# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  God and Suffering

## Night Train

I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree. Basically, the class has been an eye opening study about the Holocaust. It has really caused me to sit back and think harder about what I believe about God and about suffering. I am wondering if a few of you would mind sharing your views on this subject. Do you believe that God allowed the holocaust or even caused it? Does the fact that there is suffering cause you to believe that there is no God? I know we aren't going to solve this one, but I am wondering what your views are and how you came to that conclusion. And no Harry, I am not delving into the subject of suffering because the Colts have lost two games in a row. That topic is for another thread!:bbg:

----------


## chip anderson

Hitler caused it.  We stopped it.  
At least this is everyone except the ruler of Iran's version.

----------


## hcjilson

My understanding can be summed up by George Burns in the movie Oh God!
God gave us the gift of life on Earth. What we do with it is up to us.

----------


## fvc2020

> My understanding can be summed up by George Burns in the movie Oh God!
> God gave us the gift of life on Earth. What we do with it is up to us.


Beautifully said:).  I'd only add one other thing.  Evil is Evil.

Christina

----------


## chip anderson

As I tell my friends at church who tend to be very concerned with the afterlife.  God did enough for me, just putting me here.  He put me in the most fertile place on the planet.  He created this rock I live on.  It is beautiful.  I go outside and what I see is far more beautiful than anything man has made.  What more could I ask?
My benefits and troubles in life are largely of my own doing.  God put me here to make or not make what I can of it.
What can a man or governent provide that is the equal of catching a big fish and watching it break the water?
I can find humor in anything, including many things I should not.  If I were a holocaust victim, I could probably find enough humor in that to see me through.
Chip

----------


## Christosfer

> I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree. Basically, the class has been an eye opening study about the Holocaust. It has really caused me to sit back and think harder about what I believe about God and about suffering. I am wondering if a few of you would mind sharing your views on this subject. Do you believe that God allowed the holocaust or even caused it? Does the fact that there is suffering cause you to believe that there is no God? I know we aren't going to solve this one, but I am wondering what your views are and how you came to that conclusion. And no Harry, I am not delving into the subject of suffering because the Colts have lost two games in a row. That topic is for another thread!:bbg:


I find this topic very interesting and have listened to a great many speak on the subject. If you look up Ravi Zacharias you will find some great pod casts from him on the subject. 
One of the things that Ravi says is that we must first see that suffering is a Judeo/Christian idea. To a Muslim it is the will of Allah, to a Buddhist it is kharma, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in suffering and be logically consistant. If there is no God and life is an accident of matter+time+chance, then there is no meaning to life, and to say that there is suffering is to imply that there is meaning. 

Most interesting is that Christianity offers a solution to suffering in the hope of the resurrection. God came into the world as a man like us in the person of Jesus Christ and suffered in perfect obedience. Now the empty tomb stands not only as evidence of our hope, but also the thing that stumps the skeptics. Jesus' enemies only had to show that the tomb was not empty to stop the spread of Christianity, but instead they verify the empty tomb by making up the story that his body was stolen.

All that from a comment on suffering. Something to think about.

----------


## AngryFish

I’ve seen a dog lay broken in a gutter next to a busy road whimpering in agony as death approached and saw suffering. I don’t think a belief in any god would have offered meaning to its suffering. Yet it entered its life with only one promise, it would suffer, whether through loss, hunger, pain, loneliness, abandonment, or a countless host of other uncomfortable things or ultimately in death. I think it is an ill-considered understanding of the human condition to state with such a broad and sweeping a notion that to acknowledge suffering is proof of meaning in the context of having to acknowledge Jesus as the only solution. You are making too much of a leap with your logic. In your wake suffering continues a little more agitated.

----------


## cocoisland58

Having grown up an Irish Catholic I can tell you that the general speil was, the more you suffer on earth, the greater your reward in heaven (assuming you have followed all the other rules).  I have seen enough people suffer to say that if there is a heaven, they deserve much happiness in it.  My own belief is that if there is a God he is pretty much hands off but I have seen things happen that would seem to be nothing else but an intervention from above.  Even so the thought of a hands off God helps me deal with the fact that innocent children are raped and killed, among other atrocities that a hands on God could not allow. As I grow older and watch way too much news on the TV I find myself becoming more and more an Agnostic.  However I'm sure I will do a turn around if I should ever find myself in dire straits.  Such is human nature.  Deep down I do believe but wonder what the heck He's doing up there while yes...all the suffering goes on down here.  Who am I to try to figure it out when higher brains than mine have not been able to?

----------


## Jubilee

I wish I could find this perfect piece of prose I once had that expressed my thoughts so well.

Basically, I believe that God created the world and man. He also gave us the freedom to do what we want with it. He gives us words of wisdom and instruction. Tries to make sure we understand right from wrong. However, in the end it is up to US to live up to the potential we have for ourselves and this world.  Much the same as it is for a parent to teach their children, and let them make choices right or wrong to learn and grow. And sometimes, those periods of great personal growth occur when someone be it ourselves or another has failed.

Does it make us sad when our children go against our teachings? It does me. When you child lies, cheats, or fight... how do you punish them? I mean, what crimes should make someone get stuck by brimstone and fire? 

I don't think it is possible to know joy without sorrow. Do I want to experience that, do I want to see others experience that? NO. I try to avoid it. However when I look back on my darkest times, I also can see the growth I experienced, my compassion for my fellow man rising, and my inner strength fortified.

Maybe we are tended like roses.. needing occasional pruning to allow for us to bloom and grow...

----------


## 1968

> One of the things that Ravi says is that we must first see that suffering is a Judeo/Christian idea. To a Muslim it is the will of Allah, to a Buddhist it is kharma, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in suffering and be logically consistant. If there is no God and life is an accident of matter+time+chance, then there is no meaning to life, and to say that there is suffering is to imply that there is meaning.


Suffice it to say, there are plenty of people who disagree with this.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Do you believe that God allowed the holocaust or even caused it? Does the fact that there is suffering cause you to believe that there is no God?


  Regarding the first sentence. To believe that means that God caused the Colts to lose the last 2 games. Doesn't it? Mr Jilson is right on on this.

Regarding the second sentence. No. But I believe in reincarnation and that to me explains why  a soul would sacrifice itself to help teach another that God wants us to live by the golden rule.

Reincarnation to me answers so many of lifes profound mysteries.

----------


## Christosfer

> Ive seen a dog lay broken in a gutter next to a busy road whimpering in agony as death approached and saw suffering. I dont think a belief in any god would have offered meaning to its suffering. Yet it entered its life with only one promise, it would suffer, whether through loss, hunger, pain, loneliness, abandonment, or a countless host of other uncomfortable things or ultimately in death. I think it is an ill-considered understanding of the human condition to state with such a broad and sweeping a notion that to acknowledge suffering is proof of meaning in the context of having to acknowledge Jesus as the only solution. You are making too much of a leap with your logic. In your wake suffering continues a little more agitated.


I did not write that with the intent of insulting you. However, I think the very issue of suffering points to the fact that we feel it's not supposed to be like this. That is, when you or I see animal suffering or children, it doesnt seem right. I believe that the feeling we have is true, it is not right. I also believe it will be made right. All the accounts will be settled.

----------


## Christosfer

> Regarding the first sentence. To believe that means that God caused the Colts to lose the last 2 games. Doesn't it? Mr Jilson is right on on this.
> 
> Regarding the second sentence. No. But I believe in reincarnation and that to me explains why  a soul would sacrifice itself to help teach another that God wants us to live by the golden rule.
> 
> Reincarnation to me answers so many of lifes profound mysteries.


You believe in God and reincarnation? Does that mean that you believe that we have to work off our bad kharma too? If so, how does God play into this system?
One other question I have for you since you believe in reincarntion; how does reincarnation account for the increase in global population, where do the souls come from?

----------


## Christosfer

> Suffice it to say, there are plenty of people who disagree with this.


I am sure that you are right. Although, believing something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not, outside of preference sort of beliefs such as red is the best color. 
A person can believe that suffering is wrong and not believe in a creator God. How could they say that the suffering they experience is anything more than a preference type of belief? "It is suffering to me, therefore it is suffering."

If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. That is really the basis of what I am trying to say.

----------


## AngryFish

"I did not write that with the intent of insulting you. However, I think the very issue of suffering points to the fact that we feel it's not supposed to be like this. That is, when you or I see animal suffering or children, it doesnt seem right. I believe that the feeling we have is true, it is not right. I also believe it will be made right. All the accounts will be settled." Christofer



No offense taken. Without exception everything that has a beginning has an end. Prior to the end it is reasonable to expect degradation, it is also reasonable and witnessed that aberrations from best case scenarios are frequent, some would argue common. Sensory input in place to promote best case outcomes would record unfavorable circumstances and negatives in some organisms as “suffering” in order to foster a better chance of survival and procreation. Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be “in its time”. I don’t see the direct connection between this agreed upon state and suffering, when suffering is linked to spirituality it makes its first leap and when it is tied to a single answer, it’s second. I am not concluding that you are right or wrong, just suggesting there are a few more steps to take us through before we can reach your conclusion.

----------


## AngryFish

If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. That is really the basis of what I am trying to say. Christofer

The idea of a moral law is similar to the idea of a natural law and in fact, I believe, that most law considered moral law is not in conflict with natural law, as it pertains to human interaction. The laws needed would be the result of two necessary conditions, one for life to exist, and two, to then exist more comfortably.  No spiritual component needs to be introduced to explain or understand that certain protections are necessary and must be in place for the sake of insuring procreation and the ability to sustain life. Once that is accomplished additional laws based on the same understood necessities that allow for the sustaining of life are extrapolated to increase comfort and aid in the management of the larger populations that follow. So the definition of moral is then subjugated by the type of life it pertains to.

----------


## For-Life

I think the holocaust woke up the world to horrible racial offenses being committed.  I wonder if that did not happen if it would have only got worse.

----------


## 1968

> I am sure that you are right. Although, believing something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not, outside of preference sort of beliefs such as red is the best color. 
> A person can believe that suffering is wrong and not believe in a creator God. How could they say that the suffering they experience is anything more than a preference type of belief? "It is suffering to me, therefore it is suffering."
> 
> If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. That is really the basis of what I am trying to say.


I do understand that you believe that to be true, and I certainly agree with you that believing something to be true does not necessitate that it is true.

----------


## hcjilson

> Regarding the first sentence. To believe that means that God caused the Colts to lose the last 2 games. Doesn't it? Mr Jilson is right on on this.
> 
> Regarding the second sentence. No. But I believe in reincarnation and that to me explains why  a soul would sacrifice itself to help teach another that God wants us to live by the golden rule.
> 
> Reincarnation to me answers so many of lifes profound mysteries.


Unfortunately, in my sphere of belief, God is too busy to take sides between the Patriots and the World Champion Colts ( I can't believe I actually typed that!). What he has done is leave it for friends to hash it out with trash talking. God loves BOTH teams equally.......but through his gifts, the Patriots are more talented!

----------


## Judy Canty

Then I guess I'll chant most earnestly for my poor Redskins. It's Dallas week...:shiner:

----------


## cocoisland58

Someone decided that my earlier post deserved a red dot on my reputation.  Certainly my fellow optiboarders embrace opposing views on most any subject so I can only surmise that it was Sister Philomena from fourth grade religion class.  Sorry Sister, I forgot not to question the powers that be.

----------


## Christosfer

No offense taken. Without exception everything that has a beginning has an end. Prior to the end it is reasonable to expect degradation, it is also reasonable and witnessed that aberrations from best case scenarios are frequent, some would argue common. Sensory input in place to promote best case outcomes would record unfavorable circumstances and negatives in some organisms as suffering in order to foster a better chance of survival and procreation. Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be in its time. I dont see the direct connection between this agreed upon state and suffering, when suffering is linked to spirituality it makes its first leap and when it is tied to a single answer, its second. I am not concluding that you are right or wrong, just suggesting there are a few more steps to take us through before we can reach your conclusion. [ANGRYFISH]

You are obviously a well educated and thoughtful person, so I am very glad to engage in this conversation. You are causing me to think about what I belive and why I believe it, which I have done, but to put it to words succinctly is another thing.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "in it's time" for me, I am not sure what you meant by that. 
I will say this one thing, it is not just the suffering, but it's agreed uponness. Make sense? I am running short of time, but I was going to quote C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity. I will do that another time.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> You believe in God and reincarnation? Does that mean that you believe that we have to work off our bad kharma too? If so, how does God play into this system?
> One other question I have for you since you believe in reincarntion; how does reincarnation account for the increase in global population, where do the souls come from?



Simple. God just goes to SoulMart and gets them on closeout.:D
Sorry to inject some humor here.

Has anyone here read Piers Anthony's  On A Pale Horse?

----------


## gemstone

> Ive seen a dog lay broken in a gutter next to a busy road whimpering in agony as death approached and saw suffering. I dont think a belief in any god would have offered meaning to its suffering. Yet it entered its life with only one promise, it would suffer, whether through loss, hunger, pain, loneliness, abandonment, or a countless host of other uncomfortable things or ultimately in death. I think it is an ill-considered understanding of the human condition to state with such a broad and sweeping a notion that to acknowledge suffering is proof of meaning in the context of having to acknowledge Jesus as the only solution. You are making too much of a leap with your logic. In your wake suffering continues a little more agitated.


You ask God how can he allow such suffering.  The answer may well be.  I am only on Earth as a spirit.  Only in the hearts of men and women like you, that would allow me in.  I ask you now, how could you allow such suffering?  What relief have you offered?  You were there physically.

----------


## chip anderson

God gives you the world, God gives you life. Who are we to ask for more. Nowhere does God say that we will be exempt from lifes tragedies, accidents, or life except. Go outside and look at the world (at least the part made by God) then what more could you ask.


Chip

Some of us ask God (others ask the government) to deliver us from ourselves.  Why should he?

----------


## 1968

> Some of us ask God (others ask the government) to deliver us from ourselves.  Why should he?


Is it OK to ask God that he deliver us from our government?

----------


## gemstone

> Is it OK to ask God that he deliver us from our government?


Yes it is!

----------


## AngryFish

Christofer,
By saying that 

Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be in its time.

I am suggesting that looking from our vantage point either direction we see infinity before and after us. We are only a part of now and because we are a part of now forced into _its_ context which becomes our perspective. Now can be defined in any way but the definition is limited by our ability to comprehend outside of the restrictions of our context. Concepts like time, space, and matter, for example are relative to us because they are applicable to our context. An example that highlights this trap on a smaller scale would be like this. When asking some evolutionists why there is no life on the moon or on the surface of our sun they will say that conditions are not favorable to life in these environments. That is exactly the response you expect to get when you are limited by your context. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, why abundant life is not present on either or both of these places, it just happened here because we, our context, is in its time. I look forward to the C.S. Lewis quote, I love the way his mind worked.

----------


## Alan W

> . . . . If I were a holocaust victim, I could probably find enough humor in that to see me through.
> Chip


You're so right, Chip . . . . .

"They tortured us . . . forced us to flee across the desert . . . .  put us in ovens . . . forced us to live in famine and pestulance. OK, enough. Let's eat!"

----------


## Christosfer

> Christofer,
> By saying that 
> 
> Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be in its time.
> 
> I am suggesting that looking from our vantage point either direction we see infinity before and after us. We are only a part of now and because we are a part of now forced into _its_ context which becomes our perspective. Now can be defined in any way but the definition is limited by our ability to comprehend outside of the restrictions of our context. Concepts like time, space, and matter, for example are relative to us because they are applicable to our context. An example that highlights this trap on a smaller scale would be like this. When asking some evolutionists why there is no life on the moon or on the surface of our sun they will say that conditions are not favorable to life in these environments. That is exactly the response you expect to get when you are limited by your context. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, why abundant life is not present on either or both of these places, it just happened here because we, our context, is in its time. I look forward to the C.S. Lewis quote, I love the way his mind worked.


Very interesting post. I am having a hard time following you on this. Our context, or life as we know it sustains life as we know it. If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable. God is outside our context on the basis of time, space, and matter, at least according to classical Theology. Yet He has created our context, and entered into it. Furthermore, if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context? 
I hope that actually addressed what you said here. If I made a point it was purely by chance. Then again, the order of words does point to an intelligent agent.  :Rolleyes:  

How about a syllogism:
1. If right and wrong exist; God exists.
2. Right and wrong do exist.
3. God exists.

And now for my long awaited C.S. Lewis quote:
"It seems, then, that we are forced to believe in a real right and wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them." (Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis Pg.7)

----------


## AngryFish

"How about a syllogism:
1. If right and wrong exist; God exists.
2. Right and wrong do exist.
3. God exists."

