Posted on 05/09/2010 8:03:40 AM PDT by truthfinder9
So you think man is purely mechanical?
If so, then how can the Golden Rule apply to anyone?
Your statements contradict one another.
If man makes free moral choices he is not a machine.
If man is a machine then he doesn’t make free noral choices.
If you consider religion, there can only be one “correct” one. Now if the Golden Rule is present in a religion older than that “correct one”, it automatically implies that the “correct one” no longer holds, or that the Golden Rule itself isn’t dependent on any “correct” religion.
I don’t see the contradiction. Would you mind explicitly indicating it?
What is “free” choice? How do you define, “free”?
Why do you say there can only be one ‘correct’ religion?
Free is whether or not you respond to this post, and if you have to ability to actually make that decision.
— If you consider religion, there can only be one “correct” one. —
I prefer to say there is only one truth.
— Now if the Golden Rule is present in a religion older than that “correct one”, it automatically implies that the “correct one” no longer holds, or that the Golden Rule itself isn’t dependent on any “correct” religion. —
I disagree. You merely make the “Golden Rule” your religion (from the latin religio...”to bind”) binding yourself to it rather than something else.
The appealing aspect to non-believers appears to be that they can claim some sense of “morality” without being indebted to any deity as the source of their belief.
Actually, “things” come from somewhere, as did the “Golden Rule.” Would you care to try again to identify, historically, the origin of the Golden Rule, or to demonstrate, historically, that it had no origin or existed, as you stated, prior to any “organized” religious belief system?
Can there be more than one god? If yes, then there can probably be more than one “true” religion.
Can there be only one god, but multiple doctrines of the same? If yes, then there can be more than one “true” religion.
Any other formulations you can think of, for multiple religions to be “true”?
In this case, yes. There is no coercion, or a threat of harm, for choosing, or not choosing an answer. Are all other choices like that?
I prefer to say there is only one truth.
Well, that was what I'd implied.
I disagree. You merely make the “Golden Rule” your religion (from the latin religio...”to bind”) binding yourself to it rather than something else.
This needs a little bit more elaboration, if you don't mind.
The appealing aspect to non-believers appears to be that they can claim some sense of “morality” without being indebted to any deity as the source of their belief.
I can't disagree.
Actually, “things” come from somewhere, as did the “Golden Rule.” Would you care to try again to identify, historically, the origin of the Golden Rule, or to demonstrate, historically, that it had no origin or existed, as you stated, prior to any “organized” religious belief system?
Let me put it this way, if you find the Golden Rule available, in say, the message of a Chinese philosopher, would you ascribe the source of it to a divine entity? If yes, could you consider the option of multiple divine entities and one of them being the source?
I will have to look into the history of the Golden Rule to see how old it actually is, but I can deduce from the fact that:
1. Human society still exists, and existed a long time before any religion was codified
2. Society-maintaining species besides humans still exist, and existed before humans,
both of the above, which requires the Golden Rule to be applicable at least in some major stage of the lives of the individuals involved in each, that the Golden Rule does not have divine origins. If it does, then the division between humans and social animals get blurred, because both are then operating under a common ethical system. Since it is more logical to say that both entities either developed the Golden Rule ethics independently, or, if you accept the theory of evolution, that the transition between animal and man allowed for the transmission of the same ethical system from animal to man. Now why I eliminate a divine source for the Golden Rule is simple: None of the Semitic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) ascribe such a character of special identity to animals, for operating under the Golden Rule (the religion detailed by the Gita does hint at it, if not mention directly, about this shared ethical rule). Animals are generally considered inferior automatons by the major religions of the world (barring the Gita, again), without souls or morals. Eliminate each religion for its inherent flaws, and the conclusion arrived at would be the elimination of the chance of the presence of any "divine" aspect to the source itself.
If there is a divine origin to men and animals, your false dichotomies fall completely apart.
An intelligent Creator could easily organize both the functioning of men and animals with similar but different “social” structures, or, to use “old” words, morality and instinct.
Why should God have to “re-invent the wheel” biologically or “socially” when He separated men from animals by creating male and female in His image? (Men and women function biologically in some ways similar to animals as animals function is some vastly inferior ways similar to humans.)
Human societies (separated at the tower of Babel) have ALWAYS had a relationship with God (submissive/good or rebellious/bad) from the garden of Eden.
Organized, or codified, religions that have developed since reflect this submissive or rebellious relationship.
BTW, do you REALLY think animals operate under the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
I believe religions to be man-made, by direction of the One God.
And if there isn't? Why should God have to “re-invent the wheel” biologically or “socially” when He separated men from animals by creating male and female in His image?
So, are you agreeing that humans and animals have similar morals?
Human societies (separated at the tower of Babel) have ALWAYS had a relationship with God (submissive/good or rebellious/bad) from the garden of Eden.
Isn't this shaping a mythology to fit reality? What physical evidence is there for the Tower of Babel incident? There are towers probably several times larger, today, almost all of them dedicated to acts of men, rather than anything divine. Why isn't there a repercussion of the same? Th English language is now a de-facto international tongue, or is poised to rapidly accomplish that, in a short span. What purpose then did the "original" destruction of the said "tower" achieve?
BTW, do you REALLY think animals operate under the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
All of them?
Yes, I believe all religions are man-made.
But are they all divinely inspired?
From your article: “Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.”
The “social organization” of early humans is pure conjecture based on the religion (beliefs) of anthropologists and other “experts” who. apparently, are trying their hardest to make humans into mere animals.
What? You call this “science.”
BTW - I asked what YOU believe: do YOU really think animals operate under the Golden Rule?
And no, I don’t think humans and animals have similar morals. I merely assert that the same God created them both, and any apparent similarities reflect His divine intent/purpose, as do their obvious differences.
BTW, we have gotten far afield from my “original” question for you.
What makes your brain function, e.g., make the decision to eat a peach instead of a strawberry, or rob a bank instead of getting a job?
I decide, and YOU decide. Do you think the decisions of men (and animals, if you choose to include them in your deliberations) are completely and totally material/corporeal/comprised of matter (however you want to say/understand it) and involve nothing apart from “matter?”
I would imagine they are.
So how can you “freely” respond to a post?
Or “love” to post?
Are machines free?
Do machines love?
What physical evidence is there for the Tower of Babel incident?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html
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.