What Is Love?

[phinine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtjbSFG1_VQ

Jesus teaches to love our neighbor as our self.. But what does that mean to you as i hear many people say Jesus loves you.. But when i ask them to define what love they are talking about they did not really have an answer.. I think Manly Hall does a great job giving us an idea.. He is a great teacher and you can find 100 of hours of audio books on youtube to help the common good of all mankind..

[David M]

Jesus teaches to love our neighbor as our self.. But what does that mean to you as i hear many people say Jesus loves you.. But when i ask them to define what love they are talking about they did not really have an answer.. I think Manly Hall does a great job giving us an idea.. He is a great teacher and you can find 100 of hours of audio books on youtube to help the common good of all mankind..

I Corinthians 13 is the chapter that best sums up "love". The New International Version of the Bible use the word love in place of the word charity used in the KJV.

The chapter is worth quoting in this thread.

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


We can conclude that resisting the devil and not giving into devilish thoughts in our mind results in love in both action and thought.


David

[Greatest I am]

[

Jesus teaches to love our neighbor as our self.. But what does that mean to you as i hear many people say Jesus loves you.. But when i ask them to define what love they are talking about they did not really have an answer.. I think Manly Hall does a great job giving us an idea.. He is a great teacher and you can find 100 of hours of audio books on youtube to help the common good of all mankind..

Jesus does teach love for sure, even if it is a twisted anti-love love like his no divorce law, but some conveniently forget that he also showed the epitome of hate by creating hell.

Only the Gnostic Christian Jesus is a Universalist and all other Jesus' cannot match his love for mankind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Love, like faith are proven and shown through works and deeds. If Jesus is the God of hell then he is not the epitome of love. He is the epitome of hate.

Regards
DL

[Rose]

Jesus does teach love for sure, even if it is a twisted anti-love love like his no divorce law, but some conveniently forget that he also showed the epitome of hate by creating hell.

Only the Gnostic Christian Jesus is a Universalist and all other Jesus' cannot match his love for mankind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Love, like faith are proven and shown through works and deeds. If Jesus is the God of hell then he is not the epitome of love. He is the epitome of hate.

Regards
DL

Hello DL

It seems that the Biblegod and Jesus are shaped and molded into what the individual believer wants them to be, in the same manner as the biblical authors who created, shaped, and formed the Biblegod in the first place. The Biblegod is "way too human" to be anything other than a creation of men.

The Bible is an excellent teaching tool, showing the flaws, weaknesses, and strengths of people ... and how much we've changed and stayed the same throughout history. "Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them"

Take care,
Rose

[Greatest I am]

Indeed Rose.

And since Christians call much of the evil in the bible good, they are doomed to do that evil again.

To those lost souls, even the torture and murder of babies is good if God is doing it.

Regards
DL

[duxrow]

"..none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come". Isa57:1
You're questioning the morals and veracity of our Potter Creator? How quaint! :p

[Greatest I am]

"..none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come". Isa57:1
You're questioning the morals and veracity of our Potter Creator? How quaint! :p

You must have done the same to decide they were worthy of being followed.

Would you deny me what you allow yourself? Is reciprocity not fair play where you come from?

Regards
DL

[David M]

Hello DL

It seems that the Biblegod and Jesus are shaped and molded into what the individual believer wants them to be, in the same manner as the biblical authors who created, shaped, and formed the Biblegod in the first place. The Biblegod is "way too human" to be anything other than a creation of men.

The Bible is an excellent teaching tool, showing the flaws, weaknesses, and strengths of people ... and how much we've changed and stayed the same throughout history. "Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them"

Take care,
Rose
Hello Rose

It is obvious that unbelievers such as yourself are also moulding Jesus and God into your own mould that you want them to be.

I agree, the Bible is an excellent teaching tool that teaches men and women the only way to eternal life in the future, which is a gift from God, which he will give to all those who have faith and believe.


All the best

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose

It is obvious that unbelievers such as yourself are also moulding Jesus and God into your own mould that you want them to be.

I agree, the Bible is an excellent teaching tool that teaches men and women the only way to eternal life in the future, which is a gift from God, which he will give to all those who have faith and believe.


All the best

David

Hello David

Quite the contrary. I have no particular image I want Jesus or god to be, it is the Bible that tells me their characters. It is because of the immoralities recorded in the Bible and attributed to god, that I can no longer believe in him. The Biblegod is unjust, unfair and gender biased ... these are not qualities of a true god, they are human qualities.

Take care,
Rose

[Mystykal]

A 1950 Lecture - by Brother Manly P. Hall, 33º Brother Manly P. Hall, 33º

Enough said! :pop2:




Jesus teaches to love our neighbor as our self.. But what does that mean to you as i hear many people say Jesus loves you.. But when i ask them to define what love they are talking about they did not really have an answer.. I think Manly Hall does a great job giving us an idea.. He is a great teacher and you can find 100 of hours of audio books on youtube to help the common good of all mankind..

[Matthjar]

How do you know if anything in the Bible is moral or not??? What is the basis for your morality?

Sorry i have not checked in for a while, but glad that i finally remembered to come back :-).