This is where that first leap I mentioned occurs. It is to assume facts not in evidence to say that God exists because certain logical impediments to life exist. Natural law is expressed explicitly to ensure the survival and procreation of life it is completely void of the need for spiritual meaning. Order can be ascribed to a temporary homeostasis that is present and supports our context. This removes the first two assumptions that are essential to support your statement above.

----------


## AngryFish

Yes you understand what I am trying to say regarding context but the two statements below are not supported by understanding context. 

If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable.

No, acknowledging the limitations of our context does nothing to support the existence of God. At most it simply says there is a lot we do not know. 

 if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context?...

I am suggesting that there is no need to go outside of our context to understand suffering. It is a function of our context in terms of fostering conditions favorable to sustaining life and procreation and therefore has meaning and is not spiritually derivative. It is the belief in a God that necessitates an argument formulated outside of our context because within our context it is not needed to understand suffering.

----------


## hcjilson

Blessed are they who speak in circles.....for they shall be known as big wheels!  :)

----------


## Christosfer

"This is where that first leap I mentioned occurs. It is to assume facts not in evidence to say that God exists because certain logical impediments to life exist. Natural law is expressed explicitly to ensure the survival and procreation of life it is completely void of the need for spiritual meaning. Order can be ascribed to a temporary homeostasis that is present and supports our context. This removes the first two assumptions that are essential to support your statement above."


How does order arise? If I park my bicycle in the garage long enough will it become a Mercedes sedan? How does life arise from non-life, and consciousness from unconsciousness? How did matter make the leap to consciousness?

If there is order, how do you explain the first cause of the universe? Do you say that matter came from nothing? That is not orderly, and if it were true then I should expect my bicycle to become a mercedes, or for the mercedes to just arise from nothing. So, do you believe in an eternal personal consciousness, or eternal matter? If there is another option I would like to hear what it is. 

I think that your argument has some problems.

----------


## Christosfer

> Yes you understand what I am trying to say regarding context but the two statements below are not supported by understanding context. 
> 
> If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable.
> 
> No, acknowledging the limitations of our context does nothing to support the existence of God. At most it simply says there is a lot we do not know. 
> 
>  if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context?...
> 
> I am suggesting that there is no need to go outside of our context to understand suffering. It is a function of our context in terms of fostering conditions favorable to sustaining life and procreation and therefore has meaning and is not spiritually derivative. It is the belief in a God that necessitates an argument formulated outside of our context because within our context it is not needed to understand suffering.


With suffering also comes the idea that it is not supposed to be this way. There is a sense of injustice that arises in us when we hear of children suffering. To explain that away as a chemical reaction within the brain for the sustaining of life removes meaning. Life becomes meaningless when purpose is removed does it not? 

If we take history into account when we consider our context then we have the argument for God within our context. God became a man in person of Jesus of Nazareth. He proved it by dying a Roman crucifixion and being bodily resurrected. He gave suffering purpose. He redeemed it.

----------


## AngryFish

We have to be systematic in our approach. The onus is on you to prove your statement that suffering equals meaning equals Christ is the only answer, this is where we began. Nothing you have presented furthers your hypothesis. So that takes us back to my argument that holds suffering is easily explained outside of the need to introduce God. If you jump ahead and assume facts that you hold as having been established and they are not in our dialogue we lose an opportunity to understand one another and that would be a loss, for at least, one of us. 

I want to give you an example of what I mean. I do not entertain the idea of chasing any of these points but I use it to exemplify the approach of introducing extraneous or assumed information and why it could stifle our dialogue.

I have done some study on the human brain and can say with confidence that brain function and chemistry are responsible for far more than in terms of beliefs systems and rituals than most realize. A range of emotions and feelings can be induced via, chemical, electrical, magnetic, or other stimuli that can simulate everything from terror to nirvana, from being in the presence of evil to being brought back to life, all done in a laboratory. It can be demonstrated that the brain of a serial killer is significantly and functionally different than everyone elses, and that some people are physiologically disposed to depression or mania. Prayer cannot heal every sick person, some would argue any sick person, and is arguably nothing more than a barometer of what is going on internally or some sort of positive thinking not a connection in anyway to anything supernatural. Christians are the most fractured group of believers that there is. There a more types of Baptist than there are models of car produced since the turn of the last century and there are arguably more crazy preachers than politicians. In the course of the last year I cant count the number of nationally recognized preachers that have been defrocked because of scandals over sex or money. And lets not forget prophecy, since the days on the earth when the very twelve who walked with Jesus of Nazareth *NOBODY* has gotten *ANY* prophecy right. Christ Himself told the disciples he would be given up and raised in three days and they stood around looking at each other with confused looks on their faces and they were the closest people to Him. But it seems every preacher is a prophet, and lets not get into literal or figurative, King James or any other translation, grape juice or wine, Saturday or Sunday. One step at a time.    

If our goal is to help those who are in suffering and we believe we have the answer that will comfort, we have a solemn responsibility to offer in as persuasive and compassionate a way possible the information needed to help those hurting and in need.

----------


## AngryFish

I ran across an interesting post on the topic we are discussing that is on point with our discussion and showed me a line of thinking I never really considered…maybe I should. Is it simply a matter of human pride that we have to "understand" the mind of God to be his "equal"? Isn't there somthing to be said for the humility to recognize our limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by *enarchay*
_Whether God created man through evolution or not is not really important. Genesis is not a science hand book; it is a book about God and his direct relationship with man, specifically Israel._ 

_Whether God actually created the world in seven days or not is besides the point; the point is, God was involved._

I wont debate for or against evolution because God hasn't given enough details in His account of creation.
I don't believe in evolution and I don't disbelieve evolution but, I will say that if God used the laws He created of physics or, laws of chemistry or, laws of biology...He created all of them. All of the laws of nature He created.
If He used these laws to create a creature, that doesn't mean that the law created the creature or, the earth or dust of the earth created the creature "God still created the creature" (using the laws of nature that He created).
Gods word didn't give enough details in Genesis for any man to decide, proclaim or judge or assume the details of creation are firmly established one way or the other.

The thing that is bringing my attention back to this subject now is some people posting on this topic so quickly demonize anyone who even mentions evolution and, I'de like to point out that the words they use come from their own PRIDE...for they know EVERYTHING there is to know about EVERYTHING in thier Pride and even know better than God what should be thought on, taught and institutionalized.

I approached this topic from a position of humility and not pride, I don't know EVERYTHING but I rest in Gods word to validate or deny truth and wont categorize people with titles such as "evolutionist" and demonize them out of my insecurity and lack of knowledge, I am secure in my lack of knowledge because when I need to know truth about a thing, it can be validated or denied from Gods written word and if it isn't made clear in Gods word then it isnt an issue God feels is worthy enough to address let alone demonize it or persecute all association to it.


*If a new star is born in heaven out of gas, that gas evolved by the laws and forces of physics and created a new star in heaven. God still created the star using the laws of physics, are the scientist who share with their fellow man what they have learned about this evolution of gas "evolutionist" because they explained how gas evolved by the laws of physics into solid mass and created a new star. Or are they evil because insecure people are threatened in thier partial knowledge of Gods mysterious ways in which He works?*

Ive yet to hear some leaders in the body of Christ stop demonizing what they don't understand and teaching others to do the same, when even God hasn't made the truth clear in His written word. I say it must not be an issue that matters If God didn't clearly define it.


http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=100644

----------


## chip anderson

Once there was a man who thought he had become God's equal.  He challenged God and said he could make anything God had made.
God said: "I made that tree, let's see you make one."
The man said:  "Easy, I'll just get some dirt."
And God said: "Gotta make your own dirt."

----------


## rinselberg

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...4&postcount=37

_That_ was a well conceived and well written post.

I don't do the "reputation points" thing ...

_Stay "Angry", Fish ..._

----------


## renee1111

My belief is that god is a part of us all. I truly believe that there is a "consciousness" holding us together, so to speak. What I mean by that is that when you look at the world, the things around you, they appear as solid as can be, when in reality is all an illusion. We and eveything in the universe are simply made of atoms. Atoms are composed of vibrating energy patterns, that have no solidity at all, no mass or size, nothing for the senses to see or touch. Energy vibrating at different speeds, is what differentiates a wall from a feather. At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. The electron is the largest illusion, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Our brain plays tricks on us by "seeing" solid objects that are continuous in time and space, the same way a movie seems continuous. A movie actually only consists of something like 24 still pictures flashing by per second, with 24 gaps of blackness as each frame is taken away and a new one put in it's place. Since our brains can't perceive 48 stop-motion events in one second, the illusion of that movie is created. Now speed this up by many powers of 10 and you get the trick we call real life. You and I exist as flashing photons with a black void in between each flash-the quantum light show comprises our whole body, our every thought and wish and every event we take part in. In other words, we are being created over and over again, all the time. Who is behind this neverending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting back in a fraction of a second? Or more importantly, are we interconnected or part of a larger whole? When everything that surrounds us is essentially made of energy, where do I end and you begin? 

This, to me is the answer to lifes greatest mysterywe are all one. All are a part of a larger whole, you may want to call god. 

This statement can change the world. Think about it, would you hurt or kill another if you knew at a deeper level you were doing this to yourself? Of course not, self preservation would take-on a whole new meaning. 

Life is a gift of self-discovery, we have given ourselves all the tools to live a more fulfilling existence. All we must do is look deep inside ourselves for the answers that have always been there, and will forever be.

----------


## Christosfer

> My belief is that god is a part of us all. I truly believe that there is a "consciousness" holding us together, so to speak. What I mean by that is that when you look at the world, the things around you, they appear as solid as can be, when in reality is all an illusion. We and eveything in the universe are simply made of atoms. Atoms are composed of vibrating energy patterns, that have no solidity at all, no mass or size, nothing for the senses to see or touch. Energy vibrating at different speeds, is what differentiates a wall from a feather. At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. The electron is the largest illusion, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Our brain plays tricks on us by "seeing" solid objects that are continuous in time and space, the same way a movie seems continuous. A movie actually only consists of something like 24 still pictures flashing by per second, with 24 gaps of blackness as each frame is taken away and a new one put in it's place. Since our brains can't perceive 48 stop-motion events in one second, the illusion of that movie is created. Now speed this up by many powers of 10 and you get the trick we call real life. You and I exist as flashing photons with a black void in between each flash-the quantum light show comprises our whole body, our every thought and wish and every event we take part in. In other words, we are being created over and over again, all the time. Who is behind this neverending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting back in a fraction of a second? Or more importantly, are we interconnected or part of a larger whole? When everything that surrounds us is essentially made of energy, where do I end and you begin? 
> 
> This, to me is the answer to lifes greatest mysterywe are all one. All are a part of a larger whole, you may want to call god. 
> 
> This statement can change the world. Think about it, would you hurt or kill another if you knew at a deeper level you were doing this to yourself? Of course not, self preservation would take-on a whole new meaning. 
> 
> Life is a gift of self-discovery, we have given ourselves all the tools to live a more fulfilling existence. All we must do is look deep inside ourselves for the answers that have always been there, and will forever be.


 
There are several groups that believe along those lines. If you want to look at "reality" down to that level I can accept the idea of us being a whirl of energy. However, I would not say that we are god, or part of god.
Did we create ourselves? If there is a consciousness that creaeted this mass of whirling energy and holds it together in whatever form we wish to think of it, then wouldn't this consciouness be something other than us?

The bible says in Colossians; " For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:15-17

There is your creative consciousness and mine. 

If we see that we were created for a purpose, then we might also seek that purpose, rather than our own needs and desires. This is changing the world. The question is, who will be apart of it?

----------


## chip anderson

God is spelled with a capitol G!!

----------


## Christosfer

Accept when referring to idols and false gods.

----------


## Christosfer

> We have to be systematic in our approach. The onus is on you to prove your statement that suffering equals meaning equals Christ is the only answer, this is where we began. Nothing you have presented furthers your hypothesis. So that takes us back to my argument that holds suffering is easily explained outside of the need to introduce God. If you jump ahead and assume facts that you hold as having been established and they are not in our dialogue we lose an opportunity to understand one another and that would be a loss, for at least, one of us. 
> 
> I want to give you an example of what I mean. I do not entertain the idea of chasing any of these points but I use it to exemplify the approach of introducing extraneous or assumed information and why it could stifle our dialogue.
> 
> I have done some study on the human brain and can say with confidence that brain function and chemistry are responsible for far more than in terms of beliefs systems and rituals than most realize. A range of emotions and feelings can be induced via, chemical, electrical, magnetic, or other stimuli that can simulate everything from terror to nirvana, from being in the presence of evil to being brought back to life, all done in a laboratory. It can be demonstrated that the brain of a serial killer is significantly and functionally different than everyone elses, and that some people are physiologically disposed to depression or mania. Prayer cannot heal every sick person, some would argue any sick person, and is arguably nothing more than a barometer of what is going on internally or some sort of positive thinking not a connection in anyway to anything supernatural. Christians are the most fractured group of believers that there is. There a more types of Baptist than there are models of car produced since the turn of the last century and there are arguably more crazy preachers than politicians. In the course of the last year I cant count the number of nationally recognized preachers that have been defrocked because of scandals over sex or money. And lets not forget prophecy, since the days on the earth when the very twelve who walked with Jesus of Nazareth *NOBODY* has gotten *ANY* prophecy right. Christ Himself told the disciples he would be given up and raised in three days and they stood around looking at each other with confused looks on their faces and they were the closest people to Him. But it seems every preacher is a prophet, and lets not get into literal or figurative, King James or any other translation, grape juice or wine, Saturday or Sunday. One step at a time. 
> 
> If our goal is to help those who are in suffering and we believe we have the answer that will comfort, we have a solemn responsibility to offer in as persuasive and compassionate a way possible the information needed to help those hurting and in need.


I agree, the onus is on me. 
1. We agree there is suffering.
2. Suffering reveals a moral law in the sense that almost w/o exception it is thought unjust or unfair or atleast not the way it is supposed to be.
3. A moral law requires a moral law giver, otherwise it is not law, but rather some subjective rules that we refer to when appealing to our rights.

I will leave it at this for now.
I enjoy this conversation and appreciate the challenge that you are giving me.

----------


## Christosfer

As for the evolution argument; my issue is that original sin and the fall of man is something that I think is evidenced as real. Evolution eliminates the biblical of a literal original sin by the first man under covenant with God. Capital G!

----------


## AngryFish

Christofer, you said,"Suffering reviels moral law..." How can you conclude that without having already concluded God exsists?

You are interpreting the stimuli as having more meaning than what is necessary to explain its purpose. There is no need to add a spiritual component to the stimuli to understand its function. Any obstacles to life and procreation and by extrapolation the various meanings of wellbeing and comfort would be interpreted as undesirable and thus avoided for survivals sake to assume more is to introduce without reason.

I agree with you on the issue of Original Sin and there are issues of literal vs. figurative throughout, that to me, are fundamental in the understanding of Christ being the answer that also become problematic as a result, but first thing first.

----------


## AngryFish

Renee1111,

Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation. 

I would say “all” is a context not an “illusion” because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which “all” is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build “all”.

I can’t say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody else’s or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I don’t see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.

----------


## Christosfer

> Christofer, you said,"Suffering reviels moral law..." How can you conclude that without having already concluded God exsists?
> 
> You are interpreting the stimuli as having more meaning than what is necessary to explain its purpose. There is no need to add a spiritual component to the stimuli to understand its function. Any obstacles to life and procreation and by extrapolation the various meanings of wellbeing and comfort would be interpreted as undesirable and thus avoided for survivals sake to assume more is to introduce without reason.
> 
> I agree with you on the issue of Original Sin and there are issues of literal vs. figurative throughout, that to me, are fundamental in the understanding of Christ being the answer that also become problematic as a result, but first thing first.



I am not just referring to the moral law, but also to the fact that people argue from the the standpoint that there are fundamental right and wrongs. Ala C.S. Lewis. It is one thing to explain away the conscience as an evolutionary process, but it is another thing to refer to that moral law as objective without an anchor. 
How would you explain it?

----------


## 1968

> I am not just referring to the moral law, but also to the fact that people argue from the the standpoint that there are fundamental right and wrongs. Ala C.S. Lewis. It is one thing to explain away the conscience as an evolutionary process, but it is another thing to refer to that moral law as objective without an anchor. 
> How would you explain it?


I am sure that everyone of us has been involved in discussions such as these that end up arguing for or against the presence of God... and we all know how they end up. Despite my better judgment, I'll take a crack at the question.

