Elimination of ego

Originally posted by black beetle
The people act they way they act, but since the Human established his society he had to set rules; man-made rules and not rules based on the so called "word of god", that is. It seems to me tht the secular law is enough -I see no sin in front of 'god", I see crimes against persons, against humanity, against animals, against Life, against the environment ...[text shortened]... your own spirituality, your own religion and your on way of life once you commit no crimes🙂

I was under the impression you have taken away God so why is there
crimes period? Do you think when a lion eats a zebra or is the lion
simply doing what a lion does by its nature? If so why would there
be crimes again humans if all other humans are doing are acting out
by their actions? Wouldn’t you be putting your personal tastes upon
human actions you dislike over those you do?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was under the impression you have taken away God so why is there
crimes period? Do you think when a lion eats a zebra or is the lion
simply doing what a lion does by its nature? If so why would there
be crimes again humans if all other humans are doing are acting out
by their actions? Wouldn’t you be putting your personal tastes upon
human actions you dislike over those you do?
Kelly

I am not sure that I understand you, Kelly Jay.
The lion commits not a crime under these circumstances, it kills because it has to survive. However the Human is not supposed to kill under normal circumstances.

I don't deny the fact that there is crime within our society, however the way to restrict it is a matter of common sense; I just say that in my opinion we people we need education and consensus and mutual respect, plus respect for the secular law. Religion for me is needless, for my morality depends not on religion.

Originally posted by black beetle
However the Human is not supposed to kill under normal circumstances.

But who says what is 'supposed' to be and what isn't? It is a fairly obvious fact that humans do frequently kill each other, who is to say those are not 'normal' circumstances?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But who says what is 'supposed' to be and what isn't? It is a fairly obvious fact that humans do frequently kill each other, who is to say those are not 'normal' circumstances?

The secular laws "say" that the Human should not kill, therefore the Human orders the members of the society to avoid killing.

I do not need the so called "word of god" to be moral, I can do it on my own thanks to my own free will and to the power of my morality.
The secular law is (or it should be) primary a result of a major social consensus and understanding -this means also that the law Forces the people, who are eager to disobey, not to disobey, by means that it implies severe penalties to the vast majority of the killers.

Avoiding and condemning a kill is the first prerequisite for the decent social operation of the members of the society. Therefore, frequent killing as you pose it is not "normal", although it happens almost every day. It is considered a common "major abnormality", thus a major crime.

Originally posted by black beetle
"Putting human beings in touch with Christ via the Holy Spirit" is pure theology. And it is clearly backed up with a package of ready theological "answers" and therefore it is a system of beliefs, a religion like every other religion that you have to follow its doctrine without having the chance to evaluate it -if you decline to take it you are "infidel ...[text shortened]... the tool that allows the Human to get to know himself; one can use it or use it not😵

I reject every theological idea because it stands against my intelligence.
---------------------------agerg----------------------

Christ is not an idea , more a person. The Spirit cannot be defined or contained philosophically.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I reject every theological idea because it stands against my intelligence.
---------------------------agerg----------------------

Christ is not an idea , more a person. The Spirit cannot be defined or contained philosophically.

Christ is a person, we agree;
however, every concept that cannot be defined or contained philosophically, it cannot produce a philosophically accepted theory. Whatever is not philosophically accepted is a product of a false theory.

The religious concepts are all based on the pseudoscience of theology instead of philosophy, and this is the reason why the religious theories and doctrines are all pure nonsense😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The secular laws "say" that the Human should not kill, therefore the Human orders the members of the society to avoid killing.

Which secular laws are those? Are guns legal where those laws are in force? Do you not see the contradiction?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which secular laws are those? Are guns legal where those laws are in force? Do you not see the contradiction?

In some countries they are legal and in some are not;
The fact that there are people who are breaking the secular law means not that there is a contradiction. Maybe you mean that the guns should be prohibited in order to avoid more crimes, but in this case it is the Human who must be hold fully responsible for her/ his actions, not the law that permits the guns.

With Kelly Jay we were discussing the necessity or not of the religion in order to help the Human realize that s/he has to avoid crime. Kelly Jay appears to believe that the religion is necessary for the Human, whilst I think that this is not accurate; not everybody needs religion, ie I need not the religion because my morality and my intelligence enable me to be loyal. Therefore I think that the sole prerequisite for us to prosper is to come up with a society consisted of educated enough citizens that they know themselves and they respect everybody and the secular law.

So, kindly please tell me where do you see a contradiction in my thoughts.