Just to start a discussion... I would say the 2 Main components of Love would be 1. Commitment and 2. Self Sacrifice, I am pretty sure that both are required to have a Full rather than a Dysfunctional Love that we seem to get so many examples of in contemporary culture.

Also it may be well for us to Define which kind of Love we are speaking of...

1. Eros (Physical Love) Attraction/Biology
2. Companion or Brotherly Love
3. Agape Divine Love

Looking forward to hearing everyone's view on the subject.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How do you know if anything in the Bible is moral or not??? What is the basis for your morality?

Sorry i have not checked in for a while, but glad that i finally remembered to come back :-).

Just to start a discussion... I would say the 2 Main components of Love would be 1. Commitment and 2. Self Sacrifice, I am pretty sure that both are required to have a Full rather than a Dysfunctional Love that we seem to get so many examples of in contemporary culture.

Also it may be well for us to Define which kind of Love we are speaking of...

1. Eros (Physical Love) Attraction/Biology
2. Companion or Brotherly Love
3. Agape Divine Love

Looking forward to hearing everyone's view on the subject.
Hey there Matthjar,

Welcome back!

:welcome:

Your comments follow the traditional Christian understanding that I've seen over the years and so exhibits the same shortcomings. I think your concept of love is altogether false. Human sacrifice is innately evil. It is never good to sacrifice a person. The only time one would even consider human sacrifice (whether of one's own self or another) is when confronted with a greater evil. Thus, the concept of "self-sacrifice" has nothing to do with love per se, but is merely a necessary evil in some cases.

Likewise, the concept of "commitment" by itself has nothing to do with morality. The question is: "Committed to what?" To the other's well-being, that is, the Golden Rule. This is the principle of moral symmetry. Thus we have arrived at my atheist foundation of objective morality based on two axiomatic principles:

Axiom 1: Self loves self.

Axiom 2: Moral Symmetry: Any true moral statement relating to persons A and B must be symmetric under an interchange of persons A and B, all else being equal.

From this we have a foundation for objective morality. I explain this in detail in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/).

Looking forward to an interesting conversation.

Richard

[Rose]

How do you know if anything in the Bible is moral or not??? What is the basis for your morality?

Sorry i have not checked in for a while, but glad that i finally remembered to come back :-).

Hello Matthjar,

It is very easy to discern morality, whether contained in the Bible or in society around us. The place to start is with what all people share ... HUMANNESS. We are all humans, thus whatever violates my rights as a human also violates your rights ... consequently it is considered immoral. The Bible is filled with human rights violations commanded by its god, thus it must be deemed an immoral book!

Here is a link to an article I wrote about how one can determine what is moral ... Can Science Determine Morality (http://godandbutterfly.net/can-science-determine-morality/).


Regards,
Rose

[Matthjar]

I read your article last night Rose and must say very well done.... I am looking forward to investigating it further.... .in fact since i read both yours and Richards articles simultaneously i think i accidentally addressed some topics in your article in my response to Richards..... Oppps....

Either way i am very much interested in Morality and if it is even possible to obtain it in a Objective Societal system..... I definitely see how a person honoring his or her own nature and beliefs can very much develop a morality that is good for themselves and works for them. I can see how a group of 2 people can do the same as long as one is given authority or leadership to make the final call in the event of a disagreement and when a decision needs to be made immeadiately. The chance for abuse of one by the other is inherent in that system however.... I can see how a large Group could do the same and have a Group Morality to govern their group with a council or one that has authority to make the final call.... but it would seem the propensity for possible abuses rises proportionally to the group size.... as the members have less and less interaction and access to the ruling Elite.....


Anyhow i did not plan to comment on anything until later and just wanted to let you know that i was planning on it.... So many things that i want to do and so little time.....

[Rose]

I read your article last night Rose and must say very well done.... I am looking forward to investigating it further.... .in fact since i read both yours and Richards articles simultaneously i think i accidentally addressed some topics in your article in my response to Richards..... Oppps....
Hi Matthjar,

Thank you for the positive input on my article. :signthankspin:I look forward to your comments.


Either way i am very much interested in Morality and if it is even possible to obtain it in a Objective Societal system..... I definitely see how a person honoring his or her own nature and beliefs can very much develop a morality that is good for themselves and works for them. I can see how a group of 2 people can do the same as long as one is given authority or leadership to make the final call in the event of a disagreement and when a decision needs to be made immeadiately. The chance for abuse of one by the other is inherent in that system however.... I can see how a large Group could do the same and have a Group Morality to govern their group with a council or one that has authority to make the final call.... but it would seem the propensity for possible abuses rises proportionally to the group size.... as the members have less and less interaction and access to the ruling Elite.....


Anyhow i did not plan to comment on anything until later and just wanted to let you know that i was planning on it.... So many things that i want to do and so little time.....

I can see how large numbers of people that form a society need to elect leaders to govern the system, but that is not the case with partnerships like marriage. One of the big flaws in the biblical doctrine that points to male human authorship, is the idea that a hierarchical order is needed and that men are automatically chosen to be at the top of that order.

Best regards,
Rose

[Matthjar]

I just reread the article again so it would be fresh in my mind, and to see what thoughts it would evoke.... ;-).

