Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[PainefulTruth]

Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. [/B] It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

Suddenly?

Evolutionarily speaking, yes, but we can watch it as it develops much quicker than that in our children as they learn the words you & me, mine & yours, "I"--and the inevitability and permanence of our mortality. The speed of the onset of that ability, genetically and individually, is quick but ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we're innocent up until the time that we're not, when we become self-aware. Full self-awareness is an on or off thing, requiring one's recognition of our ultimate mortality. Without that, we don't know what we risk, or the full meaning of harming another.

Monkeys are only 10,000 years or so in to our shot at Sentience and the Stars, and even a sociopathic old atheist Monkey like me wouldn't consider our species 'moral' by pretty much ANY definition of the word....

yet.​

I don't know what your point about monkeys is, but our species is not moral or immoral. Individuals of our species have the inherent ability to identify what's moral (harming others), and the ability to choose to be moral......or not.

The first thing that 21st Century Monkeys should do is celebrate how much better 'Civilized' life is now than it was even just a few hundred years ago.

Being moral is an individual decision, not a social one. Yes, society can legislate morality, but it also legislates immorality, both of which are the result of individual decisions. As a species, we tend to be moral because most prefer good order. But we can allow ourselves to be misled, and our rights can be violated by any of a number of forms of conquest.

ALL immorality is the result of a legal/moral double-standard. To believe otherwise is to blame the victim for being a victim. and the inherent right of some to be immoral.

Next up is to keep working towards a fair marketplace, preparing the next generation to make the most of it, and equitable sharing of Earth's resources among Monkeys present and Monkey Spawn.

No sooner said than done, the double standard on a plate.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Not2B:

1. If you are referring to people who live by a Retributive God and dependence on authority/punishment/reward to do what they do, that is OT. That did not work.
It led to manmade corruption of the laws by the letter, to decide who was right
by the law for political greed and is not policeable or enforceable because people
are biased and flawed. They have conflicts of interest as we see today, and will
bias justice toward what is politically expedient for their own interests.

You are right this does not work, it has a limit, and abused, it destroys humanity
and kills relations. The OT is a testimony to the tragic failures in human wars and history.

2. as for what you speak of that it is not necessary to depend on some personified God
to live by natural laws and natural sense of justice and truth, this is correct.

The same spirit of truth and justice is at the root of both scriptural laws of religions
and church authority, and the secular laws or natural laws of the gentiles and the state.

3. However, in order to reach AGREEMENT in truth in this unifying spirit of justice,
that is where mutual forgiveness of past faults, conflicts and injustice/wrongs
becomes necessary. if people do not forgive the past wrongs that bias our judgment,
we become like the people in the OT that invoke justice to punish other people,
for our own benefit and security. This biased retributive justice kills relations.
We cannot agree on what truth and justice are if we are competing in conflict
to reject or overrule the opposing people we deem to be the problem.

For mutual corrections and alignment between diverse laws and systems,
we NEED to have good faith working relations. So forgiveness and correction
are needed as a mutual process between equals.

That is where this concept of "divine forgiveness and grace" comes in
about Jesus saving humanity from ourselves. Where we cannot forgive
and be fair to include other people in the justice process with us, as equals,
it can require "higher forgiveness" to deal with each other.

So this is where I find the forgiving power accredited to Christ Jesus as
the central intersection, unifying all humanity in one spirit of Justice
to establish Truth, is critical and cannot be supplanted by anything else.

Whatever Truth and Justice we believe in, it must be Universal to include
all humanity equally; and whatever it takes to unite all people as one,
by definition, that universal level of truth justice and peace is what
God and Jesus must represent for all these systems to align and refer to the same laws.

This is a massive goalpost shift to a completely different topic of conversation and is a great example of very poor argumentation.
If you don't have something to say about my post that is cited with a credible source, just say so.
Don't invent a strawman to hide behind and then go running away like a schoolchild.
We were talking about the origination of right and wrong and how it might have developed. I have provided you with a perfectly easy to understand, biologically founded argument for the development of such ideas.
If you can't discuss it, be a man and say so.

It's not a strawman nor is it a shift. It's basic or foundational to the topic at hand. If God is the first cause and eternal and intelligent and moral then it's not a big jump to believe that He instilled virtue in His creation.

If the universe and biological life forms are products of chaotic magic and just **poofed** into existence just for the heck of it then there is no basis for morality or codes of ethics. In other words, nothingness doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. It wasn't "thinking" when it decided to "create" the universe.

Here's what I always wonder when religious types come to a conundrum of how morality can exist without a hard, factual standard for it:

Are you a sociopath?

Is the only reason you obey a code of conduct because of the fear of punishment for transgressions and the promise of reward for obedience?

In other words, if you found out that your God wasn't true. . . let's say, hypothetically, you found out that the God of the Bible was completely made up. . . would there be no end to the depravity of which you'd suddenly be emotionally capable?