Originally posted by black beetle
So, kindly please tell me where do you see a contradiction in my thoughts.

I may have misunderstood what you mean by secular law. What do you mean by it?

I am arguing that not killing our fellow men is not 'the natural state' of human beings. Humans have always killed each other for various reasons and will probably continue to do so.

I was also wondering how you justify your claim that "the Human is not supposed to kill under normal circumstances".

Originally posted by twhitehead
I may have misunderstood what you mean by secular law. What do you mean by it?

I am arguing that not killing our fellow men is not 'the natural state' of human beings. Humans have always killed each other for various reasons and will probably continue to do so.

I was also wondering how you justify your claim that "the Human is not supposed to kill under normal circumstances".

I see🙂

As "secular law" I define the man-made laws required for a society bounded to produce civilisation. The religious "laws" which are supposed to be the "word of god", they must not stand above the secular law.

The Human can prosper within society, and a society can prosper once its members are respecting the social rules as they are defined by means of secular law; the first rule was, is and it will be to avoid murder. Of cource we both know that some of us we will keep up killing anyway🙁

The Human is supposed to kill solely when he is involved in a state of declared war, when he is in self defence, when he has to defend the people he loves or other people from a lethal attack etc. These conditions are not normal although they are quite common.
Furthermore I think that nobody has the right to kill under normal circumstances no matter if he becomes frustrated to the hilt, ie he is not supposed to kill although he drove extremely angry whilst driving his car, although his wife was making love in the middle of the street at 14:20 with eleven drunk sailors and a guy policeman together, although the so called infidels are not bowing to his "god" and to his so called "holy scriptures", although although although😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I am not sure that I understand you, Kelly Jay.
The lion commits not a crime under these circumstances, it kills because it has to survive. However the Human is not supposed to kill under normal circumstances.

I don't deny the fact that there is crime within our society, however the way to restrict it is a matter of common sense; I just say that in ...[text shortened]... pect for the secular law. Religion for me is needless, for my morality depends not on religion.

Forgive me, I think I wrote that while half asleep.
Lions, when they eat zebras are they being evil or just being lions?
People, when they steal, lie, rob, or do like things is that just humans
acting out of human nature no different than when the lions does it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Forgive me, I think I wrote that while half asleep.
Lions, when they eat zebras are they being evil or just being lions?
People, when they steal, lie, rob, or do like things is that just humans
acting out of human nature no different than when the lions does it?
Kelly

The lion acts this way because this is its nature;

The Human becomes a criminal once he ignores how to avoid greedness, rage and delusion;

Originally posted by black beetle
As "secular law" I define the man-made laws required for a society bounded to produce civilisation. The religious "laws" which are supposed to be the "word of god", they must not stand above the secular law.

The Human can prosper within society, and a society can prosper once its members are respecting the social rules as they are defined by means o ...[text shortened]... e to avoid murder. Of cource we both know that some of us we will keep up killing anyway🙁

I still don't get it. You are talking about secular law as if they are some sort of universal set of laws that we all know about and that come about naturally or have some reasoning behind them. What is that reasoning?
I am sure that it is perfectly possible to have a prospering human society in which some amount of killing does take place - possibly even murder.
When you say "the first rule was, is and it will be" what do you mean? Where does this rule come from?

Originally posted by black beetle
The Human becomes a criminal once he ignores how to avoid greedness, rage and delusion;

All managers and theists are criminals? Thats interesting.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get it. You are talking about secular law as if they are some sort of universal set of laws that we all know about and that come about naturally or have some reasoning behind them. What is that reasoning?
I am sure that it is perfectly possible to have a prospering human society in which some amount of killing does take place - possibly eve ...[text shortened]... say "the first rule was, is and it will be" what do you mean? Where does this rule come from?

No, I am not talking about the secular law as if it were some sort of universal law -not at all. The secular law is a human invention coda and it is used as a tool for cultivating a better social environment for the members of the society.

The societies must have rules, man-made rules, and the law-givers are obliged to bring up specific law paterns in order to enable a decent life for everybody. The secular law is necessary because it rules the life of the citizens, and the reasoning behind it is the prosperity of the citizens. Since I am sure that you are aware of all these facts I cannot understand what looks to you obscure;

Surely it is perfectly possible to have a prospering human society in which there is crime -we agree;

When I say that the first rule is to avoid murder, I mean that the struggle of the law-givers against criminality starts with severe punishment of the killer. This rule is man-made and it derived from the necessity of the prime human societies to prosper.