|
|
Post by EvenThen on Nov 4, 2004 17:21:14 GMT -5
So then we didn't come from monkeys?
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 5, 2004 2:01:47 GMT -5
EvenThen, don't sidetrack the thread. Anyhow, I don't think you posed that question for only informative reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Nov 5, 2004 2:12:18 GMT -5
Sorry I couldn't resist.
|
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Nov 5, 2004 11:54:21 GMT -5
Morality is the result of social interaction and natural selection. Our ancestors found that through reciprocal altruism, kin selection, and other dynamics that it was better to cooperate and survive than strike out on one's own. The reciprocation became the "golden rule" and the interactions became less of what can help survive and became another entity altogether in the form of morals due to the fact that those who survived were the one's who found those mechanisms helpful. Morality is a product of the evolutionary process.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Nov 5, 2004 12:18:19 GMT -5
So then we didn't come from monkeys? I agree that you have completely sidetracked this thread. Now here I am sharing the guilt. To reply: From what we understand today, we did not come from monkeys (I am assuming you mean chimpanzees?), but it really doesn't have anything to do with us having an advanced cerebral cortex - we have most certainly developed from a less intellectually developed species. Maybe I should not have taken this question seriously?  |
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 5, 2004 18:36:00 GMT -5
So then we didn't come from monkeys? To go along with this whole hijacked thread trend ... (and to make a snide political comment) ... George Dubya is the missing link ... he is the evidence that we evolved from simians, unfortunately, some weren't as successful in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by millerrevolt on Nov 6, 2004 1:41:50 GMT -5
back to some people who said their biggest issue with christianity was hypocritical christians...but what's your biggest issue with the religion? not it's followers
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 6, 2004 12:49:55 GMT -5
I think this call to action shows the Christian motivation towards morality and their thinking that atheism is necessarily amoral.
This is a very well written passage. Whatever one thinks of the Bible, one can't deny that parts of it are enticing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Nov 8, 2004 11:48:32 GMT -5
back to some people who said their biggest issue with christianity was hypocritical christians...but what's your biggest issue with the religion? not it's followers There's no distinction. Without followers the religion doesn't exist. |
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Nov 8, 2004 13:23:49 GMT -5
back to some people who said their biggest issue with christianity was hypocritical christians...but what's your biggest issue with the religion? not it's followers Well, without repeating that "There's no distinction" (which is a great point), let's say, add to my list that Christianity is too Vague or Antiquated for modern life. Would that help account for why the followers are all over the board, and that the blame for their lack of carrying out God's true plan is their inability to properly interpret the instructions, or their ego-centric lives filter out most of the difficult requirements? |
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 8, 2004 14:31:03 GMT -5
Well my beef with the religion itself is that it is based on the Bible, and Christians have not seen fit to adequately specify which pieces of the Bible are to be adhered to and which parts are not.
The solution to this is to ditch the Bible completely and author a new 'Book of Precepts' or something like that, that all Christian denominations can agree on.
I won't hold my breath for that one. The man who can get all Christian denominations to agree on precepts to be followed is greater than Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 8, 2004 17:37:23 GMT -5
Good point, vertigo. How many different sects of Christianity are there now??
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 9, 2004 9:12:28 GMT -5
All I know is there is far too many. But more than this, the problem seems to be in the different approaches to Christianity.
The catholics are very much behavioural. There are set procedures whereby things are done, strict guidelines, and a whole host of superfluous things that are not in any other denomination, like purgatory, confession, mortal and venial sins, etc.
Other denominations are more intentional. As long as your intention is good, you can pretty much do what you want. The methodists are like this. I don't think these two sides will ever merge.
One side tells you how to pray, to mary or by using set, defined prayers for different occasions, while the other puts no limitation on conduct, except that your actions should be motivation by good. The poor Christian is left in a situation of befuddlement as to which denomination to follow.
"But which one is right" they might ask themselves. I think the first step is deciding that it is high time to relegate the Bible into history and redefine what Christianity is. We need a "new Christianity", as if that would ever come about. I don't think that Christians are ready to accept that the Bible is chock full of things that we simply can't consider following in our modern time.
Christians like Slavsoul are borderline atheists. To get Christians to segregate from the Bible is the way forward. Christians will then realise that their religion is really a moral recipe to be followed, which defines what is generally good and what is bad, but does not dictate how one lives as a Christian.
The biggest fear the Christian has is that without God morality falls flat. Let them keep that fear but more honestly treat their religion as simply a set of moral guidelines and nothing more.
|
|
Kaystar
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 3
|
Post by Kaystar on Nov 9, 2004 19:43:36 GMT -5
One of my biggest issues with Christianity (and other religions) is that somehow, followers are able to make pronouncements on moral issues, or on pretty much anything; and people are expected to give their weird beliefs equal weight with, say, scientific research, or plain commonsense.
Eg: teaching "creationism" in schools. Why teach just the Christian creation myth? Why not include the maori legend? or Norse for that matter?
Some religions have prohibitions on what their followers eat. This is completely irrational in today's world, yet we have to make allowances for it.
When discussing issues like homosexuality, I've struck people who use the bible to justify their stand on the issue. The bible means nothing to me, yet it's somehow able to be used in discussion as some sort of authority! Grrrrrrr! It's just a book, for goodness sake!
Phew...... I need to take my pills....
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 10, 2004 12:42:20 GMT -5
That is absolutely not acceptable. Do you always assault people that disagree with you?
|
|
