[pbleighton]

Wars go on, don't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

though we've done pretty well over the last fifty years.

My concern was:

Quote

The main question from my point of view is whether our ability to improve our behavior (real but slow and uneven) can counterbalance our rapidly improving destructive technology.

We'd better get better. Technology has raised the stakes. See 9/11, or better yet, Hiroshima.

Peter

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 27 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 26 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

A bit more on the "nature of man."  With 244 million references on google there is quite a wide spread of opinion on just what is mans' nature and what the word "nature" even means. Many times it seems people are talking about two very different subjects.

Regardless of what you think is the nature of man I wanted in this post to talk about the immutability of that nature. If one's view of mans' nature as unchangeable no matter what the training or education or assistance from the rest of mankind your view of the world and your role in it may be very different from someone who believes mans' nature can or may be improved or changed with some help from mankind.

from my worldview, man has a sin nature that can't be changed alone or with the help of any other man (or group of men)... this is apart from any particular man's ethical or moral view of himself, or the view others may have of him

Jimmy,

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.


What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Aug 26 2007, 09:52 PM, said:

Surely one cannot have an 'ultimate' discussion on the nature of God without first resolving the issue of whether there is any such 'God'?

I would say you can. One of my favorite teachers once said "we must know what we're discussing before we can discuss it". An analogy: is there a polynomial-time algorithm that solves an MP-complete problem? If not, is there a proof for its non-existence? You must first clarify the terms (as it happens, the terms have been clarified) before you can debate the issues.

My aunt says that "God is love" and it appears that she means that literally. Under that definition, even I would accept the existence of God, although not as a physical entity. Then again, although my aunt's position is probably extreme, I think many believers think of God as something non-physical.

I could call myself a "semantic agnostic" in the sense that I have no opinion on the existence of God because I consider the issue ill-defined. Given a coherent definition I may or may not have an opinion (probably a negative one since I tend not to believe in the existence of entities other than those whose existence is non-controversial). As I understand it, most scientist who are profilic about this issue think that the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins is an exception.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.


What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Quote

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 28 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.


What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Quote

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Jimmy, I had hoped you would have noticed the word "rational" in my question. I am not asking for a biblical reason. I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.


The nature of man.
I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

Some of the most profound wisdeom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

Time takes time.
Live and let live.
One day at a time.

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?
Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?
Would you curse man for human frailty?

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Aug 28 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 28 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.


What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Quote

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Jimmy, I had hoped you would have noticed the word "rational" in my question. I am not asking for a biblical reason. I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.


The nature of man.
I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

Some of the most profound wisdeom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

Time takes time.
Live and let live.
One day at a time.

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?
Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?
Would you curse man for human frailty?

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

1) Your question or questions in the post have been answered time and time again. Just reread those posts.
2) Your last question I think is huge. How can mankind be punished for doing what is it's nature?

I do not have a full answer to this. For what little I understand it has to do with all of mankind, including the unborn, participating in the originial freedom of choice to sin. To sin( or commit the worst crime thinkable) to such a horrible, horrible degree that the only "Just" sentence is death and damnation. IF this answer to your final question seems incomplete, I agree.

Again only a partial answer but if someone kills and kills and rapes and rapes because of an uncontrollable compulsion, does Justice still demand a stiff punishment including death? IF you only send them to prison and they continue to kill and rape inside the prison does Justice demand a stiffer punishment? If so what compared to the 1000 years of prison they already have?

[Winstonm]

Quote

1) Your question or questions in the post have been answered time and time again. Just reread those posts.

Mike, I don't think it has ever been answered on a non-religious basis, which is the point to the re-ask.

The second question is really part of the first - subracting religious dogma, what would be the need for punishment for following one's nature? Again, what is the need for sacrifice?

These are hard questions and I don't profess to know the answers - but it doesn't, to me, attempt to answer the questions by quoting verses from a book of which many do not accept as a reliable resource. or to profess learned theology - that tells me what you may believe, what you may have learned and memorized, but it does not tell me what you think.

You bring up a valid question regarding murder and killing. Here's another thought. It is (IMO) a psychological fact that a sociopath is created by his environment - is this person in need of salvation for horrible acts he may commit? After all, it was not a choice to be a sociopath.

I believe there is considerable difference in discussing morality and justice in a society versus individual morality and justice on a spiritual basis.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Aug 28 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

Jimmy,

I think I have brought this up in another thread but I would like to hear your opinion.


What is the rational cause for sacrifice to be a necessity?

all things in the old testament had but one goal: for God to redeem his creation from the slavery it was in, and from the slave master to whom it had sold itself... since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and since the wages of sin is death (and remember how i defined that in an earlier post), there had to be a legal transfer... God is omni in all his attributes, justice being one of them...

