- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2009,17:47) POTK Good questions. I think laws are products of natural selection. Those who behave in a way likely to help them survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their genes. Laws are just the formalisation of those advantageous behaviours. The laws we make reflect our instincts about how we can get on with one another peacefully and cooperatively, which is one of the key reasons for our success as a species. You may say that I assume an evolutionary source of such laws then would explain each human law as advantageous even though it would not be obviously so, and I agree there is a degree of circular logic about that way of arguing. Nevertheless for most laws it is possible to find common human characteristics across different societies (and different belief systems) which would suggest strongly that natural selection has worked on ethics. Ultimately we are products of natural selection, so everything we do must be put down to that process anyway. There are theories of the evolutionary advantage of god-belief too, which are still in their infancy but go some way to explaining your earlier point about lots of people loving a brutal god. Lots of people loved Stalin too! He killed even more people than your god allegedly has.
Stuart
Laws provide a mechanism for us as moderately intelligent social animals to codify and formalise our rules of interaction with each other.You will see “laws” of a sort at work in other tribal primates too, and many species have some sort of rules governing various social interactions – especially around mating. The rules of engagement vary wildly between species and encompass a lot of diversity.
I imagine there is an evolutionary advantage to codifying and formalising your interactions, since if everyone resorted straight to lethal violence to get what they wanted, we wouldn't do so well as defining some sort of co-operative framework that members of the species (broadly speaking) agree to honour.
As for Stalin, he is still a hero to plenty living today, let alone yesterday.
Absolutely, and when you move from the obvious advantageous rules of conduct like don't kill others and don't steal stuff into the ones relating to not worshiping idols or diverting from monotheism then your must start to think of religions in terms of evolutionary advantage, and possibly as an adaptation that may become disadvantageous in the environment we are creating for ourselves of high population densities, increased lifespans and greater knowledge about the universe.
Stuart
Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 25 2009,10:37) TO STU: Stu,
Are you reading the halloween threads?thinker
I'm not, mainly as I do not have posting rights there. Is there something particular you have in mind?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 25 2009,12:17) Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 25 2009,10:37) TO STU: Stu,
Are you reading the halloween threads?thinker
I'm not, mainly as I do not have posting rights there. Is there something particular you have in mind?Stuart
I know you can't post. But I thought you could still read it. David and Constitutionalist justify your objections to Christianity somewhat. They want to take away the right of people to worship God according to their own conscience. They want everyone to worship God according to their understanding.I was just wondering what you thought about it.
thinker
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,06:33) The law existed 6000 years ago with Abel and Cain in the bible. They made sin offerings, which means the was an established law.
They both made offerings, but there was nothing in the text to suggest that these were “sin offerings”.there are days that I just learned about on a show called mana fest that the occultic world uses
and are important days to themfeb2nd
may1st
aug1st
sep21
oct31 (halloween)
nov1stQuote (Stu @ Oct. 23 2009,06:03) Absolutely, and when you move from the obvious advantageous rules of conduct like don't kill others and don't steal stuff into the ones relating to not worshiping idols or diverting from monotheism then your must start to think of religions in terms of evolutionary advantage, and possibly as an adaptation that may become disadvantageous in the environment we are creating for ourselves of high population densities, increased lifespans and greater knowledge about the universe. Stuart
The cynical side of me says religion has almost always been a great social tool to persuade people not to mind death and suffering (generally their own) so much.I actually think there are bigger issues in terms of our evolutionary adaptation to the modern world – our technological evolution has grossly outpaced our social evolution. So, we're still pretty much the same cavemen who would bash each other over the head with a blunt stone, but now we can use thermonuclear weapons instead.
Likewise we haven't adjusted to the idea that we can fundamentally change our own habitat, or that we need to think in terms of the whole species – not just our individual selves or immediate tribal group (this latter especially difficult since tribal thinking is inherently self reinforcing)
I believe it is a kind of principle of operation for people who are in the business of publicity or politics to be very careful that when the public are choosing a politician or product from a range of options, it is best to make it seem as if the choice you want each person to make is seen to be the 'normal' one, the one ;everyone else' is voting for or buying. This is especially true when the chooser does not know very much about the differences between his options.
Christianity had its champion in the form of Constantine; without him it would probably be extinct. It has some superficially comforting things for people to believe, concepts that people so WANT to believe are true that belief that the ideas are ridiculous is avoided or actively counseled against (for example by Saul of Tarsus). From the principle of tagging along, if 'most' people believe it, at least I might look less stupid standing next to a big group.