I would definitely say that science does currently already effect our morality as a society...... Studies on the harmful effects of tobacco smoke result in stiff taxes and regulations for cigarette manufactures.

Science definitely can affect our laws in so much as it can changes how we believe.... Interestingly enough Science can only give us the data.... how we interpret that data will largely be based on what we believe and our worldview.

I wonder if that is what you are talking about..... can we make a science to interpret our science..... WOW....now that is mind blowing and Awesome undertaking.... and could be very very beneficial to our development as humans.... but also a very daunting task.... and also a little bit scary.....

Could we develop a computer program that could tell us the proper of best course of action..... Kinda like an App for our Cell Phone...... Would be an awesome thing to be able to achieve that....... The most daunting thing about that task is the range and scope of the variables involved.... ie the gray areas......

Up to this point in our History, Science while greatly increasing our power over others and the environment has actually contributed very little to the proper or ethical uses of the power it grants us.....that part is all left up to the user of the technology that science has provided.... so it would be nice for a change if science could reduce some of our ethical load instead of continuously adding to it as a Society.

Also sadly enough .... because we seem to be so fixated by wealth most of our Science and Technologies seem to be created with that as the #1 goal in mind... and everything else is secondary.... and the ethical part is definitely tertiary....

One author i had read 10 -15 years ago identified this as the #1 problem facing modern man and society.... Our Power is growing at a much faster rate then our ability to understand the proper use of that power. Or in many cases we don't even know the full ramifications of what we are doing until it is much too late..... for example......

1. The hydrogen bomb

- we knew what it would do immediately to the populations we dropped it on, but the downside was seen as acceptable for the good of ending the war. We did not know of the long lasting effects it would have on subsequent populations and the environment itself.... even with all that new data it may be near impossible to come up with an ethical use for nuclear warhead..... and yet everyone wants to have one.... even the most free thinking and democratic governments in the world have not decided that it would be Good not to have nuclear warheads.... because the power of even owning one is substantial.

2. Agricultural Sciences

- We know that we can drastically improve yields and profit margins by using Genetically modified plants, tons of in ground pesticides, and mono-cultures. What we don't know is all the effects that these technologies and systems may have after prolonged use on both the land and the consumer.

3. Economic Sciences

- Derivatives was for a time a great tool for those in the financial markets to package, monetize debt, and trade financial products, however no thought was ever given to the ethical use for them..... or potential abuses of them.... until they almost destroyed our whole financial system in fact i am sure we are still suffering from the damage they caused.

I am sure with further thought countless examples would come to mind.....

The point is that the Science and technologies themselves are not bad or good.... but how Humans use them ... and tend to overuse them.... we tend to only see the immediate benefits with no thought to the long term dangers.... we are definitely a Play now and Pay later culture.....

So the Ultimate Science i agree would be a Morality Science..... could very much provide more benefits to the Human race than all the other sciences together ..... but could also cause the most amount of damage also if abused .....

Possibly the best application for a budding Morality Science would not be how to interpret scientific data for a morality value for individuals but for the sciences themselves..... or better said for the individual technologies that they create.....


I must say though the idea is very intoxicating and intriguing and daunting in scope......

[Matthjar]

Hi Matthjar,

Thank you for the positive input on my article. :signthankspin:I look forward to your comments.



I can see how large numbers of people that form a society need to elect leaders to govern the system, but that is not the case with partnerships like marriage. One of the big flaws in the biblical doctrine that points to male human authorship, is the idea that a hierarchical order is needed and that men are automatically chosen to be at the top of that order.

Best regards,
Rose

:-) I knew you were going to say that Rose..... ;-)

Before we even discuss the necessity of the premise.... lets instead look at the actuality of it..... I am not claim that it is necessary as much as i am just saying that it just is....

I don't think that gender necessarily precludes one to be dominant or submissive.... but would say that the most Willful of the two will eventually become the dominant regardless of anything else...

When i was first married I completely thought that it was a completely attainable goal to have a completely equal partnership after several years of marriage i have changed my opinion on that matter...... Its just not practical or realistic..... There are too many choices that need to be made in a marriage that have to be made before both partners can agree on the choice...... So one must defer to the others viewpoint in order that the partnership does not become paralyzed into nothingness.....

Generally what i observe happening is that one or the other almost always is willing to do so ... usually the one who has "less" stake in the outcome of the choice or feels/thinks less strongly about it....... they are not agreeing necessarily just abstaining to vote.... at that time though however the outcome of the choice fully rests on the only voting member and now they carry the full responsibility for that choice....... So they "Won" and "Lost" all at the same time...

On the next disagreement the other may have more conviction and carry the motion.....

In that way the couple will eventually establish "Spheres" of Influence and Responsibility...as if to say "I am in charge of decorating the house.... buying the food.... doing house repairs....transportation...cooking ..money... paying which bills ....etc...etc...."

As long as you stay in your Sphere everything runs pretty smoothly......

