Why God

[Athena]

I have experienced some people are excessively resistant to the word "God". Not only do they try to end all discussions of God with the insistance that God does not exist, but they are intolerant of anyone using the word "God". This has terrible political ramifications and it is my intention to prove that.

 

In general, civilized people favor rule by law. I recently learned of a sect of Hindus who practice cannibolism and are tolerated India, because they are eating only dead bodies cermated in the open or left in the river. This is perhaps more freedom than most of are comfortable with. At least some ecologist might object to leaving our dead bodies in the river. But exactly what do we mean by rule by law?

 

Organized religion will tell you it is essential to know and obey God's laws. Okay, and how do we know God's laws? I have absolturely objection to the notion that we must obey God's laws. It is how we come to know God's laws that I question. Personally, I believe accepting an ancient tribal notion of God, and excluding all others, is wishful thinking lacking in critical thinking. Wanting to believe in a Zues like God, who has favorites, and does things by whim, depending on if he is pleased or not, is like wanting to believe in Santa Claus. This is not the philosophical understanding of God that evolved through Athens philosophers. This philoosphical God does not rule by whim. If we are punished or rewarded, depends 100% on our own knowlegde and judgment. We can not change the outcome of our actions, by buring candles or scarificing animals, or paying to God that even if we eat the whole pie, we will not get fat. God just does not work that way.

 

In sharp contrast to the God of Abraham is Hellenism. Before Rome attempted to extreminate the Christians, at least one Greek leader attempted to exterminate the Jews and their superstitous notions. At this time, the Greeks did not have an argument with the notion of one God, because their understanding of God had advanced to accepting this reality. Rather it was a matter of who got to define God, and Hellenist did not like the Jewish understanding of God. Like this one dude ordered circumsized babies be killed and hung around their mother's necks, and then the mother was to be killed, for no reason other than objection to the Jewish understanding of God and wanting to rid the the region of those who clung to the God of Abraham. This resulted in the Macabee rebelliong, but that is getting off track.

 

The root of Greek consciousness is of a family of gods and goddesses. Truly, humanity would not have advanced intellectually, without all these gods and goddesses. Each god and goddess is a concept, and by having them interact, our human intellect was rapidly advanced. The same as today, one science advances another. Greek mythology is the language of civilization, and Rome imitated it for the purpose of creating Rome. That is we create civilizations, we manifest them, through our consciousness. At the height of Athens power and glory, the philosophers asked, "how do the Gods resolve their differences". They concluded, reason is the controlling force of the universe, and even the Gods themselves are subject to this reason. That is, rule by law is understanding the reason behind the universe. Not a God like Zeus, but the force that is above even Zeus. Now how do we know this law? We know it by studying nature. That is, we come to know how the universe works by studying it and studying human nature, and then we do what scientist do. We use our words to define the laws. Then we argue with each other, until we have a consensus that the law is the true and good. However, things do not stop here, because we continue looking for more information and hold the right and duty to argue for a change in the law, if new information reveals the change necessary.

 

In the beginning of the US, it was asked, to whom does God give His authority? The argeed answer is, everyone. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson writes of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. We could just as easily call our Declaration of Independence a Declaration of Responsbility, because it holds each one of us responsible for our institutions and laws. Now, from the times of ancient Athens this God trumps even the power of kings. So a king orders a man slain and that his body rot in fields, but his sister buries him. The angry king ask her why she dare ignore is commendment, knowing the penalty of violating his order is death, and she aruges, even before kings, sisters buried their brothers. That is, there is law greater the law of kings. THIS IS POLITICALLY, VITALLY IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAVE BECOME TECNOLOGICAL CORRECT AND FORGOTTEN THIS LITTLE PIECE OF THE MEANING OF RULE BY LAW.

 

Atheist and all those who are completely intolerant of any notion of God, are condemning us to a new tyranny. The tyranny of an all power human bureaucracy and technological correctness. Rule by man's law exclusively, threatens to totally crush our individual liberty and power. Only by maintinaing a notion of God can we protect our liberty.

[michel123456]

I agree and disagree.

I am astonished that you state simultaneously "reason is the controlling force of the universe," and "Only by maintinaing a notion of God can we protect our liberty." I cannot follow how you filled the gap between the 2 sentences.

 

I prefer reason. Alone.

You can add to reason anything you please, even God.

Simply, I won't.

 

You have described how terrible situations occured due to a difference in religion. I don't want this to happen again.

Edited December 27, 2010 by michel123456

[Ringer]

I completely and utterly disagree with the statement that living only by man's laws will crush our liberty and power. If god says killing people is alright, does that make it so. No it doesn't it's still wrong. God cannot make something right by saying it is so. And what notion of god should we use to protect our liberty; new testament, old testament, Krishna, etc.

[Marat]

It is interesting that you associate Zeus with the notion of an arbitrary, unjust god, since for the Ancient Greeks, one of the incarnated aspects of Zeus was a 'Zeus Dike,' or 'Zeus the Personification of Justice.'

 

Ever since Kant legal theorists have been at pains to distinguish the rule of morality from the rule of law. The rule of law seeks only to ensure that people in a social context are governed in regular and predictable ways and that whatever rights are defined to exist are preserved according to the rules regulating them. The rule of law can be amoral. Some extreme legal positivists even argue that the rule of law can be completely immoral, so that the legal system of Nazi Germany can be seen as an example of the rule of law in action. Other natural law theorists believe that the rule of law also might have some moral implications, but legal theorist today would assert that it has to be a reflection of morality in every aspect.

[Athena]

I agree and disagree.

I am astonished that you state simultaneously "reason is the controlling force of the universe," and "Only by maintinaing a notion of God can we protect our liberty." I cannot follow how you filled the gap between the 2 sentences.

 

I prefer reason. Alone.

You can add to reason anything you please, even God.

Simply, I won't.

 

You have described how terrible situations occured due to a difference in religion. I don't want this to happen again.

 

Part of the problem is our words, or my failure to figue out the right wording. What does the word reason mean to you? If I say, there is a reason droplets of water fall from the sky and this is God. How do understand what I have said?

[michel123456]

Reason is what says to me not to respond to this question.

[Athena]

I completely and utterly disagree with the statement that living only by man's laws will crush our liberty and power. If god says killing people is alright, does that make it so. No it doesn't it's still wrong. God cannot make something right by saying it is so. And what notion of god should we use to protect our liberty; new testament, old testament, Krishna, etc.

 

 

How would anyone know if God says it is alright to kill? It appears to me you are thinking of a Zues like God. The understanding of God I am using is nothing like Zeus or the God of Abraham. I thought I made that clear? I thought I made it very clear there is no God to please or displease, or make things right by saying so. The problem here is lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy so there is a failure to understand what I am saying. I said, the Greek philosophers concluded even the God's are subject to reason. We are speaking of the organizational force of the unviverse as God. We can not please it or please it, but only discover the laws and live in harmony with them or not. If we jump off the the top of a 10 story building and hit concrete, the impact is deadly, and prayers or burning of candles or animal sacrifices will change this. Now if we figure out a large kite and gust of wind can have a different result, one can safely soaring to the ground, we knows God law and we do not die. Has nothing to do with the whims of a God or a God's judgement, but is all about our knowledge of the law.

 

What notion of god should we use to protect our liberty? How about a notion about ourselves? We can discover God's laws, that is what science does, but we can never be too sure of ourselves and what we think we know. We do not directly experience God, so we can not know his will. We experience God made manifest and we experience this through our senses and our senses are limited. We can lack vital peices of information or be decieved. So if a king orders a man be killed and left to rot in the feild, the sister can argue there is a higher power. This is vital to our liberty. God, the X factor , the higher power is, vital to our liberty.

 

The concept of legal positivism is most important to this discussion. With the discovery of technology, legal positivism became very popular. NAZI Germany made it unpopular but the US has adopted the German model of education for technology and positivism. This is posible because we are unaware of all of it. Only a few well educated people who run for public office and take positions of power have a good understanding of this and the rest of us are easiiy lead. Effectively we are what we defended our democracy against. This link gives us awareness of law without God, and it does completely crush individual liberty and power. Now the sister can no longer argue, before kings sisters buried their brothers, because this does not matter. Legal positivism manifest tyranny. We have gone from understanding going by the letter of the law is tyranny, to believing being technologically correct is the end all. This brings justice with no compassion or wisdom, and that is not my idea of just. It is kind of like the legal system is a dead body, no longer the living spirit of the word. From here we can even imagine this dead body is an evil spirit that does have the power to spread death and kill a nation.

http://plato.stanfor...gal-positivism/

 

Reason is what says to me not to respond to this question.

 

That would be a wise choice if the reasoning I present is over your head, and you are unprepared to engage in this discussion. Heaven knowns, many discussions in these forums are over my head and I stay out of them. However, the political importance of this reasoning is not something people in a democracy should ignore, so I hope you continue to give some thought to these concepts, and come back with better reasoning.

 

It is interesting that you associate Zeus with the notion of an arbitrary, unjust god, since for the Ancient Greeks, one of the incarnated aspects of Zeus was a 'Zeus Dike,' or 'Zeus the Personification of Justice.'

