hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter justinthemartyr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please read my previous posts where I explain my beliefs.

You may find it useful to get some rest and drink more water. Some of you posts give the impression you are under a lot of stress.
Thanks for the VERY useful suggestions! 🙂 Stress-R-my-middlename, as it were, but other than occassionally APPEARING to become a bit grumpy (which is just a not overly clever ruse!), it actually improves the (dubious) quality of my thinking.

I shall re-read your posts, though I doubt that I’ll learn anything more than that you think it’s good to be good to other humans because it’s a good thing to do, because you like to be treated well and others should be treated like you like to be treated.

If I wrong about that, I’ll let you know what I’ve found otherwise! Thanks again for the well wishes! You take good care of yourself as well!
 
by the way Notself, what gives Humans the ability to acknowledge God in every age and worship Him, yet no other creature on earth can do this?

How do you know this is true? We know so little about animals and their behavior. We know nothing about their thoughts.
No other animal needs to worship God as we do because everything they do IS worship, though utterly passive worship, to God. Their place in the universe is to be our “clothing”, our resource to show we love God.

We’re the “oddball” because we can choose NOT to worship Him, and abuse the “clothing” we’ve been given.
 
How do you know this is true? We know so little about animals and their behavior. We know nothing about their thoughts.
I am not speaking of their thought, but their actions.

Show me one single animal that even remotely worships God.

Animals live on instincts only.
 
Thanks for the VERY useful suggestions! 🙂 Stress-R-my-middlename, as it were, but other than occassionally APPEARING to become a bit grumpy (which is just a not overly clever ruse!), it actually improves the (dubious) quality of my thinking.

I shall re-read your posts, though I doubt that I’ll learn anything more than that you think it’s good to be good to other humans because it’s a good thing to do, because you like to be treated well and others should be treated like you like to be treated.

If I wrong about that, I’ll let you know what I’ve found otherwise! Thanks again for the well wishes! You take good care of yourself as well!
I think the Golden Rule is a pretty good standard of conduct. Jesus was rather fond of it. 🙂
 
I am not speaking of their thought, but their actions.

Show me one single animal that even remotely worships God.

Animals live on instincts only.
Please provide a link from any animal biologist that supports your opinion that animals, most particularly primates, live on instincts only.
 
I think the Golden Rule is a pretty good standard of conduct. Jesus was rather fond of it. 🙂
Yes it is. But WHY!?

That’s the entire issue here!

It is because it is half of God’s law. The other half of which has been deemed unnecessary by most people.

Why is that? Because without the support of the “God” half of God’s law, we get to define the “golden rule” half any way we like.

It’s a simple matter to say, “Since I would expect to be treated as a slave if I disobeyed my rules, I expect others to take their due punishment just as I would!”, if the “God” part of the law is missing.

So, what keeps people from interpreting the golden rule in this way, in your experience or opinion?
 
Yes it is. But WHY!?

So, what keeps people from interpreting the golden rule in this way, in your experience or opinion?
How many interpretations of what it means to be a Catholic are there? Now don’t say only one, because I have seen what is very close to a schism between Catholics on this very board.

There are some Catholics that do not believe any Pope since Pope John XXIII have been legitimately elected.

Christians can’t even agree on what constitutes the Ten Commandments.

We have over 50 Denominations of Churches in my little town of 12,000.

People interpret everything they learn through their own perceptions, thought patterns and experience.

So in answer to your question: Absolutely nothing keeps people from interpreting the Golden Rule (or any rule) the way they want to. 🤷
 
No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.’ So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine (‘How Man Began’, March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.

For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

The apes’ ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on ‘How Man Began’. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orang-utan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, ‘Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I’ve got a problem.’

Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.

The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour … such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: ‘No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.

This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.

Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free — free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors — free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.

Did I say ‘free’?

Hiss! Oink! Hee-haw!

Andrew Lansdown, B.A., B.A.(Hons), Dip.Ed., is a writer, teacher and pastor. He is well known for his articles on social and spiritual issues, and for his poetry and fiction.

answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp
 
then we are free — free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors — free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.

answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp
Many humans behave much worse that snakes, pigs, and donkeys.

Snakes are quiet, careful predators taking only what they need to survive. Snakes are not greedy. Pigs value cleanliness and bathe in mud to protect their skin from the sun. (They evolved in the shady forests). Pigs are devoted mothers. Donkeys are patient and carry great burdens and holy ones. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.
 
like they know any different? why don’t you go and live in a pig pen then? or with a donkey? or with snakes? If they are so civilized.