There are some broad issues though that don't just cover one Sphere so usually what seems to happen is eventually using precedent (The couple intuitively knows who the most willful partner is) One tends to become dominant and the other submissive..... The submissive seems to maintain "Veto" power however for things that are VERY VERY important to him/her.... Whereas the Dominant has no veto Power..... So in away the submissive can win any one argument... and the dominant will win most.... So its it actually a very equitable system..... kind of like the checks and balances we have in our Democracy....

I really have never seen a marriage that did not have the "One the wears the Pants."...... I suspect that anyone that would claim that they were in such a marriage is actually just the Dominant that does not realize they are dominating...... because you can't dominate without showing your hand... but you can always submit completely in secret.....

I am pretty sure that the taking turns solution is not very effective.....LOL.... or flipping a coin.....


Hi Matthjar,

Thank you for the positive input on my article. :signthankspin:I look forward to your comments.



I can see how large numbers of people that form a society need to elect leaders to govern the system, but that is not the case with partnerships like marriage. One of the big flaws in the biblical doctrine that points to male human authorship, is the idea that a hierarchical order is needed and that men are automatically chosen to be at the top of that order.

Best regards,
Rose

I don't know that it is a flaw as much as it was a necessity dictated by the environment for survival.....If you can show me one Matriarchal cultural from that time frame that had a tribe of bloodthirsty ravaging barbarians living next door then i will reassess my opinion on that matter...... just as it is hardwired into women to protect and care for her babies (This issue can make a woman very willful) it is also hardwired into Men to protect and provide for his wife/wives/children (This issue can make men very willful). So it is no wonder to me that early primitive civilizations are mostly all patriarchal. I have only done one study on a matriarchal society but want to do more after your comment.....

In this particular matriarchal culture was on an small island so everyone on the island was part of the same group.... no hostile neighbors at all..... Also food was very plentiful and easy to obtain from a plethora of fruit trees where the climate was very warm close to the equator so not much needed in the way of clothing or housing to protect from hostile elements....... The Woman WAS in charge... automatically..... she lived in her house with her children and maybe with her sister and her children..... all the men lived together in kind of a large flop house with very little group expenses...... they would rise in the morning and perform their duties for the tribe(gathering food, fixing the huts, all the labor for the village...) (led by the women)..... then maybe if they felt like it he might craft some gift for his woman (they still paired off in 2's) and as night and darkness fell he would sneak off to his ladies window to present the gift and hopefully get invited in for some intimacies.... on most afternoons and nights though he would head back to the mans house to have some fun telling stories and playing games with the guys...... It seemed to work pretty well for everyone involved.... the video i watched did not detail if any of the powerful women in the tribe ever abused the man slaves, just knowing human nature i am sure that it probably would happen from time to time.

When i first saw the Video... .I thought wow... I sure wish my life was like that.... ;-). I don't feel at all that they were mistreated by the ruling class they just performed their natural role. I was most impressed about how very low stress their lives seemed to be...... They didn't have very many creature comforts but seemed much happier than any other culture i ever studied..... sometime i will have to write about stuff i have researched on Stress..... talk about the Huge Killer seems to be responsible for MUCH of what ails modern society.....

OHHHHH I am so sorry.... i start writing... then rambling..... and next thing i know i have filled up another few pages....

Just out of curiosity how would you classify our society.....its not patriarchal or matriarchal for sure...... rule by the Elite????..... or maybe rule by the money due to our rampant capitalism..... IDk..... anyhow i am going to Submit this before it is WAY too Long......



Ohhh just one more thing...... I am not sure exactly how polygamist relationships work..... prolly have to be one Dominant and a bunch of Submisives.......

Or i remember seeing a Havard professor that had a group marriage... i think there were like 3 women and 2 men all in one marriage.... but it did seem like they were having a Bunch of Drama....... I Suspect with Gay marriage becoming so popular that soon our society will start permitting many more forms of marriage like this..... I even heard a report of a woman trying to protect a building that was going to be tore down was trying to marry it to give it spousal protection rights.....She claimed that she REALLY loved the building..... I wonder how marriage with animals might work out.....??? Just saying it is becoming much less about procreating or raising up the next generation in a family unit..( I think the government would like to take over that role) .. and much more a mechanism to fulfill your emotional needs....

[Rose]

:-) I knew you were going to say that Rose..... ;-)

Before we even discuss the necessity of the premise.... lets instead look at the actuality of it..... I am not claim that it is necessary as much as i am just saying that it just is....

I don't think that gender necessarily precludes one to be dominant or submissive.... but would say that the most Willful of the two will eventually become the dominant regardless of anything else...

When i was first married I completely thought that it was a completely attainable goal to have a completely equal partnership after several years of marriage i have changed my opinion on that matter...... Its just not practical or realistic..... There are too many choices that need to be made in a marriage that have to be made before both partners can agree on the choice...... So one must defer to the others viewpoint in order that the partnership does not become paralyzed into nothingness.....

Hello Matthjar,

Whether or not a marriage works as a partnership has a lot to do with the reasons people marry. If you enter into a marriage as friends and equals, with cooperation as the goal there is no need for one party to be dominant over the other. There will be times when one party is in a better position to make the final choice in a matter, and times when the other party takes charge. It's all a matter of working together in the spirit of cooperation, and knowing each others strengths and weaknesses.