 

Ever since Kant legal theorists have been at pains to distinguish the rule of morality from the rule of law. The rule of law seeks only to ensure that people in a social context are governed in regular and predictable ways and that whatever rights are defined to exist are preserved according to the rules regulating them. The rule of law can be amoral. Some extreme legal positivists even argue that the rule of law can be completely immoral, so that the legal system of Nazi Germany can be seen as an example of the rule of law in action. Other natural law theorists believe that the rule of law also might have some moral implications, but legal theorist today would assert that it has to be a reflection of morality in every aspect.

 

Yes, and Socrates was ordered to recant what he was saying and to remain silent or to drink the hemlock. Thank you for bringing this power struggle into the light. I hope everyone knows, Socrates chose to drink the hemlocik. This act is perhaps on of the known acts of defiance and fight for freedom of speech. You bring up an important point. At no time in history did all people agree. Within our cultures are many coexisting concepts.

 

Democracy is a concept that is still evolving and it is tied to the Laws of Nature. Positivism which was manifest in NAZI Germany, is the emeny of democracy, and this is why I write. I use the name Athena because I favor the Laws and Nature and Nature's God. I very much aprecated your contribution Marat. This moves the discussion forward.

 

How do we know the Laws of Nature and Nature's God? Why should we care? Everyone was ruling with a notion of God, and the belief that their leaders had a special relationship with God, except the Hellenist. Their education was not religious education, but became focused on political education preparing civic leaders. In contrast is Judism and the religious education of every other nation at the time. Jesus and Christianity did not orginate the concept of equality. The Hellenist who had control of Jersalem for awhile, had god's who were different but equal. They were not masters and servants but brothers and sisters, and democracy is an imitation of them. This reasoning impragnated Judism giving birth to Christianity. Yes, the Greeks had slaves and so did the US. Democracy is an ideology of relationships is different from a heirarchy dependent on heridity. The God of Abraham religions place much importance on heridity. That is what makes the arguments of John Locke about the Laws of Nature so important to moving us closer to democracy. He tells us, by the Laws of Nature we have rights. The bible tells us Jews can own slaves, and a slave honors God by being a good slave. The bible would have us believe, it is the will of God that makes some masters and others servants. Positivism isn't backed by the power of God, but neither does it give us the power of nature and human rights. Both religion and positivism serve power. It is the Laws of Nature and Nature's God that protect our individiual power and liberty.

We have to understand Cicero to bridge between the philosophical concept of democracy as it originated from a belief in many god's to the democracy of the US. Cicero was a Roman stateseman who studied in Athenas, and centuries later, was one of the most read authors, bringing us to the democracy of the US. He makes it clear, if we do wrong bad things will happen. That is why bad things are are wrong thing to do. If in a game of poker you make a bad bet, you loose. If we polute rivers and deforest the land, we create problems. If we invade a country unprepared and loose control of the situation, bad things happen. These are Laws of Nataure. Verses thinking we are God favorite people so we will win wars, is as good as carrying a lucky rabits foot. WE CHOOSE TO DO RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THINGS WILL COME OUT GOOD. The moral is, if you make a bad decision, things will come out bad, and if you chose right, things will come out good. Morale is that high spirited feeling that comes out of being moral, and is the Spirit of America. Now how do we determine right?

[Ringer]

How would anyone know if God says it is alright to kill? It appears to me you are thinking of a Zues like God. The understanding of God I am using is nothing like Zeus or the God of Abraham. I thought I made that clear? I thought I made it very clear there is no God to please or displease, or make things right by saying so. The problem here is lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy so there is a failure to understand what I am saying. I said, the Greek philosophers concluded even the God's are subject to reason. We are speaking of the organizational force of the unviverse as God. We can not please it or please it, but only discover the laws and live in harmony with them or not. If we jump off the the top of a 10 story building and hit concrete, the impact is deadly, and prayers or burning of candles or animal sacrifices will change this. Now if we figure out a large kite and gust of wind can have a different result, one can safely soaring to the ground, we knows God law and we do not die. Has nothing to do with the whims of a God or a God's judgement, but is all about our knowledge of the law.

 

Then it appears wrongly. I am under the understanding that in your statements you are arguing for a god that people can understand. If we are to follow 'laws' of this god then the god must have some sort of opinion of right and wrong; what is this god's way of deciding if not by reason? How can we discover these laws if not by reasoning since there isn't a way to please or displease this force. I'm under the assumption that you say god is physical laws, if so then the god is unneeded for the explanation of its laws.

 

What notion of god should we use to protect our liberty? How about a notion about ourselves? We can discover God's laws, that is what science does, but we can never be too sure of ourselves and what we think we know. We do not directly experience God, so we can not know his will. We experience God made manifest and we experience this through our senses and our senses are limited. We can lack vital peices of information or be decieved. So if a king orders a man be killed and left to rot in the feild, the sister can argue there is a higher power. This is vital to our liberty. God, the X factor , the higher power is, vital to our liberty.

 

So believing that something is alright with a higher power makes it alright? So bombing the twin towers is alright?

 

The concept of legal positivism is most important to this discussion. With the discovery of technology, legal positivism became very popular. NAZI Germany made it unpopular but the US has adopted the German model of education for technology and positivism. This is posible because we are unaware of all of it. Only a few well educated people who run for public office and take positions of power have a good understanding of this and the rest of us are easiiy lead. Effectively we are what we defended our democracy against. This link gives us awareness of law without God, and it does completely crush individual liberty and power. Now the sister can no longer argue, before kings sisters buried their brothers, because this does not matter. Legal positivism manifest tyranny. We have gone from understanding going by the letter of the law is tyranny, to believing being technologically correct is the end all. This brings justice with no compassion or wisdom, and that is not my idea of just. It is kind of like the legal system is a dead body, no longer the living spirit of the word. From here we can even imagine this dead body is an evil spirit that does have the power to spread death and kill a nation.

http://plato.stanfor...gal-positivism/

 

Law without god is still law. Law with god tends to represent those who believe in the same god and ignores the will of others.

 

[edit] Double posted [/edit]

 

 

Edited December 29, 2010 by Ringer

[michel123456]

Athena, you made me realize the difference between reason and wisdom.

Although I am far from a god, I used reason to act in wisdom.

Edited December 30, 2010 by michel123456

[Athena]

Then it appears wrongly. I am under the understanding that in your statements you are arguing for a god that people can understand. If we are to follow 'laws' of this god then the god must have some sort of opinion of right and wrong; what is this god's way of deciding if not by reason? How can we discover these laws if not by reasoning since there isn't a way to please or displease this force. I'm under the assumption that you say god is physical laws, if so then the god is unneeded for the explanation of its laws.

 

 

 

So believing that something is alright with a higher power makes it alright? So bombing the twin towers is alright?

 

 

Law without god is still law. Law with god tends to represent those who believe in the same god and ignores the will of others.

 

[edit] Double posted [/edit]

 

 

 

I love your arguments. Yes, I am saying god is physical laws, the laws of animal/human behavior, and quantum physics. I am also saying we might be God's consciousness, however, I question if we have any more importance than a worm. The question gets really complex with we move into quantum physics and things like String Theory and the posisibility of many dimensions. However, for political reasons, I do not question at all, that this God is important to us. Law without God is the same power law that exist when people live under a theocracy. Both are likely to be tyrannical. Legal positivism and theocracy favor the power of some at the expense of others. Only when we rise above our limited perspective and think of the bigger picture, do we understand democracy correctly. Your next question is helpful to the explanation.

 

You ask "So believing that something is alright with a higher power makes it alright? So bombing the twin towers is alright?" Well let us put this to the test. By the way, we could also ask, "So using weapons of mass destruction, to terrorize people and make them submit, is alright?" Because this military action in Baghdad was planned long before 9/11 and this first strike against a nation that was not involved in 9/11 and was not mobilized for war against, was not justified. We know what happened in Iraq was faulty military theory, because the Iraqis did not respond to this "Shock and Awe" attack as Bush and Cheney had hoped. So moving along to your question.

What are the consequences of these actions? Actions are moral if good comes of them. Actions are immoral if bad comes of them. We are talking about the Laws of Nature, about cause and effect right? Keep the bigger view in mind. You can not correctly judge this from your personal point of view, but must try to see these events from a higher perspective. What happened to everyone in involved? (everyone in the world was directly or indirectly involved). What happens over time? (it will be at least 3 generations before those directly effected recover). When looking at the bigger picture, were these acts moral or immoral? Do you a notice a difference in your thinking when you wonder how things might look from a God's perspective, rather than your normal self interested perspective? Not that this God needs us, but we do need him, just a mathematician needs the X factor. God becomes an important thinking tool.

 

You conclude with "Law without god is still law. Law with god tends to represent those who believe in the same god and ignores the will of others." It is for us to understand the Laws of Nature, without that understanding we do not have good laws. Really without an understanding of the Laws of Nature, we don't have the law, but a falsehood. For example, laws supporting slavery violate the Laws of Nature and this violation of the Laws of Nature leads to trouble. I disagree with your conclusiong, because law without God, is a very narrow view and omits too much information and too many possibilities. Law without God holds us down and can be tyrannical. Law with God can raise our human potential and protect us from tyranny. And if you think law with God tends to represent those who believe in a religiously defined God, you have not gotten the concept of God that Greek and Roman philosophers debated, and is what I am writing about. Please, stop giving the Jews, Christians and Moslems that right to define God. They do not have this God given right, and they only have the power to do so if we give it to them.

