Too Smart to stop thinking too Stupid to stop.

It really would be nice to have a thread without any mention of Hitler and his Jews.

 

True, but they make some arguments very clear.

 

What I said was people like Hitler and Napoleon would be no worse than someone like you in the end (death). Matter of fact in the sense your making, at least Hitler and Napoleon climbed the ranks, did something with their lives, even if it was through murder and bloodshed. Because according to you that doesn't matter.

 

How do you get that from my post? Murder and suffering matters, right then and there. The fact that in the end, they're both as dead as I will be does not condemn me to believe that the murders and suffering they caused while alive did not matter.

The fact that both Hitler and me will have died eventually does not make him not a bad person.

 

No it doesn't I agree. However it also makes him no worse than you. He just played this game of life without God better than you. He had more of an impact on the world than your life will. And you will both die. So why do good, why not try robbing banks, purse snatching, deception and lies to achieve riches and power? Why not, in the end you both die. He would be remembered far longer and by more people than you. And you was the alleged good one. Then again without God, there would be no such thing as good or evil.

You argue that there would be good and evil. But your knowledge of good and evil, is divine, it is written in you and everyone else. It is certainly clear that here on earth, mankind is godly/divine!
No other living thing here on earth has the ability and mind of mankind. No other living thing here on earth has the knowledge of both good and evil. However, through man they can, man can teach a dog right from wrong. Because it is in man, not the dog. And to the dog, his/her master would be God to him/her.

 

Hardly. In what sense would that be better? Why is "impact on the world" better in your eyes than not killing people (even in a world without God). Even if we were to throw out all of morality (which I don't) why would "impact on the world" count as playing better?

Again, I disagree.

I don't take this as true. You provide a narrative which is self consistent, but I don't see that it gives any indication to actually be true.

What makes you think knowledge of good and evil is divine? I might just as well be human (which is the very basis for the word humanism).

 

This is going to make no sense to you, but I will try. Just look around you, what is it that mankind is capable of? We can either destroy earth, or enhance earth. No other living creature is going to do that. Thus we are divine, within the realm of earth. Divine to mankind would be God. Mankind to earth and everything therein, would be divine. We are divine to every species out there. They see us and fear is put in them. Divine!

You and I are talking across an electrical device. Nothing else on earth can do that. Divine! We are godly, an absolute superiority over everything on earth. Divine!

This comes from the knowledge of both good and evil. Which is Divine!

 

Good points.......
our pet friends have an unconditional love for us in spite of all our flaws that certainly must mimic the love that angels have for The Ancient of Days the Father and the Ancient of Days the Mother/ The Holy Spirit and for the Messiah.

The power plus responsibility that we human have over the creation is
a type of the power and responsibility that G-d has over us.........

Even the Prophet Jonah was told to have concern for animals......

Jonah 4:11

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

 

You're right, that doesn't strike me as what I mean by divine. If it turned out that we were just a universe in a petrie dish cooked up in a high school lab of some more advanced being, I wouldn't consider those God (gods maybe, in the more greek sense, but I don't think that's the relevant distinction).

More importantly, I don't know how this indicates that our knowledge of good and evil really comes from God. You seem to not so much justify your narrative as flesh it out.

Regardless, you've yet to justify why there couldn't be a morality without God, or why unjustified murder wouldn't be bad unless there is a punishment exacted.

I recommend a debate I've seen on the topic. It's a bit lengthy, but I think it touches exactly on this.

 

First of all there wouldn't be anything without God. People want to give glory to other people, themselves, those of high counsel, the universe, never God, as written! Principals and morals is based off "love" (God is love). That is why He told us, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high place". Yes, this here explains the nature of kingdoms, the desires of men who rule those kingdoms. Keep the truth from the people, take their riches, expand in power, and stomp those who get in the way. Through the actions of men and kingdoms, it most certainly clear that the word speaks of them, as to go out in the world, but not become a part of it. Stay away from the desire of power, and this "game of thrones".

I mean no offense truly I don't. But it is incredible to me, that satan has most people, to the point where they have not the ability to see and understand God. Yet they have the ability to see and understand satan. For anything God is against, satan is for. And most people today stand against the principals that God is for.

God's word is on key, to the point, and extremely wise, yet common sense, it is what's in the heart. Today most have a dark heart, the question is, how dark is it? For someone who seems nice and respectful, could be filled with evil, and plays it off well. That is why I always say, either guilty or guiltless, nobody else needs to know, for the they themselves know, and that is what leaves us without excuse. This is the knowledge of good and evil. And a guilty conscience is for a reason. Judgment.

 

I don't see how this attempts to resolve the issues at hand. None of this indicates that goodness is perfectly equal to being able to avoid punishment. None of it indicates that in a world without God, advancing in Nazi ranks through murder is "playing the game better" than living a life helping and not harming.

 

No, it indicates that in the end weather one chooses to do good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's what it indicates. If you cannot understand that, there is no reason for further debate. And I certainly mean no disrespect.