If you could also eliminate the threat of societal punishment and act with impunity, would you, personally, rape every woman you found attractive who didn't feel the same about you?

Would you steal everything you desired?

Would you torture and murder everyone you don't like?

Or are you possessed of the same empathy as everyone else in possession of a working, human brain?

As a one-time Christian who, for lack of a better way to put it in few words, went agnostic, I reached the philosophical point I'm at by questioning each of my values over time. I'm sure you've done the same to some degree. . . it's natural for anyone with a brain to analyze random information at least -some- of the time.

You have to have considered and even discussed the obvious wisdom behind many of your Biblically based morals, yes? There has to be at least a few moral values espoused by the Bible that, even without God threatening/promising you into motion, you would follow simply because it's the logically proper way to conduct yourself? I know that, even though I lacked faith in the overall story, there were more than a few of the Biblical maxims that I found, and still find, highly compelling.

If you want the answer to this, examine yourself honestly. Try to imagine how you'd feel about your code of conduct and how you'd treat other people if you found out that your God wasn't real, or if you suddenly lost belief in Him for whatever reason.

It's not so much finding out it isn't real or rejecting it.
It's about expanding on it to include other people and views you thought were in conflict,
but finding out the universal laws are so inclusive that everyone is under them.
We just call them and talk about these laws of Nature in different ways,
and do not rely on personifying things as entities in order to follow the same concepts.

It's more about forgiving our differences so we can see how our beliefs and principles align anyway.

I think you may refer indirectly to the process of moving from
dependence on a Retributive God or Justice (from OT stage)
to Restorative Justice that is unconditional, where Justice and Mercy
are given freely to all people to receive and not earned by religious conditions.

This is the meaning of the process symbolized in the Bible that all humanity goes through.
There is a death or sacrifice of "the old ways based on punitive conditional thinking"
followed by a spiritual renewal, rebirth in the spirit of truth.

We do have to let go of our conditioned ways of thinking that are dead ends.
And open up ourselves to receive higher truth and understanding that is not based on the
conditions we attached that were all man made and material thinking.

When Buddha went through this spiritual process, he called it enlightenment
because he experienced it as changing in his mental state and conscious awareness in his mind to full mindfulness of all things being interconnected
apart from conditions that bias and separate us.

When Christians go through this, they call it rebirth, baptism, salvation, receiving grace and spiritual healing
because it is felt in the spirit as new life and unconditional love received that replaces the conditioned human love for material happiness.

in the end, both our minds and our hearts/spirit find peace on this higher level
of not depending on material conditions. It fascinates me, no end, that both
Buddhism and Christianity describe the spiritual process in radically different ways,
yet all humanity goes through this process and we all experience it and express it differently because we are each unique.
Just fascinating that it's the same process. and all religions talk about it using their own language. Amazing, to be universal and unique at the same time!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi PT I believe proof will come when we reconcile our views
and realize and agree we are talking about the same laws that are universal.

We will still see and say things in different ways, but recognize we are expressing
and reflecting the same principles behind it all.

My mother and friends who are Buddhist or other nontheist
may never see the universal laws in terms of a "personified God"
but we will agree on the laws and what to do as right or to avoid as conflicting.

there will be unity that does not rely on converting how we see or say things,
in that sense, but it will change our perception about what changes are necessary
and what differences can be worked with without changing each other.

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

But the Genesis story doesn't try to hide the **poofing**. It comes right out and states that God created everything by the power of His Word.

The proof that you need is that the Bible is God's word. But all you have that has been verified is the history it contains. There's no evidence for any of the miracles or revelations, and massive amounts of evidence against it. You've been told that faith is a substitute for reason and facts. As such, for the faithful, science is worthless. Anytime the faithful appeal to science, they argue against faith.

Even if God were to come to you and prove that It is who It said It is, that would only be useful to you, without any evidence that was given to you to back up your assertion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Proof is irrelevant.

Peace comes with understanding the difference between what can be proven and what must be taken on faith.

 

[Intense]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

Suddenly?


Monkeys are only 10,000 years or so in to our shot at Sentience and the Stars, and even a sociopathic old atheist Monkey like me wouldn't consider our species 'moral' by pretty much ANY definition of the word....

yet.​

The first thing that 21st Century Monkeys should do is celebrate how much better 'Civilized' life is now than it was even just a few hundred years ago.

Next up is to keep working towards a fair marketplace, preparing the next generation to make the most of it, and equitable sharing of Earth's resources among Monkeys present and Monkey Spawn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/76268-perhaps-our-children.html​

Which brings you to Conscience, by any name. Conscience does transcend culture, society, the wrong turns we all take. Consider that there very well may be a reason for that. Tell me, why are we each our own worst enemy, at least at times???

You're looking good.

The Golden Rule is born of conscience, and it does , for the most part, transcend culture, whether or not you see it as a direct to the Source of creation is your concern.