 

Athena, you made me realize the difference between reason and wisdom.

Although I am far from a god, I used reason to act in wisdom.

 

No you have not acted wisely. You have copped out. Only by sharaing your thoughts, can you move this discussion, and your own thinking, forward. I engage in these discussions, because I enjoy thinking about what I think, and other people's points of view are vital to that process. (remember the many Gods) I do not know what I think, until I begin to communicate my thoughts to someones else. When someone communicates back to me, I realize my thinking errors and I gain insights I would not gained without another point of view.

 

I explain this, because I am explaining what makes democracy superior to all human organizations. Religion holds people back and holds them down. Religion can not manifest God, because it prevents enlightenment. As soon as people believe they konw God, they know God not. They hold their limited understanding of God, in place of knowing God. I think it is a Buddhist monk who told a young man, before he could learn anything, he had to let go of what he thinks he knows. To know God, we must let go of what we think God is. Relgions could never do this, because doing so would put an end to the religious organization. Religous organizations are trapped by the laws of organations. Democracy is not. Unfortunately, the openness of decomcracy can also be its down fall. Only when there is education for democracy in the classroom is it protected, and we stopped doing this when we replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and started thinking of our children as products for industry. This is the Military Industrial Complex of which past president Eisenhower spoke. Or what we once called this the New World Order, and defended our democacy against it. Religion compliments the Military Industrial Complex, and both destroy democracy. Personally, because democracy goes with enlightenment, and is complimented by science, I think it is the way of God. I also know enough to know there is so much more to know that I what I can learn a life time. There is no way I could possibly engage in all the discussions in these forums, because some of them use language that is foriegn to me. My goodness there is so much I do not know. Socrates is known for saying soemthing like "The one thing I know for sure is I do not know". So now how can I possible tell you what is true of God? Come on, let us be reasonable. Religion is not how to know God. Making the comtemplation of God taboo, is closing the door on what we might know. That is like refusing to use the X factor.

 

Bottom line is, unless you are willing to do the thinking, and to share your thoughts, you are not engaged in this discussion and the process of searching for God/truth. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Athena

[Ringer]

I love your arguments. Yes, I am saying god is physical laws, the laws of animal/human behavior, and quantum physics. I am also saying we might be God's consciousness, however, I question if we have any more importance than a worm. The question gets really complex with we move into quantum physics and things like String Theory and the posisibility of many dimensions. However, for political reasons, I do not question at all, that this God is important to us. Law without God is the same power law that exist when people live under a theocracy. Both are likely to be tyrannical. Legal positivism and theocracy favor the power of some at the expense of others. Only when we rise above our limited perspective and think of the bigger picture, do we understand democracy correctly. Your next question is helpful to the explanation.

 

If we are part of god's consciousness then why would our own laws not be representative of, some, god's laws. Now I will not include arbitrary laws that are put forth by 'public safety' such as seat belt laws for vehicles, but it could be included being that this god may not represent reason. On this line of thinking our laws are natural, and if not our laws exactly, the way that our democratic society pans out is no less natural than chimps hierarchy within their societies. I agree with your statement that we may have no evidence that we are no more important than worms, but to assume that the laws of quantum physics, physics of the very small, would apply to us at a societal level I disagree with entirely.

 

You ask "So believing that something is alright with a higher power makes it alright? So bombing the twin towers is alright?" Well let us put this to the test. By the way, we could also ask, "So using weapons of mass destruction, to terrorize people and make them submit, is alright?" Because this military action in Baghdad was planned long before 9/11 and this first strike against a nation that was not involved in 9/11 and was not mobilized for war against, was not justified. We know what happened in Iraq was faulty military theory, because the Iraqis did not respond to this "Shock and Awe" attack as Bush and Cheney had hoped. So moving along to your question.

What are the consequences of these actions? Actions are moral if good comes of them. Actions are immoral if bad comes of them. We are talking about the Laws of Nature, about cause and effect right? Keep the bigger view in mind. You can not correctly judge this from your personal point of view, but must try to see these events from a higher perspective. What happened to everyone in involved? (everyone in the world was directly or indirectly involved). What happens over time? (it will be at least 3 generations before those directly effected recover). When looking at the bigger picture, were these acts moral or immoral? Do you a notice a difference in your thinking when you wonder how things might look from a God's perspective, rather than your normal self interested perspective? Not that this God needs us, but we do need him, just a mathematician needs the X factor. God becomes an important thinking tool.

 

I arbitrarily use 9-11 because it is well known; any mass killing, terrorist acts, etc will serve the purpose just as well. The action in Baghdad was a response to supposed WMDs not of 9-11, though they are commonly tied together because Bush/Cheney liked to talk about them at the same time and, as most people believe, 'the Middle East is the Middle East'. Anyway, along this line of thinking there would be no way to propose laws until we know the eventual outcome. Rape would not be punishable until we know how badly the victim is hurt, and if there is a child that, say, cures cancer, way would it be punished at all. Actions are immoral if people are hurt, moral if people are helped, and amoral if no one is affected. This is my personal view at least.

 

You conclude with "Law without god is still law. Law with god tends to represent those who believe in the same god and ignores the will of others." It is for us to understand the Laws of Nature, without that understanding we do not have good laws. Really without an understanding of the Laws of Nature, we don't have the law, but a falsehood. For example, laws supporting slavery violate the Laws of Nature and this violation of the Laws of Nature leads to trouble. I disagree with your conclusiong, because law without God, is a very narrow view and omits too much information and too many possibilities. Law without God holds us down and can be tyrannical. Law with God can raise our human potential and protect us from tyranny. And if you think law with God tends to represent those who believe in a religiously defined God, you have not gotten the concept of God that Greek and Roman philosophers debated, and is what I am writing about. Please, stop giving the Jews, Christians and Moslems that right to define God. They do not have this God given right, and they only have the power to do so if we give it to them.

 

It seems you are talking about some sort of 'social Darwinism'. Slavery violates no laws of nature; worker bees, worker ants, and many other animals work for only food and shelter with no hope of procreation. I have not once said that I am only discussing Yahweh, the god of the old testament, but all societies that derive their laws of a theistic point of view. I don't care if it was Greek, Roman, Hindi, Zoroaster, Buddah, Krishna, Shiva, (insert god of choice here). I never use 'G' when I write god because I only talk of a title, not of any certain god. Laws are tyrannical in themselves, they reduce freedom of choice. This doesn't make them inherently wrong, I see no less tyranny in allowing an irrational 'force' decide what I should and should not do.

[Athena]

Ringer, you are still imposing religion on the notion of God. Unless you are able to stop doing this, it is futile to continue.

 

Bees are so far from the nature of dogs, primates and humans, I have a problem in understanding the good of your argument. Different species have different natures, and the nature of bees should not applied to the nature of man. However, I am aware of those who argue in favor of political tyranny, comparing humans to bees.

 

The Laws of Nature are essential of manifestion. They are the reason of all things. Without them, there is no manifestion. A civilization is a human organization. The word civilized to conform to a standard. Individuals who do not conform threaten greater organism and the organism must protect itself from this threat. For this reason, civiliations make it taboo to kill and cannibolize another, unless this action is strictly control by ritual. The uncontrolled individual being a threat to the whole. Laws are about the organization of humans, the manifestion of a civilization. Only when they are compatible with the Laws of Nature will they result in good instead of destruction. As far as I know, humans are the only species that can take thinking to this level. This does not happen naturally, but the human brain must be developed through education to be able to do this. It is understanding there is a higher order, and we are all subject to that order. Since the beginning of philosopher this higher order has been referred to as God. I am concerned that without this concept, it is not what human beings do. When people function with no concept of higher order beyond tangible reality, they can not achieve the human potential, and may even be destructive to the civilization.

 

I am afraid your materialistic education killed your imagination and caused a form of blindness. When a civilization does this to its population, it becomes incapable of creation and begins to atrophy. Civilizations die when they can no longer manage the complex problems emerging from the human organization. Your thinking seems to be limited to tangible reality and this is not the whole of reality. Matters of the spirit are not tangible, and yet they are very powerful. What is your understanding of spirit? "Morale is that high spirited feeling that comes of out believing we are doing the thing. It is the American spirit." "The market is falling because we have trust in our institution." What do those words and the concept of spirit, mean to you? What does "a higher order" mean to you?

 

Sorry, I have run out of time and can not address the rest of you arguments right now. I want to thank for your stimulating contibution.

[lemur]

I completely and utterly disagree with the statement that living only by man's laws will crush our liberty and power. If god says killing people is alright, does that make it so. No it doesn't it's still wrong. God cannot make something right by saying it is so. And what notion of god should we use to protect our liberty; new testament, old testament, Krishna, etc.

 

The point, and I think the OP expressed it well, is that without a concept of super-human authority, "kings," "priests," or other human authorities claim to have absolute sovereignty. Most recently, absolutism has been justified on the basis of cultural autonomy with the idea that cultural knowledge is always true relative to itself. In this way, individuals fail to question cultural authority because they are told that it is arbitrary and you either accept it or reject the culture as a whole. Super-human or super-cultural authority, whether called, "God," "Reason," "Truth," or whatever, offers the potential of contesting culturally-relative knowledge and arbitrary human authority. In other words, regardless of the status of a human authority, you can contest that authority on the grounds that it is simply wrong, without having to ground your reasoning in some arbitrary paradigmatic assumptions. If all knowledge and truth are paradigmatic and culturally relevant, human authority becomes supreme and the technocracy of an elite who has developed their arbitrary knowledge to a refined level of exclusivity will be able to endless dictate truth without having any accountability to defensible reason. I.e. "there doesn't have to be reason because it is just the way things are because some human says so."

