| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2006 10:11:01 PM · #726 |
You can make the argument that IF there is one God, and only one God, every monotheistic religion believes in Him, and each of them has defined Him in their own image; the differences are ours, not His.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:26:34 PM · #727 |
| An excellent point Bear, however monotheistic religions still only account for about 54% of world population. That's perhaps even MORE lame: that in 2000+ years an omniscient God has barely half the population even believing in A god, nevermind which message is the most accurate. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:28:26 PM · #728 |
Forgive me if this has been addressed here already, but since talk of winning a ribbon came up, and this is a photography site, I thought I'd ask this: what about aesthetics? I believe people's appreciation and expression of beauty, art, music, etc. is a result of our tries to somehow connect with God, or express the divine, or glorify him. If there is no God, what purpose do you think the appreciation of aesthetics serve? Where did it come from, or, I guess, why did it evolve?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:38:51 PM · #729 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
An excellent point Bear, however monotheistic religions still only account for about 54% of world population. That's perhaps even MORE lame: that in 2000+ years an omniscient God has barely half the population even believing in A god, nevermind which message is the most accurate. |
Ahh but you're forgetting the challenge isn't over yet. Why not tally up the totals for everyone that has ever believed in a god or will in the future? :P
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:45:03 PM · #730 |
Originally posted by dahved:
Forgive me if this has been addressed here already, but since talk of winning a ribbon came up, and this is a photography site, I thought I'd ask this: what about aesthetics? I believe people's appreciation and expression of beauty, art, music, etc. is a result of our tries to somehow connect with God, or express the divine, or glorify him. If there is no God, what purpose do you think the appreciation of aesthetics serve? Where did it come from, or, I guess, why did it evolve? |
endorphins?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:45:44 PM · #731 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Why not tally up the totals for everyone that has ever believed in a god or will in the future? |
That would include the Egyptians, Romans, Norse, Greeks, and a bunch of other major polytheistic religions that pre-dated Christianity & Islam by a long shot? No need to add a handicap! ;-) |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:47:58 PM · #732 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Why not tally up the totals for everyone that has ever believed in a god or will in the future? |
That would include the Egyptians, Romans, Norse, Greeks, and a bunch of other major polytheistic religions that pre-dated Christianity & Islam by a long shot? No need to add a handicap! ;-) |
I guess you didn't get the memo. Come 5492 AD the entire world believes in just one God after World War XXI wipes out the last religious faction. This springs forth 50,000 years of believing in just one god. God is patient that way. :P
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 22:48:38.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:51:42 PM · #733 |
Originally posted by dahved:
what about aesthetics? |
One afternoon, a student observing chimpanzees at the Gombe reserve took a break and climbed to the top of a ridge to watch the sun set over Lake Tanganyika. As the student, Geza Teleki, watched, he noticed first one, and then a second chimpanzee climbing up toward where he was sitting. The two adult males were not together, and saw each other only when they had reached the top of the ridge. They did not see Teleki. The apes greeted each other with panting, clasping hands, and sat down together. In silence, Teleki and the chimpanzees watched the sun set and twilight fall.
These chimpanzees were not unique. The primatologist Adriaan Kortlandt recorded a wild chimpanzee gazing for a full fifteen minutes at a particularly spectacular sunset until darkness fell. Some who have observed bears in the wild speak of them sitting on their haunches at sunset, gazing at it, seemingly lost in reverie. From all appearances, it seems that the bears are enjoying the sunset, taking pleasure in the aesthetic experience.
Pet birds often appear to enjoy human music. Gerald Durell has written of a pet pigeon that listened quietly to most music and snuggled against the gramophone. When marches were played, he would stamp back and forth cooing loudly; to waltzes, he would twist and bow, cooing softlyâ€Â¦.
Michael, a gorilla in a sign-language program, is fond of music and enjoys the singing of tenor Luciano Pavarotti so much that he has been known to refuse an opportunity to go outdoors when Pavarotti performances were on television. -Rev. Lilli Nye
One could also point to peacocks and bower birds as animals with an appreciation for aesthetics. While some will claim this is just anthropomorphism, IMO it is supremely arrogant to think that humans are the only creatures capable of emotion and higher thought. If one animal can do it (us) then it's possible others can too.
