WARNING! Controversial poll ahead,...

[LizzieMaine]

If I personally, as a Christian, held others up to my belief system I would constantly find myself either depressed or angry, and lash out at those who didn't agree- thus giving my belief system a bad name. But it was originally founded on Love- and I wish that more of my faith lived the life of Patience and Love originally taught. I think it would have a much more positive impact.

You could say it's the difference between talking the talk -- which anyone can do without any real commitment -- and actually walking the walk, which is a lot more difficult and demanding. Narrow is the path, as the saying goes.

For me, part of loving-thy-neighbor-as-yourself means respecting my neighbor's own truths, whatever they might be -- whether or not they happen to be my own. And it's the fact that there are still people like that, both within every faith, and outside of any faith, that keep me from being a sour-bellied old cynic. I just wish there were *more* of them -- imagine how much less hostile and violent the world would be if all religious/theological debates could be as civil and respectful as this one has been.

 

[Section10]

And, y'know, that's the thing -- not having my world view defined to fit the boundaries of a particular religious belief, I no longer feel any *obligation* to define or defend my vision as "better" than anyone else's, or any need to evangelize anyone else to my point of view. None of that matters to me anymore.

What does matter to me is simply how people treat other people -- and especially how they treat those who are The Other to them. I think that's the basic foundation of all human morality -- and all else is vanity and a striving after the wind.

So are you saying then that your world view has no validity to it outside of its appeal to you? It works for you right now and when you are gone your world view will be gone also because it is exclusively yours. And its content largely depends on how you may feel toward a particular subject on any given day.

The problem I have with that (at least as far as considering its application) is like saying you prefer green over orange. By that statement you are saying nothing about the virtues of green over orange; you are simply commenting on yourself. So how can we build a common morality system around that?

Now I certainly agree on the importance of human kindness, but I prefer to back that up with a little more than my personal preference because there are some days that I do not feel very kind. Yet I like to believe that the "rule" of kindness still stands regardless of how I may feel toward it. If there really is a rule then I can transgress it or uphold it. But if the rule is only in my imagination, then it makes no difference what I do.

 

[Lauren]

...imagine how much less hostile and violent the world would be if all religious/theological debates could be as civil and respectful as this one has been.

I wholehearedly agree! It has been quite refreshing to see all sides being so civil We don't need to agree on every point in order give one another respect and love.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So are you saying then that your world view has no validity to it outside of its appeal to you? It works for you right now and when you are gone your world view will be gone also because it is exclusively yours. And its content largely depends on how you may feel toward a particular subject on any given day.

Well, yep -- that's pretty much it. It may not work for you -- you may have an approach that fits you better, and that's fine. But for me, after all the roads I've been down to get to where I am, it's really all I need.

The problem I have with that (at least as far as considering its application) is like saying you prefer green over orange. By that statement you are saying nothing about the virtues of green over orange; you are simply commenting on yourself. So how can we build a common morality system around that?

Well, for me to make a judgement that green was positively better than orange, I'd have to think that my opinion somehow carried more weight than someone who felt that orange was far better. And who am I, among all the billions of other people on earth, to make an assumption like that on a subject that's purely a matter of personal taste? If I like green better, is that somehow a threat to those who prefer orange?

As far as a common morality system goes, though, I'd think that should be built on an appeal to the kind of basic common sense we should have been taught in kindergarten: Don't do things to hurt other people. Treat other people the way you want to be treated yourself. Respect other people and they'll respect you. Not because I said so, or you said so, or some mysterious guy in the sky said so -- but because when we do those things, people seem to get along better and are happier than when we don't.

Now I certainly agree on the importance of human kindness, but I prefer to back that up with a little more than my personal preference because there are some days that I do not feel very kind. Yet I like to believe that the "rule" of kindness still stands regardless of how I may feel toward it. If there really is a rule then I can transgress it or uphold it. But if the rule is only in my imagination, then it makes no difference what I do.

