1. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    01 Mar '15 23:26
    If there were no religions, and humans began to take care of each other purely because it was in our best interests to do so, would he/she/it be content?
  2. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35529
    01 Mar '15 23:55
    Originally posted by OdBod
    If there were no religions, and humans began to take care of each other purely because it was in our best interests to do so, would he/she/it be content?
    I dunno. In your fantasy scenario, is evil loose in the world?
  3. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Mar '15 00:06
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    I dunno. In your fantasy scenario, is evil loose in the world?
    They are called thought experiments Suzianne, designed to take us beyond our present experience, or do you not approve?
  4. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6792
    02 Mar '15 12:38
    Originally posted by OdBod
    If there were no religions, and humans began to take care of each other purely because it was in our best interests to do so, would he/she/it be content?
    I don't know. Let's see how caring Albania and North Korea are, shan't we?
  5. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8622
    02 Mar '15 13:47
    Originally posted by OdBod
    If there were no religions, and humans began to take care of each other purely because it was in our best interests to do so, would he/she/it be content?
    I don't know what your question really means.

    But the beginning of the creation of man should serve as a underlying principle about God's motivation.

    Adam and Eve were only commanded really one important thing.
    That is to be careful WHAT they took INTO them.
    They were vessels. They were meant to contain.
    God warned them NOT to cantain the wrong thing.

    They as vessels were placed before two sources of content:
    "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" They were only warned not to take into them as food this one source.

    God did not give Adam and Eve 600 commandments.
    God did not command hardly ANYTHING else with the exception to guard the garden and multiply. There was no religion. There was only two sources of food which could enter into man's being - "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" .

    God's motivation was that man would take into himself divine and eternal life represented by "the tree of life". That is to take into himself God Himself to live in an organic union and blending with God.

    That was no religion. That was just "life" - the uncreated, eternal and divine Life which is a Person, God Himself.

    God's motivation is that man be as His Son Jesus Christ - the mingling of divinity and humanity.
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35529
    02 Mar '15 14:05
    Originally posted by OdBod
    They are called thought experiments Suzianne, designed to take us beyond our present experience, or do you not approve?
    So, yeah. Fantasy scenarios.
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Mar '15 18:152 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    So, yeah. Fantasy scenarios.
    Well to be fair Suzianne, the moment we suppose "God" exists, even for the sake of argument, we're already up to our neck in "Fantasy scenarios".
  8. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Mar '15 21:26
    It's as I thought, religious people seem unable to think outside their box. Still, that's one of the reasons scientific thinking is in the ascendency and religious thinking will in the end die out,as it has no way expanding beyond its dogma defined limitations.
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78560
    02 Mar '15 21:59
    Originally posted by OdBod
    It's as I thought, religious people seem unable to think outside their box. Still, that's one of the reasons scientific thinking is in the ascendency and religious thinking will in the end die out,as it has no way expanding beyond its dogma defined limitations.
    I've had people do that to me on all sorts of issues, I don't think theists have any particular monopoly on refusing to consider counter-factual scenarios.
  10. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6792
    03 Mar '15 09:56
    Originally posted by OdBod
    It's as I thought, religious people seem unable to think outside their box.
    It's as I thought, atheists are stuck in their ideological ivory tower; they are unable to look at the evidence from the real world and admit that atheism doesn't automatically make you a moral person - quite the opposite, in fact.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    03 Mar '15 10:101 edit
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    It's as I thought, atheists are stuck in their ideological ivory tower; they are unable to look at the evidence from the real world and admit that atheism doesn't automatically make you a moral person - quite the opposite, in fact.
    Has anyone ever claimed that atheism automatically makes you a moral person? Or am I misunderstanding you?

    And when you say 'quite the opposite' are you merely saying it is not automatic, or are you saying atheism automatically makes you immoral?
Back to Top