if its acting on experiance or compound logic that makes us human, the human race got a whole load more memebers! (take monkeys for instance). Most inteligant animals like dolphins will do that. Hell some are even smart enough to get human style complexes, someone was telling me about this dolphine that was manic depressive !? could god make a version of SSH 1 that didn't need a patch? the refute of the hot food one is stupid. Of course he can heat things until you hit a limit (there has to be an infinate heat limit before state change occurs) as which point he could still eat it. But just because he can't eat somethign dosen't mean he can't make it. thats just moronic.
Yeah it is an animalistic origin. Like you said we need to transcend those tendencies and we can be better. There was a study done by these psych researchers at harvard that tested what someones sub concience choices were compared to their concience choices or thouhts. Some people were more racist sub conciencely by not at all conciencely. They also stated that if they viewed good role models of that specific race before the test that the first response, sub concience response, was less racist. They showed that our environment is what shapes our thinking. That we choose how we react to different things and that just becuase we have pre notions that we don't have to follow them. Hence the whole animalistic thing. Interestingly enough I am a white male american (everything) at 22yrs old. I tested my preferences and it was dark skin over light, old over young, muslim over other, men with working and women at home.
Nexxo, have you been playing with prescription medication while reading Frank Herbert novels, again? I'm bringing this up at our next Meds and SciFi group session.
Hey, I can quit anytime I want to. I just don't want to, that's all. I've got it completely under control...
I don't draw the line. (But if I had to, and I could be certain that two would definitely be saved by killing one, then I might well go with that!)As you say, though, that is a great oversimplification of the arguments for and against dropping atom bombs. You can't leave morals out. EVERYONE has a moral code, regardless of whether or not it measures up to yours or mine. I daresay those that were christians (or insert other religious group of choice) that developed and deployed the A-bomb had their own way of reconciling their beliefs with their actions. They weren't vandals, throwing paintstripper over your car "because there's nothing else for us to do", or some other lame excuse.(That's a metaphor, just in case anyone's not sure!) They didn't develop it because it would be a "fun" thing to do. I don't actually care if "christians" were members of the team that developed the A bomb, or how well they slept at night, given the task they were working on. MY point is (and has been from the beginning) that for you to say that they were just plain wrong to do it is, to use your word again, an oversimplification. Yes, I can rationalise bombing civilians, for the reasons given in earlier posts. Once again, you oversimplify. Life's not like that. Well, good for you! Once more, an oversimplification. To return to the first point I was making way back in post #72: you seem to see the world in black and white. In fact, it's multicoloured. No matter how much you want it to be black and white, the number of colours increases with the passage of time and the increasing complexity of life, it doesn't decrease.
Hey JC, you ever wonder if since Robin (Nexxo) is a clinical psychologist that he might be just fascinated with giving you answers just to see what you say? And thus studying your behaviour? heh...
You misunderstand my point. I'm saying it was wrong for them to do it, if they wanted to claim to be Christian. The two positions are incompatible. I put to you that you are the one who oversimplifies. Your answer to the tricky dillemmas that life throws our way seems to be to reduce them to simplistic equations (e.g. n lives for n+x lives) and choose how far you want to adhere to a moral code depending on the situation, and then to say: "Hey, life's complex that way". That's a cop-out. The questions that true faith, or a true philosophy poses you are much more demanding than that.
this is more philosophy, i swar it off after the first term of my first year at uni. Too much vodka and conversation making us hurt our heads in more than one way!
Interesting philosophy: How can anyone who professes to be Christian sit here debating stuff over the internet when, as a Christian, they should be actively helping the poor & needy? Or perhaps I'm mixing up 'Christian' and 'christian'. Or part-timers, 'Sunday Christians' as my Gran called them. I know a number of strongly humanitarian people; none of them attend a church, they're not members of the cult. So perhaps that's part of the definition: a cult has a unique (to that cult) ceremonial side that is more important than any ethical principles that could be guilty of overlap with other belief systems. Therefore Christianity is a cult, a members club, meets once a week.