Things are not "right" or "wrong" independent of a standard... I believe this standard is the "anchor" to which you referred. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants me to behave that way. Other believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows me to live. No doubt both sides would present an argument as to whose standard is objective, however, I think they would need to come to a common understanding on the definition of "objective".

----------


## chip anderson

Today I was recruiting for a church blood drive that isn't going too well and thinking about this thread and had a couple of great revelations.
1) God created this earth which is and ideal place, created us and made us ideal to live on this rock.  God gave us a lot more than we deserve at that point.  God _owes_ us nothing.  We *owe* God for this.
2) God expects us to take care of each other.  I tried this for my blood drive pitch with only two more volunteers.
3) There may or may not be an after life with rewards for the faithful and hell for the unfaithfull.  But God never promised us freedom from the trials of this life.  
4) We all start out naked an alone in this life and leave it not much different.  What we make of life in between an what we contribute to those around us is all we can count on .

Chip

There* are*  two kinds of people in the world, those who do and those who complain.

----------


## Christosfer

> I am sure that everyone of us has been involved in discussions such as these that end up arguing for or against the presence of God... and we all know how they end up. Despite my better judgment, I'll take a crack at the question.
> 
> Things are not "right" or "wrong" independent of a standard... I believe this standard is the "anchor" to which you referred. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants me to behave that way. Other believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows me to live. No doubt both sides would present an argument as to whose standard is objective, however, I think they would need to come to a common understanding on the definition of "objective".


This is all true, but I am referring to the that part of us that inherently knows a thing. Torturing babies for fun or profit is wrong. We don't need to discuss the ethics of it. I would even say that in any context we can say that it is wrong. If it were part of some cultural or religious tradition we should say that it is wrong. Not that it is wrong in our opinion. Do you see the difference? At some level there things that we just know are wrong or right. 

Like C.S. Lewis said, (paraphrase) when someone does us wrong, like cut in line, or take our seat, and when we call them on it they don't respond with to hell with your rules, they will try to convince you that there are special circumstances that should be considered in this situation.

----------


## Christosfer

> Renee1111,
> 
> Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation. 
> 
> I would say all is a context not an illusion because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which all is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build all.
> 
> I cant say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody elses or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I dont see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.


Fantastic response. I am quite impressed. I wish I had thought of it. 
I have read it several times, and I have concluded that your response is much better than mine. :D

----------


## Christosfer

> Renee1111,
> 
> Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation. 
> 
> I would say all is a context not an illusion because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which all is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build all.
> 
> I cant say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody elses or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I dont see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.


Fantastic response. I am quite impressed. I wish I had thought of it. 
I have read it several times, and I have concluded that your response is much better than mine. :D

----------


## 1968

> This is all true, but I am referring to the that part of us that inherently knows a thing. Torturing babies for fun or profit is wrong. We don't need to discuss the ethics of it. I would even say that in any context we can say that it is wrong. If it were part of some cultural or religious tradition we should say that it is wrong. Not that it is wrong in our opinion. *Do you see the difference?* At some level there things that we just know are wrong or right.


The question begs an answer that does not support your conclusion. I do not share your belief that there is such a thing as "inherent knowledge", nor is it necessary that anyone do so in order to reject moral relativism... the view that "right" and "wrong" are merely a matter of opinion. I do not believe that we are born knowing right from wrong. I believe we are born _tabula rasa_ and acquire knowledge to determine what is right and what is wrong.

----------


## AngryFish

The torture of children is arguably practiced by the major religions of the world already in the form of male, and what western society finds so horrible, female circumcision. If you attempt to diferenciate based on whether or not their is a religious consideration other forms of depraved behavior would fall under the catagory of being rejected because they serve to devalue or introduce disease both of which are not conducive to life. Further the study of the human brain shows fundamental and demonstrable structural difference in the brains of people who act in such ways suggesting that environment and education are not the issue.

----------


## chip anderson

These acts are preformed by men.   Not God.

----------


## Christosfer

> The question begs an answer that does not support your conclusion. I do not share your belief that there is such a thing as "inherent knowledge", nor is it necessary that anyone do so in order to reject moral relativism... the view that "right" and "wrong" are merely a matter of opinion. I do not believe that we are born knowing right from wrong. I believe we are born _tabula rasa_ and acquire knowledge to determine what is right and what is wrong.


 
I might come to a crisis point in which I have no prior experience, on what criteria should I base my decision?
I am curious as to how you would reject moral relativism with what sounds like cultural or localized morals. Let me put it another way.
You said "determine right and wrong", and that is where I want to make a distinction. I would say that I do not determine what right and wrong are, I would discover right and wrong. 
Would you agree with this clarification?
If not, once again, how would you reject moral relativism if you are the determiner of right and wrong?

----------


## 1968

> I might come to a crisis point in which I have no prior experience, on what criteria should I base my decision?


You cannot knowingly reach a "crisis point" devoid of context. You must have some experience and knowledge to recognize something as a crisis.




> I am curious as to how you would reject moral relativism with what sounds like cultural or localized morals. Let me put it another way.
> You said "determine right and wrong", and that is where I want to make a distinction. I would say that I do not determine what right and wrong are, I would discover right and wrong.


"Determine": "To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation. See synonyms at discover." Source: http://www.answers.com/determine&r=67

----------


## Bill West

*what A Bunch Of Junk !*

----------


## Christosfer

I found this article last night and thought it was interesting considering our conversation. I am sure that many of you are familiar with Anthony Flew, this article link is to an interview with him by Prof. Gary Habermas. Anthony Flew was in a discussion group with the likes of C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien. He was an athiest of highest order. He now says he believes that there is a creative intelligence behind the universe.
Flew says that he has not been impressed with the moral argument, and that is the argument I have been putting forward in this discussion. Oh well. I intend to press on anyway.

paste and copy this address. link doesn't seem to work.

www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?

----------


## Christosfer

> You cannot knowingly reach a "crisis point" devoid of context. You must have some experience and knowledge to recognize something as a crisis.
> 
> "Determine": "To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation. See synonyms at discover." Source: http://www.answers.com/determine&r=67


So you agree with me then. :)

----------


## Christosfer

Okay, let me try this again. I have been trying to argue that there are moral laws that govern people. Much like gravity governs us. There is another law, the law of non contradiction, if something contradicts itself it is not true. This is not a law that anyone made up, it is out there to be discovered. Likewise, moral laws exist. I would say that murder is wrong rather you believe it is true or not, it is not a matter of opinion.
This was all to support the argument that the existence of suffering, objectively speaking, suggests that there is meaning to life. (Review previous posts) Suffering is not meaningless. It suggests an ought. 


I will leave it at that for now. I hope this will spur some more conversation.

----------


## rinselberg

This discussion isn't my "cup of tea"; too abstract; too much like all the discussions I've ever encountered concerning the historic treatises of philosophers. But I think I saw that there's a relation here to the question of human altruism: How or where did _that_ come from?

One of the most extreme manifestations of human altruism is the hero who sacrifices his or her own life to save the lives of others.

I recommend this four-page article that's available on the MSNBC website under the title "The hidden cost of heroism: Scientists mystified by people who put the lives of strangers over their own ..."

Find it here ...



*Climate change*
The eerie purple glow that threatens humanity ...

----------


## 1968

> Okay, let me try this again. I have been trying to argue that there are moral laws that govern people. Much like gravity governs us. There is another law, the law of non contradiction, if something contradicts itself it is not true. This is not a law that anyone made up, it is out there to be discovered. Likewise, moral laws exist. I would say that murder is wrong rather you believe it is true or not, it is not a matter of opinion.
> This was all to support the argument that the existence of suffering, objectively speaking, suggests that there is meaning to life. (Review previous posts) Suffering is not meaningless. It suggests an ought. 
> 
> 
> I will leave it at that for now. I hope this will spur some more conversation.


You're losing me, too. I don't think you had to go through all of this to assert that suffering exists.

----------


## Christosfer

> You're losing me, too. I don't think you had to go through all of this to assert that suffering exists.


THe point was not to prove the existence of suffering, but to point out the ought that is seen when looking at it as we are.

----------


## Christosfer

> *what A Bunch Of Junk !*


Why do you say that?

----------


## LandLord

In Man's Search for Meaning, it's said that the meaning of life and suffering is different for each person.  Frankl observed that the prisoners who decided they had something to live for, or a reason to suffer, could withstand much more than those without meaning.

Suffering doesn't prove God.

----------


## abocandy

God did create us, the earth, the trees and every living thing. 
We are put here for his purpose - which is to help others. We all have feelings, a spirit, a soul, we are given FREE WILL to do what is right or wrong. Face it when you do something wrong- you know it is wrong you feel it in your gut. Well that is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the only way! He is the way (to eternity-Heaven)
He is the truth (the word of God)
He is the life (for our souls to have eternal Peace)

God Loves you and wants you to seek him, If you read his word (the Bible)
and seek him, he will give you answers. 
Do not judge his goodness by "hypocrites" of the world "man"
We all fall short of the Glory of God. WE ARE ALL FORGIVABLE (if you ask and receive it)
We don't always understand why things happen (suffering- pain)
But Give it to God , he will comfort you, and make a way for you to over come ANYTHING!!!
I know this is more info then you wanted but..................:p

----------


## chip anderson

You *are!* What more do you want from God?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Wow, this might be the first thread ever to quote from both Ravi Zacharais (sp?) and C.S. Lewis (two excellent authors/philosophers).

Lewis would also argue that the very concept of pleasure necessitates the existence of suffering (after all, how do you define anything without creating a definition of the opposite- i.e., the opposite or absence of what you are describing).

Back to the original question- suffering would not exist without God, to the extent that God is the primary cause of all existence.  That is not to say God causes suffering, however.  For example, perhaps I purchase a car for my son.  I teach him how to operate the car safely, but he decides to drive irresponsibly and ends up causing a fatality.  While I did provide the means for the accident (the car), I did not cause the accident (his decision did).  

Ah, but why does God give us something (i.e., free will) that allows us to cause suffering?  For the same reason I provide a car to my son (i.e., providing the opportunity for good is a good thing- however, by definition if good things can happen there must also be the potential for bad- otherwise, how would we define good).

God created the opportunity for the Holocaust to happen- I happen to believe God also had foreknowledge the Holocaust would happen.  That is not the same as God causing the Holocaust.

----------


## Christosfer

> Back to the original question- suffering would not exist without God, to the extent that God is the primary cause of all existence.  .


I like your post Pete. I agree with your sentiment and like the way you stated it. I may have said somewhere in all this that without God there is no suffering. This is my reasoning; if there is no God that created all and is ruler over all creation, then there is no justification to say that X=suffering.

----------


## Christosfer

I thought I would pose another question to see what kind of response I get.

It seems to me that some suffering is evidence of evil. The holocaust was mentioned so I will draw that to your attention.
I would suggest that this is evidence of evil.

Suffering shows that evil exists absolutely. 
Evil is real.

Comments?

----------


## rbaker

> I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree.


The semester is over. All of the OptiBoard opinions are in. 

Did you pass the course? Of greater importance, have you come to any personal conclusions that you can share with us? 
.

----------


## 1968

> I may have said somewhere in all this that without God there is no suffering. This is my reasoning; if there is no God that created all and is ruler over all creation, then there is no justification to say that X=suffering.


That is an assertion, not a line of reasoning. One could just as easily assert that "all" was not created by God and that suffering still exists.

----------


## LandLord

Suffering does not prove God.
Suffering does not prove Evil.
Evil does prove God.

If there were no God or evil, there would still be suffering because we can feel pain in many ways.

Selfishness is the basis of all evil.

If there were no God, then there would be no evil, or good, no right or wrong.  There would just be our own personal opinions.  Without God, who is to say that murder is wrong?

----------


## 1968

> Without God, who is to say that murder is wrong?


Everyone who wants to live?

----------


## LandLord

> Everyone who wants to live?


What about people who murdered someone? They don't necessarily agree with you.

The point is, if just one thing is ABSOLUTELY right, or ABSOLUTELY wrong, then there must be a God who made is so. Otherwise, it is just your opinion against mine. Or the majority opinion against the minority opinion.

----------


## chip anderson

God is a Majority!
That's why he Rules.

----------


## Night Train

> The semester is over. All of the OptiBoard opinions are in. 
> 
> Did you pass the course? Of greater importance, have you come to any personal conclusions that you can share with us? 
> .


Thanks for asking. I came away with an A. The best course I ever took and it should be required for all human beings. We had three books to read outside of the regular textbook which was a general history written by our proffesor. They were Night by Elie Weisel
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Oprahs-B...8451518&sr=8-1

Your name is Renee by Rith Hartz (who actually visited us in class)
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Name-Rene...8451566&sr=1-1

and Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning
http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-C...8451634&sr=1-1

The course was eye opening....we studied other genocides as well (Sudan, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc) I am a history buff and so this course brought things more into focus for me. More than that, I came away convinced that all men are capable of great evil. I get sick of people trying to find evil where it isnt (Harry Potter, Rock and Roll, etc)
Read the Lucifer Effect and you will know what I mean:
http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect...8452070&sr=8-1

As for God allowing Evil? to me it boils down to this: Gods incarnational love is most purely manifested in Gods gift of free will.  (I.e., if choosing NOT to love God and one another is NOT a hard-wired option of our createdness, then our love is not genuine.)  Our freedom to choose allows us to act selfishly and even cruellythus we are able, even within the scope of Gods perfection, to harm one another even to monstrous, global degrees.
My original question, of course, conveniently overlooks what some have called natural evilthe hurricanes and tsunamis and earthquakes and such that also cause suffering.  That, for me, is the bigger why.  In my better moments (rare as they are) Im able to frame that question as one of my limited human perspective: I may not be able to see the loving-kindness in the hurricane, but I trust that for eyes not so firmly rooted in flesh as mine, these questions are more moot.....

Just a nickels worth....

: )
D

-- 

"'Nonviolence has never worked' is not a logically honest conclusion when there has never been a serious mobilization for it, with planning, strategy thinking, and education like the military does, with budget for strategic studies and training, with investment in building skills and esprit de corps, and with readiness to sacrifice lives in the struggle."
                                                --John H. Yoder

----------


## chip anderson

What makes one think Hurricaines, Tsunamis, Earthquakes and Volcanoes are evil.  They are just occurances that happen on this planet.  Same is true of Floods (except one of note).  Evil is in the hearts of men, not the working of God or the events of the planets and stars.
You could say people dying is evil.  It isn't it's just an occurance there have been very, very few people who did not die recorded.  For most of us it's just something that will happen, only the where and how varies.

Chip

----------


## 1968

> What about people who murdered someone? They don't necessarily agree with you.


Since when does knowing right from wrong prevent someone from acting in contradiction to that knowledge?




> The point is, if just one thing is ABSOLUTELY right, or ABSOLUTELY wrong, then there must be a God who made is so. Otherwise, it is just your opinion against mine. Or the majority opinion against the minority opinion.


You are asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective. However, it is only your opinion that the validity of that assertion is true.

----------


## LandLord

> Since when does knowing right from wrong prevent someone from acting in contradiction to that knowledge?


It doesn't. Yet some people's definitions of right and wrong differ from yours and mine.




> You are asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective.


That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm asking you if right and wrong itself are objective or subjective.

*Objective:* existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. 

*Subjective:* relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 



If it is subjective, then it can be neither right nor wrong, just opinion.
If it is objective, then who says it is objective? Who/what makes it objective?

This is a very deep topic and I applaude the originator of the thread.

----------


## LandLord

Does right and wrong exist only in the human mind?  Or does it also exist outside the human mind?  Does it exist in the physical world?  In another world?

Think about the consequences of this question.  If it exists only in the human mind, and all minds cannot agree on what is right and wrong, then is anything right or wrong?

----------


## 1968

> It doesn't. Yet some people's definitions of right and wrong differ from yours and mine.


To bring this full circle, it appears that you were asserting that definitions that do not include "God" are merely arbitrary.




> That's not at all what I'm saying.


So, you are NOT asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective?




> I'm asking you if right and wrong itself are objective or subjective.


I believe that there is an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong.




> *Objective:* existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. 
> 
> *Subjective:* relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 
> 
>  If it is subjective, then it can be neither right nor wrong, just opinion.
> If it is objective, then who says it is objective? Who/what makes it objective?


By definition, something is objective if it is founded in reality. Reality is that which exists.




> Does right and wrong exist only in the human mind? Or does it also exist outside the human mind?


Morality is a human construct. It doesn't float around in the ether.




> Does it exist in the physical world? In another world?