[Athena]

Wow Lemur, I see I seriously need to up date my vocabulary. It is so frustrating to have a thought and not the right words to express it. I thought I was doing well when I came across term "legal positivism", but I remained frustrated in making the threat of "legal positivism" and why we must have a concept of God, clear. You did a beautiful job of explaining this. How do we do this? You are using very sophisticated words and they do express the concept very well, but this is so far from bible stories which are more appealing to less educated person. How might we bridge this intellectual gap? Speaking in parables gets human interest, but the bible is tied to an unbeleiveable God, so many are rejecting bible, and are not learning some necessary concepts that are expressed well in the bible. I am referring to the concepts that kept us free and made it possible for someone to make a mistake and get a new start without being marginalized as we are marginalizing people today.

 

Without the bible, we are nurturing political and social tyranny, but religion has shot itself in the foot. By forgetting the bible says we can not know God, and deifying Jesus, giving people a believable, human God, tied to superstitious notions, they have recreated an unbelievable God. Now we are forced to believe an unbeleivable God, or deny any concept of God at all. In fact, some forums, prohibit the use of the word "God" as I use the word, so the discussion can never advance beyond, "There is no such thing as God". I have been banned for using the word "God" as a reality, and not just my personal belief. We are so trapped by the belief of a false God, it seems futile to move a discussion outside of the trap. These well meaning folks are making the same mistake of preventing freedom of thought and speech as the church made when it was peurscuting heritics. This forum is proving superior to others for allowing this discussion, and I am extremely thankful to you Lemur for taking this discussion to the political level that is so important.

[Ringer]

Ringer, you are still imposing religion on the notion of God. Unless you are able to stop doing this, it is futile to continue.

 

god by its definition is religious; to assume otherwise is futile. If you want to dissuade me from thinking of your argument in a religious viewpoint I would use a different word than god, deity, etc.

 

Bees are so far from the nature of dogs, primates and humans, I have a problem in understanding the good of your argument. Different species have different natures, and the nature of bees should not applied to the nature of man. However, I am aware of those who argue in favor of political tyranny, comparing humans to bees.

 

Alright, how about the rape that is so prevalent in orangutans. Chimps social structure use what looks similar to monarchies with alpha males taking women and being overthrown. Gorillas have one male controlling a hoard of females in his territory. All these things are fought for constantly. Personally, I wouldn't follow laws that promote actions such as these because they are 'natural'.

 

The Laws of Nature are essential of manifestion. They are the reason of all things. Without them, there is no manifestion. A civilization is a human organization. The word civilized to conform to a standard. Individuals who do not conform threaten greater organism and the organism must protect itself from this threat. For this reason, civiliations make it taboo to kill and cannibolize another, unless this action is strictly control by ritual. The uncontrolled individual being a threat to the whole. Laws are about the organization of humans, the manifestion of a civilization. Only when they are compatible with the Laws of Nature will they result in good instead of destruction. As far as I know, humans are the only species that can take thinking to this level. This does not happen naturally, but the human brain must be developed through education to be able to do this. It is understanding there is a higher order, and we are all subject to that order. Since the beginning of philosopher this higher order has been referred to as God. I am concerned that without this concept, it is not what human beings do. When people function with no concept of higher order beyond tangible reality, they can not achieve the human potential, and may even be destructive to the civilization.

 

So you propose laws that promote nonconformity, but aren't laws by their definition an attempt for everyone to follow the same rules? That would cause conformity in the most obvious of ways. What makes you believe that human thinking does not happen naturally? What evidence is there that something else was in effect to cause our intelligence, whatever that may be, to be enhanced. You say this intelligence is only gained through education, but that is a circular argument; Why do we educate? higher intelligence. How did we get higher intelligence? education.

 

I am afraid your materialistic education killed your imagination and caused a form of blindness. When a civilization does this to its population, it becomes incapable of creation and begins to atrophy. Civilizations die when they can no longer manage the complex problems emerging from the human organization. Your thinking seems to be limited to tangible reality and this is not the whole of reality. Matters of the spirit are not tangible, and yet they are very powerful. What is your understanding of spirit? "Morale is that high spirited feeling that comes of out believing we are doing the thing. It is the American spirit." "The market is falling because we have trust in our institution." What do those words and the concept of spirit, mean to you? What does "a higher order" mean to you?

 

I find it amusing you say in your last paragraph that education must be used to develop the brain, but now say my education has ruined my imagination. What am I blinded to? I see your argument, although some points I may be misinterpreting, and just disagree with its standpoint. This has nothing to do with my formal education, it has to do with my personal outlook. Civilizations die for many reasons; war, famine, corruption, etc. This is not just because they did not follow the laws of nature; indeed, part of nature is the breakdown of structure. You ask what my understanding of the spirit is, yet earlier asked that I leave religion out of the discussion. What is the spirit but a religious belief in something more. I am not saying they do not exist, I am merely stating that you ask religious questions without wanting religious discussions. What these things mean to me personally has nothing to do with a true discussion. Connotation is not useful in discussion, only denotation.

 

I end this with a quote from Richard Feynman that I think talks of the imagination of science quite well, "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

 

 

 

 

[Athena]

Ringer

I arbitrarily use 9-11 because it is well known; any mass killing, terrorist acts, etc will serve the purpose just as well. The action in Baghdad was a response to supposed WMDs not of 9-11, though they are commonly tied together because Bush/Cheney liked to talk about them at the same time and, as most people believe, 'the Middle East is the Middle East'. Anyway, along this line of thinking there would be no way to propose laws until we know the eventual outcome. Rape would not be punishable until we know how badly the victim is hurt, and if there is a child that, say, cures cancer, way would it be punished at all. Actions are immoral if people are hurt, moral if people are helped, and amoral if no one is affected. This is my personal view at least.

 

We need to debate this, because it is about understanding God. If you are using a lawn mower and the grass gets stuck in the blade, and you neglect to turn it off before sticking your hand in to pull out the grass, what will happen? Is the result of the consequences changed by your knowledge or lack or knowledge? No it is not. Only if we do not take the action can you prevent the blades from cutting our hand. We choose to do the right thing, because we understand the consequences of action will be what it will be.

 

It is when we act in ignorance that we do wrong. We can think of 9/11 and attacking Iraq like Pandora opening the box. Do you know the story of Pandora and the box? A God gave man fire knowing Zues did not want man to have the technology of fire. Zues was afraid, with the technology of fire, man would learn all other technologies and then forget the gods. He could not take the knowledge away from man, once he had it, but he created the first woman and gave her the first man, and a wedding gift. That wedding gift was a box with all the miseries. When Pandora opened it, out flew all the miseries, It is these miseries that have slowed us down, extending the time it has taken us to believe we are so smart we don't need the gods. Okay, when Bin Laden sent planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which is the military force behind the World Trade Organization, on the 11 th day of the 9 th month, he was attacking the US by the New World Order, and 911 is our code for an emergancy. This act was a message to the world, sent with good intensions. However, the consequences of this act was not what he wanted. Just like stinking your hand in the mower blades, would done with good intentions, but get undesired consequences. The Neo Con's had planned the military take over of the middle east long before 9/11 and they made this public on the Internet at the sight for the New Century American project. This was taking what Reagan started, when he lied to us about needing to conserve oil a step futher. The Neo Cons had good intentions too, and did not expect the consequences of "Shock and Awe" and their "Power and Glory" to come out so badly.

 

If an act is moral or not, does not depend on our knowledge. However, if we have a higher spiritual morality we do not make these mistakes. All the religions teach, don't do something to someone that you do not want done to you. That is not a complex idea. Even young children can understand it. Still we might make mistakes, such as forgetting to turn off the lawn mower before pulling out the grass, but are less apt to hurt someone else. It takes science to know what deforestation does and what poluting rivers does. Priimitive people understood the rules of the game, without advanced science, but it was through the process of observation and thinking things that some of them knew if they damaged their environment they would hurt themselves. The people on Easter Island, fgiured this out too late and faced a mass die off.

 

As some ancients figured out, we do better when we understand the Laws of Nature. For ancient Greeks.meant to know the law and good manners. That law is universeal law, not man made laws which vary from culture to culture. This is to know God. Cicero believed when we all knew the Laws and built our governing laws upon them, we would have peace and the world would be a better place.

 

I'm out of time, but Ringer this thread is in a philosophy forum, because God is a philosophical consideration, not limited to religion.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Athena

[Ringer]

We need to debate this, because it is about understanding God. If you are using a lawn mower and the grass gets stuck in the blade, and you neglect to turn it off before sticking your hand in to pull out the grass, what will happen? Is the result of the consequences changed by your knowledge or lack or knowledge? No it is not. Only if we do not take the action can you prevent the blades from cutting our hand. We choose to do the right thing, because we understand the consequences of action will be what it will be.