I think religion is most likely spread at least partly by the mechanism of memes hijacking young willable minds, and has its evolutionary advantage in getting the group to subsume its individual egos to a 'higher purpose' that is actually the social cooperation that aids survival of the whole group, one of our greatest strengths as a species (to wit: the agricultural revolution and specialisation).
You are right though that we are Cro Magnons with mobile phones, which we still use to metaphorically hit one another over the head with.
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 25 2009,08:22) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,06:33) The law existed 6000 years ago with Abel and Cain in the bible. They made sin offerings, which means the was an established law.
They both made offerings, but there was nothing in the text to suggest that these were “sin offerings”.
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin [chatta'ah] lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Genesis 4:6-7Chatta'ah: Sin, sin offering, condition of sin, guilt of sin, punishment for sin, sin-offering, purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 29 2009,02:54) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 25 2009,08:22) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,06:33) The law existed 6000 years ago with Abel and Cain in the bible. They made sin offerings, which means the was an established law.
They both made offerings, but there was nothing in the text to suggest that these were “sin offerings”.
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin [chatta'ah] lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Genesis 4:6-7Chatta'ah: Sin, sin offering, condition of sin, guilt of sin, punishment for sin, sin-offering, purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness.
No, the “sin” was the anger that Cain felt for bring a supposedly unworthy offering. The offerings themselves were not specified as “sin offerings” (see v3 where “offering” is “minchah”). The word you are trying to make into a “sin offering” is rendered as such only by the context. In V7, the context is not for an offering of any type but simply “sin” as the word is translated 182 times in the AV.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 15 2009,22:44) So with all those people with power, why is there any darkness. Do they actually NOT have power over it, or do they not care about it? Stuart
Darkness is simply the lack of light.Not all sectors of society are guided by light.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 29 2009,19:38) I believe it is a kind of principle of operation for people who are in the business of publicity or politics to be very careful that when the public are choosing a politician or product from a range of options, it is best to make it seem as if the choice you want each person to make is seen to be the 'normal' one, the one ;everyone else' is voting for or buying. This is especially true when the chooser does not know very much about the differences between his options. Christianity had its champion in the form of Constantine; without him it would probably be extinct. It has some superficially comforting things for people to believe, concepts that people so WANT to believe are true that belief that the ideas are ridiculous is avoided or actively counseled against (for example by Saul of Tarsus). From the principle of tagging along, if 'most' people believe it, at least I might look less stupid standing next to a big group.
I think religion is most likely spread at least partly by the mechanism of memes hijacking young willable minds, and has its evolutionary advantage in getting the group to subsume its individual egos to a 'higher purpose' that is actually the social cooperation that aids survival of the whole group, one of our greatest strengths as a species (to wit: the agricultural revolution and specialisation).
You are right though that we are Cro Magnons with mobile phones, which we still use to metaphorically hit one another over the head with.
Stuart
Constantine made Christianity the official religion only to control it and turn it into the institution we see today. It was a political manouver that enabled the Roman Empire to last longer than any other empire as it morphed into the Holy Roman Empire and then the Roman Catholic Church. The true church has always existed as separate to this political organisation. Before Constantine, the only choice was hot or cold. He made it suitable to be luke warm and follow tradition. In fact all he did was put Christian symbols onto a pagan heart. Christmas, Easter, etc are not really Christian at all.He changed it and most that people have against Christianity is what he did to it. It has been said that governments that take over the responsibility of the church and the church that takes governmental responsibility will both lead to disaster.
Governments rule the kingdoms of this world. The Church has a mandate that is completely separate to this.
We do not endorse these dead traditions, rather we are trying to promote the power of God. The same power that the original church experienced and what millions today can testify to today.
I guess we agree that institutionalised Christianity is not really worth preserving.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2009,21:21) So there is no power over that? Doesn't sound like a very powerful god you have there. Stuart
The all powerful God has given men the power to choose. This he respects. When our live here is complete, we cannot make any excuses for the way we lived our life. Because God gave us free will to choose the way we wanted to live.If God took away our free will, we would be a race of robots. Just obeying a perfectly written program.
But love demands choice. If there is no choice then things like love becomes something that you do because it is the only option. So it is not really a true love.
God is love. In order to create a race of being that can fellowship with him and love him, he had to give us free will as risky as that is.
But God will give life to those who choose him. And to those who choose him not, then he will also respect their will too. They will get what they want. That is separation from God, in other words, eternal death.
That is what I want. Eternal death. Eternal life (a myth of Judeo-christian scripture, which in turn is a tradition of man) makes all lives meaningless.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 02 2009,19:38) I guess we agree that institutionalised Christianity is not really worth preserving.
I'm not sure you can dismiss it that easily. I still think that without Constantine there would be no such thing as christianity at all today.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
