catholic iphone app.

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Lucrum:

Maybe you could rephrase it for me.

And while you're at maybe throw in a couple of answers yourself.

1)Is "conscience" defined by nature/evolution or man?
2) Who defines "fairness" nature/evolution or man?
3) Is it "fair" that throughout the animal kingdom only the strongest males are allowed to mate? Why don't humans subscribe to this? Wouldn't we be better off in the long run if we did?
4)Does conquering, murder, rape and pillaging not have its own rewards?
5)Is it not possible I simply evolved without a conscience, where is it written I'm supposed to be born with one?
6)To me the question is in the absence of God/heaven/hell why bother being moral?

No, I don't think I can rephrase your post. But thanks for asking.

As to your questions:

1) A conscience is the product of a well-adjusted mind. Natural selection is another matter altogether.
2) See number 1.
3) Fair? No. It is the way of the jungle.
4) For people without conscience or empathy, I would imagine so.
5) Entirely possible. In which case you are a sociopath.
6) Only a full blown or even borderline sociopath would ask such a question. See number 5.

Judging by your remarks and comments, it seems to me that you would be better suited to a life in the wilds and quite apart from civilized society. No need to thank me for this bit of career counselling.

 

[Lucrum]

1)Is "conscience" defined by nature/evolution or man?
2) Who defines "fairness" nature/evolution or man?
3) Is it "fair" that throughout the animal kingdom only the strongest males are allowed to mate? Why don't humans subscribe to this? Wouldn't we be better off in the long run if we did?
4)Does conquering, murder, rape and pillaging not have its own rewards?
5)Is it not possible I simply evolved without a conscience, where is it written I'm supposed to be born with one?
6)To me the question is in the absence of God/heaven/hell why bother being moral?

Quote from Gabfly1:

No, I don't think I can rephrase your post. But thanks for asking.

I asked if you'd rephrase your question not my post. LOL

As to your questions:
1) A conscience is the product of a well-adjusted mind. Natural selection is another matter altogether.
2) See number 1.
3) Fair? No. It is the way of the jungle.
4) For people without conscience or empathy, I would imagine so.
5) Entirely possible. In which case you are a sociopath.
6) Only a full blown or even borderline sociopath would legitimately ask such a question. See number 5.

1),2) The question was WHO defines "conscience" and "fairness". My point being that they are, assuming the absence of God, man made concepts. Concepts that have little to no bearing or worth throughout nature
3)So nature is not fair, why would we presume that life for humans would be fair? (it's a rhetorical question no need to answer)
4) again, conscience or empathy are mad made concepts that have no place in nature, where is it "written" for lack of a better term that humans have/need to subscribe to them?
5)according to whom? again,in the absence of a God, a man made concept. Throughout nature the ruthless are generally the survivors. In the absence of God/heaven/hell where is it written humans should be any different?
6)only someone without an answer would avoid giving one, which is what you did.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"No need to thank me for this bit of career counseling."

Curious as to why you think there is a career there that could be counseled?

Quote from Gabfly1:

No, I don't think I can rephrase your post. But thanks for asking.

As to your questions:

1) A conscience is the product of a well-adjusted mind. Natural selection is another matter altogether.
2) See number 1.
3) Fair? No. It is the way of the jungle.
4) For people without conscience or empathy, I would imagine so.
5) Entirely possible. In which case you are a sociopath.
6) Only a full blown or even borderline sociopath would ask such a question. See number 5.

Judging by your remarks and comments, it seems to me that you would be better suited to a life in the wilds and quite apart from civilized society. No need to thank me for this bit of career counselling.

 

[jem]

as man gets away from God and more towards the creation of his own laws... look at how societies devolve.

Russia and the entire soviet union, China, north korea, etc.

Even in the united states.
Was the U.S. more lawful before the 1950s or since the 1950s when we started taking God out of the public sphere.

Morality, which works, starts with a foundation for a society with the Golden Rule but it requires more than that.

It requires the love of God, it requires sacrifice. It requires love of thy neighbor. It may require a fear of eternal consquence for some or many.