 

In what sense does it not matter? It seems to me Hitler's actions mattered greatly to his victims, his victims' families and so on. I would find it peculiar if you could tell an Auschwitz survivor that Hitler didn't matter.

It seems to me you indicate that what "matters" only matters if it matters in an eternal, cosmical sense, and that seems to me to be a mistake. In a sense, I don't believe in such meaning, but that still leaves plenty of room for meaning such as "let's not harm each other".

I would think failure to understand one another gave good reason for further debate. What good would a discussion do if one only talked to people who already understood everyone one had to say?

 

Hitler's deeds if what is said about him is true, are very evil. Yet he lived in luxury, had all the finer things, women, great parties, and I'm sure a whole lot of fun. Along with all the bad. Yet he died.

Those who do good, are usually poor, less unfortunate, give to charity (those of high counsel only give to charity for publicity, not from what's within their heart). Yet they still die. How are you not understanding that without God, in the end it doesn't matter. One is not punished for evil, and one is not rewarded for righteousness. They are both merely dead, and completely non-existent.

To those left on the earth, they will see and remember the one who done such massive evil, almost the entire world will. Yet the one who did good, will not be remembered. For their righteousness was never even in the "spotlight".

 

You say "in the end" it doesn't matter. Why are you focusing on the end?

Consider a torturer. Is the primary time when he was bad "in the end" or was it when he was torturing people? To me it would seem the principle time at which the badness manifests is the time when he tortures someone. Of course, I don't mean to say that that means he's not bad at some other time, I'm just saying I see no reason to assume mattering should be evaluated in the end only.

I would say a morality based solely on whether one can secure some benefit in the future, like heaven or avoiding hell, can't really be said to be a morality as much as a calculated strategy for gaining benefits.

 

God comes at judgment, but you say there is no God. Thus "in the end" will be brought up.

The person doing the torturing and the person receiving the torture both have to die. And when they do, neither is better than the other. To you, their just dead. One had an unfortunate life as to where they was tortured to death, and the other was doing the torturing. The torturer is no worse or better than the other "in the end", with your logic. The tortured had is life taken from him to short, thanks to the dark, evil, godless one that did it to him. And when he dies it will be no different than the one he tortured, just completely non-existent.

To torture someone requires a certain heart to begin with. Just to be a king requires a certain heart. The bad, evil, or godlessness is already in them, before the torture. Otherwise they would never do it.

With your logic, the game of life would be an all out blood bath for everyone, as they tried to do whatever it takes to get them on top. And the more and more people who abandoned God, the more and more we are starting to see this.

Maybe this will help. An airplane crashes, two survive, yet stranded on a small island. After hunger kicks in, one decides to kill the other for food. The killer stayed alive for 16 days, luckily being rescued by a boat. Your logic says, the killer was the smart one, the other was a fool.

 

But if there is no God, that won't happen, right? So then why does "the end" matter? Or more specifically, why is it the only thing that matters?

In a way that is right, but as I've mentioned, I put little emphasis on what the world will look like in the very long run. The badness of the torturer is evaluated at the point of torturing, and at that point, he's definitely bad. What happens in the heat death of the universe is morally uninteresting. A good torturer is a dead torturer, as one might say.

Hardly. I and many with me act morally for the most part, not in search of reward or benefit, at least not in the extreme you mention. I keep asking (although you keep not answering the question) why things like "the spotlight", "getting on top" and murdering people would be the goto place if there isn't a God (I mean, neither the spotlight or the staying on top is going to last forever). Most non-religious people, myself included, do not pursue these things to the point of immorality.

I'm not sure what aspects you're trying to focus on here. My logic still sees the murder as evil, since what he does at the moment of murder matters (although there are a couple of open questions in the example, like would they have starved without it, was the luckiness of the boat rescue relevant and so on).

 

Hey, you have to tell me how you got my replies in that green rectangle like that. I knew how to do it before the update, but that little quote icon is no longer there, I haven't figured it out yet?

 

You mean how to split the quote? The quotes are a green rectangle to me, but you seem to do those just fine. I just copy the little [ QUOTE="jrr777, post: 1067248878, member: 69206"] code snippet.

 

It matters because without God, death is the end of everybody, their existence is over. That's why I keep referencing those who do good in life and those who do bad in life, either way it shouldn't matter. Because there is nothing there that says one is better than the other. Your opinion might be that good is better, but there is nothing to say factual one is better than the other. Say you have a nation of people that do good and treat each other good. And you have a nation of all out evil people. The nation of evil comes and destroys the nation of good. According to you, there is nothing wrong with that. The evil nation was just more superior, wanted more resources, woman, the young for slaves, so they took it. And there will be no punishment for them, rather an abundance of rewards.
And if you do think there is something wrong with that, it would merely be your opinion, nothing to back it up.