I don't know that it is a flaw as much as it was a necessity dictated by the environment for survival.....If you can show me one Matriarchal cultural from that time frame that had a tribe of bloodthirsty ravaging barbarians living next door then i will reassess my opinion on that matter...... just as it is hardwired into women to protect and care for her babies (This issue can make a woman very willful) it is also hardwired into Men to protect and provide for his wife/wives/children (This issue can make men very willful). So it is no wonder to me that early primitive civilizations are mostly all patriarchal. I have only done one study on a matriarchal society but want to do more after your comment.....

Yes, it is obvious that men are hardwired differently than women, which is precisely why we know that the Bible was written by men who created its god after their own image and likeness. The masculine touch is on every page of the Bible, with women being viewed from the perspective of men who want to control and rule over them. Women were considered the property of men, and even their monetary value was less then that of a man.

It is easy to understand why most societies (even today) are patriarchal, because men took control and dominated them. The Bible is no exception, the Hebrews were just as patriarchal-ly oriented as all the pagan societies that surrounded them. Women did not fare any better in the patriarchal Hebrew society than in most patriarchal pagan societies.




Just out of curiosity how would you classify our society.....its not patriarchal or matriarchal for sure...... rule by the Elite????..... or maybe rule by the money due to our rampant capitalism..... IDk..... anyhow i am going to Submit this before it is WAY too Long......



Our society is built on a patriarchal foundation, because of its Christian roots. Slowly but surely, after a long hard fight, women are gaining equal standing with men, though we still have a ways to go. The only true moral society is egalitarian, where all humans are treated as equals regardless of race or gender.

Best regards,
Rose

[Matthjar]

Our society is built on a patriarchal foundation, because of its Christian roots. Slowly but surely, after a long hard fight, women are gaining equal standing with men, though we still have a ways to go. The only true moral society is egalitarian, where all humans are treated as equals regardless of race or gender.

Best regards,
Rose

So you think that women still have a ways to go based on maybe the glass ceiling? And/or That there are just way too many Old traditionalist men and women in positions of power such as judges, lawmakers?? Or just too many people holding on to old sexist viewpoints??

Would you say that women are given equal protection under the current laws on the books??

The reasons why I ask is that sometimes i think maybe the pendulum has already swung over the middle line... which i am certain that it will... i suppose that if we apply the law of momentum it will swing very far and very high to the other side before it again starts swinging back to the middle point... if it did so would that be a form of Justice on Unjust??

What other aspects of equality should a true moral society contain.... I can think of Age... Religious beliefs..... economic class...... sexual identity ..... ???

Or maybe i am asking that question wrong.... Are there any humans that should not be treated as equals for any reason whatsoever ???

Also i am not sure if you noticed the post i put up prior to the one you responded too. Wasn't sure if you just missed it, there was nothing in there that you wanted to respond too, or you just haven't got the chance yet .

No Hurries ... I am just interested to see what kind of progress we can make on developing a morality based on science..... because it does seem to me to be a very powerful idea that could possibly free humanity from alot of preconceived notions.... ;-).

[Rose]

So you think that women still have a ways to go based on maybe the glass ceiling? And/or That there are just way too many Old traditionalist men and women in positions of power such as judges, lawmakers?? Or just too many people holding on to old sexist viewpoints??
Hi Matthjar,

I think that patriarchal views are so ingrained in our society and permeate peoples thought patterns that it takes many generations before it gets cleared out. A good share of our politicians are Christian, middle aged, white males with very conservative ideas about gender differences, so it's going to be awhile before women enjoy complete gender equality.


Would you say that women are given equal protection under the current laws on the books??


The reasons why I ask is that sometimes i think maybe the pendulum has already swung over the middle line... which i am certain that it will... i suppose that if we apply the law of momentum it will swing very far and very high to the other side before it again starts swinging back to the middle point... if it did so would that be a form of Justice on Unjust??

Well, I think for the most part the laws are on the books, but those laws don't always get implemented. A lot of women that are discriminated in the workplace don't always want to pay the price of fighting for their equality, so they tend to let things slide.

No, I don't think the pendulum swinging the other way is justice. Wrongs are righted by the discontinuance of unjustice.


What other aspects of equality should a true moral society contain.... I can think of Age... Religious beliefs..... economic class...... sexual identity ..... ???

If we lived up to the words in our constitution "All people are created equal", the moral problem would be solved.


Or maybe i am asking that question wrong.... Are there any humans that should not be treated as equals for any reason whatsoever ???

I think you know the answer to that question. People who violate the human rights of others cannot be treated as equals in regards to allowing them freedom to do so. Whatever steps that are necessary to keep violators from continuing to harm others must be taken for the protection of society.


Also i am not sure if you noticed the post i put up prior to the one you responded too. Wasn't sure if you just missed it, there was nothing in there that you wanted to respond too, or you just haven't got the chance yet .

No Hurries ... I am just interested to see what kind of progress we can make on developing a morality based on science..... because it does seem to me to be a very powerful idea that could possibly free humanity from alot of preconceived notions.... ;-).