There is right and wrong, There is circumstance, perspective, there is level and degree, there is consequence, cause and effect, seen and unseen, intended and unintended. Welcome to the show. I understand One's right to live life, to choose, based on one's own perspective, and I agree with it. Why? What is our true Nature? When we are done pissing into the wind? When we are done blaming God for what we both do and impose on each other???

 

[PainefulTruth]

Proof is irrelevant.

Peace comes with understanding the difference between what can be proven and what must be taken on faith.

And so it goes.

 

[Intense]

Proof is irrelevant.

Peace comes with understanding the difference between what can be proven and what must be taken on faith.

And so it goes.

That is not peace.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Proof is irrelevant.

Peace comes with understanding the difference between what can be proven and what must be taken on faith.

And so it goes.

That is not peace.

True. We cannot achieve peace with faith since genuine faith can only motivate us to pursue the Truth--it cannot justify Truth. Yet people continue to disregard reason in favor of blind faith, ergo, "and so it goes".

 

[PainefulTruth]

Hi PT I believe proof will come when we reconcile our views

What, meaning figure out which parts of our views are right and which wrong? We don't reconcile Truth, and we don't determine it by committee, we find it--at least objective Truth anyway.

and realize and agree we are talking about the same laws that are universal.

What happens if one is on the trail of a universal Truth and proves it, but the other refuses to acknowledge it. Are they both still right?

We will still see and say things in different ways, but recognize we are expressing and reflecting the same principles behind it all.

If that's the case, great. But what if one of the sides is wrong. Is the world flat AND round?

My mother and friends who are Buddhist or other nontheist
may never see the universal laws in terms of a "personified God"
but we will agree on the laws and what to do as right or to avoid as conflicting.

Some beliefs about a personified God have got to be just wrong. How can we have free will if our names were written in the Book of Life from the beginning, or not? Revealed religions have way too many insurmountable contradictions.

there will be unity that does not rely on converting how we see or say things,
in that sense, but it will change our perception about what changes are necessary
and what differences can be worked with without changing each other.

I think you're being too vague about what "differences" you are talking out "converting" or "changing" and how. Could we reconcile our differences with the NAZIs and justify the Holocaust? How could anything be conceded to them? You may say it's an extreme example, but what immorality isn't extreme?

 

[whitehall]

Right and wrong? The US Constitution and the judicial system? Don't try this at home kiddies.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Right and wrong? The US Constitution and the judicial system? Don't try this at home kiddies.

The judicial system, like all branches of government, is subject to corruption.

I've sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm still under that oath. But the Constitution will ultimately only be upheld by the citizens since, though it's probably the best document of its kind, it never has been perfect--as the amendments show, and some of those are wrong.

The Constitution is a framework for establishing a rule of law, but it's faced with corruption on all sides; we can't agree on (the limited) moral code it should institute; and the necessary evil it contains, taxes, is the largest seed that fosters inevitable corruption, which includes the electorate.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey, Painefultruth are you a libertarian?

 

[DriftingSand]

And so it goes.

That is not peace.

True. We cannot achieve peace with faith since genuine faith can only motivate us to pursue the Truth--it cannot justify Truth. Yet people continue to disregard reason in favor of blind faith, ergo, "and so it goes".

Depends on ones definition of "reason." My faith has led me to what I believe are some logical conclusions.

1) If the universe is a big mistake then "reason" is meaningless. Reason requires intelligence. Chaos and happenstance do not give birth to reason.

2) It makes more sense to me that something that is designed requires a designer. I often use a Corvette as an example. A Corvette is a complex piece of machinery. It requires several systems in order the operate (engine, exhaust, suspension, electrical, cooling, etc.). Nobody looks at a Corvette without knowing that it was first designed then made. When I view the complex workings of the universe or the living cell or the human eye I can't help but see design; thus, a Designer.

3) It makes more sense to me that "something" created everything that to believe that "nothing" created everything.

4) Love is totally invisible. Totally unseen by the naked eye. Yet everyone has experienced it and knows that it exists. It manifests itself in feelings and actions but it is still not seen. So not all things need to be tangible in order to exist.

Can you see "reason" in any of my conclusions?

 

[PainefulTruth]

Hey, Painefultruth are you a libertarian?

A small "l" libertarian, yes. I used to be a card carrying Libertarian, then 9-11 happened. We can't be isolationists waiting only to defend ourselves when we're invaded, not in today's world. Why do you ask?

That is not peace.

True. We cannot achieve peace with faith since genuine faith can only motivate us to pursue the Truth--it cannot justify Truth. Yet people continue to disregard reason in favor of blind faith, ergo, "and so it goes".

Depends on ones definition of "reason." My faith has led me to what I believe are some logical conclusions.

Faith isn't a logical starting point, so how could it lead to a logical conclusion. "Faith" as the religions use it goes beyond reason, by definition. Can you give an example?

1) If the universe is a big mistake then "reason" is meaningless. Reason requires intelligence. Chaos and happenstance do not give birth to reason.