 

It's true that their existence is over after death. I don't see why that means that only "in the end" matters and that things that happen before then do not. A potato peelers equivalent to life ends when it breaks, but we don't judge a potato peeler's goodness or effectiveness on how good it is when it is broken.

I would invite you to consider a morality based in help/harm. A torturer harms his victim, so he is bad. The fact that he will at one point or other die is neither here nor there.

It seems to me doing bad matters greatly to the victims of the bad things. Morality based in help/harm says harm is bad. Has nothing to do with my personal opinion, I and many who think like me might all die, morality based in help/harm still thinks harm is bad.

This line of questioning is basically the same as asking someone with a religious morality why we should follow that. Why does what God says determine what's good or bad? If you are so unwilling to see the the non-religious goodness/badness, why would being eternally punished for something mean that it's bad? I mean, genuinely good people have been punished for practicing witchcraft when they were really practicing medicine, so clearly, punishment isn't in itself fundamentally linked to immorality. Calling my view "just my opinion" is no worse blow than your interest in avoiding hell or gaining heaven is just your opinion.

My view doesn't seem to have a bigger problem with the is/ought problem than yours does.

I believe you will find that in our debate, I have consistently called most traditionally immoral actions bad, so claiming I see nothing wrong with it seems a bit hasty. They caused harm so they were bad.

The idea that their goodness is only measured in the rewards is yours, not mine.
The idea that if they get away scot free, they can't have been bad is yours, not mine.
Don't say that conclusions from there are "[a]ccording to [me]".

 

Or type the following before the text to be quoted....:
[ quote]

and without the space after the first parenthesis
and
[/
quote]

(as one line... after the text to be quoted)....[/quote]

 

All we can do now, is agree to disagree!

I understand the point your making, I just don't think you understand the point I am making. The reason for guilt, is because it is heavenly sent, and heavenly judged. A serial killer/rapist does not go around telling people what they are doing, because they know it's wrong, so they hide it. Same thing with even the upmost psychopath, they hide their actions, because they know it's wrong.

Think of the immoral pedophiles, they could actually have a young child thinking it's ok. Yet once that child reaches the age of reason (varies for everyone), without anybody telling them, they will know what was done to them, and how sick and wrong it was. And they most likely would figure it out before then, for it is written in us. It's part of our "divine" nature.

Again, it seems we can both go on and on over this, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I must say one more thing though.

If it requires intelligence to determine a design/creation, it is absolutely obvious the design/creation is of intelligence.
I mean if your going to reverse engineer a smart phone, it takes intelligence, as it did to create it in the first place. This is applicable with anything, including the creation of mankind and the creation that was given unto them, earth and everything therein. It is so obvious, that it is no wonder scripture tells us, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are left without excuse".

Where it says "so they are left without excuse". Is the same as saying, "so we are left without excuse". And we are, people just refuse their divine power, they have no idea what it holds. And technically I should say, we have no idea what it holds. For even though I am a man of God and His son, our savior Jesus Christ, even I don't know my full potential, but I can feel it's something tremendously divine.

If you never had the Holy Spirit overwhelm you, perhaps you should pray for it. It will literally have you on your knees, weeping uncontrollably in forgiveness, yet a feeling of happiness, of relief!

 

[/QUOTE]

Yeah how to split the quote. I'll try what you have said here, and let you know if I can't get it.

 

We perceive that everything has a cause, and that it becomes reason for a subsequent event. We call the understanding of this cause and effect as logic. The universe is logic. You can see this more vividly in mathematics. And so logic is the only vehicle on which, our effort to sustain our existence, and to manipulate the universe, within our sphere of influence, to achieve happiness, can ride.

The concept of spiritualism is presented to us as supernatural; magical. But if the whole creation obeys logic, then how can spirituality, or anything else, be beyond logic?

Now, let us see how we apply logic. A child figures life based on its previous experiences, and often comes up with funny reasoning. At the age 16 -18, we used to feel that we have all the answers. Then, in a few years we started observing that life is not all black and white. We all have experiences, how a baffling situation becomes non-existent, once we find the right answer; what used to matter so much has became unimportant. We start seeing that our database of accumulated experiences is inadequate.

The discrepancy comes from the difference between brain and the total mind (we call it heart), of which brain is only a small part. Our desires, love hate, instincts, etc. reside in our total mind, not in our brain.

Relaxing the mind takes us beyond the brain. This is where answers to baffling situations pop-up from. I feel that brain only knows parameters based on experiences of our life, but integrated mind knows them all. This is how the realities of our baffling problems evaporate; how our grief dissolves.

To me, to think with the whole mind, in calm state, is spiritualism. It gives me the depth in understanding of myself and of people around me. I achieve more tolerance, towards myself and others; I receive more love and respect. It reduces my frustrations, anger, anxiety, guilt and unhappiness. We can call this character building. I don't know whether the universe is real or an illusion, does God exist or not. I don't know eventually where or how far my method will take me. But I don't care. When the journey is so beautiful, who cares about the destination?