woodchuck

Morality 1- (woodchuck version)

Well NOGO, if you haven’t given up on me (sorry for the mad slackin’), I figured I’d go ahead and respond to your morality post, it was very interesting- though it really explained nothing about morality to me, it just seemed to be you interpreting scripture to me using your “free thought.” You didn’t give me much to respond to, but I’m going to try to anyway- you really like that snake don’t you.

Ok well one of the first things you said was about your roommates and how you all did things that would tick the other off and learned in that experience how to live together. I can definitely relate, I have been through my share of roommate life. You said that you think that morality came about in a similar way, and you said this:

Ok Nog I’m sure you caught your contradiction there but I’ll be kind enough to point it out since I’m sure no one else here will. You say that first, Injustice is perceived. Injustice presupposes justice, justice presupposes a moral law. You can not have something be unjust if you have absolutely no morals. Once again you are avoiding the foundation of the entire issue and trying to float around on your own intellectual steam. What are you avoiding?

I’m going to give an example even though I know that you know what I’m talking about. Ok, so Mr. Half monkey half man primate guy has no moral law, he is walking around prehistoric earth with a big old rock. He sees a primitive momma and her monkey baby chilling in the sun and he smashes monkey baby with the rock. Ok monkey people FREEZE! Now we will try to understand what monkey momma is thinking. What is her reaction if there is no moral law? It is probably something similar to this: “hoo hoo ha ha hah ho ho hoo hoo hoo hee hee ha” which doesn’t mean crap, because without morals she wouldn’t give a crap.

But maybe she realizes that for survival it is not the best thing to kill the baby. That is a joke and I hope you weren’t planning on pulling that one out. If that is the case, then killing a baby and peeing in the drinking water are equivalent. Morality at times has nothing to do with survival, you watch someone drowning and you know that if you attempt to save them you may die, but if you don’t you will live. Of course you would consider it more moral to try to rescue the drowning person, that’s because morality also presupposes value. If morals are mere inventions of man, so is value, therefore if morals do not exist in themselves, neither does your value. How did we come up with all this stuff Nog? Why aren’t we just eating and drinking and sleeping like the other animals?

For the baby’s murder to be unjust there must have already been a moral law that was agreed before the murder took place. Also, following this act most likely monkey momma would have started crying. Why? Because she loves her baby. Sorrow and Love are two things you will argue are not real things but are just things we created in our minds, since they are both nonphysical things and your religion does not believe in unphysical things. If neither justice nor love exists, never will a moral law exist.

I want you to explain how Moral law developed by us brilliant humans if justice could not exist without morality. Perhaps morality could come into existence if love and value existed, but if those things exist then that means that the “force” behind nature is loving and values life, that sounds way too much like God so we’ll have to avoid that if we are going to be rational. So I want you to explain how man invented morals. No skippin’ the important stuff.

The truth is that man can not invent a new value any better than he can invent a new color. Go ahead and try it.

Ok now all your Genesis stuff, I don’t even know if I want to get into it with the way we smoothly discussed the fig tree and Ecclesiastes.

You contradict your self here also. First, regarding Adam and Eve eating the fruit, you say that “this is where humanity acquired the ability to tell what is right and what is wrong.” And you mention how no rule or law had been yet given about Adam and Eve being Naked, yet they knew. Later you try sticking up for Cain because you claim he didn’t know it was wrong to kill because God hadn’t given the written law yet. Cain knew because mankind now knew good from evil (which you had just explained to me).

Why did God write out the law if it is in our hearts? I think for many reasons. Mankind did know right from wrong, but there was a problem- in the midst of knowing something was wrong, they still did it. Men lied and stole, something they did not do before the fall. So with the knowledge of good and evil came a corruption called sin.

So man has the perfect law written on his heart, but yet man is imperfect. There is a moral law inside him but he can’t seem to follow it. Separated from God, what will man do with that law? He will destroy it. Look at our culture today, God’s law becomes more and more a thing of the past because we are trying to rewrite our own laws to suit our fancies. Imperfect law writers write imperfect laws, therefore a moral law created by man is destined to fail.

So I am pretty sure that God gave the written law because he wanted us to have something to look back at, to see just how far we are from him. I believe the Law was written down to show us how impossible it is for man to get back to God, for who can follow it? The law is proof that we stand hopelessly separated from God. As C.S. Lewis said, “Law can only kill till gospel comes to transcend it.”

I also believe the law is a picture of God and of his original design for us.

This separation is the death that God was talking about when he said that they would surely die. You say that Adam and Eve did not die, yet if they did not die then where are they? If they did not die then they must still be alive, so where are they? You really bought into the snake’s lie Nog.

Imagine I tell you to drink a jar of HIV kool-aid. I tell you drink this and you will surely die, so you gulp it down and then say well I’m not dead you were wrong. Well down the road you would find out who the wrong one was.