What other worlds exist?




> Think about the consequences of this question. If it exists only in the human mind, and all minds cannot agree on what is right and wrong, then is anything right or wrong?


I think you need to re-think what it means for a person to think objectively. For example, addition exists only in the human mind, but not all minds are able to calculate the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Does that mean that everyone is correct or that no one is correct?

----------


## LandLord

> To bring this full circle, it appears that you were asserting that definitions that do not include "God" are merely arbitrary.


Absolutely not.




> So, you are NOT asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective?


Absolutely not. I'm not that arrogant.




> I believe that there is an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong.


Who/what makes that standard?




> By definition, something is objective if it is founded in reality. Reality is that which exists.


What if two people disagree on what reality is? Can absolute reality be known?




> Morality is a human construct.


If so, do I have to follow some other human's morality? Or can I make my own?




> What other worlds exist?


None that I know of.




> I think you need to re-think what it means for a person to think objectively.


I'm willing to do that. I'm not trying to be right. I'm only seeking the truth.


> For example, addition exists only in the human mind


How do you know that? Doesn't one apple plus one apple equal two apples regardless of human minds?

----------


## 1968

> Absolutely not.
> 
> Absolutely not. I'm not that arrogant.


I am not sure where we are going with all of this, so Im going to back up for a moment. Earlier you stated: If there were no God, then there would be no evil, or good, no right or wrong. There would just be our own personal opinions. You then asked: Without God, who is to say that murder is wrong? One could infer at least two premises from that question and the brief statement that preceded it. The first is that a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. The second is that those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong (i.e. their moral code is merely arbitrary or subjective). Are those two inferences correct?




> Who/what makes that standard?
> 
> What if two people disagree on what reality is? Can absolute reality be known?
> 
> If so, do I have to follow some other human's morality? Or can I make my own?
> 
> How do you know that? Doesn't one apple plus one apple equal two apples regardless of human minds?


 An objective standard of morality is not made, but rather one that is founded in reality. Reality is that which exists.

People routinely disagree on what reality is or what exists, but does that mean that everyone is correct or that no one is correct? Of course not. On the other hand, asserting that you cannot know anything except that you cannot know anything is a contradiction in terms.

You possess free will so you can do whatever you choose to do. If you choose to live, then there are certain things that you should do and not do.

How do I know that addition exists only in the human mind? I know the difference between abstract and concrete. Apples exist independent of human minds, but addition does not.

----------


## LandLord

> One could infer
> 1. a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong.
> 2. those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong
> Are those two inferences correct?


Actually those 2 inferences are the same. But yes, that is what I believe. However, I am willing to listen to your viewpoint and answer your questions. And I am willing to be proven wrong. Can you do the same? Are you able to answer my previous questions?




> An objective standard of morality is not made, but rather one that is founded in reality. Reality is





> that which exists.


This is rather vague. Can you please explain? Morality is reality?




> People routinely disagree on what reality is or what exists, but does that mean that everyone is correct or that no one is correct? Of course not. On the other hand, asserting that you cannot know anything except that you cannot know anything is a contradiction in terms.


On this, we agree.




> You possess free will so you can do whatever you choose to do. If you choose to live, then there are certain things that you should do and not do.


Once again, why should I believe you? 



> How do I know that addition exists only in the human mind? I know the difference between “abstract” and “concrete”. Apples exist independent of human minds, but addition does not.



Einstein might disagree with you.

----------


## 1968

> Actually those 2 inferences are the same. But yes, that is what I believe.


So then, it does appear that my earlier comment (i.e. “You are asserting that your standard for what is right and what is wrong is objective and any other standard must be subjective.”) was indeed very close to what you were saying. (You had initially replied: “That's not at all what I'm saying.”)




> However, I am willing to listen to your viewpoint and answer your questions. And I am willing to be proven wrong. Can you do the same? Are you able to answer my previous questions?


The implication that I have not listened to your viewpoint or answered your questions is false.




> This is rather vague. Can you please explain?


I’ll try. This discussion revolves around what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Independent of a standard, things cannot be judged as “right” or “wrong”. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants them to behave that way. Others believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows them to live. If we believe that our behavior has relevance only in reality (i.e. that which exists), then we should follow the standard that is founded only in reality. No doubt that both sides would present an argument as to what is real (i.e. that which exists) and whose standard is founded in reality.




> Once again, why should I believe you?


You are implying that you have asked this question previously. You need to clarify on which point(s) you disagree.




> Einstein might disagree with you.


Is this your way of stating that you believe abstractions do not exist? If not, you need to clarify on which point(s) you disagree.

----------


## rbaker

> More than that, I came away convinced that all men are capable of great evil.



Thomas Merton spoke of this. 

Referring to the Holocaust he said something about the capacity of ordinary men to occasionally do great harm and only the Grace of God standing between them and  evil. 

I will try to find the citation.
.

----------


## rinselberg

Credit: http://the-malaysian.blogspot.com/

Is there a recurring theme here? That the landmarks of civilization (i.e. ethics; altruism; morality; justice; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") can be explained only upon the foundation of God? That's like inferring the existence of Michelangelo from the observation that "my house is nicely painted, inside and out." It's absurd.

If certain posters were more confident in their avowed faith or religious convictions, they would be less in the habit of slinging words around like the morning's hashbrowns; less dedicated to the _waterboarding_ of the English language through the posting of opaque constructions and deadend syllogisms, all in pursuit of their holy grail of "proving" God.

If God could be proved, they wouldn't call it "faith"; i.e. we wouldn't use "faith" as a customary shorthand for "religious conviction".

But there's never a shortage of Plato wannabes ...


For those questions that are small enough (like the origins of altruism), look to _Darwinism_ for the answers ...


> "It could very well be that altruism is a behavior that has been held over from a much earlier time," explains Lee Dugatkin, Ph.D., a professor of biology at the University of Louisville and the author of The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness. Specifically, a time when the only people you saw [during] your entire life were the members of your own hunter-gatherer clan.
> 
> "If you saved someone's life under those conditions, you were very likely saving a blood relative," says Dugatkin.


The hidden cost of heroism; Christopher McDougall; November 2007; MSNBC.


Prove God? Not feasible, for those who perceive that "everything from rape to religion is bred in the bone through the process of [Darwinian] evolution" ...


> In the 1970s, evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers published five immensely influential papers that braided genetics into behavioral biology, using a gene's-eye view of evolution to explain behaviors from bird warning calls to cuckoldry to sibling rivalry to revenge. According to David Haig, a Harvard professor of biology and a leading genetic theorist, each paper virtually founded a research field. ''Most of my career has been based on exploring the implications of one of them,'' says Haig. ''I don't know of any comparable set of papers.''
> 
> Trivers's ideas have rippled out into anthropology, psychology, sociology, medicine, even economics. His work provided the intellectual basis for the then-emergent field of sociobiology (now better known as evolutionary psychology), which sought to challenge our conceptions of family, sex, friendship, and ethics by arguing (controversially) that everything from rape to religion is bred in the bone through the process of [Darwinian] evolution ...
> 
> Trivers's work grew out of an insight made by the Oxford biologist William D. Hamilton, who died in 2000. In a 1964 paper, Hamilton proposed an elegant solution to a problem that had rankled evolutionary theorists for some time. In a battle of the fittest, why did organisms occasionally do things that benefited others at a cost to themselves? The answer, Hamilton wrote, emerged when one took evolution down to the level of the gene. Individuals were merely vessels for genes, which survived from generation to generation, and it made no difference to the gene which organism it survived in.
> 
> According to this logic, the degree to which an organism was likely to sacrifice for another should vary in direct proportion to the degree of relatedness: Humans, for example, would be more likely to share food with a son than a second cousin, and more likely to share with a second cousin than someone wholly unrelated. Hamilton called the concept ''inclusive fitness.''
> 
> In 1976, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins would popularize Hamilton's ideas in his book ''The Selfish Gene.'' But more than anyone else, it was Trivers, then a graduate student, who grasped the profound implications of Hamilton's work. In a way, Trivers's legendary papers of the early 1970s were simply a series of startling applications of [Hamilton's] logic ...


Genes as gods; blog entry; March 2005; BrothersJudd.


Ends with a thud.


What's more fun than a barrel of fatwas? How about OptiBoarders weighing in on the CIA waterboardings of terror suspects . . . "Git" some here.

----------


## LandLord

> Ill try. This discussion revolves around what is right and what is wrong. Independent of a standard, things cannot be judged as right or wrong.


Yes, and I'm trying to figure out if there is an absolute standard from any source, or if it is open to opinion.  You said morality is a human construct.  I am human, can I construct my own morality?  


> Others believe that standard is life...


This is where you lose me.  Can you use another word instead of life?  


> it is right to behave a certain way because it allows them to live.


This leaves things pretty wide open.


> If we believe that our behavior has relevance only in reality (i.e. that which exists), then we should follow the standard that is founded only in reality. No doubt that both sides would present an argument as to what is real (i.e. that which exists) and whose standard is founded in reality.


If that's all there is to morality, then nothing stops me from making up my own morality.

----------


## 1968

> Yes, and I'm trying to figure out if there is an absolute standard from any source, or if it is open to opinion. You said morality is a human construct. I am human, can I construct my own morality?


You're equivocating on the use of "construct". Human construct = an abstraction (i.e. does not exist as a physical entity).




> This is where you lose me. Can you use another word instead of life?


Living, being, existing? Not merely living, being, or existing, though, but rather the action of self-perpetuated existence. Reminds me of something Shakespearean...




> This leaves things pretty wide open.


 


> If that's all there is to morality, then nothing stops me from making up my own morality.


Really? I think you underestimate what it means to be founded in reality. How long do you think you could live to follow your moral code if you ignored reality? To the extent that you follow reality, you live. Dont believe me? Try eating rocks for dinner or ignoring gravity.

----------


## LandLord

> You're equivocating on the use of "construct". “Human construct” = an abstraction (i.e. does not exist as a physical entity).


I'll rephrase the question. Is there a moral standard? If so, what is the source?




> “Living”, “being”, “existing”? Not merely living, being, or existing, though, but rather the action of self-perpetuated existence.


It sounds very complicated. Is this your own theory?




> Really? I think you underestimate what it means to be founded in reality. How long do you think you could live to follow your moral code if you ignored reality? To the extent that you follow reality, you live. Don’t believe me? Try eating rocks for dinner or ignoring gravity.


You say that I cannot make my own morality because morality is founded in reality. Is that what you're saying? Can you clarify just a bit more? I'm beginning to understand you.

----------


## 1968

> I'll rephrase the question. Is there a moral standard? If so, what is the source?


A moral standard is that by which right and wrong are judged. Is there a single moral standard? No. I think it is obvious from our discussion that our standards are different. Consequently, the source of our standards are different. Are you attempting to clarify why I choose to follow my standard and not the one you have chosen?




> It sounds very complicated. Is this your own theory?


I believe we are starting to experience thread drift. Ive re-read the thread for context and Im not clear on what you think Im presenting as theory.




> You say that I cannot make my own morality because morality is founded in reality. Is that what you're saying? Can you clarify just a bit more? I'm beginning to understand you.


I think it would be more accurate to say Im saying this: "Free will gives you the capacity to follow the moral code of your choosing (at least for a brief time); however, if you choose to live in this world, you should choose a moral code that will allow you to live in this world."

----------


## LandLord

> Is there a single moral standard? No.


I think we're getting somewhere. 


> ...the “source” of our standards are different.


Do you know the source of your standards? If so, what is it?


> you should *choose a moral code* that will allow you to live in this world.


Thanks for your direct responses. I'm really understanding you now. You say there are many different moral codes and it is up to you to choose the one that works for you. There is no single moral standard. 

I'm still in doubt though, as to how you know you are CHOOSING the right moral code. I think part of the problem with our society today is that we have taken your viewpoint too far. Almost every group or individual chooses their own definition of what is right and wrong. There must be something that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, regardless of what we think.

Is abortion right or wrong?
Is birth control right or wrong?
Is assisted suicide right or wrong?
Is gay marriage right or wrong?
Is drug use right or wrong?
Is free speech right or wrong?
Is spanking children right or wrong?
Is divorce right or wrong?
Is murder right or wrong?
Is pornography right or wrong?
Is war right or wrong?

----------


## Pete Hanlin

If I'm not mistaken, 1968 is an existentialist- at least a lot of the viewpoints seem to fit into that philosophy.

I happen to believe in absolute right and wrong- the best phrase I've found to describe it is "Only truth is true, just like 2+2 can only equal 4."

The caveat that I've learned over 39 years (and am still learning), is- although only truth can be true- my understanding of truth is fallible.  Therefore, I would say I'm an "absolute existentialist" (my own term).  While I reject that right and wrong is actually defined by my experiences and viewpoints, I would agree that my understanding of right and wrong is.  Its not unlike math- which is precise and absolute.  Equations can only result in one correct answer- my ability to arrive at the actual right answer, however, is limited by my experience with the mechanics of mathematics.

----------


## 1968

> I think we're getting somewhere. Do you know the source of your standards? If so, what is it?


Yes. That which is real (see below). Do you know the source of yours?

 


> Thanks for your direct responses. I'm really understanding you now. You say there are many different moral codes and it is up to you to choose the one that works for you. There is no single moral standard.


People have different moral codes and follow different moral standards, but I never said: It is up to you to choose the one that works for you. I said that if you choose to live in this world, you should choose a moral code that allows you to live in this world. Whether or not you feel that they are right to do so, do you believe that people have different moral codes and follow different moral standards?




> I'm still in doubt though, as to how you know you are CHOOSING the right moral code. I think part of the problem with our society today is that we have taken your viewpoint too far. Almost every group or individual chooses their own definition of what is right and wrong. There must be something that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, regardless of what we think.


 If you think my viewpoint is that people should arbitrarily define what is right and what is wrong, then you are sorely mistaken. Im not sure how many times we have to go over this but things are not right or wrong independent of a standard. You cannot determine what the right moral code is independent of a standard by which to judge right or wrong.

You have one fundamental choice in this world to live or not to live. If you choose not to live, then the only thing you need do is die. If you choose to live, then there are things that you must do to maintain your life (i.e. that which is right) and there are things that you must not do to maintain your life (i.e. that which is wrong). Prior to knowing what is right or wrong when dealing with other people, you need to know what is right and what is wrong when dealing with the world around you. You need to know, or at least try to know, that what is real and that what is not real. Fundamentally, what is absolutely right or what is absolutely wrong depends on what is real and what is not real. And, yes, I think we can know that which is real and I believe you agreed to that in post #87.




> Is abortion right or wrong?
> Is birth control right or wrong?
> Is assisted suicide right or wrong?
> Is gay marriage right or wrong?
> Is drug use right or wrong?
> Is free speech right or wrong?
> Is spanking children right or wrong?
> Is divorce right or wrong?
> Is murder right or wrong?
> ...


With such epistemological differences, do you really think we are ready to discuss this many examples all at once? Why not start with something easy first: Is it right or wrong to separate that which is real from that which is not real when faced with moral decisions?

----------


## 1968

> If I'm not mistaken, 1968 is an existentialist- at least a lot of the viewpoints seem to fit into that philosophy.
> 
> I happen to believe in absolute right and wrong- the best phrase I've found to describe it is "Only truth is true, just like 2+2 can only equal 4."
> 
> The caveat that I've learned over 39 years (and am still learning), is- although only truth can be true- my understanding of truth is fallible.  Therefore, I would say I'm an "absolute existentialist" (my own term).  While I reject that right and wrong is actually defined by my experiences and viewpoints, I would agree that my understanding of right and wrong is.  Its not unlike math- which is precise and absolute.  Equations can only result in one correct answer- my ability to arrive at the actual right answer, however, is limited by my experience with the mechanics of mathematics.


Although I think the various well-known existentialists are all over the map, I can see how there might be some overlap. I think you've made a great observation. You, Landlord, and I all appear to agree that truth is not subjective, but still we may come to different conclusions on what is true because we are not omnipotent and our means of knowing and understanding is fallible.

----------


## LandLord

> *Is there a single moral standard? No*.





> *Things are not right or wrong independent of a standard*.


Those statements are clear, but appear to contradict your next statement: 


> *I believe that there is an objective standard for what is right and what is wrong.*


Can you solidify your opinion in one short sentence?


> (The source of my moral standard is) *t**hat which is real*.


 I'm still having trouble understanding this statement.


> Do you know the source of yours?


God.


> I said that if you choose to live in this world, you should choose a moral code that allows you to live in this world.


Taken literally, this statement allows me to do anything I want aside from killing myself. If not meant literally, then how?