I don't understand, who's saying the universe is a mistake? Certainly not me. I've said often enough that I believe, if God exists, that It created the universe to achieve the one thing It couldn't do instantly, create a rational habitat to spawn creatures with free will, which requires them to be unable to deduce or sense It's presence.

2) It makes more sense to me that something that is designed requires a designer. I often use a Corvette as an example. A Corvette is a complex piece of machinery. It requires several systems in order the operate (engine, exhaust, suspension, electrical, cooling, etc.). Nobody looks at a Corvette without knowing that it was first designed then made. When I view the complex workings of the universe or the living cell or the human eye I can't help but see design; thus, a Designer.

We cannot look back further than the Big Bang. It's a firewall beyond which we have not been able to retrieve or deduce anything but pure speculation. That, I believe is by design, but we can't assume it because of the total lack of evidence either way. I know it looks miraculous, and the intricacies of natural law are fantastic. But it is natural law after all.

3) It makes more sense to me that "something" created everything that to believe that "nothing" created everything.

There is no reason to back up your something. The two options for what started the universe, something or nothing, are both equally incredible, but that and the total lack of evidence for either is all we have.

4) Love is totally invisible. Totally unseen by the naked eye. Yet everyone has experienced it and knows that it exists. It manifests itself in feelings and actions but it is still not seen. So not all things need to be tangible in order to exist.

Love, along with knowledge, justice and beauty, are all aspects of Truth located on the objective/subjective (reason/emotion) spectrum, and are just as invisible.

Can you see "reason" in any of my conclusions?

Of course, but there is no reason that indicates the existence of God, or design....by design, I think.

The hardest thing I ever had to admit to myself was that God, if It exists, does not, can not, interact or even allow Itself to be known, if we are to have free will, for which It would have created the universe. I had believed in divine providence as many early deists had. But I finally realized that's just another word for fate. Pursuing (worshiping?) the Truth (God) is up to us, but it's ultimate victory is not guaranteed, at all. We are bound to pursue it, but the quality of our individual efforts is the meaning of life. It was a traumatic but ultimately liberating epiphany.

People ask me, who the hell are you? What is your authority? My "authority" is the same as everyone's, Truth, which speaks for Itself universally.

 

[emilynghiem]

Which brings you to Conscience, by any name. Conscience does transcend culture, society, the wrong turns we all take. Consider that there very well may be a reason for that. Tell me, why are we each our own worst enemy, at least at times???
....
What is our true Nature? When we are done pissing into the wind? When we are done blaming God for what we both do and impose on each other???

I can try to answer this.
We all have difficulty FORGIVING where we or others caused each other problems.
That comes with the territory, with having a conscience that learns by experience.

Sometimes the drive for accountability and justice reaches a limit
and can defeat its own purpose. We can be so caught up in wanting to see
things corrected a certain way, we can't let go and let Justice works its own way through.

That is where the component in Christianity comes in, of giving it to God, by forgiveness.
By asking help to forgive what we keep holding onto because we are human.

Everyone reaches this point in life, in relations, and has to let go or it will kill us.
We just call it different things. The Buddhists call it letting go or radical acceptance.
Where even Buddha did not receive the truth he was seeking until he ceased all striving, let go, and let it come to him.
Then he received the knowledge and understanding that would not fit in his mind that was too attached to conditions he thought he needed to meet.
The Buddhists call this renouncing karma and material attachments and following dharma or higher spiritual laws.
The Christians call this separating from the material flesh and living by the spirit;
of repenting of past ways and forgiving so that God's will and unconditional love can be received instead of man's selfish will and conditioned love.

When unforgiven conflicts or karma is carried generationally in our conscience from previous relationship before our time, the Buddhist call this past life karma and regression therapy to identify and let go of those blockages causing suffering to repeat; the Christians call it deliverance prayer to break generational curses and remove strongholds, where sins/karma of past generations are revisited and repeated unto the fourth and fifth generations until finally this cycle of retribution is broken by collective forgiveness for all humanity represented in Christ Jesus.

It all boils down to forgiveness, on all levels that affect us, so we do not carry negative fears or ill will
on our conscience that block us by "divide and conquer" from solving our own problems.
Our consciences are attempting to 'debug' ourselves, which requires some intervention if the system itself becomes corrupted with biases within.

Where we hold on to any ill will or negative perception of others, and start "projecting" this onto relations with other people, or whole groups,
that is where our "fear" becomes our worst enemy in dividing us from each other.

As Dr. King Jr. explained:
"Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated."

While the Bible reminds us that
"Perfect love casts out all fear."

Charity is the greatest love of all. And Forgiveness is often the greatest, most precious and sacrificial act of charity, most valued where it is least deserved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PainefulTruth and DriftingSand:
Thank you for insightful, well written and fascinating explanations and responses.

