God Doesn't Love You

[paigetheoracle]

No matter what one thinks – as long one thinks it , it will always be true, to one.

 

 

Not quite - to be accurate, the truth is that it will always 'seem' to be true and that is the danger of belief over disbelief (Take nobody's word for it) as we act on our beliefs and if they are wrong reality proves it, tragically in a lot of cases, comically in other.

[tmaromine]

Not quite - to be accurate, the truth is that it will always 'seem' to be true and that is the danger of belief over disbelief (Take nobody's word for it) as we act on our beliefs and if they are wrong reality proves it, tragically in a lot of cases, comically in other.

 

"believes" should replace "thinks", I think...

 

Even then, some people ignore reality for their beliefs. So sometimes reality proves nothing to some, or lashes at them because they've ignored it, which is tragical when one has led theirself to be hurt from it, but comical when one is just oblivious of what's happening because it's nothing they've ever imagined possible. . .when it's yet been sitting right there as real. :eek2: And there's other ways deniers will make comedy – it's neverending I tell you...

[palmtreepathos]

as we act on our beliefs and if they are wrong reality proves it, tragically in a lot of cases, comically in other.

 

or eventually.... in cases where it takes time for the truth to become apparent. In any case a dependable guide is better than blindly groping through your own thoughts and that of others.

 

I am from Missouri and the state motto is "SHOW ME". My husband thinks my picture should be on their license plate :lol: since I have implicite trust in no one and do research and knock around a thought before I settle on my choice of action...

 

Bible advice*...

Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.(Psalm 146:3-4)

 

Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps. (Proverbs 14:15)

 

 

As a youth I didn't have this compunction and though many things felt right the results were costly... millions still in the throes of youth look to their friends or society to guide them.

 

Just one area alone that could be your death is immoral sex. The media out there says if you are smart about the who and when it will work out. So simple right? Some people survive plane crashes too, but who wants to go through it to find out if it will be you? :confused:

 

If God loved you he would provide a reliable guide and loving encouragement to help you to make good choices now! There is a book that claims that...

 

(Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18)

 

Is there any proof of the wisdom in that? Let's see diseases, suppressed immune system, doctor bills, unwanted children, passion crimes, rapes, anxiety, depression and embarrassment (if not shame) all come from the free will exercise of immoral sex.

 

 

 

*please do not read this excerpt unless you want to, I just research what "the Book" says as opposed to what people say it says...

[InfiniteNow]

Just one area alone that could be your death is immoral sex.

<...>

Is there any proof of the wisdom in that? Let's see diseases, suppressed immune system, doctor bills, unwanted children, passion crimes, rapes, anxiety, depression and embarrassment (if not shame) all come from the free will exercise of immoral sex.

Well... no. The neuroses comes from our reaction to people who assume positions of authority... people who tell others that their acting on natural instinct, instinct which has resulted in the continuation of the species, an instinct which presents itself despite any prefrontal cortex induced executive suppression, is somehow wrong.

 

Immoral sex? Wow... Who are you, or anyone else on this fair planet, to tell me where I can and cannot put my own phallace?

[palmtreepathos]

InfiniteNow...

I feel humbled knowing I'm a tiny piece of nothing on a tiny piece of blue world on a tiny piece of cosmic time.

 

 

Same fella....

Who are you, or anyone else on this fair planet, to tell me where I can and cannot put my own phallace?

 

IN you are a complex and learned fellow! Someone like me with such a weak mind would never dream of telling YOU what to do... On the other hand this is an open forum where making contibutions drawn from life experience, current affairs and scholarly study is a given, Just doing my part to keep the thread flowing ;)

[InfiniteNow]

IN you are a complex and learned fellow! Someone like me with such a weak mind would never dream of telling YOU what to do... On the other hand this is an open forum where making contibutions drawn from life experience, current affairs and scholarly study is a given, Just doing my part to keep the thread flowing ;)

 

I simply suggest that all too often we are made to feel ashamed of that which makes us who we are. The shame is used to herd us like sheep by a shepherd in a robe. This continued need to hold to religiospiritual beliefs is limiting our growth and advancement as a people.

 

Think of all of the bloodshed and all of the wars so some scriptural leader could become the momentary master of a fraction of the population, slaughtering those who hold differing beliefs so they can ignore the insecurity they feel with their own.

