God position paper, "The Doctrine of Creation," 1977.

I think it's important to stress that Jesus Christ Our Savior probably baptized a young dinosaur during his 40 days in the desert. Some commie atheist will probably ask me: "Why is it not in the Scriptures?" I say FUCK THAT, YOU COMMIE SATANIST! Our Lord Jesus never WROTE anything… He knew Satan could have snitched his note-book easily and re-write the whole story. Jesus was no fool. So he told His disciples everything. The problem is this dinosaur episode was told to Judas!!! And you know how the poor bastard ended.