Spirituality
02 Aug 05
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CI imagine you're talking about the second case (ruler changing religion).
To unite a waning, fragmented Empire?
Yes, his/her motives may very well be (and probably were) political. But why choose a particular religion? Why would he convert to that religion in the first place (again, I'm thinking of Constantine)?
06 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, I think you've stated that my ideas may not merit your standards of consistancy.
I imagine you're talking about the second case (ruler changing religion).
Yes, his/her motives may very well be (and probably were) political. But why choose a particular religion? Why would he convert to that religion in the first place (again, I'm thinking of Constantine)?
Maybe Christianity is actually an offshoot of a much older monotheistic religion, and therefore Constantine (in this case) was convinced it was the one that would work?
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerOnce again, why would society change its dominant religion unless there were something about the religion itself that causes them to convert? The same with the ruler (I imagine you're thinking of Constantine).
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I disagree, whenever religious teachings change societal norms is when society, or it's ruler, change its dominant religion. If it's the first, it is society changing the norms, if it's the second it's the ruler imposing new moral standards via religion. Religion is but a tool.
Once again, why would s ...[text shortened]... spersion of prehistoric societies would've rendered inter-societal conflicts highly improbable.[/b]
Exactly, society chooses the religion that best fits it.
But that's not the same as a religion. A religion is a model of spirituality and theology from which moral norms follow.
Again I agree, laws and religion need good/evil definitions, but are not one and the same. Religion is simpler, and the evidence is that written codes of law are much posterior to religion, which do not mean unwritten codes of conduct didn't exist before religion but were weaker.
That religion is of value in strengthening societies does not prove that is how religion came about.
I never said otherwise.
I said without anyone having definite proof, other (unproven) explanations are needed. Yours is merely God, mine is that religion influences the strength of societies.
As I pointed out earlier, the geographic dispersion of prehistoric societies would've rendered inter-societal conflicts highly improbable.
You have pictures depicting conflict between prehistoric man as far as 12000 BC, but let's not limit my point to that. Intra-societal conflict (internal fights for power) is much more important, in my opinion and there are many more menaces to prehistoric societies than simply other societies. Agglutination leads to more cooperation between society members, even if we consider an isolated society.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by Palynka
Exactly, society [b]chooses the religion that best fits it.[/b]
Actually, individuals choose the religion that best fit them (when a society changes its religious allegiance - I am excluding imposition by ruler) - and that is done on the basis of the merits of the religion itself.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerA society is composed of individuals and each one is immersed in society.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Exactly, society [b]chooses the religion that best fits it.[/b]
Actually, individuals choose the religion that best fit them (when a society changes its religious allegiance - I am excluding imposition by ruler) - and that is done on the basis of the merits of the religion itself.[/b]
I don't think this comment of yours makes any difference, but it's very very late here so maybe it's my fault...
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaActually, it does make a difference. When a society changes its dominant religion because the majority have converted to another religion, it must be remembered that it is individuals who convert to the new religion based on what message they think the religion conveys to them.
A society is composed of individuals and each one is immersed in society.
I don't think this comment of yours makes any difference, but it's very very late here so maybe it's my fault...
06 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo? Individuals choose the religion that best fits them. It's still a choice by individuals, individuals who are immersed in a society (also obviously composed by individuals) that had changed enough to reject the previous religion.
Actually, it does make a difference. When a society changes its dominant religion because the majority have converted to another religion, it must be remembered that it is individuals who convert to the new religion based on what message they think the religion conveys to them.
07 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseYes...since the fall of man in the garden of Eden, man is inherently evil by nature. That is the whole purpose in salvation through Jesus Christ. The ramifications of disobeying God in the beginning were immense.Every one born since, is born with a sinful nature. This sinful nature stays with us even after we are "born again" through Jesus Christ. The battle in the mind for Christians is life long. It is a struggle between these two natures. The one we "feed" is usually victorius and thus the difference in why some Christians seem stronger that others of the same faith. It is called "renewed mind" in the bible. That is also why the scriptures implore us to study the scriptures themselves and to apply them in our lives. After the return of Christ, in the end, will this part of us, the sin nature, will die permanently.
Anybody willing to give a definition?
Jer 17:9-10
9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?
10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.
(NKJ)
Some versions say that the heart is incurably sick. That is why we receive a "new heart" when we accept Jesus as Lord in our lives. Then through study, prayer and application we begin to change and become more like Christ. This is basically what the bible says.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by checkbaitori give you a C+ for the book report.
