Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If TigerTime is ever interested in an actually biblical exposition on this matter, take it to Hijack Haven and I will correct Pat’s woeful misrepresentation of the mind of God. For the… (pick a big number)th time.[/quote]

Am I to understand that you contend human’s ARE worthy of Hell-fire by birthright? [/quote]You are to understand that in Adam all died (1st Corinthians.15:22), they continue in sin and death (Ephesians 2:1-12) there are no exceptions (Romans 3:9-19), save for Jesus alone (2nd Corinthians.5:21), until they are raised in Christ (Colossians 3:1). In a nutshell.

Systematic theology, wherein the bible alone and in it’s entirety is studied critically using the histroico-exegetical method is all but lost today. The text must be first taken in it’s historical context(what did it mean to them) and then applied to us (what does that mean for us). Cultural form and trans-cultural principle. When that is done for the whole bible under the assumption that God is God and I am not, you end up with 44 of the 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention in remarkable agreement about what they at least said they believed the bible teaches.

It is at once accessible to a child AND beyond the ultimate reach of the most brilliant and learned of godly men. The Word of God in short. Yes, as King David has so eloquently told us in the 5th verse of the 51st Psalm: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”

I’ll be impressed if you actually look those up.
[/quote]

And you are okay with this?

For example, do you agree that aborted babies should go to Hell because they haven’t been baptised? Do you agree that it is fair for the sins of the father to be pushed on the son?

722

I’ll have to get you later man. I have work. I will though.

723

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I don’t buy Tirib’s reading of Romans 1, though I know how foundational it is to his apologetic method. >>>>[/quote]You’ve read some of my posts. I’m honored. I mean that.
You’re more than welcome to join us. I do not hate YOU, but I most assuredly do abominate that disgusting school of groovy neo-“conservative” academia that you hail from. Fancying yourselves saviors of the savior. He does not need your pathetic help… or mine. The gospel once for all delivered to the saints IS the power of God. Your “progressive” revisions are the devil’s delight. Like I say, you’re more than welcome to join us.[/quote]

Such a nice welcome.

724

I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are.

725

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are. [/quote]

No way to reconcile these issues? In what way do you mean reconcile?

726

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, >>>[/quote]You are absolutely correct. They are eternally mortal enemies of one another.

727

They shouldn’t be mortal enemies - it’s morally wrong to harm someone, why does it matter if humnans evolved this belief or whether God told us as much??? It’s still morally wrong either way. Moral relativism is in fact born out of the fact that society needs to be able to explain the irrational hate and prejudice that religions show for some members of society, and therefore some allowance is required to explain this otherwise dare I say it, evil, behaviour.

Most humans agree on what is morally right or wrong as it’s ultimately rooted in what cause us suffering and what doesnt.

728

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
They shouldn’t be mortal enemies - it’s morally wrong to harm someone, why does it matter if humnans evolved this belief or whether God told us as much??? It’s still morally wrong either way. Moral relativism is in fact born out of the fact that society needs to be able to explain the irrational hate and prejudice that religions show for some members of society, and therefore some allowance is required to explain this otherwise dare I say it, evil, behaviour.

Most humans agree on what is morally right or wrong as it’s ultimately rooted in what cause us suffering and what doesnt.[/quote]Please receive the following with copious quantities of blessings and good will. You have alotta reading to do.

729

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
They shouldn’t be mortal enemies - it’s morally wrong to harm someone, why does it matter if humnans evolved this belief or whether God told us as much??? It’s still morally wrong either way. Moral relativism is in fact born out of the fact that society needs to be able to explain the irrational hate and prejudice that religions show for some members of society, and therefore some allowance is required to explain this otherwise dare I say it, evil, behaviour.

Most humans agree on what is morally right or wrong as it’s ultimately rooted in what cause us suffering and what doesnt.[/quote]

There are literally thousands of examples that show just the opposite to be true.

