04 Apr 13
Rules Governing Human Conduct
Life on earth can be lived and enjoyed or endured and despised. Many rules, principles and laws have been in play since the first footprints within the boundaries of an early garden. The imbedded restraints range from mild reminders to stern rebukes to outright loss of privileges and rights of participation. At its simplest, the behavioral span's inclusive of Obedience to The Law of Gravity; Respect for Fire; Avoidance of Various Consumable Properties [which may become harmful, if and when ingested]; Responsible Operation of Boats, Motorcycles, Automobiles and Aircraft; Violation of Statutes and Laws [encoded to protect and preserve the property and life itself of all citizens within any civilized society].
The above horizontal examples are neither exhaustive nor definitive; sole purpose is to establish frame of reference for segue to vertical application. Does it not seem reasonable to consider the notion that an unmoved mover or supreme being may, also, think in terms of clarity of purpose and orderliness? That, if so, institutions such as self determination [volition]; marriage; family [as the fundamental unit of commuity structure]; freedom through military victory; and nationalism are much more to be reckoned with than ignored or scorned? Further to the crux of resident authority and its expectations, wouldn't some higher order of being or creator desire contact and even relationship with the product of its own creative expression? My purpose here isnt to promote rancorous argumentation but, rather, to invite pro/con positions with point of view rationales.
.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think we are hard wired. I think that the "Rules Governing Human Conduct" are a product of this hard wiring, finessed over the millennia.
My purpose here isn't to promote rancorous argumentation but, rather, to invite pro/con positions with point of view rationales.
.
I think what "religionists" see as "evil" is the hard wiring malfunctioning. I think what some call "evil" - rather than having a supernatural or superstitious explanation - is instead an abject and sociopathic [or even psychopathic] lack of empathy, to varying degrees [empathy and doubt being the most quintessential human capacities... a lack of doubt can lead to "evil" acts too].
Seeing as "God" - or "some higher order of being or creator", as you put it - has apparently not revealed itself to anybody, I think there is scarcely any reason to presume that the "Rules Governing Human Conduct" have been handed down by such an entity.
Originally posted by FMF"'Seeing as "God' - or 'some higher order of being or creator'..." We agree. Summarily dismissing the possility of the person of some higher order responsible for the design of our incredibly intricate beings; all our senses are imbued with the capacity to experience and perceive; and the very perpetuation of humanity in accordance with an omniscient purpose and plan, would by definition be rendered incapable of grasping the reality of Divine Revelation of Christ's Prophesied Virgin Birth; Unique Life in Hypostatic Union on Earth; Bodily Resurrection; Ascension and Session.
I think we are hard wired. I think that the "Rules Governing Human Conduct" are a product of this hard wiring, finessed over the millennia.
I think what "religionists" see as "evil" is the hard wiring malfunctioning. I think what some call "evil" - rather than having a supernatural or superstitious explanation - is instead an abject and sociopathic [or even psy me that the "Rules Governing Human Conduct" have been handed down by such an entity.
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhy not take a simple view? Societal structures are a means of survival .There is no choice in devising effective means of living together ,we achieve this or die out.This process does not need a god, it is our responsibility .
[b]"'Seeing as "God' - or 'some higher order of being or creator'..." We agree. Summarily dismissing the possility of the person of some higher order responsible for the design of our incredibly intricate beings; all our senses are imbued with the capacity to experience and perceive; and the very perpetuation of humanity in accordance with an omnisc ...[text shortened]... h; Unique Life in Hypostatic Union on Earth; Bodily Resurrection; Ascension and Session.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySummary dismissal of the possibility of the person of some higher order responsible for the design of our incredibly intricate being is not being done.
[b]"'Seeing as "God' - or 'some higher order of being or creator'..." We agree. Summarily dismissing the possility of the person of some higher order responsible for the design of our incredibly intricate beings; all our senses are imbued with the capacity to experience and perceive; and the very perpetuation of humanity in accordance with an omnisc ...[text shortened]... h; Unique Life in Hypostatic Union on Earth; Bodily Resurrection; Ascension and Session.[/b]
"When Laplace published his theory of the formation of the Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis." Laplace was being neither flippant (just a little) nor sacrilegious. He was neither confirming nor denying God. Science continues to neither confirm nor deny."
http://www.jimloy.com/issues/god.htm
Those of us who feel a need for the Christian hypothesis in explaining human rules, are free to construct one, so long as their construction allows room for those who do not feel that need.
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI am curious as to whom you are addressing this thread too. Not only do I find that much of what you say is unintelligible, but what I can parse, appears to be little more than a request for affirmation from fellow theists.
Does it not seem reasonable to consider the notion that an unmoved mover or supreme being may, also, think in terms of clarity of purpose and orderliness?
