Teaching liberals why we have religion:[W:792, 2336]

[James972]

He excuses their behaviour by saying that the Crusaders were half Roman.

is there some reason to expect that all Christian behavior would be highly moral when all Christians are sinners?? Jesus died for our sins not for our good deeds. Do you understand?

 

[ataraxia]

is there some reason to expect that all Christian behavior would be highly moral when all Christians are sinners?? Jesus died for our sins not for our good deeds. Do you understand?

So then what's wrong with sinning? The ticket is to just pay some lip service to the big boss upstairs, right?

 

[James972]

So then what's wrong with sinning?

nothing if you don't believe in God's principles or natural law. And?????????

 

[James972]

So then what's wrong with sinning?

nothing if you don't believe in God's principles or natural law. And?????????

 

[zyzygy]

So then what's wrong with sinning? The ticket is to just pay some lip service to the big boss upstairs, right?

Yep, just say you are sorry for your evil deeds and all is forgiven but blameless atheists will go to hell. That's what one Christian told me.

 

[James972]

Yep, just say you are sorry for your evil deeds and all is forgiven but blameless atheists will go to hell. That's what one Christian told me.

it is true Christianity wants each individual to feel sorry for his sins, to repent, lead a moral life, and expect a heavenly reward so civilization on earth is possible. An atheist is also a sinner but with no moral compass to guide him so is very dangerous to civilization.

 

[Quag]

nothing if you don't believe in God's principles or natural law. And?????????

What is natural law according to you?

 

[zyzygy]

What is natural law according to you?

There are laws of physics but no laws of nature.

 

[Paralogic]

obviously god does not interfere with the good and bad things that happen here...

Why not?

If the god allows evil, then the god is not benevolent. If the god cannot stop evil then, the god is not a god.

Check out Ancient Greek Philosophy, the Pre-Socratics, especially Epikouros (Epicurous)

No religion has ever been able to answer this question that the Ancient Greeks posed, in 350 BC. Therefore, all religions are false, by definition.

 

[Quag]

There are laws of physics but no laws of nature.

Some people claim natural law is the laws of physics others claim it is some imaginary order to things. Just want to know how James sees it.
I dont expect the former.

 

[ataraxia]

nothing if you don't believe in God's principles or natural law. And?????????

What's the point of God's principles or natural law if no one can follow them?

 

[ataraxia]

Some people claim natural law is the laws of physics others claim it is some imaginary order to things. Just want to know how James sees it.
I dont expect the former.

Nature may or may not have any sort of intentional order to it. Physicists are still debating the issue. But does that mean there is any sort of natural, intentioned order to human societies? I don't think so. All sorts of people and cultures have devised various means of trying to create some norms and cultural expectations to order their societies, and all have ascribed them to their various deities. But ordering society seems to me like ordering your room, more than trying to figure out the laws of physics. If you think that the desk should go in the corner and the sweaters should be hung in the closet, that is certainly one way to try to order your room. Someone else may think that the desk should go in the middle of the room, and the sweaters should be folded up in the drawer instead. That's certainly another way to order the room. How we go about ultimately ordering the room can be debated between them, discussing and weighing the pros and cons of each way. But it would be silly for one of them to appeal to the natural law and apparent order of the cosmos, and making an argument like "The planets have regular orbits around the sun, and so natural law and the will of God require that the sweaters need to be hung in the closet, not folded up in the drawer".

In the same way, appealing to natural law and the apparent order of the cosmos to try to get women to cover their face with a hijab or arguing against gay marriage is similarly silly.

 

[zyzygy]

What's the point of God's principles or natural law if no one can follow them?

And we still don't know what this natural law is. I doubt if an explanation will be forthcoming.

 

[ataraxia]

And we still don't know what this natural law is. I doubt if an explanation will be forthcoming.

I don't know about that. I suspect an explanation will be forthcoming all right. It will of course simply be the person's latest and most current opinions on how things should be done, labeled as "natural law".

 

[ataraxia]

Re: Teaching liberals why we have religion:

so then why so afraid to tell us where morals would come from if not from religion??

As soon as you can tell us where language, including vocabulary and laws of grammar, would come from if not from the dictionary and grammar books.

