by cofty 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi Cofty
I know about Christian theism but I am hoping for non-christian non-believer thought
which technically is still theism I guess. I am not asking about why might be called evil. I am asking
about evil. Red tooth and claw evil. Enjoy your posts btw.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?312542-1/words-sally-satel Leads to a good talk on neuroscience.
uuumm no I associate "thing" with molecules.
Red necks don't know many words but, status maybe. The thesaurus is no help.
I'm thinking of morality, whether natural or supernatural. It is just that I as a believer in God
have to admit that I see through a glass darkly. I do not have quick easy answers and saw in this
thread a chance to get the viewpoint of some folks the see things from a different starting point.
I am not down on J. Bruce Irsay, I just saw an article on the Titanic and then this thread. Bruce did
what came naturally. My starting point comes from Ephesians 2:3, no surprise. Bruce and I share
a natural birth defect that is not molecular and 1 Corinthians 11:31 applies.
The more I think about it, free will better refers to what I was asking about. I see an unbridgeable
gap between what a hyena naturally does and what I naturally do, not singling out Mr. Irsay but using
him as a useful example. We can say what he did was natural but was it evil? What do you think?
Jerryh I'm struggling to get a handle on your specific question.
I think you are observing that there is a difference between an animal inflicting suffering on another conscious creature and a human doing so.
If so then I agree. Predators and parasites are amoral not immoral.
Bruce and I share a natural birth defect that is not molecular
Could you explain more about this?
Thanks for your patience. In the Christian narrative we see when "immorality" arose.
Whether a person accepts it or not we still have the narrative.
In the narrative where impersonal energy gels into the Higgs bosen- quarks - Hydrogen - water
amoeba - etc. when did amoral become immoral? not a gotcha, I am interested.
Thanks for your patience
I'm enjoying the conversation, thanks.
The christian narrative characterises a beautiful newborn baby as a worthless sinner "deserving of wrath" because an ancestor ate a piece of fruit. It is a dehumanising and psychologically damaging myth.
We are social animals with minds capable of empathy. When we do unnecessary harm to other conscious creatures we are held to account by other members of society. Young children and those who are mentally incapacitated get a free pass because we know they can't grasp the implications of their actions. This is the difference between amoral and immoral. Intention is the key thing.
At what stage in our evolution we acquired the capacity to make moral judgements is difficult to say. Brain size must be part of it but the way our brains are organised is equally important.
I'm enjoying the conversation, thanks
Me too, though I have not been able to express my bewilderment at molecules evolving free will.
The christian narrative characterises a beautiful newborn baby as a worthless sinner "deserving of wrath" because an ancestor ate a piece of fruit.
Cofty, no doubt you know the Christian answer to this. Even the JWs cite "age of accountability".
Much more important though is what happened on the cross shows the worth of babies.
At what stage in our evolution we acquired the capacity to make moral judgements is difficult to say.
I get the picture that you are a thoughtful man which is why I entered this conversation in the first place.
Some things are difficult to say. Let me end with a hypothetical question. I understand you reject the
Christian story so I realize this is hypothetical. If it was true. If is was true. Would it be a good deal?
Toxoplasma gondii. Nature's way of asking whether God loves cats or just really, really hates rodents.
(For those who don't know the studies on this one, it's a parasite which effectively rewires rodent brains to not mind predators, to actively seek out the scent of predators, and all so that it can reproduce in its favoured host - felines.)
Much more important though is what happened on the cross shows the worth of babies
I find the story of the cross to be degrading.
According to the christian story babies are born in sin deserving only of god's wrath. God's anger was propitiated by the sight of Jesus' bloody body hanging on a cross.
If we accept this, god will save us from what he was going to do to us otherwise.
If is was true. Would it be a good deal?
No.
I could be afraid of an angry god but I could never worship or adore such a capricious monster. I suspect those who do have something analogous to Stockholm Syndrome.
Teaching children that they are fallen sinners is abusive.
I have not been able to express my bewilderment at molecules evolving free will.
Maybe free will is a delusion.
I would love to have a conversation about morality without god. I have been meaning to start a thread on the subject for some time. I think I will do that tomorrow.