 

I don't see what this has to do with understanding god. Putting aside that all the lawnmowers I know of have a failsafe if you take your hands off the handle the blades stop spinning now; the result is a consequence of knowledge. Perhaps I didn't know the blades were still spinning. This could also be prevented with action, not only lack of action, of turning the blades off before I put my hands there. Though none of that is moral or immoral, the mower is an amoral, inanimate being therefore my being cut is not in the realm of moral philosophy.

 

It is when we act in ignorance that we do wrong. We can think of 9/11 and attacking Iraq like Pandora opening the box. Do you know the story of Pandora and the box? A God gave man fire knowing Zues did not want man to have the technology of fire. Zues was afraid, with the technology of fire, man would learn all other technologies and then forget the gods. He could not take the knowledge away from man, once he had it, but he created the first woman and gave her the first man, and a wedding gift. That wedding gift was a box with all the miseries. When Pandora opened it, out flew all the miseries, It is these miseries that have slowed us down, extending the time it has taken us to believe we are so smart we don't need the gods. Okay, when Bin Laden sent planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which is the military force behind the World Trade Organization, on the 11 th day of the 9 th month, he was attacking the US by the New World Order, and 911 is our code for an emergancy. This act was a message to the world, sent with good intensions. However, the consequences of this act was not what he wanted. Just like stinking your hand in the mower blades, would done with good intentions, but get undesired consequences. The Neo Con's had planned the military take over of the middle east long before 9/11 and they made this public on the Internet at the sight for the New Century American project. This was taking what Reagan started, when he lied to us about needing to conserve oil a step futher. The Neo Cons had good intentions too, and did not expect the consequences of "Shock and Awe" and their "Power and Glory" to come out so badly.

 

 

Zeus didn't hide fire from mortals out of fear; it was punishment for Prometheus' tricking Zeus. I can't remember the exact details, but it had something to do with sacrifice. Also, Zeus didn't create Pandora Hephaestus did, though it was ordered by Zeus. Though I don't see how this mythology has to do with laws. How was 9-11 done 'with good intentions'? If that was done so, it could be equally said about the Holocaust. I am not arguing that actions won't have unforeseen consequences, but we can't base laws solely on intent.

 

If an act is moral or not, does not depend on our knowledge. However, if we have a higher spiritual morality we do not make these mistakes. All the religions teach, don't do something to someone that you do not want done to you. That is not a complex idea. Even young children can understand it. Still we might make mistakes, such as forgetting to turn off the lawn mower before pulling out the grass, but are less apt to hurt someone else. It takes science to know what deforestation does and what poluting rivers does. Priimitive people understood the rules of the game, without advanced science, but it was through the process of observation and thinking things that some of them knew if they damaged their environment they would hurt themselves. The people on Easter Island, fgiured this out too late and faced a mass die off.

That quote is actually Confucius teaching, not all religions. Your arguments are starting to contradict themselves our knowledge comes from this spiritual morality, yet we cannot depend on our knowledge to choose what is moral or not. By being alive we face death on large scales, our knowledge doesn't make any impact on that other than figuring out how to survive.

 

 

As some ancients figured out, we do better when we understand the Laws of Nature. For ancient Greeks.meant to know the law and good manners. That law is universeal law, not man made laws which vary from culture to culture. This is to know God. Cicero believed when we all knew the Laws and built our governing laws upon them, we would have peace and the world would be a better place.

 

Perhaps we could have a better discussion if these laws were put forth. It seems that you are being vague saying only laws of nature. If we are to build upon them I would like to know what specific actions I am arguing against.

 

 

I'm out of time, but Ringer this thread is in a philosophy forum, because God is a philosophical consideration, not limited to religion.

Again I disagree, although god isn't limited to a single religious ideal, it is still a theological idea that is rooted in religion.

 

 

[Athena]

I don't see what this has to do with understanding god. Putting aside that all the lawnmowers I know of have a failsafe if you take your hands off the handle the blades stop spinning now; the result is a consequence of knowledge. Perhaps I didn't know the blades were still spinning. This could also be prevented with action, not only lack of action, of turning the blades off before I put my hands there. Though none of that is moral or immoral, the mower is an amoral, inanimate being therefore my being cut is not in the realm of moral philosophy. [/Quote]

 

Hum, how do we work this out? A moral is a matter of cause and effect. Something is good when good results. Something is bad when bad results. Keep in mind the Lady of Justice holds a scale to weigh the good and bad. Few things are all good or all bad.

 

We used to read children moral stories like "The Little Red Hen" and "The Little That Could" and "The Fox and the Grapes" or mythological stories too. At the end of the story we would ask, "What is the moral of that story". Using the example of cutting one's hand in the blades of a mower, the moral is be sure the lawn mower is turned off before removing the grass that has stopped the blades. Our whole national concept of moral has been perverted by leaving moral training to the church, leading us to believe morals are the result of religion instead of our ability to learn and reason. This has terrible conquences legally and politically.

 

 

Zeus didn't hide fire from mortals out of fear; it was punishment for Prometheus' tricking Zeus. I can't remember the exact details, but it had something to do with sacrifice. Also, Zeus didn't create Pandora Hephaestus did, though it was ordered by Zeus. Though I don't see how this mythology has to do with laws. How was 9-11 done 'with good intentions'? If that was done so, it could be equally said about the Holocaust. I am not arguing that actions won't have unforeseen consequences, but we can't base laws solely on intent.

[/Quote]

 

Oh, oh now we have a serious argument. I was there, so I know what really happened. Zeus did not want man to have the technology of fire, because he feared with the technology of fire, man would desicover all other technologies. Look it up, I am sure this is why he had the woman created and gave her the box of miseries to slow man down. And I want to say, I so appreciate your arguments, because you push my thoughts forward.

 

I think both the story of Adam and Eve and Pandora and the box, come from the Sumerian story of Eden and a flood. I would wish I had the math skills required to test this, anyway- I was thinking when I signed off yesterday, that in away, both stories are about the danger of the unknown. 9/11 and invading Iraq are also stories about the unknown. These events set in motion, unintended consequences. The older we get, the more we fear the unknown, but at age 18 we love the excitement of the unknown and tend to act without too much thinking. We can understand Sin as a state of ignorance. Socrates taught that the way to avoid sin is to raise consciousness. When we understand bad things will result from our action, we don't take the action. The point here is the danger of the unknown, be it Adam and Eve, Pandora and the box or stories of rash human actions.

 

Without the gods, we are technologically smart but not wise. Amoral science is dangerous. It is failing to look at things from a higher point of view, and failure to realise the bigger picture. it is dangerous limited thinking. The scientist who worked on the nuclear bomb celebrated when they heard their bomb hit Japan and was a success. Moments later some of them realized the human consequences of this bomb, and felt the dread of the human consequences of their scientific success. If we could get the masses to realize the human consequences of nuclear war, they would insist on putting an end to that threat, but we live paradoxically in fear and denial. When we insist there is no God, and push for amoral science, we are proving how right Zeus was to do he could to slow us down. It makes the miseries a kindness.

 

that quote is actually Confucius teaching, not all religions. Your arguments are starting to contradict themselves our knowledge comes from this spiritual morality, yet we cannot depend on our knowledge to choose what is moral or not. By being alive we face death on large scales, our knowledge doesn't make any impact on that other than figuring out how to survive. [/Quote]

 

I approve of Confuciius' morality up to a point. China was the most technologically advanced nation in the world, until Confucius' morality stopped changed, and fixiated China on tradition. Hum, religion does the same thing. The fear of change, or the unknown is expressed in the story of Adam and Eve and Pandora and the box. I seriously do not believe I have contradicted myself, because everything I say is about the relationship of morals and reason.

 

Our knowledge has everything to do with our moral choices. We do not do something when we know what we are doing is wrong, unless we can justify our wrong, or have a mental dis-order. Unfortunately, humans are prone to mental dis-order, acting on obsessive thinking, urges, and strong emotions, and are not always controlled by their higher reasoning. When this became scientific fact through Fraud and others, it undermined the ideology of living with rule by reason. It was argued, we are not just rational beings, but also emotional beings, therefore, we must have authority above us. This brings us to another reason we must have God. Our reasoning can be faulty, and our emotions can devastate our ability to reason, so we seriously need a concept of God to pull us through our worst moments, and direct us in the right direction. This works because it gives us an ideal of goodness that is very effective in assisting our judgment and curbing our more primitive urges.

 

 

Perhaps we could have a better discussion if these laws were put forth. It seems that you are being vague saying only laws of nature. If we are to build upon them I would like to know what specific actions I am arguing against.

 

Again I disagree, although god isn't limited to a single religious ideal, it is still a theological idea that is rooted in religion.

 

 

 

You are disagreeing with me, evidently because you are not literate in ancient philosophy. This is so exciting, and you are such a good thinker and arguer, I hope to catch you up in this excitement. To begin with, we should all study math! The best or human thought comes out of mathematical and scientific thinking.

 

One of the most well known moral concepts is the Golden Mean, right? It is pretty futile googling the Golden Mean, because Christians seem to dominate the definition of the Golden Mean and creidt Jesus for giving it to us. Someone who is better informed also gives credit to Confuius. People around the world, from the most primitive times, have concluded it is a good idea to not do to someone else what you would not have done to you. It is possible that we survived, and the Neanderthal did not, because we had the better reasoning capabilities for understanding such things as how the Golden Mean works, however, science has proven even primates operate with at least some understanding of the principle. The moral of the Golden Mean is not so because a god said it is so. All gods are subject to reason. It is so because it is so, if we realize it or not.