I did notice your post after I answered the later one, but didn't have time to address it then. I'll go take a look at it now. :)

Regards,
Rose

[Rose]

I just reread the article again so it would be fresh in my mind, and to see what thoughts it would evoke.... ;-).

I would definitely say that science does currently already effect our morality as a society...... Studies on the harmful effects of tobacco smoke result in stiff taxes and regulations for cigarette manufactures.

Science definitely can affect our laws in so much as it can changes how we believe.... Interestingly enough Science can only give us the data.... how we interpret that data will largely be based on what we believe and our worldview.

I wonder if that is what you are talking about..... can we make a science to interpret our science..... WOW....now that is mind blowing and Awesome undertaking.... and could be very very beneficial to our development as humans.... but also a very daunting task.... and also a little bit scary.....



Hello Matthjar,

One of the biggest things that science can and has shown us is that all races and genders of humans are equal. We all share the same DNA, men are not superior to women and whites are not superior to blacks ... we are all human. If something violates your rights as a human it equally violates my equal rights as a human, this is universally true.


The point is that the Science and technologies themselves are not bad or good.... but how Humans use them ... and tend to overuse them.... we tend to only see the immediate benefits with no thought to the long term dangers.... we are definitely a Play now and Pay later culture.....

So the Ultimate Science i agree would be a Morality Science..... could very much provide more benefits to the Human race than all the other sciences together ..... but could also cause the most amount of damage also if abused .....

Possibly the best application for a budding Morality Science would not be how to interpret scientific data for a morality value for individuals but for the sciences themselves..... or better said for the individual technologies that they create.....


I must say though the idea is very intoxicating and intriguing and daunting in scope......

You are so right! It is not scientific knowledge that is bad, it is those that misuse the knowledge. Morality that comes from scientific knowledge is based on the facts of our humanity, whereas morality that comes from religion is based on arbitrary decrees given by mythical deities. Science has helped humankind tremendously more than the untold suffering people have endured due to the superstitious beliefs of religion.

I love your thoughts and ideas :thumb: Keep them coming ...

Rose

[David M]

We all share the same DNA,
Not quite true if as a result our dna undergoes change as in the case of inherited characteristics. The total number of chromosomes contains all the elements of our dna.

We might all have two eyes, two ears etc, bit some of us have brown eyes while others have blue eyes. We have do not all have the same blood groups. The baby in the womb does not share the blood of its mother and can be of a different blood group.

We share similarities of dna with the animals. This is not surprising since dna comprises of the same basic parts. There is no proof that different kinds ever came about randomly. It is like constructing structures out of Leggo. Each completed structure comes about by a designer and builder. Leggo never assembles itself.

[Rose]

Not quite true if as a result our dna undergoes change as in the case of inherited characteristics. The total number of chromosomes contains all the elements of our dna.

We might all have two eyes, two ears etc, bit some of us have brown eyes while others have blue eyes. We have do not all have the same blood groups. The baby in the womb does not share the blood of its mother and can be of a different blood group.

Hello David,

Everybody knows what is meant by saying all humans share the same DNA. Your comment wasn't helpful or necessary. All humans share the same specific genes, that make up the DNA, that make up the chromosomes, that makes us human and not some other animal.

Allele variations in the genes is what gives us our individual characteristics and colors for skin, hair, eyes, body shape and size. Those things have nothing to do with what makes us self-aware humans.


We share similarities of dna with the animals. This is not surprising since dna comprises of the same basic parts. There is no proof that different kinds ever came about randomly. It is like constructing structures out of Leggo. Each completed structure comes about by a designer and builder. Leggo never assembles itself.

Different species of animals did not come about randomly. There is a continuous, unbroken lineage of life, beginning with the first organism and slowly through change over time increased in complexity. The designer and builder is EVOLUTION, which is "Change over time". The builder is the countless reproductions that cause change, which happens over and over again. The designer is time, which tests each change to see if it will hold up.

Evolutionary design if from the Bottom-up, which all forms of life exhibit, whereas intentional design is from the Top-down, like we see in things designed by people.

Take care,
Rose

[Matthjar]

One interesting thing about it to me is that very fact that their is no such thing as De-evolution..... you can't go backwards.... very rarely do you see a complex thing evolve into something simpler..... TO me that is proof of some kind of intelligence directing the process......... If it was completely just Random mutations seems like it would be just as likely to become more simple rather more complex.....

Also have a hard time understand how DNA and RNA could have randomly mutated ..... which one could have randomly evolved first ........since one with out the other is a useless evolution ....

It is also interesting to see how Religions themselves Evolve.... a change over time..... Which actually shows that maybe Rose is right in noticing that the Gods seem to be created by Men other then the other way around...... But I still wouldn't think that the Religious Evolution was just Random..... but had some intelligence behind its Evolution.....

SO yeah maybe the biblegod is lower in the evolutionary chain........

God makes Man makes primitive biblegod????

OR if this is easier to stomach......

Nature makes Man makes primitive biblegod.....????

I do know some out there have definitions of Nature that are the same as another persons definition of God.....
I just finished reading an article about the Religious Naturalists community have been in fierce debate about whether to include God language in their theology or not..... ;-).

