how to turn a believer

[koti]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

My old rugby jersey has never been seen in a lab. God has also never been seen in a lab. They have this in common.

I was going to write that puppypower has never been seen in a lab but yours is less invasive, +1.

[Eric H]

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 4:21 PM, DrP said:

 but outlawing this behaviour seriously reduces the cases of it happening I would think. If rape was legal then more people would do it.  It isn't and that is deterrent enough to stop some people.   

 

I think the law of God is a profound subject, in as much that all the law hangs and depends on loving God and our neighbour. We are given a conscience to know the difference between good and evil, so if we could truthfully love our neighbours as we love our selves in a kind way, we should not need any other laws. I cannot understand why anyone would rape, especially when the victim is a child, and the perpetrator is a priest. They above all people should know that they will have to stand before God.

God's law of love extends to justice for the poor and the oppressed. The bosses at Apple are worth billions, yet their Chinese workers earn less than a couple of dollars an hour. Customers flock to buy the latest Apple gadget, and ignore the abject misery of the people who make Apple products. Thousands of children die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty and preventable disease. If we truly loved all our neighbours as we love ourselves, then there should be a wage justice for all people. Sadly imposable to do as the law of greed rules the earth.

[Prometheus]

48 minutes ago, Eric H said:

 We are given a conscience to know the difference between good and evil, so if we could truthfully love our neighbours as we love our selves in a kind way, we should not need any other laws.

According to Christian mythology God didn't give us the ability to discriminate good and evil, it was the snake that encouraged us to taste of those fruits.

 

51 minutes ago, Eric H said:

I cannot understand why anyone would rape, especially when the victim is a child, and the perpetrator is a priest.

Yes, it makes no sense if you take the Christian narrative seriously, but from an evolutionary point of view it is to be expected: these behaviours can be seen in some degree in most mammals. As a species we are improving though: life now is less violent and more equitable than centuries and millennia ago.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Eric H said:

I think the law of God is a profound subject ...

I don't think there is any such thing.

But if there is, why should it be your god? Why not another one?

[koti]

40 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Yes, it makes no sense if you take the Christian narrative seriously, but from an evolutionary point of view it is to be expected: these behaviours can be seen in some degree in most mammals. As a species we are improving though: life now is less violent and more equitable than centuries and millennia ago.

Evolution is nothing compared to the atrocities in the Christian narrative:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.html

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Eric H said:

I think the law of God is a profound subject, in as much that all the law hangs and depends on loving God and our neighbour. We are given a conscience to know the difference between good and evil, so if we could truthfully love our neighbours as we love our selves in a kind way, we should not need any other laws. I cannot understand why anyone would rape, especially when the victim is a child, and the perpetrator is a priest. They above all people should know that they will have to stand before God.

God's law of love extends to justice for the poor and the oppressed. The bosses at Apple are worth billions, yet their Chinese workers earn less than a couple of dollars an hour. Customers flock to buy the latest Apple gadget, and ignore the abject misery of the people who make Apple products. Thousands of children die needlessly every day as a result of grinding poverty and preventable disease. If we truly loved all our neighbours as we love ourselves, then there should be a wage justice for all people. Sadly imposable to do as the law of greed rules the earth.

Fundamentally we are animals. As such our instinctive behaviours are ones that, generally, promote procreation of the species. As animals we respond especially positively to those who are close kin to us, or are perceived as being close kin. Consequently we tend to be largely indifferent to the plight of starving millions in Africa, or exploited millions in China. Note that charities advertising for donations don't talk about the thousands who die every day from malnutrition, or contaminated water, but single out one individual. This is intended to, and often does, evoke a sympathetic response because we can relate to that single individual whose story is made known to us. And then our conscience kicks in.

But, as I said, we are animals. The conscience was not given to us by God, but is a subtle expression of behaviors and decision making arising out of the evolutionary value of cooperation. Primates are, by and large, sociable animals for whom cooperation is important. And we are good primates.

As Prometheus noted, as a species, we are slowly becoming less violent, more cooperative, marginally less selfish. Given that we now have the power to destroy the human race, or devastate the biosphere, this is a good thing. Deluding ourselves into believing the contradictory theologies of one or other religion is unlikely to help in that matter. (And I've always found it rather distasteful that many Christians choose to do good because it may get them into Heaven. I choose to do good because the instinct for cooperation is quite strong in me, reinforced by my environmental upbringing. It's not going to get me into an imaginary heaven, nor does it merit any particular praise. )

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Yes, it makes no sense if you take the Christian narrative seriously, but from an evolutionary point of view it is to be expected: these behaviours can be seen in some degree in most mammals. As a species we are improving though: life now is less violent and more equitable than centuries and millennia ago.