 

The book "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer argues much of our morality is coded in our genes, however, not until the human brain did a species question the morality and covert what is insinctive known through experience into abstract thinking. The moral of the Golden Mean is self effident. When Jefferson wrote of God and morals, he wrote of what is self evident. Jefferson was literate in Greek and Roman classics. Before Christianity, the Greeks were arguing philosophically and about God, and math played a very important part in this trend of thinking. Isn't that exciting?

 

With the concept of the Golden Mean, we should have the concept of the Golden Triangle. In the center of the Golden Triangle is calm. Our minds are always chattering, and through medication we can still our minds, and then think more clearly. Paradoxially, the center of the vortex spins faster, hince clear thinking. There is so much I want to say about science and morals, but I need someone interacting with me to get the thoughts out. And I need to make my post smaller.

[Ringer]

Hum, how do we work this out? A moral is a matter of cause and effect. Something is good when good results. Something is bad when bad results. Keep in mind the Lady of Justice holds a scale to weigh the good and bad. Few things are all good or all bad.

Personally I don't agree with the end/means morality. I will agree that if something has good results that it can be considered good. On the same token, though, if someone I cared for was hurt, cheated, etc for good ends I would be troubled and deal with it as I felt I could. The problem when arguing the ends justifies the means is that you have to take into account retaliation as well as not knowing what the ends may actually be.

 

We used to read children moral stories like "The Little Red Hen" and "The Little That Could" and "The Fox and the Grapes" or mythological stories too. At the end of the story we would ask, "What is the moral of that story". Using the example of cutting one's hand in the blades of a mower, the moral is be sure the lawn mower is turned off before removing the grass that has stopped the blades. Our whole national concept of moral has been perverted by leaving moral training to the church, leading us to believe morals are the result of religion instead of our ability to learn and reason. This has terrible conquences legally and politically.

I whole heartedly agree with this. Perhaps running off on a tangent I would like to share a story to any who think this isn't true; when my fiancée was in school to become a secondary education teacher she heard a story of one of her classmates student teaching. The classmate was talking about morals and about school shootings that have happened around the United States. She, her classmate was female, mentioned how the shootings were done by atheistic teenagers (I don't even know if this is true or what it mattered) and was taken outside the classroom by the attending teacher. The attending teacher told her that there were a couple atheistic children in the class and she should be careful how she presents this. But, here's the kicker, not because she was worried that because the children didn't have church to guide them they may get ideas about things to do. Not only that, this story was relayed during a college course and the majority of the class agreed with the teachers standpoint. Now if that's not disgusting I don't know what is.

 

 

 

Oh, oh now we have a serious argument. I was there, so I know what really happened. Zeus did not want man to have the technology of fire, because he feared with the technology of fire, man would desicover all other technologies. Look it up, I am sure this is why he had the woman created and gave her the box of miseries to slow man down. And I want to say, I so appreciate your arguments, because you push my thoughts forward.

I did. From Hesiod's Theogony:

(ll. 507-543) . . .Prometheus was forward to cut up a great ox and set portions before them, trying to befool the mind of Zeus. Before the rest he set flesh and inner parts thick with fat upon the hide, covering them with an ox paunch; but for Zeus he put the white bones dressed up with cunning art and covered with shining fat. Then the father of men and of gods said to him:(ll. 543-544) `Son of Iapetus, most glorious of all lords, good sir, how unfairly you have divided the portions!'

 

(ll. 545-547) So said Zeus whose wisdom is everlasting, rebuking him. But wily Prometheus answered him, smiling softly and not forgetting his cunning trick:

 

(ll. 548-558) `Zeus, most glorious and greatest of the eternal gods, take which ever of these portions your heart within you bids.' So he said, thinking trickery. But Zeus, whose wisdom is everlasting, saw and failed not to perceive the trick, and in his heart he thought mischief against mortal men which also was to be fulfilled. With both hands he took up the white fat and was angry at heart, and wrath came to his spirit when he saw the white ox-bones craftily tricked out: and because of this the tribes of men upon earth burn white bones to the deathless gods upon fragrant altars. But Zeus who drives the clouds was greatly vexed and said to him:

 

(ll. 559-560) `Son of Iapetus, clever above all! So, sir, you have not yet forgotten your cunning arts!'

 

(ll. 561-584) So spake Zeus in anger, whose wisdom is everlasting; and from that time he was always mindful of the trick, and would not give the power of unwearying fire to the Melian (21) race of mortal men who live on the earth. But the noble son of Iapetus outwitted him and stole the far-seen gleam of unwearying fire in a hollow fennel stalk. And Zeus who thunders on high was stung in spirit, and his dear heart was angered when he saw amongst men the far-seen ray of fire. Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for the very famous Limping God formed of earth the likeness of a shy maiden as the son of Cronos willed. And the goddess bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her with silvery raiment, and down from her head she spread with her hands a broidered veil, a wonder to see; and she, Pallas Athene, put about her head lovely garlands, flowers of new-grown herbs. Also she put upon her head a crown of gold which the very famous Limping God made himself and worked with his own hands as a favour to Zeus his father. On it was much curious work, wonderful to see; for of the many creatures which the land and sea rear up, he put most upon it, wonderful things, like living beings with voices: and great beauty shone out from it.

 

Then from Works and Days

 

(ll. 60-68) So said the father of men and gods, and laughed aloud. And he bade famous Hephaestus make haste and mix earth with water and to put in it the voice and strength of human kind, and fashion a sweet, lovely maiden-shape, like to the immortal goddesses in face; and Athene to teach her needlework and the weaving of the varied web; and golden Aphrodite to shed grace upon her head and cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs. And he charged Hermes the guide, the Slayer of Argus, to put in her a shameless mind and a deceitful nature.

 

(ll. 69-82) So he ordered. And they obeyed the lord Zeus the son of Cronos. Forthwith the famous Lame God moulded clay in the likeness of a modest maid, as the son of Cronos purposed. And the goddess bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her, and the divine Graces and queenly Persuasion put necklaces of gold upon her, and the rich-haired Hours crowned her head with spring flowers. And Pallas Athene bedecked her form with all manners of finery. Also the Guide, the Slayer of Argus, contrived within her lies and crafty words and a deceitful nature at the will of loud thundering Zeus, and the Herald of the gods put speech in her. And he called this woman Pandora (2), because all they who dwelt on Olympus gave each a gift, a plague to men who eat bread.

 

 

So withholding fire was punishment for Prometheus tricking Zeus into taking the crap parts of the sacrifice while man got the meat and such and Hephaestus made Pandora.

 

 

 

 

I think both the story of Adam and Eve and Pandora and the box, come from the Sumerian story of Eden and a flood. I would wish I had the math skills required to test this, anyway- I was thinking when I signed off yesterday, that in away, both stories are about the danger of the unknown. 9/11 and invading Iraq are also stories about the unknown. These events set in motion, unintended consequences. The older we get, the more we fear the unknown, but at age 18 we love the excitement of the unknown and tend to act without too much thinking. We can understand Sin as a state of ignorance. Socrates taught that the way to avoid sin is to raise consciousness. When we understand bad things will result from our action, we don't take the action. The point here is the danger of the unknown, be it Adam and Eve, Pandora and the box or stories of rash human actions.

 

I assume that you are talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh when you speak of the Sumerian flood, although the flood myth is technically not part of Gilgamesh. The stories of original sin are more about what you are talking about than the flood stories are. They are all about innocence lost, forgoing this by way of knowledge. In Gilgamesh it was sex, Pandora's was curiosity of the urn/box, old testament was eating from the tree, etc. The flood stories are more about awareness of breaking the laws and angering the gods/god. But again, I will agree that knowledge of our actions will help promote moral actions, though I don't believe I agree with the way you propose to bring this about.

 

Without the gods, we are technologically smart but not wise. Amoral science is dangerous. It is failing to look at things from a higher point of view, and failure to realise the bigger picture. it is dangerous limited thinking. The scientist who worked on the nuclear bomb celebrated when they heard their bomb hit Japan and was a success. Moments later some of them realized the human consequences of this bomb, and felt the dread of the human consequences of their scientific success. If we could get the masses to realize the human consequences of nuclear war, they would insist on putting an end to that threat, but we live paradoxically in fear and denial. When we insist there is no God, and push for amoral science, we are proving how right Zeus was to do he could to slow us down. It makes the miseries a kindness.

 

Here we part ways again. Science should be amoral, it is interested in facts, only the way it should be used should be looked at in a moral light (although, I suppose, testing should also be put on moral grounds). I never heard of any scientist of the Manhattan Project celebrating the bombings of WWII, though I have heard many stories of them lamenting the fact the bomb even exists. I see no reason that any of them would be surprised the bomb worked, they all worked and tested bombs until they had one that did work. I would have to ask for a source that recorded the scientists celebrating. Belief in god never slowed killings, if anything the belief that there is no afterlife would severely dissuade anyone to risk their lives for arbitrary reasons.