I think you show that we can have deeply intelligent discussion and critical analysis
of faith and reason, and not lose anyone as PaintMyHouse suggested that either the theists are too stupid to reason with or the liberals are too reasonable to deal with God/faith.

May I reply to two points that stood out to me:

1.

Faith isn't a logical starting point, so how could it lead to a logical conclusion. "Faith" as the religions use it goes beyond reason, by definition. Can you give an example?

May I give an example of faith that I find is important to believers as well as nonbelievers:
Faith in how forgiveness works.
By our logical minds, we would want to know in advance that people are sorry or problems are being acknowledged and corrected
BEFORE we offer forgiveness.
It takes a "leap of faith" to forgive and let go emotionally IN ADVANCE
before seeing that any such acknowledgement or correction of wrong is going on.
It can offend our sense of justice.

But in the process of resolving problems,
human emotions are such that we often would be required to FORGIVE FIRST
in order to "let go of disruptive emotions" and take logical steps to resolve and correct problems "after the fact."

This "counterintuitive" approach often enrages people even more, who feel why should we forgive when we were the ones who were wronged?
It seems completely backwards, as if we are enabling wrong and giving people free reign to abuse us.

The process of forgiveness itself takes faith to study the effects to see how it really works.

And the irony is some people need to forgive before they can understand forgiveness.
So the tendency is to stay stuck in unforgiveness, so it causes a vicious cycle until someone involved in that conflict decides it isn't solving anything to hold on to negative rejection and division,
and starts seeking avenues to forgive and make peace. Eventually this catches on, but again it requires people to forgive on faith, which makes no sense to people who don't see the logic in it.

This issue just happens to be a critical point in understanding why humans are stuck where we are,
and what we face in overcoming misunderstanding about true forgiveness NOT undermining accountability and justice, but allowing the process of justice to follow naturally.
It is easier to understand in hindsight, but nearly impossible to explain in advance where people are not ready or willing to consider any such steps because they feel so wronged.
Forgiveness is best shared "by example" but even then the intent and process is "questioned and misunderstood" by people who haven't forgiven and respond in fear.

2.

The hardest thing I ever had to admit to myself was that God, if It exists, does not, can not, interact or even allow Itself to be known, if we are to have free will, for which It would have created the universe. I had believed in divine providence as many early deists had. But I finally realized that's just another word for fate. Pursuing (worshiping?) the Truth (God) is up to us, but it's ultimate victory is not guaranteed, at all. We are bound to pursue it, but the quality of our individual efforts is the meaning of life. It was a traumatic but ultimately liberating epiphany.

People ask me, who the hell are you? What is your authority? My "authority" is the same as everyone's, Truth, which speaks for Itself universally.

Yes, I believe equating God with universal Truth and "what is set as immutable" or "fate" is consistent with what God means.

Regarding unable to be known, if you take all Truth and events in life that are "meant to be" this collective set of all knowledge is clearly beyond man's finite perception that is limited.

So it doesn't take much to make sure God is not known to man.

There is no way we can contain much less express "all the laws and knowledge of all things ever existing in the past present and future."

Not impossible at all, but inevitable that we cannot know all things God represents.
We are only going to "know" or "agree on" selective points, events or principles here and there. We are lucky to even agree "what happened in the past" as we cannot prove that either since it is no longer in the present perception; how much more difficult is it to agree on what needs to take place in the future if we are still in conflict over the past?

So that is why it is important to reach agreement by conscience. if we can set aside our biases and resolve conflicts preventing us from agreeing on how we see the past and the present, we can use our clear consciences and perceptions to form agreement on what to do in the present to achieve goals we agree on in the future.

These conversations are important, and I am glad you both prove PMH wrong that we cannot discuss God and the meaning of religions and Christianity logically and intelligently.

Thank you for at least proving that much!
I enjoy and appreciate your rational discourse, which I find
refreshing and delightful. And relieving to read. Thank you both.
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[PainefulTruth]

We all have difficulty FORGIVING where we or others caused each other problems.
That comes with the territory, with having a conscience that learns by experience.

The problem with conscience is that it's subject to guilt on one side, and modification for emotional reasons on the other.

Forgiveness should never be offered where repentance is absent, much less belligerent defense of one's own wrongdoing. Undeserved or unrequested forgiveness is very often reinforcement for immoral behavior.

 

[emilynghiem]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

But the Genesis story doesn't try to hide the **poofing**. It comes right out and states that God created everything by the power of His Word.

The proof that you need is that the Bible is God's word. But all you have that has been verified is the history it contains. There's no evidence for any of the miracles or revelations, and massive amounts of evidence against it. You've been told that faith is a substitute for reason and facts. As such, for the faithful, science is worthless. Anytime the faithful appeal to science, they argue against faith.

Even if God were to come to you and prove that It is who It said It is, that would only be useful to you, without any evidence that was given to you to back up your assertion.

YES! I agree with the interpretation of the fall of man as having self-awareness before reaching full spiritual maturity in how to handle the responsibility of knowledge of the laws.