[David M]

The "biblegod" is human termininology[/B] that Rose likes to use. Thereby, Rose is showing her slanted point of view. The Bible is both simple and profound. For example the whole duty of man is (Eccl 12:13)Fear God, and keep his commandments:
We have a series of commandments which are simple in themselves such as the keeping of God's feasts. The keeping of these feasts were to be a perpetual memorial. The feasts were and are a foreshadowing of things to come. Understanding what the feasts foreshadow is an example of how profound the message of the Bible can be.

Our intelligence is our limitation. The brain is a complex organism that we do not fully understand. Our brainpower has the same capacity as it did 6,000 years ago. As we learn more, because we have invented the technology to see more, the more we learn that we have more to learn. By observation, creation is not getting simpler, but more complex. The more we have been able to view the human cell, the more complex it has become. We have now discovered DNA that is made of simple building blocks, yet is the most complex molecule than we know. It is a molecule, that man cannot replicate starting with the simple building blocks.

The simple theory of Evolution starts from the first cell and cells are anything but simple. The simple Theory of Evolution is missing scientific proof that is testable. Minor advances in filling in the gaps in Evolution are still a long way from giving the scientific proof that is necessary to support the theory.

Our understanding and technology has progressed in an apparently random and non-linear way. Knowledge on all fronts has increased in enormously over a relatively short period at an almost exponential rate that is has expanded in the last century or even in the last 50 years. Man has now reached his limit in which everything that can be discovered has been discovered and there is not much more that can be found out.

I am reminded of a TV series entitled; 'Connections' presented by James Burke. I find the series has been posted on Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeConnection ). Where did man's insight come from? What if certain things had not been discovered centuries ago, where would we be now? Can we think that so called "insights" are akin to God's prophetic revelation and scientific discoveries came about by inspiration? God can be in control in more ways than we give him credit for. We can think that eminent scientists made discoveries, but what if their thought process had only come about by God's inspiration? What we term "creativity" could in fact be "inspiration". It will take another inspiration to discover the root of all creation, and even then man might not have the mental capacity to contain the inspiration required, which is why we might never know. For all our frantic brain activity in trying to find the answer to everything, we have the simple inspired word of God in Psalm 46:10 which says; Be still, and know that I am God:. It is innate in us to know that God is the Creator, just as it is thought "the Golden Rule is innate". Are those two things innate or do they come from learning?

As it is, what we do not know, makes our personal view of the world "simple". None of us, has enough knowledge. The advantage the Creator/Designer of the human mind has, is that the working of the mind is known to the Creator of it. The answer is given us simply in the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 17:9); The heart (mind) is ......: who can know it? The simple answer is; God.
Man is incapable of knowing what the human mind is thinking. Real-time brain scans, whilst an achievement, pale by comparison to God's ability to know the thoughts of the mind. It is knowing all the thoughts of the human mind by which God is in the only position to judge a person. Unless we can judge to the same scale, our judgement is imperfect and limited.

We are still scratching at the surface. The more I am told about things like DNA and the total complexity of the body, God's ability to create and resurrect are far greater than I can ever understand. Therefore, I have to accept my limited ability to understand and my fallibility to comply with simple instructions. I have nothing to be proud of in that respect and in the presence of the Creator, I can be nothing but humble.

The Psalmist likewise penned these simple words, which are also profound (Psalm 139:14); I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

[Gambini]

"One of the biggest things that science can and has shown us is that all races and genders of humans are equal"

That's not true. The concept of human equality is a METAPHYSICAL principle. Science is the study of the physical world. And your materialistic worldview makes the concept of human equality IMPOSSIBLE ...

If all we are is the physical matter of our bodies, then NO TWO PERSONS are "equal". That is an impossibility in a materialistic world because NOBODY has the exact same physical attributes (whether it's height, weight, appearance, IQ or whatever). The only way we can be equal is if there is MORE to us than just our physical attributes (which materialism denies). If the fundamental nature of man is rooted in the nonphysical, then by definition there is no inequality between the fundamental natures of any two persons (regardless of physical differences). And that's not all ...

Given materialism, not only is the metaphysical principle of human equality impossible, free will is impossible. You can't have free will if all your thoughts are necessarily GIVEN to you by chemical necessity. Every attempt to try and account for free will under materialism will ITSELF by the result of chemical reactions reacting by necessity. However, if the fundamental nature of man is INHERENTLY volitional and is simply his default nature (depending on no prior "building blocks"), then his thoughts, words and deeds wouldn't be "forced" or "given" to him (as they necessarily would be under materialism). They would flow freely from his inherent and fundamental nature ...

And without free will, the ability to reason is impossible as well. Obviously the ability to reason depends on the ability to FREELY choose between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. Chemical reactions don't reason (they react) ...

Without free will, moral accountability goes out the window. How can you hold someone morally responsible for chemical reactions mandating all their thoughts, words and actions? All penalties for crime should be abolished under materialism. Why discriminate against ppl who just happened to have their chemical reactions react in such a way that a "crime" was committed? It's not their fault (given materialism), right? ...

Without free will, LOVE itself is impossible! The very nature of love is rooted in free will (since love cannot be forced). Under materialism, you only "love" someone because of chemical reactions in your brain. You'd literally be a slave to chemical reactions reacting by necessity ...