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 22:54:54. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:54:15 PM · #734 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Come 5492 AD the entire world believes in just one God after World War XXI wipes out the last religious faction. |
Too bad that follows the Global Warming crisis of 2122 AD, when the entire human population is reduced to a dozen Eskimos in bikinis. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:54:45 PM · #735 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO it is sumpremely arrogant to think that humans are the only creatures capable of emotion and higher thought. If one animal can do it (us) then it's possible others can too. |
Especially when they are the third most intelligent species behind dolphins and of course mice.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:09:09 PM · #736 |
| If dolphins had an ounce of sense, they'd stop jumping into tuna cans. ;-P |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:30:00 PM · #737 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If dolphins had an ounce of sense, they'd stop jumping into tuna cans. ;-P |
Nah, they are waiting for the end of the world so they can say 'so long, and thanks for all the fish!' :P
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 11:34:57 PM · #738 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If dolphins had an ounce of sense, they'd stop jumping into tuna cans. ;-P |
Nah, they are waiting for the end of the world so they can say 'so long, and thanks for all the fish!' :P |
You remind me of a story called "Will You Walk A Little Faster" by (I think) William Tenn ... the aliens among us don't attack us directly, but subtly foment and encourage social unrest, hurrying us along the predictable path towards self-annihilation. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 05:55:46 AM · #739 |
Originally posted by dahved:
Forgive me if this has been addressed here already, but since talk of winning a ribbon came up, and this is a photography site, I thought I'd ask this: what about aesthetics? I believe people's appreciation and expression of beauty, art, music, etc. is a result of our tries to somehow connect with God, or express the divine, or glorify him. If there is no God, what purpose do you think the appreciation of aesthetics serve? Where did it come from, or, I guess, why did it evolve? |
Interesting question. One answer may be (I am only guessing) that aesthetics are linked to healthiness.
For example, people's whose faces are more symmetrical tend to be found more attractive by the opposite sex. They also tend to be genetically healthier than people with stronger asymmetry in their facial characteristics. So, over time, people who were attracted to genetically healthy people (aesthetes) would have an evolutionary advantage.
There are certain particularly strong mathematical proportions that are generally found to be aesthtically pleasing (the golden ratio, phi, as found in the fibonacci sequence and known by many here in its simplified form, the rule of thirds). They are also found throughout nature, occurring naturally. These proportions are exhibited by healthy specimens more strongly than unhealthy specimens, so, from an evolutionary perspective, this link between aesthetically pleasing shapes and proportions appears to be more widespread than simply human.
The proportions of the golden ratio can also be found in some music.
On a more basic scale, animals of all kinds appear to have hard wired into them a basic like or dislike for various types of sensory input. Our sense of aestheticism may be little more than the developed and conscious mind operating on remnants of like/dislike patterns established before we had encyclopedias, a secure environment and food labelling.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 07:22:15 AM · #740 |
| Plenty of animals use plumage, color and other "decoration" to attract a mate- a worthless pursuit if the potential mate has no appreciation for beauty. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 11:27:47 AM · #741 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only in the same way it's moral to eat ice cream before dinner. Come on Milo, listen to me here. God directed the Israelites to wage war on the Amorites. The war was waged and then the war was over. The necessity or benefit of the killing may not exist today, therefore the order may be rescinded.
As I said above, it's ok for my kids to eat ice cream after dinner, but it's not ok for them to eat it before. Have I capriciously changed my character by decreeing the evil nature of "before dinner" ice cream? No. There were underlying principles which dictated different behavior at different times. |
OK. Back on track with our discussion â€Â¦
I think your analogy fails complete due to the fact that “eating ice cream” is not a moral issue. It’s a question of nutrition, yes, but whether you eat ice cream before or after dinner is not a question of Right or Wrong. If your children to ate ice cream before dinner against your command, you wouldn’t be angry with them for eating ice cream, you would be angry with them for eating ice cream in disobedience of your command. The act of eating the ice cream itself is morally neutral. Killing Amorite children is not a morally neutral act in the same way eating ice cream is.
In the same vein that you said that the killing of the Amorite children was a moral Right under the command of God, doesn’t that also lead us to the conclusion that not killing the Amorite children was a moral Wrong? By an Israelite not participating in the killing of an Amorite child, for the sake of argument we can agree that these commands are confined to a specific place and time, isn’t he committing a moral Wrong? A sin of omission as it were. At that specific place and time was it morally Wrong for an Israelite who had the means and opportunity not to kill a male Amorite child?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 11:55:47 AM · #742 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I think your analogy fails complete due to the fact that “eating ice cream” is not a moral issue. It’s a question of nutrition, yes, but whether you eat ice cream before or after dinner is not a question of Right or Wrong. If your children to ate ice cream before dinner against your command, you wouldn’t be angry with them for eating ice cream, you would be angry with them for eating ice cream in disobedience of your command. The act of eating the ice cream itself is morally neutral. Killing Amorite children is not a morally neutral act in the same way eating ice cream is.
In the same vein that you said that the killing of the Amorite children was a moral Right under the command of God, doesn’t that also lead us to the conclusion that not killing the Amorite children was a moral Wrong? By an Israelite not participating in the killing of an Amorite child, for the sake of argument we can agree that these commands are confined to a specific place and time, isn’t he committing a moral Wrong? A sin of omission as it were. At that specific place and time was it morally Wrong for an Israelite who had the means and opportunity not to kill a male Amorite child? |
A few things:
1) Would it be easier for you to ask, "Is killing always wrong?" The answer is "no". Is killing sometimes right? The answer is "yes". The ice cream merely pointed out in analogy that how an action is viewed can differ simply based on the timing. I can come up with something more complex if you want.