Well, the fact that you like to believe that a rule of kindness stands tells me that you'd actually prefer to be kind even when you don't think you feel like you do. So do you really need some kind of punitive rule to *force* you to be kind, when the capacity for kindness is always right there within you?

 

[Feraud]

An interesting article I read that is "on topic" for this thread.
From the LA Times-

SCIENCE FILE
Finch Beaks Say Darwin Was Right
Scientists see the average size drop in response to competition on the Galapagos Islands.
By Erin Cline, Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2006


Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observing finches on the Galapagos Islands and speculating how each type developed distinct characteristics to take advantage of local conditions.

Now, researchers studying the same types of birds have for the first time observed competition-driven evolutionary changes occur from start to finish in the wild, according to a report published Friday in the journal Science.

ADVERTISEMENT
Princeton University evolutionary biologists Peter and B. Rosemary Grant have been studying Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands for more than 30 years.

Their report describes a process that was previously only speculated about and observed in laboratory experiments.

The medium ground finch, Geospiza fortis, has a variety of beak sizes, allowing it to eat different sizes of seeds.

On the island Daphne Major, this species faced little competition until 1982, when a larger type of ground finch, Geospiza magnirostris, moved in.

Both G. magnirostris and large-beaked G. fortis birds relied on large, hard seeds for food. The G. fortis with smaller beaks ate small seeds from different plants.

This was the status quo until a drought in 2003 caused a seed shortage.

The G. magnirostris were faster at eating the large seeds, and the large-beaked G. fortis could not compete. About 85% of them died.

The small-beaked G. fortis, on the other hand, faired better because of the lack of competition for smaller seeds.

Breeding among the small-beaked birds has cemented this trait in the G. fortis population, and the average beak size in the population is now about 5% smaller than before the drought.

"It's very satisfying when something you thought was going on all along is actually shown in the wild," said Lukas Keller, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland who was not connected with the research.

 

[Section10]

Well, for me to make a judgement that green was positively better than orange, I'd have to think that my opinion somehow carried more weight than someone who felt that orange was far better. And who am I, among all the billions of other people on earth, to make an assumption like that on a subject that's purely a matter of personal taste? If I like green better, is that somehow a threat to those who prefer orange?

As far as a common morality system goes, though, I'd think that should be built on an appeal to the kind of basic common sense we should have been taught in kindergarten: Don't do things to hurt other people. Treat other people the way you want to be treated yourself. Respect other people and they'll respect you. Not because I said so, or you said so, or some mysterious guy in the sky said so -- but because when we do those things, people seem to get along better and are happier than when we don't.



Well, the fact that you like to believe that a rule of kindness stands tells me that you'd actually prefer to be kind even when you don't think you feel like you do. So do you really need some kind of punitive rule to *force* you to be kind, when the capacity for kindness is always right there within you?

I enjoy tossing this kind of stuff around.

What I'm getting at is that under your system everything is of no more significance than preferring green over orange. Let's use an extreme example and say that someday in the distant future gays will lose all social acceptance and there will be open season on them. People can mount their heads on the wall as trophies. It will all be perfectly acceptable behavior. Is it any more wrong than the progress they've made toward social acceptance in today's society or is it simply what happens to be society's preference at that time and equally right when compared to the situation of today? Can we condemn one practice and applaud another?

Progressive thinkers scoff at the old medieval days of dark superstition and repressive church dominance (I don't like them either) as compared to today, yet on what do they base the judgement of their comparison on? Is one system of belief really better than another?

Now following the golden rule is just fine, but you must admit there are many people who would laugh at such a concept. Are they wrong? How can they be? Many people aren't happy unless they're in a fight. Evil is rampant in the news and in society. Or is it? Maybe it's simply someone else's choice.