For example the sentence I quote above, asks whether it is reasonable to consider that God may have rules. I am not aware of anyone who believes in a God without rules. So it seems a rather odd question to ask. Who is it addressed to? Or are you asking your fellow theists some question that I cannot understand due to the fact that I don't speak 'theist'?
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"My purpose here isnt to promote rancorous argumentation but,
I am curious as to whom you are addressing this thread too. Not only do I find that much of what you say is unintelligible, but what I can parse, appears to be little more than a request for affirmation from fellow theists.
For example the sentence I quote above, asks whether it is reasonable to consider that God may have rules. I am not aware of any ...[text shortened]... ellow theists some question that I cannot understand due to the fact that I don't speak 'theist'?
rather, to invite pro/con positions with point of view rationales."
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI still don't understand, pro/con positions on what? The sentence I quoted for example will almost certainly only gain pro positions and no cons. You seem to be asking "would the God we believe in be like the God we believe in?"
"My purpose here isnt to promote rancorous argumentation but,
rather, to invite pro/con positions with point of view rationales."
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadAppreciate your comments and (convoluted) questions;
I still don't understand, pro/con positions on what? The sentence I quoted for example will almost certainly only gain pro positions and no cons. You seem to be asking "would the God we believe in be like the God we believe in?"
they add considerable flavor to the community stew working
in the Crock Pot. More Sea Salt and Virgin Olive Oil, please.
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis is pretty much word salad.
[b]Rules Governing Human Conduct
Life on earth can be lived and enjoyed or endured and despised. Many rules, principles and laws have been in play since the first footprints within the boundaries of an early garden. The imbedded restraints range from mild reminders to stern rebukes to outright loss of privileges and rights of participation. At it ...[text shortened]... orous argumentation but, rather, to invite pro/con positions with point of view rationales.
.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Apr 13
Seeing as "God" - or "some higher order of being or creator", as you put it - has apparently not revealed itself to anybody, I think there is scarcely any reason to presume that the "Rules Governing Human Conduct" have been handed down by such an entity.
This could be a problem, especially if Atheists expressed opinions. But apparently no atheists have ever expressed any opinions to anybody.
Sound funny ?
Apparently no one has claimed to be an Atheist to even dispute the matter.
Sound ridiculous ? Sound ludicrously cavalier ?
There are at least some people who have claimed to be speaking from the position of being atheists whether I agree with them or not.
And there have been some claims of God communicating with us. You may say they are all unconvincing to you. I may say all athiest arguments I also find unconvincing. But I cannot dismiss this skepticism as "apparently no one has claimed to be an atheist with a view to express."
It appears some unrealistic smugness that expressess itself - "Seeing as "God" - or "some higher order of being or creator", as you put it - has apparently not revealed itself to anybody ..."
I cannot so lightly dismiss, for example, the kind of person Jesus was and the proclaimed resurrection of Him from the dead as "Seeing as "God" - or "some higher order of being or creator", as you put it - has apparently not revealed itself to anybody "
You are expressing an agnostic position which insists that what has been revealed to someone cannot be if it has not been revealed to you. But there may be reasons why what is revealed to someone else is not revealed to someone else.
There may be many reasons for that.
04 Apr 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"Tentative Threadbare Dinner Menu"
This is pretty much word salad.
First Course of Crisp Garden Greens
with Choice of Organic Lemon Dressings
and Crusty FMF Baked Bread will also be served;
along with Petite Jello Ice Cubes as a Parfait
just before Our Well Marinated Crock Stew is Plated.
Well Aged High Shouldered Wedding Varietal Red Wines
well be Uncorked by A Grandfather Sommelier.
Dessert and Gratuities Optional.
Bon Appetit!
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipIf I thought your claim that God has communicated with you was convincing, I would come right out and say so, sonship.
And there have been some claims of God communicating with us. You may say they are all unconvincing to you. I may say all athiest arguments I also find unconvincing.
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have no more "summarily dismissed" it than you could be said to have "summarily accepted it". And I could just as well ask whether you are "incapable of grasping" that someone does not subscribe to the same religious doctrines as you. It's curious how your whole approach to spirituality here appears to be a concoction of waffle, catchphrases, and attempted put downs.
Summarily dismissing the possility of [...] the reality of Divine Revelation of Christ's Prophesied Virgin Birth; Unique Life in Hypostatic Union on Earth; Bodily Resurrection; Ascension and Session.
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFYou think he's trying to jazz up Christianity to make it seem more hip and relevant than it really is?
I have no more "summarily dismissed" it than you could be said to have "summarily accepted it". And I could just as well ask whether you are "incapable of grasping" that someone does not subscribe to the same religious doctrines as you. It's curious how your whole approach to spirituality here appears to be a concoction of waffle, catchphrases, and attempted put downs.
That's how it comes across to me...