You will argue that Adam and Eve died of “natural causes” or whatever, because you have chosen to believe in only nature (which, really is nothing cleverly disguised as something so you look more intelligent) but I will argue that man was not created to die, nor for disease, nor for evil, and God was right: they died. That is why this world is so tragic. Against a seemingly beautiful sunset, a man can be raping a little girl- It is as if this world was created beautiful, but man makes it uglier and uglier.

But man’s death went much deeper than this physical death. I will try to explain this a little bit, but I already see your eyes rolling so it may be pointless. If you create a car but you never sit in it or drive it, did the car ever serve its purpose? On a much grander scale, God created us to dwell in unity with him, and that’s why the Garden of Eden, right there in the beginning will you find God and his creation living together in unity. Because of man’s separation we have chosen a meaningless, purposeless life (like the one described in Ecclesiastes), and in effect are abandoned cars in a scrap yard. God’s definition of life is much bigger than ours, and by His definition we are dead, and as someone who has been given new life in Christ, I can vouch for that- without Christ life just isn’t worth it.

So far everything you’ve said basically is right. I think you are trying to use the fact that people knew right from wrong previous to the big ten as a way of trying to say that man knew right from wrong anyway. I don’t really know what your point was, if you had one. You seemed to answer your own questions and in the end I didn’t see what the problem was, except what I mentioned at first about man realizing injustice and therefore creating morals. That’s just plain goofy. You also said that God did not want man to eat from the tree of life, where did you get that? God couldn’t allow it after Adam had chosen the other tree because of his justice, Adam chose not to eat from it. You trying to make my God a big monster again?

You say that Cain had no law to go on since it was not given yet, but the law was part of God’s image, God made man in His image, therefore man had the law from the start. But God wanted more than just a moral world, He wanted love. Love is the highest virtue, and you have expressed love for family in your previous letters. What is love Nog? Is it a chemical reaction? A fart?

For love to exist, God had to give man the choice to leave His presence. Love only comes via free will; robots can not love even if you program them to be the best kissers. Even more, I think that man had to leave God’s presence to understand Love. You may try to separate good and evil into two separate and equal things, just in case you do, I will make this point.

A Grape and a raisin are different but the same. A raisin is a shriveled up grape. Is the raisin still a grape? Yes, but the grape is not a raisin. My point is that you don’t grow raisins, raisins are made by leaving grapes in the sun, raisins are grapes.

Evil is not an ultimate thing in itself, for evil can only exist if good exists, yet good can exist with no evil at all. No one decides to be evil just to be evil. It is always a corruption of something good. A robber steals because he needs money, getting money is good. A killer kills because he wants revenge, revenge is a form of justice and justice is good. A raisin can only exist if a grape first exists.

So when God allowed man to choose to leave Him, evil came into existence through sin. Much like darkness comes into existence when you turn out the lights. On the sun darkness does not exist. In acknowledging that evil exists we acknowledge a perfect good exists outside of ourselves, otherwise everything is just reduced to the thing you do. Hitler was just doing that thing he does, he was not evil, is that what you believe?

I really rambled in this post, but that’s ok considering the post I’m responding to. We are both guys who like to say a whole lot. I want to finish and make a comment on your post about free will. You did not answer my question at all Nog. I guess we need to define free will. Free will is a choice, not a random occurrence. By free will I have typed this post, how could I have done it if I was randomly hitting keys?

You insist you are not a determinist but everything you say says that nature is ultimately responsible for everything, even our moral decisions. If that is true then how is anyone ever really wrong for what they do? All you have said is that we can not always predict nature. Can we mess with it Nog? If Nature is all there is then why do we destroy it?

If morals existed without man’s help, then “Nature” is moral, it is perfectly moral, it IS morality… It is God, and that is why you are doing your best to find another way. Good luck Nog.

woodchuck

BONUS WOODCHUCK FEATURE!

ok well since I will probably slack off and not come back on for awhile if we look at my recent responce patterns, I should say all I can while I'm here.

I do want to respond to what you have said to me about truth Nog. You have explained to me that I have come to the conclusion of the truth because of my feelings. You say that I have a bias that makes me try to change the truth to fit my worldview.

You on the otherhand act as if you are just neutrally looking at things, using only rationality and evidence to come to your conclusions.

I don't want to get into a big evolutution debate, but you seem to believe in evolution, yet evolution has so much against it that either you do not know, you have ignored, or you are so devoted to evolution that you figure their must be some other way around. I have read numerous critiques of evolution from people who did not believe in God.

Much of your "evidence" could point to God or evolution. You choose evolution. Evolution as far as we know is something a guy made up, and according to you, God is something some guy made up. So why are you so rationally superior to me?
You also are going off of feelings, though I'm sure you will not admit that.

You have alot of really neat o things to say about the brain, but my point in all of our talking is this: There is something beyond the brain that is our soul, our mind, and unless you can prove that somehow our emotions and free will are all completely physical, there is a hole in your argument.

Also when you spoke of morality you tried to skip over injustice to morality. Ok then where did we get justice?

You take things and mold them to your all physical point of view. Do it if you want but don't accuse me of being closed minded while you are at it. You are just as closed minded, if not more closed minded than I am, don't church it up boy.