 

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Time for us all to grow up.

[Southtown]

Who are you, or anyone else on this fair planet, to tell me where I can and cannot put my own phallace?

Morality describes what we should/shouldn't do for whatever reason, while laws are the more can/can't type stuff. You "shouldn't" put your phallace on your boss' desk. That is not to say you "can't" just that there will probably be undesirable consequences.

[InfiniteNow]

Not if my boss is cute and it results in a promotion...

 

 

Just sayin'. Religion has little to do with morality. Morality is an emergent property of society, and potentially be described as a logistic view of group behavior, itself applicable in non-human groupings.

 

 

Don't bite the alpha. You may have to hunt alone. ;)

[Southtown]

Ok, I take that back. Morality is about right vs. wrong. I just remembered looking it up. Fairness, justice, and whatnot. (IMO) Morality is non-transferable in that one can only use it on one's self.

 

Anyway, would a religion not be considered a society from which a morality emerges? I understand that religions are not necessarily the only source of morality, or that they contain any at all. But of the people I meet, lots of them are religious, most of those are extraordinarily nice people, few of them discuss religion regularly, and none of them are warmongers. So, I just can't accept that whole "control" theory.

[CraigD]

I think it’s wise in theology and philosophy discussions to agree on basic terms such as morality.

 

When I studied them in school nearly 30 years ago, in a philosophical context, the following definitions were common:

• Morals prescribe how a person should be.
  
• Mores prescribe how a person should act.
  
• Ethics prescribe how people in various social roles should interact.
  

When I studied them in a sociological context, the following distinction was applied to all of the above terms:

• Informal sanctions are imposed on people perceived to have violated ethics or mores not explicitly codified as law. Disapproval, criticism, and shunning are typical informal sanctions.
  
• formal sanctions are imposed for violations of law. Fines, physical punishment (eg: flogging, caning) compelled service, incarceration, or execution are typical formal sanctions.
  

The term “morality” tends to be used as an overarching term, including all of the above and similar terms.

 

The common terms have shifted somewhat over the decades, and differ substantially among different academic traditions. The term “mores” is now rarely used, replaced by the more explicitly descriptive “behavior morality”. “Informal sanctions” are now usually termed “informal social controls”, while “formal sanctions” are now usually just termed “sanctions”.

 

Psychology suggests that a “third kind of sanction” exists, self-imposed sanctions known broadly as guilt.

 

Many religions state that there exists a system of formal sanctions, damnation, where a persons ordinary body, or more commonly, a metaphysical body, or soul, may be executed or punished for having violated ethics, mores, or morals. Interestingly, under such systems, people who commit severe ethical violations may not be subject to damnation, while people who do not, may. An example of such a religious doctrine is “unconditional election”.

Morality describes what we should/shouldn't do for whatever reason, while laws are the more can/can't type stuff. You "shouldn't" put your phallace on your boss' desk. That is not to say you "can't" just that there will probably be undesirable consequences.

The addition of the term “can” to the usual moral term “should” expands the space of definitions to include a sort of “fourth kind of sanction”, the prohibited of impossible actions by physical law. For example, although no formally sanctioned law or informally sanctioned social rule prohibits me from doing so, I cannot fly around my neighborhood by flapping my arms, or use a cyclotron to accelerate a proton to a speed greater than 299792458 meters per second.

 

I recall realizing (and jotting onto a 3x5” card that remained stuck to my work cubicle wall for years) that “sanction-defined morality” could be amusing considered to be ranked by the time interval between performing a proscribed act and suffering a consequence, and the certainty and severity of the consequences.

1. Informal sanctions occur long after the act, as people must consider and communicate their informal condemnation. As such violations may not be noticed or recognized, the sanctions may not occur at all. They are commonly considered less sever than other kinds of sanctions
   
2. Formal sanctions tend to occur more quickly, as agencies such as the police may be involved in enforcing them. They are more certain to be imposed, as more effective means of detecting them are employed by professional police and jurists. Their consequences are typically severe, up to and including execution.
   