That reminds me of one of the discussions we had during my Confirmation classes. Our teacher posed the hypothetical question: Assume there was a button on the floor that would end the world if pushed. You see a baby crawling toward the button. You have in your hands the means to kill the baby, thus saving the entire world from destruction. do you kill the baby to save the rest of the world? The situation is oversimplified to an extreme sense: kill 1 person to save all. However, the lesson from the discussion (from a Catholic viewpoint) reinforces Nexxo's point in that, as a Christian, killing any person is wrong, regardless of how you justify it. From a Christian perspective, I'm curious as to how that moral lesson carries over into the Bible as far as Jesus' crucifixion. (Kickarse, feel free to correct me here) As I understand it, God descended to earth and became man as Jesus. In order to save mankind (morally) he was crucified. Does that fall under the same lesson as killing n to save n+x? Is it a different scenario because the end result is different - saving mankind morally as opposed to physically? I'd be interested to hear your take on that. -monkey
As an argument, that doesn't have much strength. A few miracles, one bound and he was free, would have convinced everybody far better. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"? Is that how mankind was saved, rather than "Avenge me, Paw!" On the evidence, he was as mortal as anybody else; a humanitarian, but no Super-Powers. And in what way have we been saved? As a species we're not all that useful to the Universe, like every other species we aim to breed the next generation with very little thought to outsiders.
From what I understand, it depends on whether you have a high or low Christology. A high Christology would indicate that you view Christ through more of a supernatural lens (i.e., he had a lot of divine ability). On the other hand, a low Christology indicates that you view Jesus with a human eye. Personally, I agree that he was as human as the next guy. I think we were saved in a moral sense, rather than the literal sense. Not, "Oh look, a band of maurauders! Quick, I will die to save you!" Rather, "If I have to die to get my message across then so be it. This is what I am willing to do to save your souls." -monkey
sigh... Christianity is not a cult. it is the only unique religion. heck its not even a religion. it is a relationship. all other religions are man trying to reach God while Christianity is God trying to reach man. and why not sit here and debate with people? if i can plant the seed, God will make it grow. i love to expose all the wrongs of evolution and such and yes we need to be helping the poor and needy. all of society does. yet people seem to care about nobody but themselves these days. well the only way God could save mankind and show them his love was to come here and die for us. there was no other way.
Or vice versa? I refute that suggestion. People respond to these "tricky dilemmas" as they arise. It is VERY rare to find anyone who has thought through all the issues, and possible ramifications of their moral code and arrived at an unshakeable position on all issues. You yourself acknowledged that in post#99: It's called growing up.
Although I totally agree it also appears to me a total non-sequitor to what I said... OK, you are saying: "I don't oversimplify, I just try and work these dillemmas out as they come up and as such answers will be pragmatic rather than ideal" and "It's a complex world --so often there are no simple answers". Well, growing up is realising that there are no clear-cut, simple answers, but that "Hey, life is just complex like that" (or: "Meh, whatcha gonna do?" *shrug*) is not a valid escape clause. At some point you have to think about the (long-term) consequences of your actions and accept responsibility for them (if you don't, you may end up selling WMD to Saddam or training guys like Osama Bin-laden in terrorist techniques). You may have to stand by what you believe in, even if it may work out badly for you. You have to strive towards better answers; like in science, although you may never get All The Answers To Everything, it is the process that matters. To put it in Pulp Fiction terms: You have to try to be the shepherd. But back to my original argument: if you call yourself a Christian, you cannot go around building WMD. People may deviate from that principle for all sorts of human and understandable reasons, but it conflicts with the principles of the faith they adopted, which say that you have to stick with them even to the death if that is the outcome (the story goes that Jesus died on the stake --do you think that was just for dramatic effect? Or was, perchance, a point being made?). They didn't want to do that? Fair dos, difficult call to make, could you do any better and all that. Just accept responsibility, and don't go around calling yourself a "Christian", just because they were trying to be. They were nowhere there yet.