To answer your second point,
I interpret the whole Bible as showing the universal process of humans reaching spiritual or social maturity.

Based on what a Buddhist monk said to summarize the Bible, the OT is about living by the letter of the law, the NT is about living by the spirit of the law.

If you read through the history, the OT captures the history of "retributive justice" and a relationship or perception of God and justice as "judgment and punishment" -- leading to wars and genocide, nations or tribes wiping each other out for political greed which is the spirit of antichrist abusing law and authority for selfish interest.

The NT is about "restorative justice" or living by the spirit of truth, love of justice and peace for all humanity.

So the Bible represents the PROCESS of each individual and the whole of humanity collectively,
moving from OT retributive justice/letter of the law governance to NT restorative justice by the spirit of the law,
going through the ups and downs of gaining knowledge, falling out over it and suffering from abuses and injustice, then recovering and restoring good faith relations,
among brothers, among nations, and among society as a whole family in harmony.
The patterns or stages in the Bible reflect the stages of human social and spiritual development.

The key to fulfilling the process is mutual forgiveness and correction to establish lasting peace and justice.
So that is where faith in Christ Jesus represents faith in the spirit of "Restorative Justice"/Justice with Mercy
that saves humanity, our individual relations broken by wrongdoing, and restoring peace and justice for all.

All our relationships, and stages we go through in life similar to the stages of grief and recovery, follow these same patterns as symbolized in the Bible. The believers see it as man is made in the image of God and reflects the trinity by being of body/mind/spirit; the secular gentiles see it as man made up God and religion by projecting ourselves onto these symbols for our experiences on the physical/psychological/collective levels of humanity.

Either way, the point is to use these laws and languages to resolve conflicts so we can restore good working relations and work for greater good for humanity as we agree on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you, PT. I gave you and DriftingSand rep (finally figured out how to do that), and wish there was some button on here to ask scientists to clone you both. At least put you at the top of the list of "people we need more of" on this planet!

1.

Hi PT I believe proof will come when we reconcile our views

What, meaning figure out which parts of our views are right and which wrong? We don't reconcile Truth, and we don't determine it by committee, we find it--at least objective Truth anyway.

1. I believe we can align our points and principles. And if they don't, we find out where is the conflict and correct that. Usually I find it is a matter of not defining terms the same, such as using God to mean conflicting concepts, or as in another message not talking about the same thing when we talk about forgiveness so our perceptions are in conflict. these can all be corrected, and it is usually a mutual process, where both people adjust to include the other person's added perspective. Like learning a new language or translating between two languages, making sure we really are referring to parallel equivalents.

2.

and realize and agree we are talking about the same laws that are universal.

2.

What happens if one is on the trail of a universal Truth and proves it, but the other refuses to acknowledge it. Are they both still right?

2. if people cannot acknowledge something, it is usually from some unforgiven issue inserting a bias against something. this is usually mutual and can be resolved where both people equally forgive and accept differences in experience and how we see/say things.

if it is a factual or information/perception error, the content needs to be addressed.
As long as both people are equally open to seeking the truth, regardless how much both sides need to change in relation to the other, then there is no problem finding and correcting what is causing conflict.

If there is some "emotional block" causing resistance, that is a separate issue of "forgiveness and letting go." It is usual mutual, and takes both side to let go so they don't pressure the other to change, but it is clear both sides are equally accommodating.

This happens in mediation all the time, the facts and points per se need to be addressed separately from the "emotional factors" in people going through the facilitation process.

Letting go of judgment and fear becomes the key point in making the process succeed.
* fear of the unknown
* fear of change or loss of equal control to external influence from others
* fear of conflict or confrontation
The source of the fear must be addressed individually, or this gets projected outward onto relations with other, and collective one's perception of groups and whole society/humanity.

This is why I focus on the forgiveness factor, to make sure all internal conflicts are resolved that otherwise cause rigid biases to be projected as division and rejection.
Without forgiveness and equal inclusion, the process can deadlock and fail.

In fact, an active peacemaker explained unequivocally that any group, movement or goal ultimately implodes on itself and fails if there is anything less than full inclusion.
Any division at all, and it cannot sustain but the negative energy will make it fall apart.

3.

If that's the case, great. But what if one of the sides is wrong. Is the world flat AND round?

3a. if this can change, and is necessary to work things out, then the person with this view may change it when it gets in the way of what they want. if their path of least resistance is to keep rejecting any perception or proof to the contrary, they may continue on this path until there is enough motivation to want to change and expand the view to something else.

3b. if it is not necessary to change, it is possible to work with this person without changing their viewpoint. we can still agree how to walk across the floor, how to travel and get things done, how to work together in groups or over the internet, etc. WHETHER or not the world is flat, round, spherical, triangular, etc.

3c. Where it probably interferes, is if the ADHERENCE to this view is used to divide and stir conflict, to keep other people away as a BARRIER. So it is a SIGN of some other fear issue going on.