> You cannot determine what the right moral code is independent of a standard by which to judge right or wrong.


Amen. Now, what is the source of this standard?

I have to be honest, you don't seem too sure of what you are saying.

----------


## LandLord

Don't get me wrong, 1968.  I'm not arguing with you.  I'm assuming you are more educated than I am.  I also assume that you have at least a 50/50 chance of being right in your opinion.  The problem is, you don't seem to know what you believe.  Or at least, you can't state is plainly enough for me to understand.

I want you to convince me that I am wrong.  But until then, I still must believe this:

1. The moral laws of this earth were created by God.
2.  Without God, there can be no moral law, only moral opinion.

----------


## 1968

> Those statements are clear, but appear to contradict your next statement:
> 
> Can you solidify your opinion in one short sentence?


There is no contradiction: I believe that there exists an objective standard for what is right and wrong, but that does not necessitate that everyone follows an objective standard.



> I'm still having trouble understanding this statement.


Not sure how to clarify it any more succinctly than I did in my last post.


> God.


No need to go down this road any farther because we both know where it ends.


> Taken literally, this statement allows me to do anything I want aside from killing myself. If not meant literally, then how?


Taken literally, it does NOT allow you to do anything you want aside from killing yourself. To live is to commit to self-perpetuated existence; reason is required for that. Dispense with reason and you will find that you cannot live by simply doing whatever you want. 




> Amen. Now, what is the source of this standard?


Not sure how to clarify it any more succinctly than I did in my last post.


> I have to be honest, you don't seem too sure of what you are saying.


Dont confuse your lack of understanding for uncertainty on my part.




> Don't get me wrong, 1968. I'm not arguing with you. I'm assuming you are more educated than I am. I also assume that you have at least a 50/50 chance of being right in your opinion. The problem is, you don't seem to know what you believe. Or at least, you can't state is plainly enough for me to understand.


Well, I guess two off-topic comments in a row mean that this discussion has quickly come to an end.




> I want you to convince me that I am wrong.  But until then, I still must believe this:
> 
> 1. The moral laws of this earth were created by God.
> 2.  Without God, there can be no moral law, only moral opinion.


 Believe what you will. I anticipated in post #49 that this is where this sort of discussion would end up.

----------


## LandLord

1968, 
I appreciate your debating with me.  Would you be so kind as to indulge me with one more round?  In return, I'll offer you the kind of challenge I'm sure you can appreciate. 

Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?

1.  The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
2.  Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.

----------


## 1968

> Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?
> 
> 1.  The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
> 2.  Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.


 1. Gravity exists as a physical entity but morality exists as an abstraction. Without human minds, the formation of abstractions cannot occur.
  2. “Moral law” is a loaded term in that it already presumes that what is moral is established by the authority – or arbitrary whims – of a lawmaker. Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only “authority” for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.

----------


## LandLord

> 1. Gravity exists as a physical entity but morality exists as an abstraction. Without human minds, the formation of abstractions cannot occur.
> 2. Moral law is a loaded term in that it already presumes that what is moral is established by the authority  or arbitrary whims  of a lawmaker. Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only authority for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.


Good answers.  Can you back up your assertion that "morality exists as an abstraction?"  Without that, your argument falls short.

----------


## shanbaum

> 1968, 
> I appreciate your debating with me. Would you be so kind as to indulge me with one more round? In return, I'll offer you the kind of challenge I'm sure you can appreciate. 
> 
> Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?
> 
> 1. The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
> 2. Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.


 
It would be equally interesting (and challenging) for you to _support_ these two statements in some way (other than by simply declaring them to be true).

----------


## 1968

> Can you back up your assertion that "morality exists as an abstraction?"  Without that, your argument falls short.


 Until you invest in a good dictionary, I guess my argument will have to fall short with you.

----------


## LandLord

> Until you invest in a good dictionary, I guess my argument will have to fall short with you.


I do have a good dictionary.  Can you clarify your meaning?  Did I spell something wrong?

----------


## LandLord

> It would be equally interesting (and challenging) for you to _support_ these two statements in some way (other than by simply declaring them to be true).


I agree it is a challenge and I thank you for it.  I will do my best. But first, let me make my position very clear.

Morality can only be one of two things. *Absolute* or *relative*.

*OPTION 1:* If it is _absolute_, then our actions are either morally right, or morally wrong, as measured by a _universal standard_ *independent of human thought*.
Further, an action can not be both right _and_ wrong. For example, regardless of state laws, the act of abortion is either morally right *or* wrong, period -- even if every human being on earth disagrees. This is not unlike the laws of Earth's gravity which are absolute, regardless of human opinion.

*OPTION 2:* If it is _relative_, then murder, rape, torture, terrorism or any other act can not be considered absolutely morally wrong. In moral relativism, right and wrong are determined by human thoughts, laws, polls, regulations, opinions and cultures. If morality is relative, then abortion is only right or wrong depending on where you live and/or what faith you subscribe to. Any choice can be no more wrong than choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate. It's a matter of taste. Some people like murder, some don't.

If you don't agree that those are the *only* two options, then there is no point in my supporting one side. If you are willing to accept that it has to be one way or the other, then I will submit my argumental support.

----------


## 1968

> I do have a good dictionary.  Can you clarify your meaning?  Did I spell something wrong?


No, you seem not to understanding the meaning of "abstraction".

----------


## KStraker

> Ive seen a dog lay broken in a gutter next to a busy road whimpering in agony as death approached and saw suffering.


Did you ever think, "Hey maybe I can stop and help?"

----------


## shanbaum

> Morality can only be one of two things. *Absolute* or *relative*.


Wow. I wish I lived in so simple a universe.

You are attempting to construct a tautology; if you define absolute morality as morality determined by an absolute authority, well then, youre going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work. 

But what I asked you to do was to support your assertion that such a morality actually exists, rather than requiring others to prove that it doesnt. I certainly cant prove that it does not exist; however, I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.

Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is, and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises  simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. Its probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by _sharia_). Its less clear that the British (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but its probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different  like night and day. Whos right? 

If humans cant discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where its a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed. Instead of I say this and I say that the argument becomes God says this and God says that. 

The sheer presumptuousness of the latter notwithstanding, of course, there _may_ be a profound difference; that is, there _may_ be a God who imposes an absolute moral code, which he has intimated to you (and not to me), and I will therefore suffer eternal damnation, while you and Chip frolic with the angels.

Or maybe not. But even if there _were_ an absolute moral code, I suspect that the universe would still present dilemmas  where one perforce breaks one stricture or another. For example, one might face choosing to save an unborn child, or the life of its mother. Even in an absolute universe, one might face choices that are neither all black, nor all white  calling for judgment (of a lesser order).

Or does that sort of thing not really happen in your binary universe?

----------


## LandLord

> Wow. I wish I lived in so simple a universe.
> 
> You are attempting to construct a tautology; if you define absolute morality as morality determined by an absolute authority, well then, youre going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work. 
> 
> But what I asked you to do was to support your assertion that such a morality actually exists, rather than requiring others to prove that it doesnt. I certainly cant prove that it does not exist; however, I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.
> 
> Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is, and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises  simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. Its probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by _sharia_). Its less clear that the British (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but its probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different  like night and day. Whos right? 
> 
> If humans cant discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where its a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed. Instead of I say this and I say that the argument becomes God says this and God says that. 
> ...


Actually I'm not the one constructing the tautology.  Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along.  You are obviously one of them.  Or would you prefer I call you a "non-absolute moralist?"

I'm not saying that I know absolute morality, I'm just saying there must be one.  Something is either right or wrong.  If you call that a binary universe, then yes, my world is simpler than yours.  In my world, you are either pregnant or not.  Dead or alive.  Male or female.  Right or wrong.  It's usually the moral relativists that want a third option that better suits their lifestyle choices.

----------


## LandLord

> if you define absolute morality as morality determined by an absolute authority, well then, youre going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work.


Would you say the law of gravity is defined by an absolute authority? If so, then whom or what? If not, then why doesn't man change the law of gravity? 




> I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.


Would it matter to you if it did exist? If you define morality as *non-absolute,* then you're highly unlikely to listen to ANY argument that supports absolute morality. 



> Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is,


Has no logical significance.


> and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises


also irrelevant. 


>  simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. Its probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by _sharia_). Its less clear that the British (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but its probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different  like night and day. Whos right?


Does it really matter if there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong? If you are a moral relativist, everyone can be right. 




> If humans cant discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where its a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed.


That's a confusing sentence. I simplified it for my own sake


> "If humans can't tell what absolute morality is, then the difference between relative and absolute morality is subtle."


I think your logic is flawed just in that one sentence and I'm not sure what you really mean. Can you rephrase it? 




> there _may_ be a God who imposes an absolute moral code, which he has intimated to you (and not to me), and I will therefore suffer eternal damnation, while you and Chip frolic with the angels.


Please don't confuse KNOWING absolute morality with the EXISTENCE of absolute morality.



> Or maybe not. But even if there _were_ an absolute moral code, I suspect that the universe would still present dilemmas  where one perforce breaks one stricture or another. For example, one might face choosing to save an unborn child, or the life of its mother. Even in an absolute universe, one might face choices that are neither all black, nor all white  calling for judgment (of a lesser order).


I agree. There would still be delimmas. But a simpler example will better illustrate the issue.

_A moral relativist is walking down the street and feels bored so he decides to strangle the first old lady he sees. He finds one, and strangles her. He is amused by this. He knows that many people believe his act is morally wrong, so he runs away and hides._

Is his act morally wrong? Why?
*Because all laws are right?*
*Because the majority is always right?*
*Because the USA says so?*

How do you know it is wrong?

----------


## chip anderson

It may not be we that suffer because of what God does or allows.

More likely it is God that suffers over what we think and do.

Chip (perhaps the greatest sinner amoung us, and the only one convinced he is going to Hell)

----------


## cocoisland58

> It may not be we that suffer because of what God does or allows.
> 
> More likely it is God that suffers over what we think and do.
> 
> Chip (perhaps the greatest sinner amoung us, and the only one convinced he is going to Hell)


If God exists it is He that suffers the most, as parents suffer when their children disappoint them so. But why are you convinced Chip, that you are going to Hell?

----------


## chip anderson

Coco:
I know my sins, God knows my sins.  Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins.  And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
"I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."

Chip

----------


## 1968

> Actually I'm not the one constructing the tautology.  Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along.  You are obviously one of them.  Or would you prefer I call you a "non-absolute moralist?"
> 
> I'm not saying that I know absolute morality, I'm just saying there must be one.  Something is either right or wrong.  If you call that a binary universe, then yes, my world is simpler than yours.  In my world, you are either pregnant or not.  Dead or alive.  Male or female.  Right or wrong.  It's usually the moral relativists that want a third option that better suits their lifestyle choices.


 First of all, if absolute morality is defined as morality determined by an absolute authority, then that is certainly a type of tautology. Secondly, if morality _was_ a perfectly good word, by what standard are you suggesting that morality is now a bad word? The concept of morality predates Christianity and people have been having discussions like ours for thousands of years. In the context of this thread, morality (from the Latin _moralitas_ "manner, character, proper behavior") refers to proper conduct in the face of choices. You need to take a hard look in the mirror before laying the suggestion that others have deviated from that meaning. Thirdly, its not obvious to me that shanbaum is a moral relativist. Although I believe that an objective moral standard exists, I also share the view that its not always easy to tell right from wrong in every possible context.

 At times you seem to acknowledge that objectivity is difficult (or even impossible), then you have the arrogance to charge others with simply being arbitrary in their decision making (i.e. you call them moral relativists) when they do not come to the same conclusions that you do.

----------


## 1968

> I know my sins, God knows my sins.  Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins.  *And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life*, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
> "I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."


I'll bite... where does the 14,000 figure come from?

----------


## cocoisland58

> I'll bite... where does the 14,000 figure come from?


 
I believe that would be a reference to the JW, who by the way, may want to ensure that their spot in that number not be taken by staying off my porch.

----------


## shanbaum

Landlord,

What impresses me most is that you rephrased one of my (admittedly complex) sentences, and then complained that you don't understand what _you_ wrote.

It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.

My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."

You want there to be a moral law analogous to physical laws. But consider that gravity is not a law, but a scientific theory (and not a particularly old one), devised by human minds, in an effort to explain observed physical phenomena. Absent humans (and therefore, absent math), the notion of a gravitational constant is meaningless. There's hardly a guarantee that we even have it right - but I'm getting into a subject area about which I know too little to even write meaningfully. Suffice it to say that the Tralfamadorians might be really amused by our explanation of why things fall. 

I tried to give you an example of a factual situation in which absolutes conflict. The very notion of one "absolute" conflicting with another makes my head hurt; it makes me suspect the absoluteness of both. It doesn't _seem right_ that the Right thing to do can vary from one factual situation to another. We've all heard lots of these - you know, four guys in a boat with enough supplies for three; the one I provided earlier, etc. If the answer is, sometimes you kill the mother, and sometimes you kill the child, what kind of "absolute" is that? Can there be a different absolute for each factual situation? Does that mean that new absolutes arise as new factual situations do?

The simple example you gave is not particularly instructive. Yes, it _seems wrong_ to strangle the old lady. But I'm reminded (though not very clearly) of a passage in the Koran where an angel accompanying a man kills someone, and the man is shocked, and thinks maybe the angel is an evil person. The angel commits a few more acts that _seem wrong_, but in the end, it turns out that each of the acts was justified by facts of which the man was not aware, but which of course were known to Allah and the _jinn_. Of what practical significance are such absolutes, that by definition, aren't known to man? Whether they exist or not, man is left guessing. Of course, in the story from the Koran, the angel eventually reveals himself to the man, so the man knows the truth. The problem with your story is, there's no angel; maybe the old lady had it coming, and it was God's will.

Of course, that conclusion is insane. Logical, if absolutes exist (what if she Really Did have it coming; that is, what if it Really Was God's Will?), but insane.

It could be that your claim is really psychological in nature - that is, you think that we simply couldn't have any meaningful, internal sense of right and wrong in the absence of some extra-human source. In that case, you're just saying that it couldn't be built-in otherwise. I suppose that's really a different aspect of the issue. I don't see any reason to believe that humans could not have developed a sense of right and wrong analogous to our sense of cold and hot. It's clearly a more complex sense, so much so that I'm tempted to say it's a different kind of sense. I do not, however, agree with the notion that it is "irreducibly complex". Is a conscience more complicated than an eye (or for that matter, the brain of a mouse)?

----------


## LandLord

> You need to take a hard look in the mirror before laying the suggestion that others have deviated from that meaning.


Please pay attention.  Never once have I suggested that I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not.  The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. "Is there an absolute morality or not?"  Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.



> At times you seem to acknowledge that objectivity is difficult (or even impossible)


difficult and impossible are two very different things.


> , then you have the arrogance to charge others with simply being arbitrary in their decision making (i.e. you call them moral relativists) when they do not come to the same conclusions that you do.


I am not arrogant.  My desire to forge the truth by debating with you and Shanbaum is much stronger than my desire to be right.  All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth.  What irritates me is people who cannot get off the fence.

----------


## shanbaum

> All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth.


Sounds kinda relative to me... or is 85% good enough for "absolute"?

It may be expecting too much, to hope to find absolute truth on an Internet forum.

----------


## Night Train

> It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.
> 
> My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."


Wow...I love the way you think. I often listen to people and find myself concluding that each person has created a box in which they make the universe "work" for them. Anything that is suggested that doesnt fit in that box, is "wrong" to them. Its all kind of a coping mechanism. And the thing is, we all do this to some extent or another. And we all tend to judge each others "box size". My guess is that mine is smaller than yours but bigger than Landlords. I am curious though, What absolutes do you believe in? Here are some of mine...
Absolute Depravity of Man  (Hmmmm....does This automatically call anything else I believe to be true into question because I too am depraved?)
I believe that the Bible is Inspired but not infallible.
I believe in heaven and in hell
I believe the only way into heaven is by faith what Jesus accomplished on the Cross and in His resurrection
I believe that Beer and Pizza are the most perfect foods.
I believe the Colts will beat the Patriots and then go on to win the Superbowl.
I believe that I am the luckiest person alive because of I have a wonderful wife and two great kids.

----------


## shanbaum

> I am curious though, What absolutes do you believe in? Here are some of mine...


I'm absolutely convinced that human beings are capable of believing absolutely anything.