 

[Quag]

Nature may or may not have any sort of intentional order to it. Physicists are still debating the issue. But does that mean there is any sort of natural, intentioned order to human societies? I don't think so. All sorts of people and cultures have devised various means of trying to create some norms and cultural expectations to order their societies, and all have ascribed them to their various deities. But ordering society seems to me like ordering your room, more than trying to figure out the laws of physics. If you think that the desk should go in the corner and the sweaters should be hung in the closet, that is certainly one way to try to order your room. Someone else may think that the desk should go in the middle of the room, and the sweaters should be folded up in the drawer instead. That's certainly another way to order the room. How we go about ultimately ordering the room can be debated between them, discussing and weighing the pros and cons of each way. But it would be silly for one of them to appeal to the natural law and apparent order of the cosmos, and making an argument like "The planets have regular orbits around the sun, and so natural law and the will of God require that the sweaters need to be hung in the closet, not folded up in the drawer".

In the same way, appealing to natural law and the apparent order of the cosmos to try to get women to cover their face with a hijab or arguing against gay marriage is similarly silly.

If natural law refers to the laws of physics then no biggie if it refers to some man made idea it is meaningless, I suspect James means the latter

 

[ataraxia]

If natural law refers to the laws of physics then no biggie if it refers to some man made idea it is meaningless, I suspect James means the latter

The trick which James is pulling, dating back from medieval times and the medieval scholastics, is to conflate the two. It comes from thinking that there is some preexisting intended natural order which we are trying to find, rather than some order which we are trying to create. It's the difference between finding and creating. So in the same way that we have discovered a "natural law" or "order" which governs planetary orbits around the sun, or gravity, or electron motions around an atom, we will have found that the intended moral order for us is to have our women cover their face with a hijab, or ban gay marriage. The idea is that the same way that you would face serious repercussions if you ignore the laws of gravity, we would face serious repercussions if we ignore these natural laws for our societies and morality as well.

It all comes down to if laws of morality pre-exist and are built-in to nature and are just waiting for us to figure them out like "laws of physics", either through reason, or the right religion, etc... (this would be the mindset of a scientist or explorer discovering things already there), or are they things which we create and come up with, to order our societies in the same way we would order our messy room- IOW, no pre-existing plan or intention or order to them, just more clever or less clever and new ways to try to arrange and order things as best we can (this would be more the mindset of an artist or an engineer).

I tend to favor the latter view.

 

[blarg]

What's the point of God's principles or natural law if no one can follow them?

so you have to follow gods religion in order for god not to hurt you nothing suspicious hear

 

[Quag]

The trick which James is pulling, dating back from medieval times and the medieval scholastics, is to conflate the two. It comes from thinking that there is some preexisting intended natural order which we are trying to find, rather than some order which we are trying to create. It's the difference between finding and creating. So in the same way that we have discovered a "natural law" or "order" which governs planetary orbits around the sun, or gravity, or electron motions around an atom, we will have found that the intended moral order for us is to have our women cover their face with a hijab, or ban gay marriage. The idea is that the same way that you would face serious repercussions if you ignore the laws of gravity, we would face serious repercussions if we ignore these natural laws for our societies and morality as well.

It all comes down to if laws of morality pre-exist and are built-in to nature and are just waiting for us to figure them out like "laws of physics", either through reason, or the right religion, etc... (this would be the mindset of a scientist or explorer discovering things already there), or are they things which we create and come up with, to order our societies in the same way we would order our messy room- IOW, no pre-existing plan or intention or order to them, just more clever or less clever and new ways to try to arrange and order things as best we can (this would be more the mindset of an artist or an engineer).

I tend to favor the latter view.

I really dont think James as the subtlety to be playing any tricks. If he ever bothers we will find out but when it comes to James answering questions he is about 50% not the worst on DP but cant say he is very good at it.

 

[Quag]

so you have to follow gods religion in order for god not to hurt you nothing suspicious hear

But God doesn't interfere so he need not worry about getting hurt

 

[blarg]

But God doesn't interfere so he need not worry about getting hurt

only when your alive but it turns out your fine after you die only then god hurts you if you dont listen a friends sister in laws great uncle totally sall it

 

[Rich123]

Re: Teaching liberals why we have religion:

many people would in time , obviously, given that their world view and sense of morality comes from God. Do you understand now?