In that case, it is not so much the view in itself that needs to change, but what is causing closeminded fear and rejection of other people.

Again, the unforgiveness/forgiveness issue. It is not so much the viewpoint that is the problem, because that can be worked around. but if the unforgiveness/fear in this person causes unresolved conflicts with others to repeat and project, then
THAT issue may need to be resolved in order to work with this person.

If they can keep working with their own insular group, they don't necessarily need to change. If they actively conflict and cause problems with other group, using this conflict as the weapon of war, then that conflicting attitude is what needs to be addressed.

And it is likely coming from some internalized conflict or distrust/fear, that if resolved, can prevent a lot of other problems besides just their view of the shape of the physical world.

4.

Some beliefs about a personified God have got to be just wrong. How can we have free will if our names were written in the Book of Life from the beginning, or not? Revealed religions have way too many insurmountable contradictions.

4a. I find the conflicts over interpretations happen where people are "not forgiving" and "looking for a reason to reject." It's not the conflict itself, because all people are going to have conflicts with our views, but it's our approach to the conflicts, whether we accept and work around our differences, or we compete to "make each other wrong to reject/divide."

4b. As for literal answers to your literal example questions:
4b1. because humans have limited perception, we are not going to know what all is or has happened even if it were all planned out as one huge script from beginning to end.
If you look at how we enjoy movies, even if we know how the story is going to end, we still go through "suspension of disbelief" and go through the ups and down, as if we don't know if the hero is going to make it or not to the happy ending.

4b2. humans already have limits to our free will
we cannot turn into butterflies, cannot put a chicken back into the egg.
So our free will is already limited to natural laws on how the physical laws and world work.
the spiritual laws are the same way.

If I was not meant to be born as a white European male like Thomas Jefferson, but I came out as Emily Nghiem to Vietnamese parents who moved to America and got my education here, that is going to affect how I come out and the choices I follow in life. So when I study and promote Constitutional laws, as an Asian female Democrat, it is going to take a different path than if I were a white male and perceived a different way by society.

Honestly I would never have chosen any such path by my own. I have no interest of my own in history, much less politics and religion. But the problems kept bothering me and gave me no peace, my family and relations with others were all tied to the same process, and that was clearly not my plan or anything I decided or chose. "God's will" or fate is greater than my will not to mess with any reconciliation of conflicts with church and state law. I am the last person on earth to want to get near the politics and corruption of either one.

But I found out that my relations with my parents and family, affect my relations with others, and collectively this affects how all people operate in the world. There is a natural connection by conscience, and not something I can avoid or get away from. It is the way it is. The same natural laws shape and govern all our human relations, individually and collectively, connected by conscience from local to global as one intertwined process.

This is not my choosing, not my free will. (and believe me, I fought with this path worse than Jesus saying take this cup from me. I wasn't so polite and used curse words like hell no I am not going to have anything to do with anything with the church or the state. FU no)

Where free will comes into play is some of these things will not physically take place until I "agree or choose" to accept which choices are going to work mutually with other people choosing things in harmony and for the common good. So that is God's will, to choose what works for the greater good of humanity, as opposed to what is ill will, selfish or not for the greater good and benefit of all people. What is the ideal route? Where we work to establish agreement on that, then we agree on "God's will" and take those steps.

Again back to "forgiveness" the hardest step is "choosing by free will to forgive" that the things that are happening or need to happen "are not what I wanted."

As long as I am not ready for this, then I don't forgive but I fuss and refuse to deal with the responsibility, steps or changes. And only when I am ready to "choose" to let go and agree to go with the flow and work with the people, steps or process as given, then "my will is aligned with God's will or the collective good will" and things can proceed peacefully.

98 times out of 100 the plans and steps are NOT what I imagined,
things I thought would be easy are hard, things I thought would be hard are easy.

So we have "free will" in that we must "choose" to forgive and let go of what we thought we wanted, and that cannot be forced. No "forgiveness" or "faith" is ever real if it is forced, it must be "freely chosen"

And you can say that this factor of "free will" is programmed in by design or fate.

5.

I think you're being too vague about what "differences" you are talking out "converting" or "changing" and how. Could we reconcile our differences with the NAZIs and justify the Holocaust? How could anything be conceded to them? You may say it's an extreme example, but what immorality isn't extreme?

5. I guess I need to distinguish between which differences are workable with and which cause conflicts. so

5a. one step is to distinguish the two. like if arguing over what color to paint the house can be resolved by painting some rooms red and others blue, or painting separate houses.
with politics many of the conflicts now could be resolved by agreeing to separate, and not impose one policy for all people which isn't fair to the groups with different ways or beliefs

5b. as for your example of extreme nazi-fascist imposition or destruction
again this falls under "retribution" approaches to justice

we need to separate the people who believe in retributive justice
from the ones who believe in restorative justice

the ones who abusively and oppressive apply "retributive justice" in ways that create and invoke harm (not preventative or deterrent as in punishment after due process)
have some other conflicts or issues going on that they are projecting externally

So that issue needs to be resolved if you are going to stop the abuse of their religious or political authority that is an EXPRESSION of their unforgiven conflicts with others

As for politically and legally, the check on any religious or political group
is to enforce the same checks and balances and limits on govt as in the Bill of Rights etc.