Good look with structuring a society based on empathy.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from jem:

...Morality, which works, starts with a foundation for a society with the Golden Rule but it requires more than that...

No, it does not require much more than that. In fact, exceeding it by far leads to the very examples you gave. In 1946, George Orwell equated totalitarian regimes with theocracies for all intents and purposes, in that they also wanted your heart and mind. So your cautionary tales are nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin to which you subscribe.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"No need to thank me for this bit of career counseling."

Curious as to why you think there is a career there that could be counseled?

I fly jets and the last I heard, when you're not watching kiddie porn or defending pedophilia, you sell computers.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

No, it does not require much more than that...

Where did the golden rule come from and why is it rarely practiced in nature?

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Lucrum:

Where did the golden rule come from and why is it rarely practiced in nature?

Although it is commonly held by most religions, at least nominally, the concept predates the three Abrahamic religions. It falls more to humanism than religion because, in and of itself, it has no celestial strings of good and evil, reward and punishment attached. It is a simple rule of reciprocity that is the foundation of civilized society. If you feel uncomfortable in civilized society, then you should not feel compelled to remain there. There are plenty of jungles and wilds for you to choose from, not to mention some fringe free-for-all Third World alternatives that may be just the thing you're looking for. Consult your travel agent for details.

 

[jem]

Quote from Gabfly1:

No, it does not require much more than that. In fact, exceeding it by far leads to the very examples you gave. In 1946, George Orwell equated totalitarian regimes with theocracies for all intents and purposes, in that they also wanted your heart and mind. So your cautionary tales are nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin to which you subscribe.

are you kidding me...

big brother is what happens when man is corrupted and runs society with no inalienable rights. Where the creator and natural law and the rights with stem from it are taken out of the picture. It is what happens when everything is relativist concepts you see socialists like zzz spout. 1984 is what happens when God is taken out of the pictures. Power corrupts. 1984 is the opposite of Protestant revolution and the individual worth it argued for.

orwells warning is against govt run by corrupt leaders where individuals do not have God given individual rights. Whether that govt by a socialist USSR a commie china or a theocracy run by corrupt leaders.

but it not an argument that we do not need morality associated with God and natural law.


In the end of the book, many readers understand is that the only way out is to appeal to natural law and inalienable rights granted to us by a creator not govt.

Your analysis is amazingly wrong.
I am not claiming orwell was religious, but his book was warning us against all powerful govt like the ones the socialist aspire to right now.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Flawed argument.

Man becomes more lawless when he doesn't think it is important to follow the law. It doesn't have to do with God, per say.

It has to do with why a man would or would not follow the law in the first place.

Why do people choose to follow the law or not? Why do we see so many born again devout Christians breaking the law, cheating on their wives, etc.?

Better question, which leads us to the solution...

God does not need to be in the equation for people to act in a moral fashion...for heaven's sake, Muslims proclaim belief in God, their societies are rigid in the application of punishment to what they think are violations of law...

Morality requires nothing more than the golden rule, and a society motivated to follow it.

Sadly today, many of the Christian preachers don't emphasize the value of the golden rule, because they have taken a position that Jesus will take care of everything.

Really, once a person thinks they are saved and going to Heaven, no matter how much they sin...why should they not sin?

I mean, they have the get out of jail Jesus card, right?

No fear of punishment no matter how greedy, cruel, insensitive, self centered they are...Jesus will forgive all their sins...so again, what is the motivation to be moral when you not only get to enjoy the world as much as you want, sin as much as you want, and get the same reward as the person who did it the right way?

Quote from jem:

as man gets away from God and more towards the creation of his own laws... look at how societies devolve.

Russia and the entire soviet union, China, north korea, etc.

Even in the united states.
Was the U.S. more lawful before the 1950s or since the 1950s when we started taking God out of the public sphere.

Morality, which works, starts with a foundation for a society with the Golden Rule but it requires more than that.

It requires the love of God, it requires sacrifice. It requires love of thy neighbor. It may require a fear of eternal consquence for some or many.

Good look with structuring a society based on empathy.