 

 

 

I approve of Confuciius' morality up to a point. China was the most technologically advanced nation in the world, until Confucius' morality stopped changed, and fixiated China on tradition. Hum, religion does the same thing. The fear of change, or the unknown is expressed in the story of Adam and Eve and Pandora and the box. I seriously do not believe I have contradicted myself, because everything I say is about the relationship of morals and reason.

 

Our knowledge has everything to do with our moral choices. We do not do something when we know what we are doing is wrong, unless we can justify our wrong, or have a mental dis-order. Unfortunately, humans are prone to mental dis-order, acting on obsessive thinking, urges, and strong emotions, and are not always controlled by their higher reasoning. When this became scientific fact through Fraud and others, it undermined the ideology of living with rule by reason. It was argued, we are not just rational beings, but also emotional beings, therefore, we must have authority above us. This brings us to another reason we must have God. Our reasoning can be faulty, and our emotions can devastate our ability to reason, so we seriously need a concept of God to pull us through our worst moments, and direct us in the right direction. This works because it gives us an ideal of goodness that is very effective in assisting our judgment and curbing our more primitive urges.

 

Actually we are amazingly irrational being. I won't point out the many different ways were are since it is a popular topic in many books anymore. I have never found myself in need of god to get me through my worst moments, and even those who do will do horrible acts because of divine reason. There are millions of people who don't believe in god and live there lives relatively rationally, morally, etc. Personally I have no problem with the belief in god and am not atheistic, but I severely disagree that belief in any deity is needed to be any certain way. Indeed, if one believes that god is needed for morality, strength, etc, should it not be assumed those who deal equally well without god are, in fact, stronger than those who do not.

 

 

 

 

You are disagreeing with me, evidently because you are not literate in ancient philosophy. This is so exciting, and you are such a good thinker and arguer, I hope to catch you up in this excitement. To begin with, we should all study math! The best or human thought comes out of mathematical and scientific thinking.

 

One of the most well known moral concepts is the Golden Mean, right? It is pretty futile googling the Golden Mean, because Christians seem to dominate the definition of the Golden Mean and creidt Jesus for giving it to us. Someone who is better informed also gives credit to Confuius. People around the world, from the most primitive times, have concluded it is a good idea to not do to someone else what you would not have done to you. It is possible that we survived, and the Neanderthal did not, because we had the better reasoning capabilities for understanding such things as how the Golden Mean works, however, science has proven even primates operate with at least some understanding of the principle. The moral of the Golden Mean is not so because a god said it is so. All gods are subject to reason. It is so because it is so, if we realize it or not.

 

I'm insulted that you believe that I am not literate in philosophy, ancient or modern. I am quite literate in philosophy and spent most of my highschool career reading about religion and philosophy. The Golden Mean is part of Christian theology, and others of course, Confucius' teaching is the Silver Mean. Golden is do unto others what you would have them do unto you; the Silver is do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. There is a slight yet significant difference. Even in this, the rule was only applied to those in your tribe.

 

The book "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer argues much of our morality is coded in our genes, however, not until the human brain did a species question the morality and covert what is insinctive known through experience into abstract thinking. The moral of the Golden Mean is self effident. When Jefferson wrote of God and morals, he wrote of what is self evident. Jefferson was literate in Greek and Roman classics. Before Christianity, the Greeks were arguing philosophically and about God, and math played a very important part in this trend of thinking. Isn't that exciting?

 

With the concept of the Golden Mean, we should have the concept of the Golden Triangle. In the center of the Golden Triangle is calm. Our minds are always chattering, and through medication we can still our minds, and then think more clearly. Paradoxially, the center of the vortex spins faster, hince clear thinking. There is so much I want to say about science and morals, but I need someone interacting with me to get the thoughts out. And I need to make my post smaller.

I don't know about the book because I haven't read it and have far too many books in my queue to possibly add another, but I will say that your logic follows well with Buddhist traditions with slight variation. Though I will have to point out that Buddhists don't necessarily believe in any deities; most do worship the Hindu's deity since it was an offshoot of this religion.

[Athena]

[/size][/font]

Personally I don't agree with the end/means morality. I will agree that if something has good results that it can be considered good. On the same token, though, if someone I cared for was hurt, cheated, etc for good ends I would be troubled and deal with it as I felt I could. The problem when arguing the ends justifies the means is that you have to take into account retaliation as well as not knowing what the ends may actually be.

 

I am sorry you feel insulted, but I can not understand if you are literate in Greek philoosphy, why we seem to disagree so much, nor why you say God in necesarily religion, when God is subject of Greek philosophy?

 

I would never argue the ends justifies the means. I have said, a moral is a matter of cause and effect. How do you get I am saying the ends justifies the means? In the story of "The Little Red Hen" she asks all her friends to help in the process of growing wheat, milling it and making bread, and no one helps her. Because no one helped her, she didn't share her bread. The moral is, if you want a share of the bread, you need to share the work. In the story of "The Fox and Grapes" the fox has to jump to reach the reach the grapes, and after a few jumps he gives up. The moral is, if you give up you won't get what you want. The story of "The Little that Could" the little train has a hard time getting over the hill, but it doesn't give up and makes it all the way. Mythology is full of these stories. People around the world used them to teach their young morals. In the bible we call these stories parables. This is not an argument that the ends justifies the means. It all says, if you do this, you can expect that. This is so because the universe is ordered and when we understand that order, we can make good decisons and avoid trouble.

 

So if you are in a flood and want to avoid illness, do not drink the water all around you, unless you have away of purifying it. Saying prayers, burning candles or sacrificing animals will not make polluted water safe to drink. This is not about a God judging you or his willingness to help some people and not others. It is about cause and effect, okay? Our moral choices are based on understanding cause and effect. Reading a book about a punishing God and demons, is not the best way to understand why everyone is getting sick and how to prevent that. Moral, learn how things really work. I am talking Cicero here, and he predates Christianity and certianly was not a Jew. This is also how to know of God. Although we do not directly experience God, we can study nature and infer something about God. This understanding goes with democracy which is rule by reason and lifts us to the highest morality. It does make it possible to avoid evil and to make life better.

 

Please check the Golden Mean as I am quite sure the concept comes from math, and was Christianized. http://www.halexandria.org/dward102.htm

Edited January 4, 2011 by Athena

[Ringer]

I am sorry you feel insulted, but I can not understand if you are literate in Greek philoosphy, why we seem to disagree so much, nor why you say God in necesarily religion, when God is subject of Greek philosophy?

 

Being literate in something doesn't mean that you have to agree with it. Not to mention most Greek philosophers didn't agree with each other, what makes you think that because I am educated in Greek philosophy that I should agree with you.

 

I would never argue the ends justifies the means. I have said, a moral is a matter of cause and effect. How do you get I am saying the ends justifies the means? In the story of "The Little Red Hen" she asks all her friends to help in the process of growing wheat, milling it and making bread, and no one helps her. Because no one helped her, she didn't share her bread. The moral is, if you want a share of the bread, you need to share the work. In the story of "The Fox and Grapes" the fox has to jump to reach the reach the grapes, and after a few jumps he gives up. The moral is, if you give up you won't get what you want. The story of "The Little that Could" the little train has a hard time getting over the hill, but it doesn't give up and makes it all the way. Mythology is full of these stories. People around the world used them to teach their young morals. In the bible we call these stories parables. This is not an argument that the ends justifies the means. It all says, if you do this, you can expect that. This is so because the universe is ordered and when we understand that order, we can make good decisons and avoid trouble.

 

You said:

What are the consequences of these actions? Actions are moral if good comes of them. Actions are immoral if bad comes of them. We are talking about the Laws of Nature, about cause and effect right? Keep the bigger view in mind.

 

This is not an end justifies means argument? If not, how does it differ from it. If good comes from the actions they are good, regardless of the cost? Even then these stories aren't about the laws of nature that you propose we use, they are the stories of folklore and superstition that you said we need to get away from.

So if you are in a flood and want to avoid illness, do not drink the water all around you, unless you have away of purifying it. Saying prayers, burning candles or sacrificing animals will not make polluted water safe to drink. This is not about a God judging you or his willingness to help some people and not others. It is about cause and effect, okay? Our moral choices are based on understanding cause and effect. Reading a book about a punishing God and demons, is not the best way to understand why everyone is getting sick and how to prevent that. Moral, learn how things really work. I am talking Cicero here, and he predates Christianity and certianly was not a Jew. This is also how to know of God. Although we do not directly experience God, we can study nature and infer something about God. This understanding goes with democracy which is rule by reason and lifts us to the highest morality. It does make it possible to avoid evil and to make life better.

 

First I would like to say that most Greek philosophers were against democracy. Even Socrates said it was 'mob rule'. Drinking and not drinking polluted water has nothing to do with morality, and neither does how things really work. Things work the way they work regardless of morality. You also said earlier that you believe we are the consciousness of god, if so why would we not experience it; we are it. If then this god is not ruled by reason, then we too should disregard reason. Thus after our disregard of reason this discussion has lost its point because our assumptions are based on reasoning.

 

Please check the Golden Mean as I am quite sure the concept comes from math, and was Christianized. http://www.halexandr...rg/dward102.htm

I apologize, I believed you were speaking of when you said "do not unto others. . ." which is the silver rule. The golden mean is meaningless, in it's mathematical essence, in morality, but Aristotle believed that the medium of extremes is what is to be desired. Usually this is called Nichomachean ethics. What I was referring to in my previous post were the golden rule and silver rule. I apologize for the mishap.