Being that there are so many religions and being that each religion claims to be the true religion, which at least infers that each diety or profit is or are somehow responsible for given the ( law) =commandments or morals to it's followers, then doesn't it seem a bit suspect to you where these so called laws, morals commandment, come from?

Man is a social animal. Why? because in our more primitive state of existence we had to hunt in groups in order to be successful. Unity of purpose, cooperation and social order was and still is required for SURVIVAL. It's as simple as that. Even today researchers have found primitive people in Amazonia who were previously unknown. In their society they cooperate, they hunt together and they share norms and morals suitable for their mutual existence.

Does this mean there is no such thing as God. Absolutely NOT. But does God exist as we perceive. Probably not. Religious leaders in the Christian faith point to water to explain the the Trinity.
Water exist as a liquid, Gas and solid. The Trinity three Gods in one. I believe there is something to be learned there, because it takes energy for each of those three states to exist. But instead of looking at water, lets look at energy. Science states that energy: can not be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one state of existence to another. All things in nature possess energy. Trees ,grass, frog, lizards and humans. The miracle of life as we perceive it, starts at birth. From nothing we have life. But does that miracle stop at birth for everything which exist? During our lives we consume life,and the lives of everything we use possesses energy. Those energy forms we convert into living matter. So to does every living thing. That is the cycle of life. When we or other things expire our energy if left to nature, would go back to nature, decompose and re absorbed into the living fabric of nature. Thus the conversion of energy is complete and begins anew.

The Bible tells us that" God Always was and always will be for ever and ever, world without ending amen." Religion is man's attempt to understand creation. Man gets all hung up on what we think is true,(religion) . But you see from a scientific point of view, there is truth to the description religion gave to God. God always was and always will be, energy can not be created or destroyed. It can merely be converted from one state of existence to another as water changes from liquid,solid and gas.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Teaching liberals why we have religion:

Being that there are so many religions and being that each religion claims to be the true religion, which at least infers that each diety or profit is or are somehow responsible for given the ( law) =commandments or morals to it's followers, then doesn't it seem a bit suspect to you where these so called laws, morals commandment, come from?

They come come from the brains of human beings.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Teaching liberals why we have religion:

Being that there are so many religions and being that each religion claims to be the true religion, which at least infers that each diety or profit is or are somehow responsible for given the ( law) =commandments or morals to it's followers, then doesn't it seem a bit suspect to you where these so called laws, morals commandment, come from?

Man is a social animal. Why? because in our more primitive state of existence we had to hunt in groups in order to be successful. Unity of purpose, cooperation and social order was and still is required for SURVIVAL. It's as simple as that. Even today researchers have found primitive people in Amazonia who were previously unknown. In their society they cooperate, they hunt together and they share norms and morals suitable for their mutual existence.

Does this mean there is no such thing as God. Absolutely NOT. But does God exist as we perceive. Probably not. Religious leaders in the Christian faith point to water to explain the the Trinity.
Water exist as a liquid, Gas and solid. The Trinity three Gods in one. I believe there is something to be learned there, because it takes energy for each of those three states to exist. But instead of looking at water, lets look at energy. Science states that energy: can not be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one state of existence to another. All things in nature possess energy. Trees ,grass, frog, lizards and humans. The miracle of life as we perceive it, starts at birth. From nothing we have life. But does that miracle stop at birth for everything which exist? During our lives we consume life,and the lives of everything we use possesses energy. Those energy forms we convert into living matter. So to does every living thing. That is the cycle of life. When we or other things expire our energy if left to nature, would go back to nature, decompose and re absorbed into the living fabric of nature. Thus the conversion of energy is complete and begins anew.

The Bible tells us that" God Always was and always will be for ever and ever, world without ending amen." Religion is man's attempt to understand creation. Man gets all hung up on what we think is true,(religion) . But you see from a scientific point of view, there is truth to the description religion gave to God. God always was and always will be, energy can not be created or destroyed. It can merely be converted from one state of existence to another as water changes from liquid,solid and gas.

That is not a convincing argument for the existence of a god. You start by assuming that this god exists. Life does not come from nothing. And water has four states.

 

[James972]

Re: Teaching liberals why we have religion:

Being that there are so many religions and being that each religion claims to be the true religion,

I'll go with the one that built Western Civilization and just set billions more free in USSR, Red China, and India!!