Winstonm, on Aug 27 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Quote

Is the nature of Mankind basically moral and kind or thoroughly immoral?

Mike, I don't think I answered this.

My view is that the nature of man is to be human - no more and no less.

in context man = human so you're saying it's man's nature to be man... tautological but not enlightening

Since our basic philosophy is similar, (except for the religious/spiritual notions) just what exactly do you consider to be "God"?

[Winstonm]

Quote

My aunt says that "God is love" and it appears that she means that literally. Under that definition, even I would accept the existence of God, although not as a physical entity. Then again, although my aunt's position is probably extreme, I think many believers think of God as something non-physical.

You may find some interest in the manner that "a higher power" is introduced in Alcoholics Anonymous. The concept introduced is simply that there is one, but it is up to the person to create that being. One man I know made his dog his higher power. Another made a doorknob his higher power. Some come to believe that god is simply a hidden part of themselves, an untapped inner man; some find god to be nature; others take a more conventional route.

The entire concept is that the psychological disease of alcoholism is caused by self-rule, making oneself god, if you will. The entire object of the dog god or doorknob god is to admit helplessness to conquer the disease alone, by will.

If there is a higher power, this release of control allows that higher power to act. "God is love" is as good as any other definition. But the key in the process is actions - it has nothing to do with belief or faith. Most who start down this road have no belief whatsoever. They just do what they are told because they are desperate. The actions come first; the results lead over time to belief.

"The only thing that stands between me and you, and me and god, is self." A New Pair of Glasses.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Since our basic philosophy is similar, (except for the religious/spiritual notions) just what exactly do you consider to be "God"?

Simple - a power that is greater than ourselves, created from our own ideas of a power we would trust to act in our best interest at all times.

If this sounds a bit like Harvey, the 6-foot rabbit, it is. It is not the creation but the results from following actions based on this premise that creates belief.

Example: A Day in the Life

I do what I can today but no more. Any problem too great for me alone I simply turn over to this higher power to solve and I forget it and start all over the next day to do what I can that day.

If you want to call this power Harvey, I'm sure he wouldn't object - he has a sense of humor - if that's what you think.

But it has nothing to do with faith - it is totally about acting like you have faith.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2007, 04:24 AM, said:

It is (IMO) a psychological fact that a sociopath is created by his environment - is this person in need of salvation for horrible acts he may commit?  After all, it was not a choice to be a sociopath.

Whether sociopaths are as they are due to genes, teaching or whatever, one could argue that they did not "chose" to commit and therefore do not "deserve" to be punished. That one can "deserve" punishment is the theory of the free will. Nature vs. nurture is irrelevant.

I had a friend who was strongly opposed to religious belief and at the same time strongly believed in the free will. As the opposite, I believe there is a branch of Islam that is build on fatalism. But generally, it seems that believers of the Abrahamic religions also believe in the free will while many atheist philosophers do not.

Maybe the clue is this: free will is needed to "justify" punishment at a more fundamental level than merely the pragmatic notion that the thread of punishment will prevent others from committing crime. For punishment to be a religious necessity, it must be justified on more than a pragmatic basis.

Another clue is the common objection against the Abrahamic religions: since there is evil in the World, God is either evil or he's not omnipotent. To some, free will resolves this problem.

But ultimately, I think that the theory of the free will is a corollary to the theory of the mind, which is a fundamental psychological phenomena, probably not related to religious belief and certainly not related to any particular religion. While the idea of the "justice" of punishment is a post-hoc justification of the tid-for-tad strategy which is well accounted for by evolutionary psychology. In the medieval, animals were frequently put on trial and convicted. This makes sense if the criterion for accountability is free will. Today we don't put animals on trial. Not because we don't believe they have free will, but because the tid-for-tad strategy does not apply to our relations to animals, at least not in the same way as to inter-human relations.

[mike777]

Reading these last 40 posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.


Your neighbor kills and kills and rapes and rapes..he goes to prison and continues to kill and kill..rape and rape out of compulsion.....

This happens in real life everyday.....

It is called LIfe.

So someone breaks this moral code and your solution to this everyday problem is what.......

What does "Justice" demand.

If no punishment because it is a compulsion then what?


If nature compells mankind to be immoral than what? medicine...supernatural...ethical training,......other?

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 29 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

I was very careful to distinguish between a personal code of morals and civil law.
The two are very different.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

Some posters seem to resent any good behavior by any human being, as it conflicts with their self-hating view of human nature.

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Aug 29 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

Reading these last 40  posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.