2) The whole conversation has a bit of paradox to it. It seems at the bottom that you are implying that what God commanded was "wrong", but for you to truly do that you have to have a sense of what is "right". Unless you are simply saying, "I believe God was wrong." I don't know what other moral measuring stick you are holding up. So we are back to saying "afraid not" and "afraid so". If you feel placing the standard of morality into God's nature is the same thing, I disagree. It is different for someone within the universe to say "I hold the seat of morality" and for the creator of the universe to say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:04:45 PM · #743 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what other moral measuring stick you are holding up. |
A personal one? The same one Christians use to justify slavery as God's declaration of Right at one time and reject it at another? Milo's just pointing out your own inconsistency:
God says "Thou shalt not kill" = killing is wrong
God is unchanging and perfect = "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't change = killing is always wrong
God says it's OK for this group to kill these kids at this time = WTF?
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:07:14. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:16:07 PM · #744 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what other moral measuring stick you are holding up. |
A personal one? The same one Christians use to justify slavery as God's declaration of Right at one time and reject it at another? Milo's just pointing out your own inconsistency:
God says "Thou shalt not kill" = killing is wrong
God is unchanging and perfect = "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't change = killing is always wrong
God says it's OK for this group to kill these kids at this time = WTF? |
The word "ratsach" is translated far more often as "murder". In fact the NIV (likely a much more rigorous translation than the KJV) uses the word in the very verse you quote. Is killing synonynous with murder?
The KJV translates the word as slayer/slain/manslayer 21 times, murderer/murder 17 times and kill 5 times.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:18:14.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:26:22 PM · #745 |
Is it ever translated as, for example, Thou Shalt Not Murder (except for Amorite males under the age of ...)?
If they were juveniles, they would, by definition, not be responsible for their actions, and therefore not subject to criminal prosecution/punishment -- killing them has then got to be "murder" or "manslayer" or "killing" or something other than capital punishment -- I'm not aware of any other form of state-sanctioned killing (CIA excepted, of course) ... |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:29:34 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few things:
1) Would it be easier for you to ask, "Is killing always wrong?" The answer is "no". Is killing sometimes right? The answer is "yes". The ice cream merely pointed out in analogy that how an action is viewed can differ simply based on the timing. I can come up with something more complex if you want. |
The above brings me back to the conclusion that you earlier argument “CS Lewis takes this innate sense of good and evil to be evidence for God” must fail. If killing children in one circumstance is Right and killing children in a different circumstance is Wrong, then there is no “innate sense” of Right and Wrong and that sense is an illusions contingent upon circumstance. God’s so-called absolute morality is not absolute.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) The whole conversation has a bit of paradox to it. It seems at the bottom that you are implying that what God commanded was "wrong", but for you to truly do that you have to have a sense of what is "right". Unless you are simply saying, "I believe God was wrong." I don't know what other moral measuring stick you are holding up. So we are back to saying "afraid not" and "afraid so". If you feel placing the standard of morality into God's nature is the same thing, I disagree. It is different for someone within the universe to say "I hold the seat of morality" and for the creator of the universe to say the same thing. |
If, by definition, God’s behavior can only be moral, anything God does must be considered moral regardless of any proclaimed absolutes of morality. “Welcome to the NEW absolute morality.” If your standards of morality are measured against a God whose standard of morality can change, then the standard to which you appeal can not be considered as absolute.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:36:54. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:36:04 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If they were juveniles, they would, by definition, not be responsible for their actions, and therefore not subject to criminal prosecution/punishment -- killing them has then got to be "murder" or "manslayer" or "killing" or something other than capital punishment -- I'm not aware of any other form of state-sanctioned killing (CIA excepted, of course) ... |
Have we not been carrying out state-sanctioned killing in Iraq for 40 months now? You may want to warn the soldiers before charges are filed...
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:36:50.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:39:35 PM · #748 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Have we not been carrying out state-sanctioned killing in Iraq for 40 months now? You may want to warn the soldiers before charges are filed... |
Well, yeah ... and there's Darfur and all kinds of other places. I guess I meant the personal, hand-to-hand killing of specified individuals, not bombing/shooting untargeted rockets at population centers. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:43:15 PM · #749 |
Milo, I think you were mixing up two senses of the word absolute.
God's morality is absolute in the sense there is no other measuring stick. His is the last word; the only word.
You are trying to say that any decree is absolute in that it holds in all circumstances. I think this is a strawman. That would be a very inflexible and nonsophisticated morality (the six-year-old morality, once again). Even my two-year-old understands it's good to pee in the potty, but not good to pee on the couch.
I'm about ready to drop the Amorite argument because you all seem to stubbornly pretend that war is never justified. Did we as Americans say that in the 1940's it was ok to kill Japanese? Would we say that holds now?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:54:54 PM · #750 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm about ready to drop the Amorite argument because you all seem to stubbornly pretend that war is never justified. Did we as Americans say that in the 1940's it was ok to kill Japanese? Would we say that holds now? |
I have never pretended that war is never justified nor have I ever made that claim. I’m asking does war necessitate the intentional killing of children? For the purposes of your argument you are equating the intentional killing of children during a time of war with the war itself. They are not equal.
|
|