3. ”Sanctions of the third kind”, religious ones, if one assumes the metaphysical world model of the relevant religion to be true, typically occur after one is dead. Otherwise religion has difficulty explaining how people immoral according to its doctrine are often successful and prosperous while they are alive. These sanctions are generally thought of as absolute (no “loopholes” for evading damnation), and their consequences by definition the most severe possible.
   
4. ”Sanctions of the fourth kind”, physical laws, occur instantaneously, or may even be thought of as preceding the actions they prohibit. One doesn’t “break” a physical law, and be brought before a “cosmic court” and punished for it – one simply can’t break them. Enforcement is absolutely certain. Severity is either absolutely mild or harsh, but, IMHO, better described as inapplicable.

All of the above are, or course, just my personal definitions, although many people from my academic and religious traditions (which I would loosely term “New England Methodist/Congregationalist intellectual”) do, in my experience, generally agree on them as a useful collection of terms for adding clarity and precision to discussions in which such terms are used.

[Southtown]

Thanks Craig, very enlightening stuff. Regarding point #3, I disagree that religionists would have a hard time explaining how immoral people can live prosperously. That's the temptation: how far will one go to get what s/he wants? Hence, the religionists' warnings: beware the judgement afterwards. Moral standards can sometimes lead people to act against their own self-interests, i.e. sharing. So it's no surprise that certain immoral behaviors usually lead to material gain.

[InfiniteNow]

Immoral according to whom?

 

Who judges the judge?

[palmtreepathos]

Usually a person knows what would cause damage himself and judges that to also be wrong behaviour in others. Sociopaths feel no compunction* to obey such laws themselves. (*inner witness of responsibility / conscience)

 

Morality produces perceptive thoughts, good behaviour and laws that we would hope make the environment safer for all creatures.

example: child safety laws, age for working in factories, child-seats, child pornography laws, etc

example: when DDT was found to disrupt the reproductive cycle in the great eagles laws were fairly quickly made to end its use. A moral outcry that the symbol of freedom was endangered was heard nationwide. Hence the law.

 

Immorality is denying, neglecting that what is healthful and safe in your own behalf and that of your neighbor*. (*Those who your conduct and decisions effect.)

example:sexuality most feel that rape is wrong, spreading disease is wrong, abusing someone not of your persuasion is wrong. etc.

environmental

Immorally some producers of poison may prefer profits to our safety.

example: love canal, illegal dumping of toxic wastes, etc

 

But in truth the law is an effort to save us from ourselves because we like a bug free life :bouquet:, but what endangers the environment endangers our life on planet earth. This is basic human morallity, the recognition of the rights of yourself and others (even the environment) and standing up for those rights. It cannot be legislated. But laws can be proof that it exists.

 

MHO

[Southtown]

Immoral according to whom?

 

Who judges the judge?

Well, obviously each decides for themselves what they think is right or wrong. Whether or not they actually govern themselves is another matter. Also, some individuals take it upon themselves to push their morals on everybody else, while others do not. The methods of moral-pushing span a range from friendly discussion to law enforcement to genocide. It's ironic that some people view the issue of morality so strongly as to behave immorally, isn't it? But none of this means necessarily that there are no moral absolutes. I obviously favor the biblical morality and enjoy discussing it, which is really what morality is all about: friendly interaction. That way, at least I'm practicing what I preach.

[paigetheoracle]

I simply suggest that all too often we are made to feel ashamed of that which makes us who we are. The shame is used to herd us like sheep by a shepherd in a robe. This continued need to hold to religiospiritual beliefs is limiting our growth and advancement as a people.

 

Think of all of the bloodshed and all of the wars so some scriptural leader could become the momentary master of a fraction of the population, slaughtering those who hold differing beliefs so they can ignore the insecurity they feel with their own.

 

 

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Time for us all to grow up.

 

Well said Infinite and the cause of all the Worlds problems, right there - fear. Fear has it's place in the world or it wouldn't be there but it's how we treat it that makes it something dangerous or safe. Suppress it and it comes out somewhere else, like trying to push a balloon underwater. Try to kill it totally and it ends up becoming perverted. Think of a tree - let it grow and it expresses its true being. Try to stunt its growth and it becomes gnarled and twisted, like human beings do on the psychological level.

 

We sometimes end up in fights with others because we are struggling to say the same things as them but use other words or can't use any, so let fly with our fists. Sin in the bible means error, not deliberate act.