So for all groups with "Collective" authority, influence and resources,
I would hold them responsible for respecting "due process," equal protection of the laws,
right to petition to redress grievances, etc. to prevent such abuses.

this way, by introducing conflict resolution to redress grievances,
we find the source of the conflict internally BEFORE it is projected externally and collectively as with nazi-fascists or the way both parties are acting right now.

Instead of just checking govt, I would recommend corporations, political parties, religious nonprofit or business institutions, media conglomerates, any group with collective power authority or resources that is greater than a single individual, to adopt some ethical standard on procedures similar to the Bill of Rights and constitutional checks on govt. I know a number of companies or organizations that already have conflict resolution or some intervention/grievance processes built into their policy. I would recommend if not require this for any institution that gets licensed under the state to operate as its own independent entity. In general I would support conflict resolution training and assistance/access to mediation as part of citizenship and civil government, to ensure equal rights and interests are protected at all levels from top to bottom.

Resolving conflicts locally will prevent from imposing problems globally on everyone else.

 

[emilynghiem]

We all have difficulty FORGIVING where we or others caused each other problems.
That comes with the territory, with having a conscience that learns by experience.

The problem with conscience is that it's subject to guilt on one side, and modification for emotional reasons on the other.

Forgiveness should never be offered where repentance is absent, much less belligerent defense of one's own wrongdoing. Undeserved or unrequested forgiveness is very often reinforcement for immoral behavior.

Usually that abuse it's when people expect THEIR wrongs to be forgiven without making amends or restitution.
I agree that is abusing the concept, does not solve the cause of the wrongs, but causes more problems.

What I am talking about is someone agreeing to forgive SOMEONE ELSE outside themselves. So that is different.
That does not affect the wrongdoer and does not change the fact what they did is wrong and still owes restitution and correction.

The forgiveness helps the person choosing to forgive and let go emotionally
NOT to be an emotional victim attached to conditions "the other person has to meet"
which is a recipe for misery.

It is said that unforgiveness is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to die.

Unforgiveness adversely affects the victim and entraps the mind in resentment and loss of control to what other people do or don't do. This feeds a cycle of self-defeating victimhood.

An experienced therapist explained that the clients he counseled recovered faster when they saw themselves as a "hero" DESPITE what setbacks other people caused,
instead of a VICTIM to these setbacks which kept them stuck emotionally.

None of this affects the person outside of you.

In fact, from looking at cases of murder victims and their families responses,
the ones who choose to forgive are better able to navigate through the justice system
afterwards, because their peace of mind is separate and not dependent on any outcome.
They accept whatever justice, sentencing or punishment is given, and that is separate
from emotionally forgiving the murder and the murderer so they are spiritually liberated.
They still go through the grieving and stages, which is natural, and they still support the legal process of assessing the crime, charges, responsibility and punishment.
The accountability for the wrong does not change, just because the people affected choose to forgive.

But it helps them to be more effective, and to enjoy their relations and their lives
without being hardened or handicapped with rage and other emotions attached to or
directed at "other people outside themselves" which is hopelessly beyond their control.

If you read the advice Elizabeth Smart's mother gave her, I can see why she is able
to recover, and speak in public, because she separates her life and reactions from anything wrong done by someone else she refuses to lose her freedom or happiness to.

After she arrived home, Smart said her mom gave her the best piece of advice she’s ever received.

“My mom said, ‘Elizabeth, what this man has done to you is terrible, and there aren’t words to describe how wicked and evil he is…but the best punishment you could ever give him is to be happy. Move forward and follow your dreams and do exactly what you want to do. You may never feel like justice has been served, but you don’t need to worry about that because in the end, God is our ultimate judge, and he will make up every pain and every suffering that you’ve gone through. Those who don’t receive their just reward here will certainly receive it in the next life, so you don’t have a reason to hold on to that.’”

“If you relive it, you’re only allowing him to steal more of your life away from you,” she continued. “That’s the best piece of advice I’ve ever been given, and I have tried to live it every single day.”

“We always have a choice to move forward, to make a difference,” Smart said. “I like to think that we’re not defined by what happens to us…because so many times they’re beyond our control. I like to think that we’re defined by our choices and our decisions.”

I posted links to explain how forgiveness/unforgiveness works, and common "misconceptions" on two pages that I copied from other sources: http://www.spiritual-heaing.us

If people can understand the difference, it helps.
But going through the process is a whole other ball of wax. Not "easy to say" and even harder to do! But all the more relieving when it frees the mind and conscience of emotional burdens and blocks that made it so difficult in the first place.