All the brain stuff is pointless until you have a good physical explanation for that part of me that chooses to do what it does, that loves, that hates, that thinks.

Anyway, those are a few thoughts. I know you disagree, but that's one thing that I am amazed by the people on this sight and just the whole "intellectual skeptic" group of "free thinkers"- you arrogantly claim that over 90 percent of people that have lived on this earth must have been dillusional because they believed in a god. You mock me for saying "God did it" and act as if it is much more rational and educated to say "nothing did it." I want to share a poem i know you guys will all love:

"Creed" by Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is ok.
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's ok.
We believe that taboos are tabboo.

We believe that everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddah,
Mohhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in Love and goodness.
They only differ in matters of creation,
Sin, heaven, hell, God, and Salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end. if the dead have lied, then it's comulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is esentialy good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be
The father of all flesh.
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.


well I am sure you all loved that poem. Ok well until next time then....
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

NOGO

Ok Woodchuck, thanks for the effort. Glad to see that you are still with me.
I am going to make my reponse short because I do not want to spread us too thin.
You have raised may new points and since I don't want to run off on a tangent I will leave them for later if you don't mind.

Not so. Despite that God made man to his own image as stated in Genesis after they ate the fruit, this is what the bible has to say:

Gen 3:7
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Gen 3:22
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

So we can conclude that God's image does not include knowledge of good and evil. Why? because their eyes opened and gen 3:22 says that man became more like the gods when they ate the apple.

This is a small point. What you are saying however is that man has built-in law or build-in morals. Our sense of what is good and bad comes from our nature. We have a partial agreement here, Woodchuck. Believe it or not but Darwin said the same thing. Where we differ is that you believe that God made our nature while I believe that it evolved.

I say partial because I do not believe that all morals stem from our nature. Some are cultural.

I cannot agree with this statement. Here is why.
Netscapte sued Microsoft over the web software. Netscape perceived some injustice.
Which moral law in the bible did Microsoft break which resulted in this perceived injustice?
Unfair competition! But even if the competition were fair Netscape would still not like the fact they were driven out of the business. I claim that the perception of injustice does not even imply injustice let alone justice and morality.

My point here is simple, people feel all sorts of injustices most of them are NOT founded. All you have to do is spend a day in small claims court to find all sorts of people who believe that they have been handed an injustice only to have their case thrown out of court. That is why I said that it may take generations before certain practices are ruled to be immoral. Unfair competition in business practices is something which took time and practical experience before it could be established.

Another example of people feeling injustice are the North American slaves, South African slaves, Sparticus and slaves under the Roman empire, the Israelites slaves in Egypt. Who told these people that slavery is immoral. These people felt injustice without any moral law in regard to the buying and selling of people.

The bible is full of places where slavery is not only not condemned but actually encouraged. The word slave in the NT is translated as servant so as not to offend our modern ears. Jesus never said anything against slavery which was very much part of his world.

Christians throughout history have in fact quoted the bible to justify the selling and buying of people. So my question to you is this, when did the immorality of buying and selling people was actually established?

One final point on the physical/unphysical mind.
You have not answered many points that I have made yet you insist that I have to explain it all. Let us take it one step at a time.

Memory. People lose memory in accidents and in old age. This, to me, proves that memory is physical. What is your answer?

Love. I have given you the example of a football player who lost all memory of many years. He did not recognize his wife and children so he did not love them anymore. What is your answer?

Consciousness. It is lost when in coma but also when you sleep. The brain cannot keep up the level of data processing and falls asleep to do maintenance. No consciousness, no free-will. What is your answer to this?

Mind. My mother-in-law lost her mind gradually as her brain deteriorated. What is your answer to this?

This is the evidence that convince me that the mind is physical (ie without any supernatural elements). What is your position, Woodchuck, do you recognize this evidence or do you just ignore it?

That's all Woodchuck. I look foreward to your answers. Take your time.
I hope that this is not too long. I held myself back as much as possible.

Take care.
NOGO.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Consciousness.

It is amazing how limited it can be.

Throw a bunch of coins on a table. If they are five, six, seven ... you tell the number at a glance. Get into the a dozen or more and you have to count. If you have thousands you need a method to ensure that you don't miss any or count some twice. Limited indeed.

It is limited in time as well. Researches say about fifteen seconds at the most. If an event take place over time, say fice minutes. You cannot be aware of all of it at once. You need to process it in chunks. The best examples I can give is when you rehearse for a play, a musical performance, or for a dance routine. You need to go over and over each part and become "aware" of it piecemeal.

Your consciousness is easily distracted. We have trouble concentrating on one thing for very long. This is different from the previous subject which delt with how much time span can you be aware of at once. This part is for how long can you think about one thing. Evolutionists will tell you that if man were capable of concentrating for several minutes without getting distrated he would have been easy game for predators.

Sensory deprevation experiments show that people will develop psychotic behaviour after three of four days including hallucinations.

All this support the idea that the mind is a function of the brain rather than something separate from it.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>