----------


## Christosfer

> Coco:
> I know my sins, God knows my sins. Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins. And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
> "I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."
> 
> Chip


If our deeds could earn us a relationship with God, then Jesus died for no cause. We must accept His forgiveness and realize that it is by grace that we are saved through faith, and not by works lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) 
Where did you get this idea there are only so many going and if you don't make the curve you're out? Religion will not get you there my friend.

As for hell, I think it would be unjust of God to force those into His presence who have spent their whole existence trying to flee from Him. Whatever hell is, those who end up there will choose it. That is what I think.

----------


## Christosfer

> Landlord,
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.
> 
> My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."


I enjoy reading your posts, you have a way of seeing the issue that I appreciate. 
I see the issue of the moral law slightly differently than what has been stated here in there postings. It is not to me the particular rights and wrongs that seem to be written on the human heart that suggest a moral law giver, but that we must appeal to a moral authority if we are to suggest that something is right or wrong. I can appeal to jurisprudence to suggest that something is wrong of course, but that does not make it wrong necessarily. Murder is not wrong because Gov't passed a law, Gov't passed a law because murder is wrong. We go down a very slippery road if we assume that morality is created by man. Genocide may be wrong today, but tomorrow it may be found to be a cultural convention that suits the needs of people everywhere. 
I would also like to point you to C.S. Lewis argument for the moral law in the first chapter of Mere Christianity. In short, people argue all the time that this person was wrong when they did this or that to me. The acused does not reply by saying, "I don't care about your standard", but they make exceptions for themselves in a particular instance because they had good cause.

----------


## shanbaum

> ...but that we must appeal to a moral authority if we are to suggest that something is right or wrong. I can appeal to jurisprudence to suggest that something is wrong of course, but that does not make it wrong necessarily. Murder is not wrong because Gov't passed a law, Gov't passed a law because murder is wrong.


I would say that we pass laws against murder because we don't want people to do it. The underlying motivation may be (and probably is) mixed - some of us believe that God says it's wrong, so we shouldn't let people do it; some of us believe that the world will be a happier place if there's less rather than more murder, so we punish those who commit it to deter others from doing so (or lock up the perpetrators so they can't do it again).

Either way (where the motivator is God, or utility), the practical effect is exactly the same.

The fact is, the morality of killing has changed over time. Most of the world no longer imposes the death penalty. The U.S. no longer executes people for crimes that do not involve a death, and no longer executes minors, like we used to do, not long ago. One could say, well, we're just bringing our laws more in line with absolute morality - or, one could say (like Chip will) that the changes move us further from it. We might only be one Supreme Court appointment from moving back in the other direction, so, if there's a slippery slope here, I don't know which way it slants.

I don't understand Lewis' point. A defendant who argues that "I don't care about the law" isn't likely to succeed. But defendants do occasionally argue that a law targeting them is wrong (that is, unconstitutional, which _might_ mean, "immoral") and sometimes, they prevail.

----------


## 1968

> Please pay attention.  Never once have I suggested that I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not.


I think it is you that need to pay attention, so I'll refresh your memory. You wrote: Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along. You are obviously one of them. The suggestion in this particular instance is not I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not; the suggestion is that the definition of morality has somehow been twisted by those with whom you disagree. It has not.




> The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. "Is there an absolute morality or not?"  Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.


There is at least one question that precedes that particular question.  Is there an absolute morality or not? can be rephrased like this: Is proper conduct determined by God? As I alluded to in post #49, this begs the question, Does God exist? In my experience, it is futile to debate whether or not God exists with someone who disagrees with you. Perhaps it has happened, but Ive never seen anyones mind changed in such a debate. Consequently, in debates such as these, everyone feels that they are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists) than the person or persons with whom they disagree. With that in mind, we are at a stalemate in that each of us thinks we are approaching this issue more objectively than the other.




> difficult and impossible are two very different things.


Great! Weve come to an agreement that objectivity is possible. Now we only need to resolve the idea that you are the only one capable of objectivity.




> I am not arrogant.  My desire to forge the truth by debating with you and Shanbaum is much stronger than my desire to be right.  All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth.  What irritates me is people who cannot get off the fence.


First of all, I prefer it when you insult me directly instead of passive-aggressively. Secondly, recognizing that objectivity can be difficult (as you yourself noted that it can be) does not make one a fence sitter, however, insisting that it is easy is indeed arrogant.

----------


## 1968

> Suffice it to say that the *Tralfamadorians* might be really amused by our explanation of why things fall.


I love how you always seem to post something that I need to look up!




> I believe that Beer and Pizza are the most perfect foods.


And they're even better when watching football!




> IWe go down a very slippery road if we assume that morality is created by man.


If "morality" refers to proper conduct in the face of choices, it makes sense that man has to think and act rationally to make proper choices. You seem to be cautioning us that man is not capable of acting rationally. Accepting such a premise will likely lead down a slippery slope.

----------


## chip anderson

This has nothing to do with God and Suffering or God's Statements on morality but since you brought up laws about murder.
Anyone wonder why killing a policeman or a politician is a greater crime than killing a skid-row bum?
At sentancing and parole hearings it seems to matter what the bereaved or offended has to say?
Whether or not the criminal "feels remorse" or not seems to effect the sentance? 
What difference does it make how the victum's relatives feel?  What difference does the perpetrator's remorse matter?  The victum is still dead or whatever happened to him.  The bad guy still did it whether he says he's sorry or not.

Just courious on your views on this.

And yes, I am familiar with Christ's views on forgivenes.  And think one of the worst passages in the Bible is Christ's forgiving the murderer on the Cross.  The reason I think this is bad is too many Christians seem to think that if they have the right attitude or say the right thing at the last minite they can behave any way they want until that last minite.

Today is judgement day.  Yesterday was judgement day.  Tomarrow will be judgement day.

Chip

----------


## Christosfer

> I would say that we pass laws against murder because we don't want people to do it. The underlying motivation may be (and probably is) mixed - some of us believe that God says it's wrong, so we shouldn't let people do it; some of us believe that the world will be a happier place if there's less rather than more murder, so we punish those who commit it to deter others from doing so (or lock up the perpetrators so they can't do it again).
> 
> Either way (where the motivator is God, or utility), the practical effect is exactly the same.
> 
> The fact is, the morality of killing has changed over time. Most of the world no longer imposes the death penalty. The U.S. no longer executes people for crimes that do not involve a death, and no longer executes minors, like we used to do, not long ago. One could say, well, we're just bringing our laws more in line with absolute morality - or, one could say (like Chip will) that the changes move us further from it. We might only be one Supreme Court appointment from moving back in the other direction, so, if there's a slippery slope here, I don't know which way it slants.
> 
> I don't understand Lewis' point. A defendant who argues that "I don't care about the law" isn't likely to succeed. But defendants do occasionally argue that a law targeting them is wrong (that is, unconstitutional, which _might_ mean, "immoral") and sometimes, they prevail.


I would differentiate between killing and murder, murder ascribes a moral premise where as killing does not always. Also, I would clarify that murder is not wrong just because God says so, but because God created us and holds his creation in very high value. Therefore, because we have value to the owner we should take care. I know that there is some issue then with killing after I made the distinction, but murder implies a moral pretense is my point. I am not arguing for killing. I am saying that the terms are different. 

Lewis was not speaking in terms of legal matters. The examples that he gives are things like sharing, cutting in line, taking someone's seat etc.

----------


## Christosfer

> If "morality" refers to proper conduct in the face of choices, it makes sense that man has to think and act rationally to make proper choices. You seem to be cautioning us that man is not capable of acting rationally. Accepting such a premise will likely lead down a slippery slope.


 I would say that you are making a moral argument in your statement by saying that rational thinking is good. By what measure can you say "proper choices"? 
What evidence do you have that we act rationally?

----------


## 1968

> I would say that you are making a moral argument in your statement by saying that rational thinking is good. By what measure can you say "proper choices"?


The statement “rational thinking is good” is indeed an assertion of a moral position. To complete the context: “If one chooses to live, then rational thinking is good.” As I’ve stated multiple times earlier, “life” is the standard or measure. If you do not choose to live, then there is no need to have a moral code for any other choice. All you need to do is die.




> What evidence do you have that we act rationally?


Are you asking this from the standpoint that people are incapable of acting rationally? If so, then people would be incapable of following any moral code. If not, then why would you bother asking the question?

----------


## LandLord

> Is there an absolute morality or not? can be rephrased like this: Is proper conduct determined by God?


Where's your logic?  How can you decide that the absolute moral authority is God if you can't even decide there is an absolute morality???!!! 


> in debates such as these, everyone feels that they are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists) than the person or persons with whom they disagree.


You are obviously speaking for yourself, but not for me.  I don't think I am more objective.  You seem to be trying to prove me arrogant and narrow-minded, while I am trying to explore whether or not morality is absolute.  Right now it appears that way.  Please use logic and reason and stick to the issue.


> recognizing that objectivity can be difficult (as you yourself noted that it can be) does not make one a fence sitter, however, insisting that it is easy is indeed arrogant.


*Not taking a firm stance makes one a fence sitter, fence sitter.*  No one here is completely objective.  That's why we must use logic to compensate for our biases.

----------


## 1968

> Where's your logic? How can you decide that the absolute moral authority is God if you can't even decide there is an absolute morality???!!!


I did not decide that God is the absolute moral authority. YOU did. I was paraphrasing your question based on your other assertions in this thread. If you want me to step you through my logic, the gist of it went something like this:

1) You wrote: The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. Is there an absolute morality or not? Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.

2) I observed that you asked: Is there an absolute morality or not?

3) I observed that you asserted: Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.

4) I thought: The premise in the question is that there is an absolute authority that determines what is right and what is wrong.

5) I asked myself: Hmmm. What is the absolute authority to which he is referring?

6) I thought: Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only authority for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.

7) I thought: According to everything else he has said, Im pretty sure that he doesnt agree with me.

8) I asked myself: What does he think?

9) I remembered: He stated, God, when asked the source of his moral standards.

10) I thought: Ah, this is a rhetorical question. He already believes that proper conduct is established by God.

11) I asked myself: Dont we need to ask ourselves whether or not God exists prior to asserting that God is the source of our moral standards? And wouldnt that contradict his assertion that answering whether or not absolute morality exists precedes any other question?

12) I thought: Yes, that is a contradiction. Lets rephrase his rhetorical question a little more plainly to help demonstrate that point.

13) I typed: Is there an absolute morality or not? can be rephrased like this: Is proper conduct determined by God? As I alluded to in post #49, this begs the question, Does God exist?




> You are obviously speaking for yourself, but not for me. I don't think I am more objective. You seem to be trying to prove me arrogant and narrow-minded, while I am trying to explore whether or not morality is absolute. Right now it appears that way. Please use logic and reason and stick to the issue.


Amen. As I see it, youve been trying to prove others to be arbitrary and narrow minded.

You have already asserted that you know morality is absolute, so forgive me if I am skeptical that your line of question in this discussion has been simply to discover the truth. Similarly, you have asserted that a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong, and you have asserted that those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. If you are retracting the assertion that you are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists), then push no longer comes to shove.




> *Not taking a firm stance makes one a fence sitter, fence sitter.* No one here is completely objective. That's why we must use logic to compensate for our biases.


On what issue has someone not taken a firm stance? I firmly believe that what is black and what is white exist and I firmly believe that determining what is black and what is white is not as easy as you have postulated.

----------


## LandLord

> I did not decide that God is the absolute moral authority. YOU did. I was paraphrasing your question based on your other assertions in this thread. If you want me to step you through my logic, the gist of it went something like this:
> 
> 1) You wrote: “The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. ‘Is there an absolute morality or not?’ Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”
> 
> 2) I observed that you asked: “Is there an absolute morality or not?”
> 
> 3) I observed that you asserted: “Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”
> 
> 4) I thought: “The premise in the question is that there is an absolute authority that determines what is right and what is wrong.”
> ...


Ok, got it. Now can we get out of the endless "you said this, I did not say this" loop?  Thanks.

----------


## 1968

> Ok, got it. Now can we get out of the endless "you said this, I did not say this" loop? Thanks.


Yup. You can get on with "exploring" that what you already know to be true.

----------


## LandLord

> It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.


Yes, sir. You are very close. If right and wrong are not mere opinion, but absolute, then to know an absolute fact, there must be a reference other than opinion.




> My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists.


I agree. But I disagree that we cannot know the true standard. We can. It's called reasonable doubt. For example, how do you know that you will not live forever? You cannot prove it absolutely, but reasonable doubt tells you so.


> Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know.


No, I don't agree. God's word can be known.


> Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."


If there is no God, then your method will suffice. But what if there is a God?




> You want there to be a moral law analogous to physical laws. But consider that gravity is not a law, but a scientific theory (and not a particularly old one), devised by human minds, in an effort to explain observed physical phenomena. Absent humans (and therefore, absent math), the notion of a gravitational constant is meaningless.


It's true about our theories, but regardless of humans, gravity's effect is unchanged. 




> I tried to give you an example of a factual situation in which absolutes conflict. The very notion of one "absolute" conflicting with another makes my head hurt; it makes me suspect the absoluteness of both. It doesn't _seem right_ that the Right thing to do can vary from one factual situation to another. We've all heard lots of these - you know, four guys in a boat with enough supplies for three; the one I provided earlier, etc. If the answer is, sometimes you kill the mother, and sometimes you kill the child, what kind of "absolute" is that? Can there be a different absolute for each factual situation? Does that mean that new absolutes arise as new factual situations do?


You may be confusing absolute morality with good, better and best. They are not the same.




> The simple example you gave is not particularly instructive. Yes, it _seems wrong_ to strangle the old lady. But I'm reminded (though not very clearly) of a passage in the Koran where an angel accompanying a man kills someone, and the man is shocked, and thinks maybe the angel is an evil person. The angel commits a few more acts that _seem wrong_, but in the end, it turns out that each of the acts was justified by facts of which the man was not aware, but which of course were known to Allah and the _jinn_. Of what practical significance are such absolutes, that by definition, aren't known to man? Whether they exist or not, man is left guessing. Of course, in the story from the Koran, the angel eventually reveals himself to the man, so the man knows the truth. The problem with your story is, there's no angel; maybe the old lady had it coming, and it was God's will.


I will concede that there are many different confusing situations in the world. However, they do not negate absolute morality.



> It could be that your claim is really psychological in nature - that is, you think that we simply couldn't have any meaningful, internal sense of right and wrong in the absence of some extra-human source. In that case, you're just saying that it couldn't be built-in otherwise. I suppose that's really a different aspect of the issue. I don't see any reason to believe that humans could not have developed a sense of right and wrong analogous to our sense of cold and hot. It's clearly a more complex sense, so much so that I'm tempted to say it's a different kind of sense. I do not, however, agree with the notion that it is "irreducibly complex". Is a conscience more complicated than an eye (or for that matter, the brain of a mouse)?


You raise a valid point, and I am open to considering it.

----------


## chip anderson

If God is God (and I am sure there He is), he can change even gravity any time he wishes.  God does not have to obey the laws of physics.

Chip

----------


## cocoisland58

> This has nothing to do with God and Suffering or God's Statements on morality but since you brought up laws about murder.
> Anyone wonder why killing a policeman or a politician is a greater crime than killing a skid-row bum?
> At sentancing and parole hearings it seems to matter what the bereaved or offended has to say?
> Whether or not the criminal "feels remorse" or not seems to effect the sentance? 
> What difference does it make how the victum's relatives feel? What difference does the perpetrator's remorse matter? The victum is still dead or whatever happened to him. The bad guy still did it whether he says he's sorry or not.
> 
> Just courious on your views on this.
> 
> And yes, I am familiar with Christ's views on forgivenes. And think one of the worst passages in the Bible is Christ's forgiving the murderer on the Cross. The reason I think this is bad is too many Christians seem to think that if they have the right attitude or say the right thing at the last minite they can behave any way they want until that last minite.
> ...


I believe that killing a policeman or politician is a greater crime simply because our government has made it so.  In actuality it is no greater nor worse.

At parole hearings it matters what the victim or bereaved has to say because it allows the victim or the family of the victim to have a say in the matter and to express anger or forgiveness which is part of the healing process.

Remorse may affect a sentencing simply because that is what we want to hear, the same way that a child may be punished by a parent to a lesser extent if he or she is truly sorry.  

This is quite simply humanity. 

As far as Christ's forgiveness of the murderer on the cross and the fact that some people might believe they can get away with a wrongful life because of it.  The answer to that will differ depending on personal belief and denominational teachings.  Some trust in "once saved, always saved". Some are hoping for an exteremely merciful God who at the last minute accepts a heartfelt contrition (one would of course have to hope for enough time to do this).  Some opt for the belief in some kind of middle ground such as Purgatory wherein they might get a second chance at it.  Personally, much as St. Paul did, I stuggle with day to day temptations and pridefulness, I TRY to live a good life, but have sinned as all humans do and will no doubt continue sinning until the day I die. I hope for a forgiving God and if I find a chastising one in the end than so be it and I humbly accept my fate.