 

A book you may be interested in that touches on all of this is Ethics: Theory and Practice by Jacques P. Thiroux & Keith W. Krasemann

[Athena]

Being literate in something doesn't mean that you have to agree with it. Not to mention most Greek philosophers didn't agree with each other, what makes you think that because I am educated in Greek philosophy that I should agree with you.

 

 

 

You said:

[/size]

 

This is not an end justifies means argument? If not, how does it differ from it. If good comes from the actions they are good, regardless of the cost? Even then these stories aren't about the laws of nature that you propose we use, they are the stories of folklore and superstition that you said we need to get away from.

 

 

First I would like to say that most Greek philosophers were against democracy. Even Socrates said it was 'mob rule'. Drinking and not drinking polluted water has nothing to do with morality, and neither does how things really work. Things work the way they work regardless of morality. You also said earlier that you believe we are the consciousness of god, if so why would we not experience it; we are it. If then this god is not ruled by reason, then we too should disregard reason. Thus after our disregard of reason this discussion has lost its point because our assumptions are based on reasoning.

 

 

I apologize, I believed you were speaking of when you said "do not unto others. . ." which is the silver rule. The golden mean is meaningless, in it's mathematical essence, in morality, but Aristotle believed that the medium of extremes is what is to be desired. Usually this is called Nichomachean ethics. What I was referring to in my previous post were the golden rule and silver rule. I apologize for the mishap.

 

A book you may be interested in that touches on all of this is Ethics: Theory and Practice by Jacques P. Thiroux & Keith W. Krasemann

 

 

The mathematical Golden Mean is not meaningless, but fundamental to everything I have said, as is logos. There is a relationship between the Golden Mean and the universal awareness of do unto others as you would have them do to you, and it is futile to continue this discussion if you contine to ignore information. God back and read the link about the Golden Mean. Understanding logos is also essential to understanding Greek philosophy and you clearly are not working with a good understanding of logos, or you would not make the arguments you are making.

 

Why would you think anyone would mean everything is good, if some good comes from it? Not even the Hebrews thought good and evil were separated. Not until Zoroastrianism did people think in this duelistic way, and this made Christianity very different from Judiism. But thank you for raising my awareness of how determental duelistic thinking is to good reasoning.

 

Let us discuss Latin language and the meaning of "ignorant". The meaning of the word "ignore" comes from a combination of Latin words; The frist part of the word means "not" and the second means "knowing". So ignore is "not knowing". There is no shame in not knowing something. It is how we handle our ignorance that matters. If we seek information all goes well. If chose to ignore infromation there can not be good outcome. The suffice "ance" means a state of being. We protect our state of being ignorant when we ignore informationand there is an old saying, "do not argue with ".

 

There is a huge difference between people knowing the limits of their knowing and seeking information, and someone who is protecting him/her self by denying what is not known, and therefore, maintaing a state of gnorance. This is the cause of sin, and no good can come from it? It is the darkness, and the light can not pentrated and closed mind. Bad things can grow in the darkness. Immorality comes from the darkness, and therefore, seeking enlightenment is the pursuit of happiness, of which Jefferson writes in the US Declaration of Indepence.

 

You argued we can not discuss God without religion I googled Greek philosophy and God there are seveal pages of links. We can discuss God without religion and understanding sacred math is a path to this other understanding of God.

 

 

[Ringer]

Mathematically the golden mean is interesting but nothing to write home about. I has been over sold by a number of people, at least from what I have read; I'm not a mathematician so there could be more to it. I went to your website and it seems to be put together by a 15 year old for a school project. What does this ratio teach us about morals, since you believe it is essential to everything you have said. But Aristotle's philosophy of the golden mean, which is different from the mathematical ratio, is important to philosophical thought.

 

There was very much dualistic thought before Zoroastrianism, but it just wasn't personified by opposing deities. It was thought of as a balance. You still didn't answer my question about how it is different from the ends/means argument.

 

So are you saying that knowledge is god? But you said before that amoral discovery (your exact word was science I believe but science works to discover) will lead to evil. So what is this enlightenment we should seek. If it is built from knowledge, what knowledge should it be sought from?

 

I still don't see what the point of bringing god into the seeking of knowledge is good for. Yes, if you believe in some sort of god, marvel at its works, but other than that it has no point.

[Athena]

Mathematically the golden mean is interesting but nothing to write home about. I has been over sold by a number of people, at least from what I have read; I'm not a mathematician so there could be more to it. I went to your website and it seems to be put together by a 15 year old for a school project. What does this ratio teach us about morals, since you believe it is essential to everything you have said. But Aristotle's philosophy of the golden mean, which is different from the mathematical ratio, is important to philosophical thought.

 

There was very much dualistic thought before Zoroastrianism, but it just wasn't personified by opposing deities. It was thought of as a balance. You still didn't answer my question about how it is different from the ends/means argument.

 

So are you saying that knowledge is god? But you said before that amoral discovery (your exact word was science I believe but science works to discover) will lead to evil. So what is this enlightenment we should seek. If it is built from knowledge, what knowledge should it be sought from?

 

I still don't see what the point of bringing god into the seeking of knowledge is good for. Yes, if you believe in some sort of god, marvel at its works, but other than that it has no point.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question. I will use the invasion of Iraq to explain the difference.

 

The neo cons planned the military domination of the mid east long before 9/11 happened, and were so proud of what they were doing they created a web site explaining it to everyone. The web site was called the New Century American Project. These facts lead to conspiracy theory about the neo cons actually being behind 9/11 to justify the military action they wanted to take. There is no doubt the congress and press were malnipulated and for sure words like "Shock and Awe" and "Power and Glory" were geared for the Christian Right. What we see unfolding is Straus political theory, approving of decieving the public to achieve the desired ends, and military theory, that if the enemy is hit hard and fast enough, the enemy will cower and military victory is almost instanteous. Actually we can blame the colleges for this war, because that is where the theories are learned. Moving along, the difference is looking at this differently. What I said here is believing people can be completely immoral if it is justified in the end. That is thinking "we can get away with it". But we all subject to reason/God and can not get away with anything.

 

We can start with, trying to decieve people leads to mistrust. Keeping taxes low and pushing the cost of war onto future generations is just pushing a growing problem into the future, and it also deceptive because stupid citizens are thinking they are getting something for nothing. Today they have the money for their pleasures, but their children will not. That is immoral! The US kept the world calm with its history of not making a first strike and that was ruined when the first strike was made. The US acted against the judgment of the U.N. and the consequences of this are not good. The US devastated the lives of Iraqis and it will take them generations of recover. Muslim women fled with their children into surround countries where they had no means of providing for themselves and their children other than prostitution, so their lives are ruined. The killing and devastion of lives is justified how? The moral difference here is the focus on the consequences of the action. To me the action looks like one of the top 10 immoral actions of the decade. All of this is wrapped up in my understanding of God. I don't see a God ruling by whim, rewarding some and punishing some, depending on if He is pleased or not, but as the sum total of the whole. The wrong we do on this planet is not isolated somewhere on the other side of the planet, but is like peeing in our own swimming pool. I think the difference is a consciousness difference and this becomes a difference of conscience.

 

Lets go to Latin language for our understanding. Science- comes from the Latin for "know". Con- comes from the Latin word for "opposing reason". I gave you God as "opposing reason" and you have given me much more than you can know by standing you grounds and demaning answers. You force me to think about what I think and be more sure of the meaning behind words. I am experiencing the happiness of which Cicero and Jefferson wrote, when they wrote of the pursuit of the happiness. This too is God, the joy of learning and understanding. This is not limited to intellect, but is also about the heart and spirit. It is wholistic. I can not know God which is far more than I can comprehend, but I can know my joy and infer something about God.

 

Bush acted without opposing reason, and that is immoral or ungodly. It is like jamming the parachut in the bag, because one is in a hurry to parachut out of a plane. It does not work well, because it goes against the Laws of Nature. Meaning, unless the parachut is packed right, it is not going to unfold the way it needs to unfold. This is the difference between being moral or immoral. It is a matter of kowing cause and effect and making the right choice, taking the correct action. We are all subject to reason. That is being subject to God. Bush's desires were not compatible with the universe. We do not hold that Satan rules the universe, because in Greek logic, if a force is destructive, in the end, all that is left is evil force which then has to destroy itself.

 

The Golden Mean is also about this experience of God. Infact it is prehaps even easier to see God through math, because than we can't argue, "no, Bush was a very smart man who did the right things, and it isn't his fault things didn't go as well as he expected". Like if someone jams the parachut in the bag, it isn't his fault when it doesn't unfold. With math, when you add things up you don't get different answers. You don't work the math problem and know you have not resolved the problem, and act as though you have the right answer. With math we can see the forces of nature at work, and that is knowing something of God. The Greeks came to God through math and logic.

 

Science most certianly does not have to be amoral. It is smart, but unwise people who make it so. We can use math and science to know God, but our materialistic language creates a blind spot, and that results in a culture pitted against wisedom. I think prehaps to realize an animated reality, requires a different language or better understanding of the Latin root of our words. How can we discuss God with a materialist language that lacks spirit, animation?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Athena