The point is that life isn't, as you claimed earlier, in respect of the decision to create WMD, "simple as that" People may be the best christians it's possible to be, then find themselves in the middle of a world war, and some very hard choices to make. Standing here, with the benefit of approximately sixty years of peace from the last conflict to affect the general public of the UK, and the understandable tendency to find it difficult to understand the nature of such a situation, it is very easy to say "you should have done/not done this", or "Nya Nya - can't be a christian" , but it is, at best, unhelpful. I would imagine that those making the choices which I hope we never have to make, understood what it meant to their faith, and the lives and liberty of many millions of people around the world. To pick a quotation from some folk's favourite book: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I doubt those working on the Manhattan project made excuses. I suspect they were pretty well grown up. It's a dangerous world out there, and sometimes people, or governments, back the wrong horses, but for all the right reasons. (and sometimes for the wrong ones) It's not always easy to spot the bad guy at the time, but the alternative, of shutting yourself away from the rest of the world doesn't seem to appeal to many. I'm sure the whole cross thing was meant to make a point, but as I've been arguing since..... your argument is fine in the textbook, I'm sure, but not in real life. BTW, is it just the way I'm reading this, or do you think I call myself a christian?
I'm not saying that their point of view is not understandable, just that it isn't "Christian" (as they themselves would explain it). With all due respect and understanding for the situation, developing weapons is not a very grown up activity. But I'm not getting into that... I would SO disagree --these scenarios were not about "backing the wrong horse for the right reasons". The politics and interests involved were much more intricate and self-serving (conflict investment). The baddies, by the way, could have been spotted a mile off. And never did I propose withdrawal as an alternative. Been there, argued that. No I don't. And neither do I.
Oppenheimer was a very outspoken critic of the use politicians and the military made of his atomic energy development. To the extent that his security clearance was revoked in 1954. Szilard and Teller started a petition at Los Alamos against the use of the bomb on civilian targets (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). They believed a demonstration would be adequate. Not excuses, positive action. The bomb was developed in the real fear that Hitler was near building his own, not as an extra super-weapon for the US.
Well Jesus is God's (Jehovah's) son who was sent by God (jehovah) to come to earth to make a way out of sin for righteous mankind. Many conclude that this was God giving himself something and thus unmeaningful. But ultimately it was a loving way out for mankind who would otherwise not have been able to do so themselves, an underserved kindness on his part. It's sorta like a loving father who's son just broke a window, the child has no source of income but instead of just paying for the window and then disciplining the child he gives the child work to do around the house and all the money that he gives the child goes towards fixing the window. He thus gives the child a sense of responsibility and a way to learn and a way out if he wants. Same with us, being righteous and worshipping whole heartedly and believing these things is sinful mankinds way out of sin and death, eventually. The bible states that becuase a perfect man, Adam, lost perfection for all man that a perfect man, Jesus, would have to buy back that right of perfection. Thus it's not about life or death becuase God can ressurect any whom he chooses. But it's the principle behind it and morally right. His purpose though was for Jesus to die on the torture stake to save mankind. He made this decision not any man, that is the difference. Jesus stated that we must remain politically neutral. If a true christian was to do this he would not involve himself in wars or anything to deal with them. Unfortunately in this world we can't get away from it totally. As we pay taxes which utlimately lead to the building of weapons, this is far out our hands. AS Jesus stated we must pay to ceaser what he is asking but to God what he is asking. Also stated that the reason governments are in authority is becuase of God in a relative state of power. Ultimately our loyalty is to God, or should be. IN the end the reason for remaining politically neutral as the bible states. Ultimately there obviously has to be those that will fulfill god's purpose unknowingly. The governments for example are just falling into place of prophecy, as well as the people within them. It's funny to see though how world religions have their hand in so many politcal things. It's quite annoying actually from reading the bible and seeing the hypocrisy. Killing and all... If you claim to be "Christian" as nexxo says we must live up to the standards we are professing to have in our hearts and not be hypocritical. We do fall short of being perfect everday, but we can do our best. Killing is a choice and if we are loyalty to God is strong enough we won't. Heck loyalty to government is what get's soldiers killing people. And a government can't ressurect you like God could. I say Jehovah God has the best health plan. Just doing what he asks is the only payment. As the bible states he doesn't ask more of us then we can do, doing these things aren't burdens. Also, he states that he is teaching us to benefit ourselves. So it'd be in our best interest to do these things for our future. Although God obviously wants everyone to come to an accurate understanding of him and his will Jesus acknowledged that not everyone would, sadly, really that many would not.