I find it interesting that you don’t show any deviation in your description of these creatures, for if they were in any way like humans they would have total deviation in their behaviour because they would have a free will. Yet we see that they do not have free will, they are constricted to the confines of instincts given to them by God.

I also find it interesting that you do not say a single word about the entire article previous to the final statement because you know that apes have none of these traits which humans do.

As far as evolving, that’s a whole other story. If you could actually give one iota of proof as to how a pig evolved in the shadowy forests? Does that mean that every creature that does not sweat eveolved int eh shodowy forest? or every thing that has sensitive skin to UV rays? of course not.

So we see, from your example, that humans are definitely different from any animal, in that they can choose to do evil, which animals cannot and therefore humans have been given free will, and animals pure instictual behaviour. Many humans value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and cleanliness, and many do not. Same species, human, total deviation from one to another in that behaviour.
 
Justin,

I suggest you read some books by Jane Goodall and her observations of chimpansee behaviour.

You may also want to read about the gorillas Koko and Binti.

You may wish to google ‘chimpanzee altruism’.
 
i have watched several documentaries about Jane and the newer woman doing similar things in the jungles.

Thats great that they are almost like humans, almost have enough chromosomes, and almost have a free will.

but they are not human, do not have enough chromosomes and do not have free will.

They do not do evil acts, therefore they are not in any way human and have no sin nature and no nature to reason as human beings do.

When a chimp writes a book about Jane, I will believe it.
 
As for evil acts. How about murder?

primatefreedom.com/chimpanzees/index.html

Behavior both positive and negative has links to genetics and socialization. We share much of our genetic code with other primates and we share many of our behaviours.

I never said other primates were human.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Yes it is. But WHY!?

So, what keeps people from interpreting the golden rule in this way, in your experience or opinion?

How many interpretations of what it means to be a Catholic are there? Now don’t say only one, because I have seen what is very close to a schism between Catholics on this very board.

There are some Catholics that do not believe any Pope since Pope John XXIII have been legitimately elected.

Christians can’t even agree on what constitutes the Ten Commandments.

We have over 50 Denominations of Churches in my little town of 12,000.

People interpret everything they learn through their own perceptions, thought patterns and experience.

So in answer to your question: Absolutely nothing keeps people from interpreting the Golden Rule (or any rule) the way they want to.
Catholics are Catholics if they believe all of what they are told by the Magisterium, and don’t act in contradiction to those decisions.

Scandal is the single greatest “excuse”, for sensible reasons, for not taking Catholics seriously. It’s our great “disease”.

That one CAN interpret any “rule” in any way we wish doesn’t mean that there actually isn’t ONLY ONE way to interpret any “rule”.

Saying, “The Golden Rule is a good basis for behavior”, without knowing how to interpret it is to say nothing.

Why would one propose “Nothing” as a basis for behavior?
 

This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different.
The Christian contention is that humans are “qualitatively different”, and the “vastness” of that difference depends on the yardstick that the “differentiator” uses.

If you use the yardstick of “physicality”, even including emotional and linguistic (communicative) capability, then we are very similar to apes, and (in my opinion) not too far away at all from my Pomeranian.

But with the yardstick of “spritual behavior”, which is the consideration of eschatology, and by “reverse extension” creation, there is a vast and insurmountable difference between humans and any other animal.

Is this is function of our “super-linguistic power”? In my opinion YES!

That “power” is a “binary phase-shift”. It is a qualitative difference, given to us by “That which wants us to be this ‘essentially best (most good)’ way.”

I call that “thing” God. He gave it to us. I discovered, not invented, Him. This “thing” turned an animal into a human. How could I “invent” that?
And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.
If you a priori eliminate God, then how COULD He (who has no existence) have created us in any way at all? You say nothing but that God doesn’t exist here.
Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free — free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors — free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.
Did I say ‘free’?
Hiss! Oink! Hee-haw!
Amen! 🙂 This is the way of the unGodly, indeed. And those who prefer this to “the otherwise” do so, why!?

The good news that they must feel a special pain in their understanding that they have a different purpose than their unencumbered “brethren”, the animals, makes them want to simply deny their true place in creation.

A lion who thinks himself a rock dies from his stolidity. A human who thinks himself a lion dies from his “pride”.
 
Saying, “The Golden Rule is a good basis for behavior”, without knowing how to interpret it is to say nothing.

