Posted on 10/16/2007 3:49:18 PM PDT by neverdem
btt
It is part of the collateral damage leading to a God-worthy end.
You are describing a preference...and a momentary one.
The animal could just as easily have attacked you. And the next time it might.
Perhaps, but I'll bet a lot of human beings have NOT done a lot of bad things precisely because they believe that there is a "divine disciplinarian" looking over their shoulder, and not solely due to genetically inherited "instincts".
I believe morality can be sourced to the survivability of individuals and the survivability of the various systems they identify themselves with. What to do and not to do and when, in terms of survivability and viability is as much a spiritual pursuit as it is a conscious/ethical/legal effort. Believing morality is something that can be derived consciously, or even logically, is a mistake. The inherent complexities of the world we live in are beyond conscious comprehension.
God is described by many cultures as a conscious manifestation of ultimate authority; omnipotent and omnipresent. Our perception of God occurs and is formulated regardless of whether or not God actually exists. Our perception of evil occurs when we sense an affront to our perception of God. Evil validates that we sense God's existence but does not prove God exists. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of faith?
This is a fascinating article. I really enjoyed reading it and thinking about it.
That's because God created the animals too. ;-)
Where the existence of God is concerned, some have questions that need answers while some have questions that answer needs. Only the questioner can really know which one he is.
Humans are the ultimate predator...
Predators are not known for mercy.
Very nice. Excellently and succinctly put. The playing out of the various outcomes of evil are part of the process of a fair and just God, while encouraging individualism rather than robotic obedience, addressing the charges of "unfair" and "arbitrary" in regard to his laws and moral authority. Ultimately, every intelligent being in the Universe will have had more than enough incontrovertible proof of the destructive outcome of the departure from the principles of God's government. This is what guarantees that disobendience or evil will never arise again throughout eternity.
And science has possibly caught a glimpse of this reality as it discovers some of the mysteries of the realm of quantum physics and the creative power of the "observer".
“This is a mistake many religious people make - assuming that ethics and morality must be based in religion. Why? Ethics, morality and the concept of fair play are based in empathy, a quality that even some animals apparently share.”
No, we are basing morality on God, not “religion.” Your own belief is a blind faith assumption in itself. You have arbitrarily picked one animal behavior and called it a ‘foundation’ for morality, but we could just as easily cite opposite behaviors in the animal world. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati pointed out in his refutation of Bishop Spong, saying that homosexual behavior in animals justifies homosexual behavior in humans, would require that we also approve of woman killing and eating their spouses, just like some spiders do!
Studying the animal world (nature) only tells us what nature *is*, not what it *ought to be*. There is no way to make the jump from science (what the world is) to moral standards (what the world ought to be) without relying on something transcendant; that is, something not sourced in merely the material world.
Sorry, empathy is not strong enough to beat the baser emotions like fear, greed, lust, envy, jealousy, etc. A society can run quite a long time with a social code that is non-empathetic -- that allows and legalizes much immorality, much non-fair play.
There have been many such -- even MOST societies organized under potentates or legal codes had fatal flaws, morality-wise, fair-play wise. They can last a long time, but not forever.
All will know the long-suffering of God and the righteousness of God's judgement.
Perhaps animals display empathy, perhaps not, regardless they certainly don't display ethics, morality, or fair play.
Besides, your assertion that those things are based on empathy has no support that I've ever seen. On what do you base your opinion?
“There is no way to make the jump from science (what the world is) to moral standards (what the world ought to be) without relying on something transcendant; that is, something not sourced in merely the material world.”
Incidentally, that just happens to be a very acute critique of the fallacy of Marxist dogma.
The scientist can turn his eye inwards, but I wonder if science can and still be considered science. “Creativity” traditionally isn’t recognized by science, which deals with the material universe. It is on the prescientific level that the scientist, as a man, recognizes creativity. The usual assumption of science is that creativity, soul, God, etc., can all be reduced to the functioning of the brain — that the mind, consciousness and all its wondrous qualities is, in the end, a product of materialism. Ironically, science rests on prescience. In other words, science cannot support itself.
Having brought this highest (for now) order created animal into existence, there are certain instructional processes needed to perfect the new creation. If the value of free choice (to acknowledge the Creator or not as sovereign in His creation) is as we believe, self destruction must be one possibility. Don't choose that path for your spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.