The thing about the forgiveness on the cross is this. Here was a man in his death throes who prehaps knew his life had been an evil one.  He could not know that hanging next to him was his salvation and yet when he looked upon it he recognized it, asked for it, and was granted it. Therein lies the difference. Someone who has lived a less than stellar life without any knowledge of the possibility of salvation could, at the last moment see his salvation, fall to his knees, and fully realize what he had been. On the other hand, knowledge of salvation ahead of time and choosing to ignore it until the last minute does not garuntee you anything. Salvation is gained and lost on a daily basis.  

My views are obviously simplistic when compared to the philosophers on this thread but your questions were food for thought so I gave it a go.

----------


## rinselberg

> I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree. Basically, the class has been an eye opening study about the Holocaust. It has really caused me to sit back and think harder about what I believe about God and about suffering. I am wondering if a few of you would mind sharing your views on this subject. Do you believe that God allowed the holocaust or even caused it? Does the fact that there is suffering cause you to believe that there is no God? I know we aren't going to solve this one, but I am wondering what your views are and how you came to that conclusion. And no Harry, I am not delving into the subject of suffering because the Colts have lost two games in a row. That topic is for another thread! :bbg:


I just caught a remarkable hourlong documentary called Theologians Under Hitler, from a book of the same title. It was broadcast on KCSM, which is a local cable TV channel. This is great documentary without so much as a trace of pretense, self-promotion, sensationalism or hokiness. The musical background is never intrusive or overdone. There are no gratuitous photographs, images or video clips.

A handful of scholars reveal a side of history that I knew very little of: The complicity of what were some of Germany's most respected theologians in the Nazi crimes before and during World War Two; specifically, the Holocaust. Some of these men were prominent clergy. The ones that are documented (there were three main ones) were Protestant.

The film reveals how the historical and theological legacies of both Christ and Martin Luther were "confiscated" and then revised to suit the purposes of the Nazi movement. 

I'm not a student of this topic (particularly), but I found the documentary both compelling and highly credible. I think it establishes that without the complicity of a number of high ranking and well known Christian theologians with important university connections, the Holocaust would have been far more difficult (if not impossible) for political radicals like Hitler to have brought about.

This TV segment provided a more complete context and perspective for some other remarks that I posted in the last few days...The first Christians and the first MuslimsMedieval Crusaders vs. NazisSectarianism, fundamentalism and extremism

Theologians Under Hitler can be had on DVD, but if you see a chance to catch it on one of your TV channels, I highly recommend it.

----------


## gemstone

> The film reveals how the historical and theological legacies of both Christ and Martin Luther were *"confiscated" and then revised* to suit the purposes of the Nazi movement. 
> 
> the Holocaust would have been far more difficult (if not impossible) for political radicals like Hitler to have brought about.


I submit, they would have found something else to revise, perhaps Islam.

 Thanks for the interesting links.

----------


## chip anderson

While a fiction work anyone remember the last line from the Seventh Sign?
Appearently many in Germany and German occupied places were not.

Just as someone wrote on Optiboars recently, if the choice were accept Islam or die what would you do?  I think the person writing this though accepting Islam was the correct answer.  I do not but then many of you think  I'm a little different.

Chip

----------


## Bill West

Exod 3:13-14
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(KJV)

----------


## CrunkChipmunk

There is no god.

Humans are just violent selfish animals at base but despite this we sometimes do kind things just as a lion that gently licks her cubs clean one day and cares for them savagely rips apart a nice zebra that was minding its own business the next.

As for the Holocaust the reasoning that was rejected at the Nuremburg Tribunal of "We were just following orders" is actually valid despite the posturing of the holier than thous who presided over that kangaroo court because the Milgram experiment proved humans in general will do whatever a person dressed up as an authority figure tells them to do.

So they still should of been ruled as guilty but by reason of insanity.

The insanity of being all too human.

----------


## rinselberg

> Kangaroo court . . .


Kangaroo court? What's your beef with the Nuremberg setup? I don't see how they could have been tried under German authority. There wasn't any German authority in 1945. And if they tried to hold the Nuremberg defendants until such time.. who could foresee when that time would come. One committed suicide before the trials began; the other before they could impose the sentence against him. The setup was a little strained because of the Russian attitude(s), but as far as I can see (from the documentaries that I've seen) the only tangible outcome imposed by the Russians was to foist off one of their big KGB atrocities in Poland onto the Nazis. A frameup. Pretty small potatoes, considering all of the charges that were at stake.

Speer, in particular, enjoyed the luxury of excellent defense counsel. The Nuremberg defendants had access to German lawyers as defense counsel. If they had access to money (like Speer) they could hire almost whomever was willing to serve them.

I'm not certain about this--don't have time to look it up right now--but I think that the German admiral "Donuts" (Donitz or Doenitz or something like that) even had an American naval expert testify in his defense. Not sure about it; not sure if it was at Nuremberg or some other legal proceedings.

Still--I don't see why anyone could fairly call that a "kangaroo court".

As usual, I'm also here to hawk some of my latest on line "wares" ... another way to pass some time.

_Does anybody really know what time it is?_ Chicago Transit Authority put that question on a lot of people's minds with their double-platinum recording debut in 1969. _Does anybody really know what time is?_ That's a different question. The _berg_ offers a layman's look at how one group of theoretical physicists is trying to connect the dots in a most intriguing way. If you're _in_, select ("click") the album art...

----------


## Christosfer

> There is no god.


What is your evidence for that claim?

----------


## LandLord

It's a quality cover, rins.  Is that you on vocals?

----------


## chip anderson

Wish this idiot would take my name out of his name.

Chip

----------


## LandLord

> There is no god.
> 
> Humans are just violent selfish animals at base but despite this we sometimes do kind things just as a lion that gently licks her cubs clean one day and cares for them savagely rips apart a nice zebra that was minding its own business the next.
> 
> As for the Holocaust the reasoning that was rejected at the Nuremburg Tribunal of "We were just following orders" is actually valid despite the posturing of the holier than thous who presided over that kangaroo court because the Milgram experiment proved humans in general will do whatever a person dressed up as an authority figure tells them to do.
> 
> So they still should of been ruled as guilty but by reason of insanity.
> 
> The insanity of being all too human.


You sound a bit cynical, Crunky. But if there is no God, then I guess that means I have no soul?!! I always thought I had a body, mind and soul. If you have no soul, do you also have no mind?  Ahhhhh!  I think I'm going insane !!!!!

----------


## rinselberg

> It's a quality cover, rins. Is that you on vocals?


That's a "killer"! I have no talent whatsoever at performing music, neither instrumental or vocal. I just "borrowed" that mp3 because I couldn't find one of the original Chicago track anywhere on the Web for free. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that I was on the audio track myself. The cover of _Does Anyone Really Know What Time It Is?_ was performed by these folks. When I said "hawking my wares", I was only joking. The only "wares" are this OptiBoard post that I made about Loop Quantum Gravity and its implications regarding the nature or physics of what we experience as "time".

----------


## rinselberg

> ..the Milgram experiment proved [that] humans in general will do whatever a person dressed up as an authority figure tells them to do . . .


In the context of the Nuremberg trials--especially the first such trial, known as "The Trial of the Major War Criminals" (Germany; 1945) and also, the [Adolf] Eichmann trial (Israel; 1961)--my uncredentialed opinion is that the Milgram experiment(s) actually have little relevance.

The roster of Major War Criminals was headed up by Hermann Goring. It comprised 24 of the highest ranking members of the Nazi regime. Eichmann could easily have fit into the same category.

How are these defendants comparable in any way to the "little people" in the Milgram experiment who kept pressing the buttons that they thought were causing a subject to receive painful, even life-threatening electrical shocks? The Milgram button pressers were recruited from ordinary occupations like teaching. They were compensated with the grand sum of $4.50 per hour for their participation.

The Major War Criminals were more like the _authority figure_ in the Milgram experiments: the labcoat-attired "scientist" who told the participants to disregard the dire protestations of the Milgram "victims" and keep pressing the "shock" buttons.

Goring's involvement in Nazi activities spanned most of his adult life. Ultimately it enabled him to live like a multi-millionaire. Ironically, his anti-Semitism and aggressive German nationalism--by some expert accounts--were more a ploy that enabled him to live the life of "the rich and famous" (under Hitler), than an expression of authentic Nazi beliefs.

The other Major War Criminals were handsomely compensated in various ways. For some, it was the appointments to high military and government posts with commensurate material compensations. For others: a chance to exercise their anti-Semitism and other Nazi convictions beyond any imaginable limits or constraints.

It's worth noting that of the Major War Criminals, three were acquitted and several received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life. Not all were consigned to the hangman.

Does that sound like the workings of a "Kangaroo court"..?

There's an almost universal idea about Eichmann, that he was a somewhat mortified "clerk" or "order taker" who didn't want to help murder millions of innocent people, but was incapable, by personal conviction and "national" character of stepping out of line or bucking the system. Or even just resigning his post or trying to turn his back on the Nazi regime in some other way. In other words, a "Milgram experiment" Eichmann.

I saw a documentary on the Eichmann trial some years ago. It seemed like a carefully researched presentation. This documentary presented a very different Eichmann. Testimony at the trial established beyond reasonable doubt that Eichmann was anything but a reluctant and mortified "paper pusher". Eichmann _liked_ murdering people. In fact, "liked" is an understatement. He "loved" it. He did everything he could to advance the Holocaust, and continued in it, even when some of his peers and even his nominal superior (Himmler) were trying to back away from it--to stop it and try to cover it up or escape from the certain judgement that they could finally see coming as the German war was being lost.

The "paper pusher" Eichmann was a phoney image that Eichmann (and perhaps his defense counsel) tried to create at the trial in 1961. That image was popularized by the Jewish philosopher and political theorist, Hannah Arendt, as "the banality of evil". It was an image that captured the world's imagination. But Arendt was a somewhat self-contradictory person in her thinking and even in her path through life. (I think her husband--a Pole?--was known to be somewhat anti-Semitic.)

_So where does the Milgram experiment fit into this context?_

Hardly at all.

When you consider the subsequent legal proceedings against lower-ranking Nazis, there could be more "Milgram" relevance. But few of those defendants were sentenced with even as much as serious prison time. I'll bet dollars-to-donuts that systematic research would confirm my views on this.

----------


## Spexvet

> What is your evidence for that claim?


George W. Bush.:p:p

----------


## rinselberg

> There is no god..





> What is your evidence for that claim?





> George W. Bush.. :p:p


Nope. It's this.. :p:p . . . and this.. :finger: :cheers: :hammer:  :Eek:  :bbg: :angry: ... etc.

_"No, you may not use smilies."_
--posted by an OptiBoarder who is no longer active

----------


## AngryFish

Does that sound like the workings of a "Kangaroo court"..?

I think a Court with an agenda is one fair way to describe it as some of the following demonstrates the forgone conclusion that directed the Allied Forces, and therefore the Courts actions.  

_The United States Chief Prosecutor during the hearing of 26 July 1946 at the Nuremberg Trial, said that the International Military Tribunal was simply a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations against Germany, with which they were technically still at war,_ _even though the enemys political and military institutions had been crushed._5

Another startling method to insure a correct adjudication was the addition of articles 19 and 21 of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, which stated the Nuremberg Tribunal *shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence* and *shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge*, but shall take judicial notice thereof. 7 In practice, these articles authorized the accusers to repeat the most unsubstantiated accusations as if they were proven factssuch as the instantaneous destruction of an experimental village of 20,000 Jews on the outskirts of Auschwitz by means of a new German destructive substance (Zerstörungsstoff) 8 or to lie, as in the case of the Katyn Forest massacre, perpetrated by the Soviets, and which was knowingly attributed to the Germans.9

5 Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof. Nürnberg. 14 November 1945  1. October 1946. Veröffentlicht in Nürnberg, Deutschland, 1949, vol. XIX, p. 440 (hereinafter: IMG).
·             6 A.J.P. Taylor, Le origini della seconda guerra mondiale. Bari, 1975, p. 37. 
·             7 IMG, Vol. I, p. 16 
·             8 This story was told by Prosecutor Justice Jackson of the United States during the hearing of 21 June 1946 (IMG, Vol. XVI, p. 580). Carlos Whitlock Porter, in the book, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, (Historical Review Press, 1988) has collected a great number of these allegations, which may be consulted in facsimile from the corresponding pages from the Nuremberg trial transcript (American edition). 
·             9 IMG, Vol. VII, p. 470. The Soviets did not restrict themselves to a simple affirmation of this lie, but introduced more than one hundred witnesses, forensic medical reports, and documents and exhibits in support of itall totally false.

----------


## chip anderson

At the end of a war there are the guilty and the scapegoats.
Many German war criminals were rounded up by ourselves, the Brits, and the Soviets as soon as we could catch them.  Not for prosecution but because they had knowledge that we could use. We needed to know about rockets, jet engines,  bombs, radiation, chemistry and lots of other things in which we felt their knowlege might be superior to ours.
Suddenly these people were not war criminals but supressed German Citizens forced to work for the Nazi's now willing to help the Allies.

War is a strange thing and many strange things happen before during and after.  If the Alkida, the Talliban, and whatever had some technology we could use, some of them would be liberated today.  As it is they can only go back and make war on us with primitive tools (as compared to ours).

After any war there is little use for the more barbaric politicians so they must go on exibit and be done away with in a short time (lest for some reason they escape, or are released and cause even more trouble as living martyrs..  a'la Lamumba.

Chip

----------


## AngryFish

Faith in Truth may seem to becomes more necessary as science sheds increasing light through understanding. But as we realize the mechanism for how things operate in the physical world we are able take increasing comfort in better knowing the miraculous revealed. The reassurance is in the complexity and how seamless the various and intricate details are woven together give us assurance of the far from random nature of things. I recently learned how far more complex a rock was, in terms of atomic organization, than a watch or even human DNA and if gave me cause to now hold what I viewed as random as in fact far more considered than I first assumed. 

I often wondered about the beauty in unseen detail and events. What is the purpose or need in things unknown in terms of their exquisite nature and mans ignorance of them and now wonder if it is simply an extension of  how scientific pursuit is encouraged by a God not afraid of revelation. 

To come to understand the nature of evolution and its decenting impact on the six literal days of creation recorded in Genesis is not an insult or blasphemy to a God who endowed part of that creation with reason and intellect, it is an inevitability. A scientist is no more wrong concluding their is no God in light of his understanding than a Godly man is being convinced that denying current truth  is necessary to affirm his belief in the same God.

I can speak as one who is scientifically ignorant but who possesses a level of reason sufficient to allow me to safely assume that those more educated, in theses areas of my relative ignorance, know more than I do about those areas in which they have been convinced by application of this same reasoning ability. Far from an enemy they are my proxy, dedicated to  advancing a facet of our collective understanding of the world in ways I will never completely understand. But I have to reason their understandings are based in some truth as so much of what we have is the result of these truths applied. Further they are honorably motivated by a burning desire to understand the unknown using reason and intellect in the same way I would had I the same education, access to information, and passion for scientific understanding. 

I can see how for a scientist it would be frustrating to seemingly  have to deny what has been concluded based on study and application and goes against what they know to be true in order to allow for God. I also recognize the same can be said for an individual who knows, as the result of the application of knowledge and experience, the reality of a personal God who is not expressable as a quantifiable being. 

It was in the fleeting moments of the end of this day that these seeming inconsistencies married in my arms. As I carried my son off to bed I stopped to rock him in a chair before I placed him under his covers for the night. As I held this little marvel of nature in my arms, his right foot resting in the palm of my hand, I was struck by this seamless joining of spirit and biology. His body and its functions can be reveled by science, his thoughts and feelings understood as chemical reactions, yet his essence is  undeniably unique and unknowable and he will forever be a mystery never completely understood, even to himself, much like the God who created him. I say that as one who has like many, on occasion, heard a still small voice and knows the truths It reveled were not possible to intuitively know given the limitation of the vessel to which they were imparted, that the Spirit is as able as the flesh is weak.

No denial of truth is needed to embrace either science or God the simple elegance of each points to the other.

----------


## hcjilson

That was impressive! Many often say that what sets man apart from other forms of life is intelligence. Rather, I prefer to think that it is faith that sets us apart.

----------


## Caree

> god Is Spelled With A Capitol G!!