Why would one propose “Nothing” as a basis for behavior?
Please give me three different interpretations of this statement.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
I am always willing to learn.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Saying, “The Golden Rule is a good basis for behavior”, without knowing how to interpret it is to say nothing.

Why would one propose “Nothing” as a basis for behavior?

Please give me three different interpretations of this statement.
I’ll take it that you mean the, “Saying, ‘The Golden Rule is a good basis for behavior’, without knowing how to interpret it is to say nothing” statement, as the other sentence is a question.

What I meant was:
  1. The Golden Rule is meaningless if one can interpret it in any way so as to justify any action.
  2. The Golden Rule means ANYTHING if one is allowed to make it mean anything, so anything one does is doable under such a rule.
  3. “Nothing”, or “”, as a rule for behavior is not very helpful if you want to do good and avoid evil.
I have a funny feeling that you REALLY meant that I should give you 3 interpretations of the Golden Rule itself, so I’ll do that as well:
  1. Treat others as you would like to be treated, such that if you behave “badly” and accept your punishment you can justly punish those who behave “badly”. (This leaves “badly” undefined.)
  2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, where you wish only to do “good” to others. (This also leaves “good” undefined.)
  3. Do not do that which you would not have others do to you, where you would not like to be mistreated. (This leaves “mistreated” undefined.)
All of these definitions of the Golden Rule are utterly arbitrary if there is no objective, or even agreed upon, definition of what is good and/or bad behavior, therefore they are functionally meaningless. Without God’s rules of behavior, we are left with the arbitrary rules of men, which allows for any behavior whatsoever.
 
I have a funny feeling that you REALLY meant that I should give you 3 interpretations of the Golden Rule itself, so I’ll do that as well:
  1. Treat others as you would like to be treated, such that if you behave “badly” and accept your punishment you can justly punish those who behave “badly”. (This leaves “badly” undefined.)
  2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, where you wish only to do “good” to others. (This also leaves “good” undefined.)
  3. Do not do that which you would not have others do to you, where you would not like to be mistreated. (This leaves “mistreated” undefined.)
All of these definitions of the Golden Rule are utterly arbitrary if there is no objective, or even agreed upon, definition of what is good and/or bad behavior, therefore they are functionally meaningless. Without God’s rules of behavior, we are left with the arbitrary rules of men, which allows for any behavior whatsoever.
By the way this is the entire quote.
36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. —Matthew 22.36-40
According to Matthew, all rules that cover the relations of people toward each other are based on the statement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I suppose that love is undefined and open to interpretation as well. I would interpret love within the context of this passage to mean agape or metta.

Every word in every language is open to interpretation; even those words [from the Church] must be interpreted/translated by the mind of the individual into meaning. I think you are bringing up a straw man here. I think you are arguing for argument’s sake. 😉
 
I heard a new version of the Golden Rule. Do unto others as they would want to be done unto. The speaker was afraid that he would meet some masichists using the old form

Calmdown, I like your point about God turning animals into Humans. I agree 100%.

An issue is had God not existed, man would have invented Him. Humans have a tendency to contemplate the beyond, the eternal. Now, why would we have created the God that we have in Christianity? Is this a logical, anthropomorphic projection of an eternal diety? Once you get to the more fully reveiled God of the New Testament, doesn’t it seem like a strange make-believe?
 
Quote:
36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. —Matthew 22.36-40

According to Matthew, all rules that cover the relations of people toward each other are based on the statement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I suppose that love is undefined and open to interpretation as well. I would interpret love within the context of this passage to mean agape or metta.
You are correct, that relations between people are directed by the “Godlen Rule”, but that is “the second rule of OVERALL human behavior”, which MUST include Love of God.

The Second Law is guided by the First Law. That is my entire point. To claim that “the Golden Rule” is all that is necessary for proper human relations is to have no way to judge what “love” means within it.

One can’t love without loving God, and trying to apply The Golden Rule without knowing what “love” means invalidates it.
Every word in every language is open to interpretation; even those words [from the Church] must be interpreted/translated by the mind of the individual into meaning. I think you are bringing up a straw man here. I think you are arguing for argument’s sake.
Do you agree that the golden rule CAN be interpreted to give license to ANY (human) action if the First Law is not also applied?

I’m not arguing that the golden rule is a good rule if properly understood. I’m arguing that it is not possible to understand it properly without also understanding what undergirds it, which is the First Law to Love God Wholeheartedly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top