<snip>

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

Hi,

So what? Did you expect, that those issues can be resolved? They cant.

You cant convince someone that his core believes are wrong.
And if you discuss this with someone, who treats the subject
only as a theoretical problem, the discussion is useless. (*)

I did not read most of the posts, because this is one of my core
believes.

To answer your question:

"Give Cesar, what belongs to Cesar, and give the Lord, what belongs
to the Lord." (Not sure, if I got this right, I just translated the german
words.)

And if you have a conflict between the demands made by Ceasar
and made by the Lord, you have to decide for your own, if you fight
for your believes or not. And if you are lucky, you will be able to
convince "Cesar" that he has to change his demands.
And if not, you dont live forever, maybe someone else will continue
the fight.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 29 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

Reading these last 40  posts make me think no one reads any of them..I raised this issue eons ago.


Your neighbor kills and kills and rapes and rapes..he goes to prison and continues to kill and kill..rape and rape out of compulsion.....

This happens in real life everyday.....

It is called LIfe.

So someone breaks this moral code and your solution to this everyday problem is what.......

What does "Justice" demand.

If no punishment because it is a compulsion then what?


If nature compells mankind to be immoral than what? medicine...supernatural...ethical training,......other?

Some posters even seem to suggest if you break your morals there should be zero punishment/sentence.

Mike, I didn't go into depth to answer but stated that there is a difference between societal rules and justice and some type of universal justice.

Societies can certainly create laws and punishments. The dangerous sociopath is best locked up in order to protect the greater society; however, that is not to say the sociopath should be judged evil and condemned to eternal punishment.

[mike777]

I just wonder how families get Justice?

If your family breaks your moral code and hurts my family somehow, note this need not be a legal crime, how do families get Justice for the hurt your family caused? What are your ethical obligations to snitch on your family? Civil courts cannot always bring Justice in these cases of hurt.

Note even in crime only about 20%(guess) of murders or rapes result in jail time for the offender. Note this 20% is just a guess and is not the same thing as the "Police solve rate". And this is in a modern country I bet it is even less in poor countries.

How do families get Justice for Rawanda or Dafur? For Stalin or Mao?
Where do Native Americans go for justice against invading Europeans?

I just wonder how families get Justice in a world without a Just God and a broken legal system? Not all poor immoral behavior(however you define it ) that crys out for Justice can be solved in the legal or civil courts.

Someone killed Robert Blake's wife, etc........

To say society meets out even a fraction of the Justice that immoral behavior calls for seems extreme at the least. OTOH perhaps Justice for your family just has not been an issue for some people.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 28 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Jimmy, ~~~ I am not asking for a biblical reason.  I am asking for a rational reason based on non-scripture why a supreme being would mandate sacrifice as an atonement.

is it possible for me to answer this from the perspective of my worldview, when that perspective exists because i am convinced of the truthfulness found in scripture?

Quote

If you talk about justice, remember that it is only human justice we understand, so to presume godly justice is to presume our human understanding of justice is equal to that of god.

i don't believe this to be the case... i can fully understand the concept of God's justice, although my understanding is limited by the fact that i am human and he is God... i don't have to have God's intelligence to understand the things he teaches, imo

Quote

The nature of man.
I believe if you will consider it deeper, you will find that the statement that the nature of man is to be human is much more than it seems on the surface.

i didn't mean to imply that your statement had no value, merely that it isn't very illuminating... i believe mike was asking for an opinion as to the nature of man, whether it is in general good, in general evil, or in general a combination of the two... it was a good question and the answer tells a lot

Quote

Some of the most profound wisdom I have ever seen appeared as trite, warn phrases hanging on walls - until you understood the depth of meaning.

Time takes time.
Live and let live.
One day at a time.

The nature of man is to be no more and no less than human; the nature of man is to be man - I find that quite profound, really.

again, i won't dispute the profundity of your statement, or of those others

Quote

Would you curse a scorpion for stinging its prey?
Would you curse a mother kitten for nurturing its offspring?
Would you curse man for human frailty?

How can there be need for salvation if you are what you were born to be?

this goes back to my earlier post, but the answer lies even further back... you are what you are because one man, on your behalf, made a decision that resulted in a legal transfer of ownership from God to satan... Christ's death redeemed you, purchased you, from your previous servitude... all who believe are now free to serve whom they will whereas previously they had no such choice

[Winstonm]

Quote

I just wonder how families get Justice?

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

This concept of judgment to me is simply a method for the downtrodden over history to facilitate hope - a hope that someday the great avenger will come down and punish all the schoolyard bullies who pushed them around. Very much in keeping with the "opiate of the masses" concept.