 Capital Is Spelled With An A

----------


## chip anderson

Caree:  At least we know which is more important to _you_.....

----------


## Steve Machol

> Caree:  At least we know which is more important to _you_.....


You're showing your ignorance Chip. I've known Caree since she was 2 years old. When you don't know what you are talking about, it's best to just keep quiet.

----------


## chip anderson

Now Steve: 

 Surely you don't think criticising some one that would worry about the spelling of other words and not capitalize God in big bold capital letters, is in there with extreeme clan inspired bigotry that you and Judy think I possess.  I shall always defend God (and yes I know He doesn't need my help) and those I feel that are oppressed.  We just disagree on those we feel are oppressed.  
If someone feels God does not need to be capitalized, but capital does, that's just wrong.

Chip

----------


## braheem24

> If someone feels God does not need to be capitalized, but capital does, that's just wrong.


I agree with you Chip.  Unfortunatly that's not the case, you're mis-reading her comment.

----------


## Caree

> I agree with you Chip. Unfortunatly that's not the case, you're mis-reading her comment.


 Indeed, I capitalized capital because it was the first word in the sentence. My children call me the grammer police and they are both English majors and writers now...Chip,hon,I am a Christian (notice the upper case letter) and proud of it. I certainly did not mean to criticize or offend you,I was just teasing you for taking yourself far to seriously. Lighten up dude,life is too short for issues like this,have a little fun once in a while. Sing and life will be more positive. Thank you Steve,you were always my favorite brother!

----------


## Caree

> Now Steve: 
> 
> Surely you don't think criticising some one that would worry about the spelling of other words and not capitalize God in big bold capital letters, is in there with extreeme clan inspired bigotry that you and Judy think I possess. I shall always defend God (and yes I know He doesn't need my help) and those I feel that are oppressed. We just disagree on those we feel are oppressed. 
> If someone feels God does not need to be capitalized, but capital does, that's just wrong.
> 
> Chip


 All I did was click quote,that is how it transferred,I didn't type God with a lower case G. XX

----------


## chip anderson

But Caree:  You didn't capitalize God.

----------


## Caree

> But Caree: You didn't capitalize God.


 See my above message,I DIDN"T TYPE IT AT ALL, clicked QUOTE and that is how the system transferred it. I have not tried,but I don't believe it will let me edit a quote from another person.

----------


## k12311997

> As I held this little marvel of nature in my arms, his right foot resting in the palm of my hand, I was struck by this seamless joining of spirit and biology.


I have often wondered how it is possible for someone to look at a new life and not believe there is something more than just the joining of sperm and egg.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

A different point of view:

This is from the latest book I'm working on.  I don't use the word "God" in this section.  Whether you use the word God, or Divine, or True Nature to describe it doesn't matter to me.  And whether you transform your consciousness through Buddhist practice, faith in the Christ or in Allah, or through other means doesn't matter to me; I believe what matters is that each of us takes that step.

This world we live in is the creation of our common consciousness.  Every aspect of it, from the ones we love like the beautiful sunset to the ones we abhor like the ethnic cleansing in Somalia, is the created, manifested result of different aspects of our common consciousness.  Ethnic cleansing, whether it occurs in Somalia, Yogoslavia, Tibet or Nazi Germany is the inevitable consequence of deeply held fear of those who are different from ourselves; so are the resulting mental formations which tells us that only we know the real truth, only we are truly pure, and those other people deserve to be slaughtered and tortured.  Look deeply into yourself and see whether that fear of the other lives in you; unless you have worked with it already, I have no doubt that you will find it deep inside, whether you have ever acted on it or not.  

 The inevitable karmic conclusion, the result of cause and effect, is simple: we will continue to have ethnic cleansing so long as those mental formations about the other play a dominant role in the collective consciousness.  Once that settles in, you will begin to see what a big and powerful undertaking it is to work on changing the collective consciousness.  The more of us who hold a different point of view, who see the fear of the other as an opportunity to work toward peace and understanding, the more likely those old mental formations are to give way.

We play out our collective karma on the stage of this planet and this universe.  The karma each of us embodies is both a piece of our collective karma, the result of our collective consciousness, and our own individual karma, the result of our individual actions.  If we have a common consciousness of scarcity, of rich and poor, then for each person playing out the manifestation of surfeit there is someone playing out the manifestation of lack.  And it just may be that the person playing out the manifestation of lack is doing so, not because she did something awful in this lifetime or a former one which would mean she deserved to be poor, but because she is a great being who has taken on this manifestation out of her compassion and love so we can see how degrading and destructive poverty is.  When we delve deeply into our collective consciousness, we can see how many beings have sacrificed themselves, lifetime after lifetime, in their effort to change our collective consciousness by showing us the consequences of our collective karma and trying to awaken our compassion.  We can listen to them.  The Cambodian Buddhist monk Maha Ghosandanda wrote a prayer for world peace which begins, The suffering of Cambodia has been deep.  From this suffering arises Great Compassion.   We have the opportunity to harness this great compassion and change that deep suffering by changing our consciousness.

----------


## LandLord

> A different point of view:
> 
> This is from the latest book I'm working on. I don't use the word "God" in this section. Whether you use the word God, or Divine, or True Nature to describe it doesn't matter to me. And whether you transform your consciousness through Buddhist practice, faith in the Christ or in Allah, or through other means doesn't matter to me; I believe what matters is that each of us takes that step.
> 
> This world we live in is the creation of our common consciousness. Every aspect of it, from the ones we love like the beautiful sunset to the ones we abhor like the ethnic cleansing in Somalia, is the created, manifested result of different aspects of our common consciousness. Ethnic cleansing, whether it occurs in Somalia, Yogoslavia, Tibet or Nazi Germany is the inevitable consequence of deeply held fear of those who are different from ourselves; so are the resulting mental formations which tells us that only we know the real truth, only we are truly pure, and those other people deserve to be slaughtered and tortured. Look deeply into yourself and see whether that fear of the other lives in you; unless you have worked with it already, I have no doubt that you will find it deep inside, whether you have ever acted on it or not. 
> 
> The inevitable karmic conclusion, the result of cause and effect, is simple: we will continue to have ethnic cleansing so long as those mental formations about the other play a dominant role in the collective consciousness. Once that settles in, you will begin to see what a big and powerful undertaking it is to work on changing the collective consciousness. The more of us who hold a different point of view, who see the fear of the other as an opportunity to work toward peace and understanding, the more likely those old mental formations are to give way.
> 
> We play out our collective karma on the stage of this planet and this universe. The karma each of us embodies is both a piece of our collective karma, the result of our collective consciousness, and our own individual karma, the result of our individual actions. If we have a common consciousness of scarcity, of rich and poor, then for each person playing out the manifestation of surfeit there is someone playing out the manifestation of lack. And it just may be that the person playing out the manifestation of lack is doing so, not because she did something awful in this lifetime or a former one which would mean she deserved to be poor, but because she is a great being who has taken on this manifestation out of her compassion and love so we can see how degrading and destructive poverty is. When we delve deeply into our collective consciousness, we can see how many beings have sacrificed themselves, lifetime after lifetime, in their effort to change our collective consciousness by showing us the consequences of our collective karma and trying to awaken our compassion. We can listen to them. The Cambodian Buddhist monk Maha Ghosandanda wrote a prayer for world peace which begins, The suffering of Cambodia has been deep. From this suffering arises Great Compassion. We have the opportunity to harness this great compassion and change that deep suffering by changing our consciousness.


 Andrew's a new age tree hugger !!!

----------


## Christosfer

> A different point of view:
> 
> This is from the latest book I'm working on. I don't use the word "God" in this section. Whether you use the word God, or Divine, or True Nature to describe it doesn't matter to me. And whether you transform your consciousness through Buddhist practice, faith in the Christ or in Allah, or through other means doesn't matter to me; I believe what matters is that each of us takes that step.
> 
> This world we live in is the creation of our common consciousness. Every aspect of it, from the ones we love like the beautiful sunset to the ones we abhor like the ethnic cleansing in Somalia, is the created, manifested result of different aspects of our common consciousness. Ethnic cleansing, whether it occurs in Somalia, Yogoslavia, Tibet or Nazi Germany is the inevitable consequence of deeply held fear of those who are different from ourselves; so are the resulting mental formations which tells us that only we know the real truth, only we are truly pure, and those other people deserve to be slaughtered and tortured. Look deeply into yourself and see whether that fear of the other lives in you; unless you have worked with it already, I have no doubt that you will find it deep inside, whether you have ever acted on it or not. 
> 
> The inevitable karmic conclusion, the result of cause and effect, is simple: we will continue to have ethnic cleansing so long as those mental formations about the other play a dominant role in the collective consciousness. Once that settles in, you will begin to see what a big and powerful undertaking it is to work on changing the collective consciousness. The more of us who hold a different point of view, who see the fear of the other as an opportunity to work toward peace and understanding, the more likely those old mental formations are to give way.
> 
> We play out our collective karma on the stage of this planet and this universe. The karma each of us embodies is both a piece of our collective karma, the result of our collective consciousness, and our own individual karma, the result of our individual actions. If we have a common consciousness of scarcity, of rich and poor, then for each person playing out the manifestation of surfeit there is someone playing out the manifestation of lack. And it just may be that the person playing out the manifestation of lack is doing so, not because she did something awful in this lifetime or a former one which would mean she deserved to be poor, but because she is a great being who has taken on this manifestation out of her compassion and love so we can see how degrading and destructive poverty is. When we delve deeply into our collective consciousness, we can see how many beings have sacrificed themselves, lifetime after lifetime, in their effort to change our collective consciousness by showing us the consequences of our collective karma and trying to awaken our compassion. We can listen to them. The Cambodian Buddhist monk Maha Ghosandanda wrote a prayer for world peace which begins, The suffering of Cambodia has been deep. From this suffering arises Great Compassion. We have the opportunity to harness this great compassion and change that deep suffering by changing our consciousness.


I suppose that if you mean by world, our culture, and that we contribute to that culture, then I can accept that.  ("This world we live in is the creation of our common consciousness.") 
I am thinking that you meant that a bit more literally. It looks to me like you think this is really truly true. You really believe what you said. 
In fact it sounds rather dogmatic. 
Here are a couple problems that I have with the "new age".

1. It is inherently self contradictory.

2. If Jesus being so good was reincarnated, what hope do I have? 

3. THE SINGLE MOST DEPRESSING THOUGHT THAT I CAN IMAGINE IS TO DISCOVER THAT I AM GOD. You mean...I'm it??? I disappoint myself, that is not a quality that I expect from God. Are you going to correct me on that last thought, then I am wrong too??? I am GOd and I didn't know it?? 
If I am God then I am most certainly Atheist!!!!!!!!!!!


I actually went to a large dicussion of Eckhart Tolle's new book, "New Earth". It is amazing what people will believe.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> I suppose that if you mean by world, our culture, and that we contribute to that culture, then I can accept that.  ("This world we live in is the creation of our common consciousness.") 
> I am thinking that you meant that a bit more literally. It looks to me like you think this is really truly true. You really believe what you said. 
> In fact it sounds rather dogmatic. 
> Here are a couple problems that I have with the "new age".
> 
> 1. It is inherently self contradictory.
> 
> 2. If Jesus being so good was reincarnated, what hope do I have? 
> 
> ...


Actually, what I posted was Buddhist, not new age.  I apologize if it came across as dogmatic.  I don't ask anyone to accept what I write as some sort of gospel.  Even when I teach my meditation classes, all I ask of my students is to trust their own experience.

When I ordained in the Buddhist tradition, one of the vows I took was to alleviate suffering wherever I found it.  In Judaism, there's a phrase "tikkun o'lam".  It means "to fix the world".  It doesn't matter to me whether you see yourself as a manifestation of the Divine or whether you see yourself as God's servant.  What does matter to me is that we do our best to make this world better for all of us.  I come back to the Dalai Lama's comment: "My religion is kindness."  That speaks for me, too.

----------


## AngryFish

Why is it the Tibetians are rioting?

----------


## chip anderson

I figured it out a few week-ends ago.  God is suffering over our actions, not we over his.

Chip

----------


## LandLord

> Actually, what I posted was Buddhist, not new age. I apologize if it came across as dogmatic. I don't ask anyone to accept what I write as some sort of gospel. Even when I teach my meditation classes, all I ask of my students is to trust their own experience.
> 
> When I ordained in the Buddhist tradition, one of the vows I took was to alleviate suffering wherever I found it. In Judaism, there's a phrase "tikkun o'lam". It means "to fix the world". It doesn't matter to me whether you see yourself as a manifestation of the Divine or whether you see yourself as God's servant. What does matter to me is that we do our best to make this world better for all of us. I come back to the Dalai Lama's comment: "My religion is kindness." That speaks for me, too.


Andrew, 
What I like about you is
1) you accept others as they are
2) your commitment to alleviate suffering
3) and to improve the world

I strive to acquire those attributes.  What gives me a negative impression of Buddhism is the belief that suffering has no benefit or purpose.  Am I wrong about Buddhism?

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> Andrew, 
> What I like about you is
> 1) you accept others as they are
> 2) your commitment to alleviate suffering
> 3) and to improve the world
> 
> I strive to acquire those attributes.  What gives me a negative impression of Buddhism is the belief that suffering has no benefit or purpose.  Am I wrong about Buddhism?


Thank you for your kind words, and what a great question!  Here's an answer (maybe longer than what you asked for, but we have no doctor here today, so . . .)

When Gauthama Siddhartha, the man who we call "the Buddha", gave his first teaching, he focused on suffering.  He called these the "Four Noble Truths."  He put them briefly:

1) Suffering exists in life.
2) Suffering has its causes: ignorance, hatred and attachment, of which the most significant is ignorance.
3) There is a way out of suffering (or you could say, "Joy exists in life.")
4) The way out of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.  He then explained what each of those means.

As one of my teachers put it, there is nothing noble about suffering if it is not capable of being transformed.  In other words, you don't really live out the First Noble Truth unless you actually work to transform your suffering and the suffering of those around you.  The purpose of Buddhist practice is to remove the root causes of suffering and transform it into something else -- joy, compassion, kindness, altruistic love, and so on.

While this answers the question about suffering in our consciousness and emotions -- we might even call that "anguish" instead -- it doesn't directly address the issue of suffering in the outside world.  That is addressed through the Eightfold Path, especially Right Intention, Right Action, Right Livelihood and Right Effort.  If we truly practice these things, we will awaken compassion, kindness and altruistic love; and then, as my teacher likes to say, "we cannot help but act."  What he's saying is, See the need staring you in the face and take appropriate action. 

I hope this answers your question, and I apologize for being longwinded.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> Why is it the Tibetians are rioting?


One short answer might be, because they see that they and their religion are being disrespected, and because they see their society crumbling around them under the influence of the Chinese.

While most Tibetans, especially the older generations, adhere to the practice of "ahimsa" (do no harm) and nonviolence, and protest in that way, some don't, especially in the younger generation.

----------


## AngryFish

Andrew,

Two questions come to mind.

Is there then a just place for vilolence?

What is the root cause of suffering?

----------


## Andrew Weiss

> Andrew,
> 
> Two questions come to mind.
> 
> Is there then a just place for vilolence?
> 
> What is the root cause of suffering?


I'm going to give you very personal answers.  I'm not speaking for Buddhists everywhere or anything like that.  I am also not suggesting that everyone has to think the way I do, either, although I have confidence that there is truth in what follows:

1) Violence causes more violence.  It is never a real solution.  That said, when the level of existing violence gets too great (see WWII), sometimes a violent response is necessary.  One of my Buddhist teachers got into trouble when he suggested that it's possible for a general to practice mindfulness if he minimizes damage and loss of life; I think he's right.

2) The root cause of suffering is ignorance.  See my earlier post for more details.

----------


## AngryFish

I don't mean this to sound farsical, but if non-violent protest was met with non-violent protest, that is to say China held sit-ins and protest marches around the homes, businesses, and places where Budists gathered, in an attempt to disrupt their attempts at normalcy, what would result? 

And how can the Budist ideal of do no harm be consistent with acts, even non-physcial, that cause discord and stress on such a wide scale. Surely this is negative Karma. Would it not be more true to the belief to continue to suffer and then bare witness of the truth of their belief. To an extreme, if the Budists were all exterminated from the earth that would not diminish them but draw others to a belief that brought such peace that life was truly a stage in being and to fight for life was a denial of that truth?

----------


## AngryFish

I agree with you agreeing with the generals thinking.

Is the root cause of all suffering ignorance? Sickness, death etc ?

----------