2

If it's evolution causing it then, who are you to say that it's immoral for them to do so?

What makes humans so different from all other animals?

Do we arrest animals who rape other animals?

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

According to Christian mythology God didn't give us the ability to discriminate good and evil, it was the snake that encouraged us to taste of those fruits.

1

No, actually.

According to Christianity, the basic laws of God is written in our hearts.(Romans 2: 12-16)

I.E. Murder, rape, etc, we already know to be morally wrong without anyone having to tell you "Hey! That's wrong!"

[Prometheus]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If it's evolution causing it then, who are you to say that it's immoral for them to do so?

I am a human being and collectively we have decided certain actions are immoral for humans. 

 

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What makes humans so different from all other animals?

We choose to hold ourselves to higher standards. That is all.

 

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, actually.

According to Christianity, the basic laws of God is written in our hearts.(Romans 2: 12-16)

In Genesis 2:17 God commands 'but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,'

In Genesis 3.5 the snake tells us "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Seems God and the snake are both in agreement that knowledge of good and evil will come from eating the forbidden fruit.

Romans 2:15 states 'They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,'

Seems to talk about laws not morals - but maybe things got lost from original translations? Even if we take it to mean morals we just have yet another contradiction and all the more reason to stop taking this book so seriously.

 

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I.E. Murder, rape, etc, we already know to be morally wrong without anyone having to tell you "Hey! That's wrong!"

Some do, some have to be shown why it is wrong, and others never seem to get it. Such variation is natural in a species. The difference in humans is that we have methods to instill empathy into others and so it is possible to show people why we deem certain things as immoral. For some issues (e.g. euthanasia) we're still still trying to work it out.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

In Genesis 2:17 God commands 'but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,'

In Genesis 3.5 the snake tells us "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

It always seemed to me that this was not God saying don't do that, but people saying if you want to understand why God is heavenly, understand why people are people and accept you are people and be content with that.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

In Genesis 2:17 God commands 'but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,'

In Genesis 3.5 the snake tells us "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Seems God and the snake are both in agreement that knowledge of good and evil will come from eating the forbidden fruit.

Romans 2:15 states 'They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,'

Seems to talk about laws not morals - but maybe things got lost from original translations? Even if we take it to mean morals we just have yet another contradiction and all the more reason to stop taking this book so seriously.

1

If both God and the Snake agree on something, so be it.

However, the motives of it were not.

God wanted them to remain innocent, so told them not to eat it.

Snake didn't, so told them to eat it.

 

 

 

Where's the contradiction?

 

[Prometheus]

30 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where's the contradiction?

Morals being written in the hearts of men (as according to Romans) and the knowledge of good and evil (aka morals) being the result of eating the forbidden fruit (according to Genesis). Unless you want to say after the fruit was eaten then knowledge of good and evil was written in the hearts of men - you can make up anything you want. But this whole line if discussion just highlights the point that there can be no sensible discussion when taking the bible literally.

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Morals being written in the hearts of men (as according to Romans) and the knowledge of good and evil (aka morals) being the result of eating the forbidden fruit (according to Genesis). Unless you want to say after the fruit was eaten then knowledge of good and evil was written in the hearts of men - you can make up anything you want. But this whole line if discussion just highlights the point that there can be no sensible discussion when taking the bible literally.

 

Man was with God before Adam ate the fruit. After he ate the fruit, man was separated from God.

There was no need for it to be in man's heart before he ate the fruit. 

 

If you want to say the answer is just being made up then fine. However, it's a simple answer, it makes sense, and it's not complicated. So it's more like simply refusing to believe it's not a contradiction, rather than the answer being made up.

[Prometheus]

This is exactly like a couple of Star Trek ultra fans arguing over some piece of archaic lore while everyone else rolls their eyes wondering how people can miss the point so spectacularly. I mean, damn, they're good TV shows but why do some people have to spoil it by taking it too seriously?

[Raider5678]

Just now, Prometheus said:

This is exactly like a couple of Star Trek ultra fans arguing over some piece of archaic lore while everyone else rolls their eyes wondering how people can miss the point so spectacularly. I mean, damn, they're good TV shows but why do some people have to spoil it by taking it too seriously?

I went back to the original post and I realized I read it wrong.

My apologies.

I thought you were saying that we didn't have the ability to discriminate.

