15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, my view of love is twofold.
This is interesting because, on the one hand, you say that love is tangible because you believe it to be a mere chemical reaction. Then, on the other hand, you conceed that it is not really all that tangible and insist on me showing physical evidence for something that I claim is not soley of this physical realm and is for the most part intangible. As you s ...[text shortened]... ough God is this possible and to my knowledge no one before Christ ever preached such a message.
Firstly, there's the physical aspect - the biochemical stuff.
Secondly, there's the emotional, the feelings - which I'm acknowledging now, are biochemical in nature, but which feel different to me. This is the intangible which I'm assuming you think of as spirit.
Now, as for loving your enemies being unnatural, that's not strictly true. In biology, there's a principle known as mutual aid or mutual assistance, which is effectively a biological version of christ's enjoinder. So, no, to say it is unnatural is incorrect.
15 Nov 07
5 edits
Originally posted by amannionSo I assume you do what is natural which is to love your enemies as well or do you consider yourself unnatural by not loving your enemies?
Now, as for loving your enemies being unnatural, that's not strictly true. In biology, there's a principle known as mutual aid or mutual assistance, which is effectively a biological version of christ's enjoinder. So, no, to say it is unnatural is incorrect.[/b]
By in large, all evidences point to love mentioned in the Bible as a choice and not steeped in emotion. For example, Jesus gave the example of the Good Samaritan as an example for loving your neighbor as yourself. Just a couple of points to take away from this parable.
1. They were strangers. In fact, the Samaritan should have been a natural enemy of sorts simply because he was a Samaratin.
2. The two NEVER spoke. Therefore, there was no emotional involvment in terms of helping someone because they appealed intellectually or emotionally to them.
3. The Samaritan did not even stick around to take care of the person in question, rather, he payed someone else to look after the poor chap. Therefore, his only interest was to see to it that he was alright. Such love had no elements of self interest in any form.
So tell me, where was his biological urge to "love" his neighbor? Especially since he would have been his natural enemy and probably will continue to be once he recovers?
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyHuman beings are social animals; no other human being is our "natural enemy".
So I assume you do what is natural which is to love your enemies as well or do you consider yourself unnatural by not loving your enemies?
By in large, all evidences point to love mentioned in the Bible as a choice and not steeped in emotion. For example, Jesus gave the example of the Good Samaritan as an example for loving your neighbor as yourself. Jus ...[text shortened]... since he would have been his natural enemy and probably will continue to be once he recovers?
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderSo are you saying that it is "unnatural" to make certain people our natural enemy? For example, Muslim hating Jew or white hating black or poor hating rich etc.
Human beings are social animals; no other human being is our "natural enemy".
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe answer to your first question is “Yes.” What is there to explain?
What about personal relationships? Do you defend trusting in such relationships with empiricsm and reason? If so, explain.
Also, the interchangible terms of faith and belief are of interest to me. For example, can you place your faith/trust in someone or something that you do not believe in? Is not belief an extension of trust in that one thinks they can trust but can never know for sure?
As for the others—I explained that I do not use faith and belief interchangeably. Since it has been stipulated that we are talking about trust, I will not use the word faith again at all; and suggest that neither should you.
Yes, trust and belief are related: I simply quote (with attribution, but without permission) Dr. Scribbles from above:*
______________________________
Adhering to an unjustified belief is always the worst bet.
Suppose you deliberate on some proposition A.
If under your available information A is more likely to be true than false, then believing A is justified and believing Not-A is not justified.
If under your available information A is more likely to be false than true, then believing Not-A is justified and believing A is not justified.
If you hold unjustified beliefs, you expect them to be false on average, since each is more likely to be false than true.
If you hold justified beliefs, you expect them to be true on average, since each is more likely to be true than false.
Thus, if you prefer to have beliefs that are true, then it is pointless to hold unjustified beliefs.
However, if there is some metric that holds greater importance to you than having true beliefs --- for example, having beliefs that make you feel hopeful or optimistic --- then holding unjustified beliefs may not be pointless. But then, you'd really be defeating the purpose of beliefs in the first place.
_____________________________
* Er, I meant from his post from above... Uh, er...
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyI wouldn't say I love my enemies, but then I would have to say I don't really have any enemies. Enemies of my state are not really enemies of mine now are they?
So I assume you do what is natural which is to love your enemies as well or do you consider yourself unnatural by not loving your enemies?
By in large, all evidences point to love mentioned in the Bible as a choice and not steeped in emotion. For example, Jesus gave the example of the Good Samaritan as an example for loving your neighbor as yourself. Jus ...[text shortened]... since he would have been his natural enemy and probably will continue to be once he recovers?
But I do think Jesus was onto something with his views and despite the fact that I'm an atheist I do try to live by the same sort of philosophy as him. I would consider myself a pacifist except in the obvious case of self defence - so in that sense, yes I love my enemies.
You've started talking about love in the bible. I'm not going to go there.
The love I was referring to is my love for my wife. That began as an emotion.
When I say that there are biological imperatives or biological causes behind particular actions, that's merely a starting point. Clearly, the human mind has the ability to work above and beyond any sort of biological imperative. My biological imperative might be to spread my genes, but obviously many people decide not to have kids, thereby ignoring the biological imperative.
So the notion of mutual aid is a biological starting point but obviously human morality and ethics are a little more complex and developed than that.