Humans are selfish, greedy, bloodthirsty, carnal, lying, backstabbing, raping, pillaging, murdering little perpetual motion machines of the worst kinds of evil. We’ve probably killed more of our own kind than even nature has been able to do.

On what possible grounds could you ever argue that morality is anything other than a MASSIVE aberration in the natural course of human evolution?

The argument is a moot one, anyway, as neither human actions nor their beliefs are the same thing as morality itself.

As Tirib said, no offense (seriously), but you have a lot of reading to do.

730

Still waiting patiently*

731

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I think this discussion is going nowhere because of two different schools of ideas that are coming forward. There are those who believe that we have evolved from apes, and that our morality is a construct developed by people that go into and beyond evolution and into what we should, or ought to and why.

Then we have religious people who believe morality is a static set of rules handed down by some mighty creator.

These two ideas as they are listed are mutually exclusive, one being that morality is a construct that evolved, the other being that morality is static and handed down by god. There is no way to reconcile these differences, only to understand the various other ideas for what they are. [/quote]

No way to reconcile these issues? In what way do you mean reconcile? [/quote]

I mean as the ideas stand they cannot work together as they are. Just another way of saying as the ideas stand they are mutually exclusive.

This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well.

732

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
They shouldn’t be mortal enemies - it’s morally wrong to harm someone, why does it matter if humnans evolved this belief or whether God told us as much??? It’s still morally wrong either way. Moral relativism is in fact born out of the fact that society needs to be able to explain the irrational hate and prejudice that religions show for some members of society, and therefore some allowance is required to explain this otherwise dare I say it, evil, behaviour.

Most humans agree on what is morally right or wrong as it’s ultimately rooted in what cause us suffering and what doesnt.[/quote]

There are literally thousands of examples that show just the opposite to be true.

Humans are selfish, greedy, bloodthirsty, carnal, lying, backstabbing, raping, pillaging, murdering little perpetual motion machines of the worst kinds of evil. We’ve probably killed more of our own kind than even nature has been able to do.

On what possible grounds could you ever argue that morality is anything other than a MASSIVE aberration in the natural course of human evolution?

The argument is a moot one, anyway, as neither human actions nor their beliefs are the same thing as morality itself.

As Tirib said, no offense (seriously), but you have a lot of reading to do. [/quote]

Such is the dualistic nature of humankind; on one hand violent and brutal, on the other hand loving and compassionate.

We struggle with this dualistic nature daily and try to make sense of it, just as we try to make sense of life in general, by bestowing either side with origin and meaning.

The good side is of god, the bad side is of sinful nature.

This is how we make sense of life and our actions.

At the same time it takes away our ability to change for the better because this idea relinquishes power to a deity instead of placing responsibility back in our hands.

Yes, we are mere animals in many respects, but we also have the ability to transcend that nature simply because that ability is also in our nature.

On a cosmological timescale, humankind is still so very, very young and so very, very immature. And that is what ails us, immaturity, not the lack of adherence to devine morality.

733

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< The good side is of god, the bad side is of sinful nature. >>>[/quote]I say they’re both ultimately the providential realization of the decree of God. Both ultimately of God or God is Himself uncertain and contingent and there goes OUR certainty. Dualism is Gnosticism. Dealt with a very very long time ago Ephrem.

734

Or, it’s just how we are as human animals.

735

Dualism the way I know it is the belief that the mind/soul and body are two separate things, as opposed to monism the belief that the physical and sort of spiritual are one thing, some versions believe that everything (contents of the universe) is really one thing wrapped up together.

736

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Dualism the way I know it is the belief that the mind/soul and body are two separate things, as opposed to monism the belief that the physical and sort of spiritual are one thing, some versions believe that everything (contents of the universe) is really one thing wrapped up together. [/quote]

Yes, that is true, but it’s not the only way to refer to our dualistic nature; for instance, “Dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde”.