Yes, I do like to believe a rule of kindness stands regardless of my moods, but I don't feel I'm forced to obey it; more like I'm being led to obey it. I find the capacity for kindness is within me but so is the capacity for unkindness. I must know the difference and I must believe that one contains an intrinsic virtue and one is counterproductive to the purpose of my life. God forces me to do nothing, but if my goals for my life are to be the same as his goals for me I will attempt to chose the right over the wrong as often as I am able since they both truly do exist. God doesn't expect us to be perfect, he expects us to be faithful. If we are, he will make us perfect himself. I believe there is a plan in the process of unfolding and all the misery and abounding evil are also an ingredient in that plan which is to make his called out ones into fit citizens for his kingdom. Could God have snapped his fingers and avoided all the fuss? I don't think so. If he had done so he would have wound up with something, but it would not have been the absolutely perfect something that he really wanted. You might say the choice of his goals locked him into the process along with us, yet he has determined that the results will be worth the cost and I must agree.

 

[Benny Holiday]

My brain is burned out

There's too much to consider on this topic! lol I come here to relax, you know!

It's interesting to read everyone's point of views, there's a lot we can learn from each other and I have to say I really enjoy getting to know everyone better. I've worked alongside people for years and yet don't know their beliefs, their dreams, their hopes and what they hold dear as well as I know these things about some of my fellow Loungers!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Here's something to burn out your brain even more. It's a statement my philosophy teacher tossed our way:


-------------------- "There is no God, and Mary is his mother."


.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I wholehearedly agree! It has been quite refreshing to see all sides being so civil We don't need to agree on every point in order give one another respect and love.

Cool,...this is the spirit in which I started the thread. So it's nice to see that it has been both informative and fun as well as peaceful.

 

[Lincsong]

Maybe we're devolving into sharks?

 

[Lincsong]

Here's something to burn out your brain even more. It's a statement my philosophy teacher tossed our way:


-------------------- "There is no God, and Mary is his mother."


.

What did he say next; "the colors, the colors, has anyone seen my freind Martin?"

 

[Benny Holiday]

Thanks Marc!

Here's something to burn out your brain even more. It's a statement my philosophy teacher tossed our way:


-------------------- "There is no God, and Mary is his mother."


.

Too bad my mind's on a coffee break . . . for the rest of the week!

 

[Mr Nick]

Interesting and thought provoking

It is indeed an interesting topic that has been discussed with dignity and respect for all points of view. I just wanted to throw out a question (or two). If evolution is true and we are all "just animals", where did the concept of a moral conscience come from and why are we as humans the only animals with the ability to reason, feel emotions and govern each other with laws?
Also, where did the seven day week come from and why is it universally accepted by all cultures throughout time?
Just some thoughts... (Maybe later we can discuss grace and how that's what makes Christianity different from other religions.)

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Okay, in order to,....

...raise more questions, I must submit this recent discovery by a paleontologist which I think may cast new light upon the actual age of the earth. Evolutionary, (no Creator) science claims that the earth is,...what? 4 billion years old or so? The accidental, non-created version of the origins of life on this planet depend heavily upon the assumption that billions of years have passed in order to make that scenario possible.
Now what if these dinosaur bones are in reality only 6,500 years old, or 65,000 years old, and not 65,000,000 as had been assumed until now?




http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/dinosaur-dna/

 

[scotrace]

Ahhh... so now the dinosaurs were feasting on the Mesopotamians?

 

[ortega76]

I agree with Marc. Evolution but hardly accidental. I never understood the hullaballoo with creationism. My high school science teacher, a Carmelite monk, pointed out that science/evolution tells the "how" and religion/theology tries to find the "why". If the big guy chooses to work through evolution, then that's cool.

 

[Benny Holiday]

Hey Major . . .

The dinosaur tissue in that article didn't happen to come from that purple character in your avatar, did it? lol

 

[Briscoeteque]

It is indeed an interesting topic that has been discussed with dignity and respect for all points of view. I just wanted to throw out a question (or two). If evolution is true and we are all "just animals", where did the concept of a moral conscience come from and why are we as humans the only animals with the ability to reason, feel emotions and govern each other with laws?
Also, where did the seven day week come from and why is it universally accepted by all cultures throughout time?
Just some thoughts... (Maybe later we can discuss grace and how that's what makes Christianity different from other religions.)