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I went back to the original post and I realized I read it wrong.

My apologies.

I thought you were saying that we didn't have the ability to discriminate.

It happens, thanks for taking the time to look back,  something i can learn. I guess our difference is that i believe this ability to discriminate is something humans have developed, whereas you believe humans were given the ability to discriminate?

Quite aside from issues regarding the lack of evidence of a god i find the former far more appealing too. Morality is something humans do rather than something to follow: it is creation rather than instruction.

[koti]

30 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

This is exactly like a couple of Star Trek ultra fans arguing over some piece of archaic lore while everyone else rolls their eyes wondering how people can miss the point so spectacularly. I mean, damn, they're good TV shows but why do some people have to spoil it by taking it too seriously?

Lore was Data’s evil twin brother and you need to get your facts straight Prometheus. 

[Prometheus]

38 minutes ago, koti said:

Lore was Data’s evil twin brother and you need to get your facts straight Prometheus. 

Damn, i just got owned.

[Bender]

On 16/3/2018 at 10:08 PM, Raider5678 said:

Man was with God before Adam ate the fruit. After he ate the fruit, man was separated from God.

There was no need for it to be in man's heart before he ate the fruit. 

If man could not separate right and wrong, how could he have known it was wrong to disobey and eat the delicious looking fruit?

[Raider5678]

5 hours ago, Bender said:

If man could not separate right and wrong, how could he have known it was wrong to disobey and eat the delicious looking fruit?

Because God told him?

Genesis 3:3 "but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

[Strange]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Because God told him?

Genesis 3:3 "but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

They touched it and didn't die. Does that mean god lied?

But you miss the point: how would they know it was wrong to disobey that instruction if the knowledge right and wrong was the result of eating the forbidden fruit?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

They touched it and didn't die. Does that mean god lied?

But you miss the point: how would they know it was wrong to disobey that instruction if the knowledge right and wrong was the result of eating the forbidden fruit?

They're dead last time I checked. Other wise this whole religious debate wouldn't be taking place.

 

They were told not to. Very specifically told not to eat from that tree.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They're dead last time I checked. Other wise this whole religious debate wouldn't be taking place.

Ah, I may have forgotten (it is about 50 years since I read the bible) does it say they were immortal until they ate the fruit?

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They were told not to.

But they would only obey that instruction if they knew it was wrong not to.

If they don't know right from wrong then the scene could go like this:

The Big Guy: "Don't eat that fruit"

Happy Couple: "OK. We won't"  [cut to them eating fruit]

TBG: "Why did you eat the fruit when I told you not to?"

Eve: "Because it looked nice and we didn't know we shouldn't. We do now so, like ... sorryyy"

Adam: "Oh, and we didn't realise we were lying when we said we wouldn't and then did. We didn't know what a 'lie' was. Do now. Sorry again. I'll get my coat."

TBG: "Coat? COAT!? WTF have I done? I should have listened when her indoors told me to put the tree somewhere else. But no, I had to be all omniscient and insist it was OK. Now, I'll have to apologise..."

Edited March 18, 2018 by Strange
short story!

[Bender]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

Ah, I may have forgotten (it is about 50 years since I read the bible) does it say they were immortal until they ate the fruit?

But they would only obey that instruction if they knew it was wrong not to.

If they don't know right from wrong then the scene could go like this:

The Big Guy: "Don't eat that fruit"

Happy Couple: "OK. We won't"  [cut to them eating fruit]

I'll add an imperfect analogy :

Put candy in a bowl and put it right in front of a two year old toddler while telling him not to touch the candy. How long do you think it would take for the toddler to eat it? Most likely, you won't even have left the room.

The analogy is not perfect, because a toddler already has some concept of right and wrong.

Suppose I start beating the toddler after eating candy I left in his face; how would you judge me?

Besides, Adam would certainly have no concept of "dying" , since according to canon, he had never witnessed, heard about, or otherwise had anything to relate to a human death.

So apart from not knowing it was wrong to disobey, he had no clue what the consequences might be.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Bender

[dimreepr]

If we stop thinking of it literally and think of it as an analogy (which was probably the writer's (human) intention) then it starts to make sense; knowledge is a delicious fruit and with understanding sprinkled on you can eat it in peace and enjoy, but if you eat it without sprinkles it's got a bitter aftertaste and you'll neither be peaceful or enjoy. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If we stop thinking of it literally and think of it as an analogy (which was probably the writer's (human) intention)

A very sensible approach. But  Raider5678 seems to be representing it as areal event.