And get this ... Under materialism, the whole concept of PERSONHOOD itself loses all meaning. If we're nothing but matter, then we are LITERALLY different ppl every day. My physical body isn't the exact same body (from atom to atom) that I had yesterday. In fact, our bodies have an entire new set of atoms every seven years! So the whole concept of the CONTINUITY of personhood is literally impossible under materialism. That means ppl cannot be held accountable for things they've done in the past! ...

Another problem with tossing free will and personhood out the window is it leads to the maniacally absurd idea that EVERYTHING that man has ever created was NECESSARILY created by the physical universe itself (since there would be no "persons" to create anything)! It would mean the physical universe itself literally made computers, skyscrapers, Jon Bon Jovi, skittles, cell phones and teddy bears!!! That NECESSARILY follows if there is no free will or personhood (which is necessarily the case under materialism).

Btw, there is scientific evidence AGAINST a materialistic account of the mind. A peer reviewed paper by Jerome Feldman entitled "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" demonstrates that there is at least one SUBJECTIVE experience for which we KNOW there is no neural basis (we know this because the ENTIRE visual system in humans has been mapped out, which demonstrates that the mind is SEPARATE from the brain) ...

Also ... over 30 million ppl around the world (from all walks of life) have had a "Near Death Experience", which lends additional support to the idea that your physical body is not the fundamental root of your being. Can you imagine a trial with over 30 million witnesses??? And an estimated 1 out of 3 ppl worldwide claim to have seen "ghosts" or spiritual entities. I think it's pretty arrogant to just assume over 2 billion ppl were entirely wrong about the reality of their own experiences.

BINI BOBO :pray:

[Rose]

One interesting thing about it to me is that very fact that their is no such thing as De-evolution..... you can't go backwards.... very rarely do you see a complex thing evolve into something simpler..... TO me that is proof of some kind of intelligence directing the process......... If it was completely just Random mutations seems like it would be just as likely to become more simple rather more complex.....

Also have a hard time understand how DNA and RNA could have randomly mutated ..... which one could have randomly evolved first ........since one with out the other is a useless evolution ....

Hello Matthjar,

One reason organisms might evolve into a simpler form would be because the simple form would survive better. It's all about what organism reproduces the best and survives the longest. Random mutations work together with natural selection to design the fittest organism for each particular environment. One must remember that the element of time - billions of years - is what allows mutations and selection to design organisms. Scientists figure it took 1.5 to 2 billions years for Eukaryotic cells to evolve from Prokaryotic cells ... thats a long time!

The greatest mystery that still remains is how RNA and DNA evolved. An increasingly popular theory is called the RNA world, which postulates that RNA evolved first. Here is a good article explaining that theory ... The RNA World (http://exploringorigins.org/rna.html)


It is also interesting to see how Religions themselves Evolve.... a change over time..... Which actually shows that maybe Rose is right in noticing that the Gods seem to be created by Men other then the other way around...... But I still wouldn't think that the Religious Evolution was just Random..... but had some intelligence behind its Evolution.....

SO yeah maybe the biblegod is lower in the evolutionary chain........

God makes Man makes primitive biblegod????

OR if this is easier to stomach......

Nature makes Man makes primitive biblegod.....????

I do know some out there have definitions of Nature that are the same as another persons definition of God.....
I just finished reading an article about the Religious Naturalists community have been in fierce debate about whether to include God language in their theology or not..... ;-).

I would not say that religious evolution is random either. One can look at different religions and see how and why they believe the things they do, hence why they evolved. The one huge problem I see with religions like Christianity, is that once they are codified into a set of doctrines - change stops - they become frozen in time, promoting outdated and archaic ideas like Young Earth Creationism. Change is the only way progress is made, that holds true for religion and evolution alike! The god of the Bible, especially how he is portrayed in the Old Testament, is primitive, archaic, unable to change by his own words, and definitely outdated.


"Nature makes Man makes primitive biblegod.....????" Yes, that sounds about right. :thumb:

Regards,
Rose

[Rose]

"One of the biggest things that science can and has shown us is that all races and genders of humans are equal"

That's not true. The concept of human equality is a METAPHYSICAL principle. Science is the study of the physical world. And your materialistic worldview makes the concept of human equality IMPOSSIBLE ...

If all we are is the physical matter of our bodies, then NO TWO PERSONS are "equal". That is an impossibility in a materialistic world because NOBODY has the exact same physical attributes (whether it's height, weight, appearance, IQ or whatever). The only way we can be equal is if there is MORE to us than just our physical attributes (which materialism denies). If the fundamental nature of man is rooted in the nonphysical, then by definition there is no inequality between the fundamental natures of any two persons (regardless of physical differences). And that's not all ...


BINI BOBO :pray:

Hello Bini Bobo,

All humans are equal in the sense that we all share HUMANNESS. There is not one person alive that is not fully human ... that is a scientific fact. With that scientific fact in mind I can authoritatively say, "whatsoever violates my rights as a human, also violates your rights as a human" ... upon that scientific fact, a universal morality can be built that applies to all humans.

Take care,
Rose