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWell lets see. Let's take a stroll down history lane, shall we?
We are naturally peaceful and cooperative. Your cult's ideas about "human nature" are misguided.
Here are an INCOMPLETE list of wars according to Wiki. A complete list would almost certainly never be compiled.
WW 2 (1939-1945)
Mongol conquests (13th century)
Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616-1662)
Taiping Rebellion (1851-1865)
Second Sino-Japanese War (1931-1945)
WW1 (1914-1918)
Warring states Era in China (475-221 BC)
Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405)
Russian Civil War (1917-1921)
Conquests of Menelik 11 of Ethiopia (1882-1898)
Second Congo War (1998-2004)
Napoleanic wars (1804-1815)
Thrity Years War (1618-1648)
Yellow Turban Rebellion in China (184-205)
Korean war (1950-1953)
Vietnam War (1945-1975)
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598)
Shaka's conquests (1816-1828)
Bangladesh Liberation War
Afghan civil war (1979-?)
Chinese Civil War (1928-1949)
Seven Years war (1756-1763)
Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988)
Japanese invasion of Korea (1592-1598)
Second Sudanese Civil war (1983-2002)
Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970)
American Civil war ((1861-1865)
Mozambique civil war (1976-1993)
Rwandan civil war (1990-1994)
Congo civil war (1991-1997)
First Jewish-Roman war
Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135 CE)
Eritrean War of Independance (1961-1991)
Somali civil war (1998-?)
Spanich civil war (1936-1939)
Angolan civil war (1975-2002)
Ugandan civil war (1979-1986)
WAr of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay (1864-1870)
Great Northern war (1700-1721)
WAr of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651)
Mexican revolution (1910-1920)
Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864)
First Burundi Civil war (1972)
Crimean War (1854-1856)
Phillippine-American war (1898-1913)
Ethiopian civil war (1974-1991)
Liberian civil war (1989-?)
Iraq war (2003-?)
Albigensian crusade (1208-1259)
Warlord era in China (1917-1928)
Second Punic War (218-204 BC)
Sierra Leone civil war (1991-2000)
Guatemaltec civil war (1960-1996)
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)
Greek war for independance (1821-1829)
Lebanese Civil war (1975-1990)
Thrid Sevile war (73-71 BC)
Chanco war (1932-1935)
Arab-Israeli confict (1929-?)
Bosnian war (1992-1995)
Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905)
Algerian civil war (1991-?)
Conquests of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC)
War of the Roses (1455-1485)
I could continue but my hands are growing numb. I would say that my faith adresses the roots of such violence that lives in the hearts of men and not merely pretend that such violence does not exist. You can either live in an ivory tower and continue to insist that human nature is not flawed or you can deal with the reality of the situation. The choice is yours.
16 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyForumWars
Here are an INCOMPLETE list of wars according to Wiki. A complete list would almost certainly never be compiled.
WW 2 (1939-1945)
Mongol conquests (13th century)
Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616-1662)
Taiping Rebellion (1851-1865)
Second Sino-Japanese War (1931-1945)
WW1 (1914-1918)
Warring states Era in China (475-221 BC)
Conquests of Timur t l war (1991-?)
Conquests of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC)
War of the Roses (1455-1485)
.
Star Wars
War of the Worlds
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYour comment blows me away so much I feel I must continue. There is a great deal of controversy as to the origins of war. Here is what Wiki says.
We are naturally peaceful and cooperative. Your cult's ideas about "human nature" are misguided.
"There is little agreement about the origins of war. Some believe war has always been with us, others stress the lack of clear evidence for war in our prehistoric past, and the fact that many peaceful, non-military societies have and still do exist. Originally, was likely consisted of small-scale raiding. Since the rise of the state some 5000 years ago, military activity has occurred over much of the globe..."
As to the root of war, there are many theories. There are psychological theories, there are anthropological theories, there are sociological theories, there are demographic theories, there are evolutionary theories etc. One such evolutionary theorist named David Livingston Smith wrote a book called, "The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War" In the book he speculates that a critical aspect of all true EP based theories of war is the understanding that most or all of the proximate causes of war are little more than excuses that our minds need to fabricate to justify their actions. These justifications take universal forms at every level of human group conflict. They include:
1) The assertion that the other group presents a threat to justify their actions.
2) THe assertion that the other group has provoked the confict,
3) The assertion that the other group has committed acts which violate morality
4) Descriptions of the other group as being threat animals or pathogens like rats, or cancer etc
5) Asserting that the other is inherently evil.
6) Asserting that the other group are insane or lead by the insane.
I like what Muhatma Ghandi said about war. He said, "If an oppressive society lacks violence, the society is nonetheless not peaceful, because of injustice by the oppressor."
So I ask you, if you agree with what Ghandi is saying, what society is free of oppression?
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdI am interested in how one evaluates what an unjustified/justified belief entails in regards to a relational aspect such as trying to ascertain when one should trust and believe in another human being or not trust in them.
Adhering to an unjustified belief is always the worst bet.
Suppose you deliberate on some proposition A.
If under your available information A is more likely to be true than false, then believing A is justified and believing Not-A is not justified.
If under your available information A is more likely to be false than true, then believing Not-A is justif ...[text shortened]... lace.
_____________________________
* Er, I meant from his post from above... Uh, er...[/b]