Yes...since the fall of man in the garden of Eden, man is inherently evil by nature. That is the whole purpose in salvation through Jesus Christ. The ramifications of disobeying God in the beginning were immense.Every one born since, is born with a sinful nature. This sinful nature stays with us even after we are "born again" through Jesus Christ. The ...[text shortened]... plication we begin to change and become more like Christ. This is basically what the bible says.
you may be able to elevate it to the status of an argument (and get a better grade) if you provide some evidence for the bible's status as a credible authority on these matters.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloAt least there's something to work from. I'm still waiting for a definition from the non-Bible Clan.
i give you a C+ for the book report.
you may be able to elevate it to the status of an argument (and get a better grade) if you provide some evidence for the bible's status as a credible authority on these matters.
07 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou believe love and goodness are a result of evolution, interesting.
Well, we need to clarify what "spiritual" means. However, in short, I do believe love and goodness by whatever definition being the result of evolutionary processes acting on life.
Did you know that what you are saying - that y ...[text shortened]... idered a logical fallacy? It's arguing from personal incredulity.
How is it that love and goodness could or would arise out of dirt or
whatever the muck that life supposedly came from? It has been a
topic of conversation before where it was brought up that when a lion
kills a zebra nothing evil takes place according to evolution, it is just
the lion acting out its nature, feeding itself, the strong feeding upon
the weak. Simply evolution in action, the struggle for survival;
however, you seem to think that love and goodness could arise out of
this very same process, I'm not sure I follow how that could be. It
isn't like evolution cares one way or another what survives and what
does not, it isn't like when the strong take advantage of their
strength, or the smart take advantage of their wits over the simple
that love or goodness are being displayed, but it is the very essence
of evolution on full display. So how would you get love and goodness
out of the survival of the fittest?
Kelly
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree that all atheists are affected by God, with God being the true
if belief in god is the moral compass to which you refer, then you have defined the moral compass out of the atheist's hand.
if god himself is due north in your analogy, then i think you would have to admit that a moral compass [b]is within reach of the atheist. after all, you yourself were atheist until you became christian, correct? if you w ...[text shortened]... the fair winds blow. i often willingly trudge against the winds of myopic hedonistic pleasure.[/b]
north of righteousness. The point is that, they don’t have the claim
that there is such a thing as a true north of righteousness, a place
where all man get direction. They only have themselves and if they
admit there is a source like God for a guide of right and wrong or
morals, than they have left the path of atheism and are now theist. I
do not, nor have I ever claimed that righteousness is a fix set of
rules, but yes I do believe God to be an unchanging source of truth
and righteousness.
As far as not having a moral compass, I like the analogy I read in
one of Dallas Willard’s books “The divine Conspiracy” where he was
talking about a pilot who was doing high speed maneuvers in a jet,
she wanted to pull back on the stick to do a climb and instead dived
strait into the earth, because she lost track of how she was flying, she
didn’t know she was flying upside down. If goodness and right and
wrong are simply agreed upon principles at all levels of life, than
there isn’t a moral compass for man; however, if there is a moral
standard we are all bound to, held accountable to, responsible for
than that compass cannot be a man made construct, if it were we
would have the ability to change it at will at all times at every level.
I disagree with your assertion that rational thought and the influence
of our cultural surroundings are the same thing as a moral compass.
If that were true, you’d have millions of different directions being
pointed to because we all have individual thoughts and our culture
has affected us differently too. A compass points north no matter
where on the planet one stands, and no matter what they are thinking
at the time.
Kelly
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by KellyJayjust to keep science correct , a compass hardly ever points North. In fact at the geographical North Pole a compass points South.The magnetic north pole is in Canada I believe unless its already left on it's journey to Russia.
I agree that all atheists are affected by God, with God being the true
north of righteousness. The point is that, they don’t have the claim
that there is such a thing as a true north of righteousness, a place
where all man get direction. They only have themselves and if they
admit there is a source like God for a guide of right and wrong or
morals, tha ...[text shortened]... ter
where on the planet one stands, and no matter what they are thinking
at the time.
Kelly
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by frogstompyou really are a bundle of joy aren't you?
just to keep science correct , a compass hardly ever points North. In fact at the geographical North Pole a compass points South.The magnetic north pole is in Canada I believe unless its already left on it's journey to Russia.