737

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Two objects can’t occupy the same space, and this is true for atoms/neutrons and protons aswell. Only on that scale you’re talking about energy states rather than objects.

If you change the energy state of one atom, any other atom that occupies that energy state will have to change because it can’t occupy the same state.

Ofcourse I’m no scientist, but Brian Cox is and he explains this further in a popsci lecture he did in London with a bunch of British celebrities.
[/quote]

Yeah I like this guy. I have seen his show before and I find it fascinating as I do all this stuff. I do very much enjoy this idea that even the most minute things has a ripple effect across the universe.
Of course these notions fit in, in a very tidy way with causation and causal theory. So this is right in my wheel house.

738

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
And you are okay with this?

For example, do you agree that aborted babies should go to Hell because they haven’t been baptised? Do you agree that it is fair for the sins of the father to be pushed on the son? [/quote]

Hell, FUCK no. That’s not the way it works. Culpability is everything. You will yourself to hell. Nobody but you makes that decision. God didn’t create damned people, he gave us the freewill to damn ourselves, but he did not predestine us to rot in hell.
Predestination is probably the most disgusting, bastardized, idiotic, and grotesquely warped, and anti-scriptural heresy going right now.
Sure we’d like to be special, but we’re not. Everybody has to fight for it, there are no free rides.

739

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
They shouldn’t be mortal enemies - it’s morally wrong to harm someone, why does it matter if humnans evolved this belief or whether God told us as much??? It’s still morally wrong either way. Moral relativism is in fact born out of the fact that society needs to be able to explain the irrational hate and prejudice that religions show for some members of society, and therefore some allowance is required to explain this otherwise dare I say it, evil, behaviour.

Most humans agree on what is morally right or wrong as it’s ultimately rooted in what cause us suffering and what doesnt.[/quote]

There are literally thousands of examples that show just the opposite to be true.

Humans are selfish, greedy, bloodthirsty, carnal, lying, backstabbing, raping, pillaging, murdering little perpetual motion machines of the worst kinds of evil. We’ve probably killed more of our own kind than even nature has been able to do.

On what possible grounds could you ever argue that morality is anything other than a MASSIVE aberration in the natural course of human evolution?

The argument is a moot one, anyway, as neither human actions nor their beliefs are the same thing as morality itself.

As Tirib said, no offense (seriously), but you have a lot of reading to do. [/quote]

Such is the dualistic nature of humankind; on one hand violent and brutal, on the other hand loving and compassionate.

We struggle with this dualistic nature daily and try to make sense of it, just as we try to make sense of life in general, by bestowing either side with origin and meaning.

The good side is of god, the bad side is of sinful nature.

This is how we make sense of life and our actions.

At the same time it takes away our ability to change for the better because this idea relinquishes power to a deity instead of placing responsibility back in our hands.

Yes, we are mere animals in many respects, but we also have the ability to transcend that nature simply because that ability is also in our nature.

On a cosmological timescale, humankind is still so very, very young and so very, very immature. And that is what ails us, immaturity, not the lack of adherence to devine morality.[/quote]

The dual nature problem is not a good vs. evil thing, it’s the physical and the metaphysical natures of all things really that is dual nature.

The fact that morality is a metaphysical component and is static at it’s core is just a fact. Morality is not necessary for survival of the species. It is this moral awareness that sets us apart from other living things.

740

[quote]pat wrote:

The dual nature problem is not a good vs. evil thing, it’s the physical and the metaphysical natures of all things really that is dual nature.

The fact that morality is a metaphysical component and is static at it’s core is just a fact. Morality is not necessary for survival of the species. It is this moral awareness that sets us apart from other living things.[/quote]

That’s a bold statement, pat. Empathy and compassion are the foundation morality is built upon.

You can hardly argue that empathy and compassion aren’t necessary for survival of the species?

As far as I can recall, you don’t think morality has empathy and compassion as its foundation, but correct me if I’m wrong.