These things are not really very far removed to what is favored for survival. Look at human evolution. Group dynamics were absolutely essential for the survival of an otherwise poor predator. Advanced communication was key to coordination. Certainly, certain behaviors that hurt group dynamics would be detremental to survival and there, some laws and morals. Emotions? Nothing solely human about them, I think many animals feel emotions, but lack the ability to articulate and communicate them effectively. Reason? Again, communication is key, and to communicate, we need common ground, and that common ground is objectivity. Our cousin the chimpanzee is the best way to see how another species demonstrates similar dynamics to ours remarkably well. Chimpanzees make tools, organize groups in hierarchies based on strength and charisma, wage war on other groups, and engage in sexual behaviors for pleasure. It may be more primitive, but it's there. Other animals, like dolphins, have again, demonstrated surprising intelligence. The animal that fascinates me the most though, is the Octopus, which has evovled intelligence that is as far removed as can be from us primates. Octopods live a life of near zero communication and no nurturing, so instead of reproduction in the mammalian sense, they live very short, rapid lives, that are dominated by sheer curiosity and trial and error. My pet Octopus arranged the legs of crayfish it killed in a monstrous garden outside of its cave. It may not be a sign of culture, but how many other animals waste so much time on a behavior that has apparently zero direct survival value?

Also, lungs, eyes, and all of those things are shared by so many creatures because they all came from past ancestors. We are the first to achieve these levels, and we may be the last, but we also may not be. Some creatures developed lungs first, but that isn't evidence by itself that they were granted this special ability by a higher power, but that many fish themselves today have various ways of getting oxygen through air, and there was a huge unfilled niche that made success easier for those with better air-breathing mechanisms. Creatures very all of the time. We're all different, we're all individuals. There is more to all of us then a simple rearranging of all of the parts we got from our original ancestor. That X factor is mutation.

Certain numbers also have an odd relevence across all cultures. 7 is one of them, as is three, five, sometimes six, and some multiples. I haven't seen evidence of the 7 day week outside of middle-eastern, european, and east asian cultures, could you show me which other cultures 'universally' accepted it without one of the above teaching it to them? I don't mean to be snooty, I'd honestly like to know.

That's a really interesting article, Major, it's unfortuneate she was rushed into results to get money, but true scientists want to be challenged more than anything else. I'll stay tuned. It could revolutionize our perspective on the past, or it could be one of those one hit wonders like cold fusion. I'll keep an eye out for it!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Now following the golden rule is just fine, but you must admit there are many people who would laugh at such a concept. Are they wrong? How can they be? Many people aren't happy unless they're in a fight. Evil is rampant in the news and in society. Or is it? Maybe it's simply someone else's choice.

Well, it's like I said before. My own philosophy for living is very simple: Hurting other people is bad. Not hurting other people is good. I'm not a moral relativist in that sense at all -- I think the very foundation of a workable society depends on people treating each other with kindness, decency, and respect, and I try to put that into practice in the only life over which I have any authority -- my own. It has nothing to do with any one system of belief or ideology being "better" than another -- and everything to do with simply seeing people as individual human beings worthy of respect and kindness in a way that transcends ideology or dogma. I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that unless one wants it to be.

Yes, I do like to believe a rule of kindness stands regardless of my moods, but I don't feel I'm forced to obey it; more like I'm being led to obey it. I find the capacity for kindness is within me but so is the capacity for unkindness. I must know the difference and I must believe that one contains an intrinsic virtue and one is counterproductive to the purpose of my life. God forces me to do nothing, but if my goals for my life are to be the same as his goals for me I will attempt to chose the right over the wrong as often as I am able since they both truly do exist.

For me, it comes down to the simple matter of knowing what it feels like to be hurt -- and not wanting other people to feel that way. But from my perspective it's not the philosophical underpinnings of the argument that matter as much as the practical outcome. If your beliefs lead you to treat others with kindness and respect, then regardless of ideology I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.

 

[Lincsong]

Aren't new species of insects still being found in the Amazon?