Zarathushtra

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Stocken is exactly correct in this regard. God has given man an establishment policy, by which members of a society are kept safe, regardless of theological beliefs, or the lack thereof.
In Codex 1, these safety guidelines are enumerated.

And what did you think about my response nine posts back from this one?.. You never did respond to that... :

[edit: I really need to practice my math]

Originally posted by stocken
It's silly for anyone to think that they can't break from theological doctrines should they want to.

Granted, theology and sociology has gone hand-in-hand for centuries. That's not a necessity though (from a pure philosophical point of view).

Or would you care to disagree?

Practically, I can't say - no society has evolved without religion playing a role in it. Even today, religion is a driving factor in social norms.

Philosophically, it might not be necessary. But I think there is something fundamentally spiritual about human beings - a society without religion is about as sustainable as a society without emotion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Practically, I can't say - no society has evolved without religion playing a role in it. Even today, religion is a driving factor in social norms.

Philosophically, it might not be necessary. But I think there is something fundamentally spiritual about human beings - a society without religion is about as sustainable as a society without emotion.

Yes. That's true. There's definitely something spiritual about human beings. However, I guess it all depends on what the word religion refers to. Is it only about our soul, or must it include some higher, supernatural force? If the latter, I'd disagree. A society without religion would work.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Do you think it would be impossible to be a social being without sympathy and empathy?

Perhaps. And? Are you going to demonstrate that Hitler and Manson were devoid of sympathy and empathy? I can hardly wait.

"But for the grace of Bob" - LOL. You can barely express the idea without running into God.

Forgive me...I was dumbing it down for you, Hammy. You might not understand it otherwise.

In particular, when it comes to "Do unto others" - so what if you deliberately wrong someone? That's happening to him/her - not you.

However, my natural empathy will allow me to place myself in the other person's shoes, so to speak. This will prevent me from stealing the hubcaps on your car, and then doing your wife while you're out of town. So to speak.

Your being good to others will not stop someone committing a crime against you.

Super. What will? Believing in Fairy Tales about godmen and their Divine Moral Authority? Carrying around a Big Ass Bible and Thumping it? Reading the Radio? What? Your belief in Jesus as Christ will not prevent Kim Jong-il from dropping a nuke on your hometown. So?

Originally posted by stocken
Wait a sec.? Are you saying that the kids in your basketball team is raping and savaging each other?.. You sure you don't have anything to do with that?..


We respond so much better to that which is positive.

No, I am saying I have exposure and experience in the initial phase of human growth, in that I have six children. I am privvy to observe their actions, intents, and etc.
Left to their own devices, they would kill one another, were that solution fitting to a situation they found themselves in. Artificially, I provide moral impasse until such time as they see the long-term benefits of the same, and begin to make moral decisions for themselves.

Whether you feel people respond better to encouragement or not, all moral rules are prohibitive against actions which emanate from the sin nature. Once that sin nature has been dealt with, it will be a whole different ball of wax.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I am saying I have exposure and experience in the initial phase of human growth, in that I have six children. I am privvy to observe their actions, intents, and etc.
Left to their own devices, they would kill one another, were that solution fitting to a situation they found themselves in. Artificially, I provide moral impasse until such time as they ...[text shortened]... sin nature. Once that sin nature has been dealt with, it will be a whole different ball of wax.

I have a really hard time imagining kids actually killing each other, purposely. The fighting usually ends with them crying and running to their respective corners, or to us grown-ups. Eventually they make friends again. If they manage to actually kill each other (oh, the tragedy) it would be because they didn't understand how hard they were hitting each other (whatever they're hitting each other with) so, you really can't say that they are pure evil in nature.

I still think that it's more important to encourage good than to prohibit evil. To conciously think about what you're doing in a strive to do good, is much healthier (mentally) than to constantly worry about doing bad.

Now, what can make us focus on being a valuable member of society? To want to help, be compassionate and careful not to harm others? I'd say, if you feel like your a part of it all. Like people give a damn about what you think and say. That's what makes us want to build a good society. Zarathustra said that each person must think for themselves, we are all equals and carry the divine essence within us, and we all have the same ability to choose to do good. I think he was on to something there.

If God is within us (only) and we're his co-workers... well, you get the feeling (however illusional it may turn out to be) that you can do something worthwhile for this world.

This, to me, seems much more positive than the prohibitive nature of the bible.

Originally posted by David C
No. Do you?

Certainly not. It defines our humanity.

Originally posted by stocken


This, to me, seems much more positive than the prohibitive nature of the bible.

As stated, the Bible (along with every society with any system of jurisprudence) recognizes the sin nature of its adherents.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, the Bible (along with every society with any system of jurisprudence) recognizes the sin nature of its adherents.

Bunk. Their is nothing in American jurisprudence that recognizes any "sin nature".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bunk. Their is nothing in American jurisprudence that recognizes any "sin nature".

Had your course studies been anything beyond "How to Sound Righteously Indignant," you likely would have noticed how the overwhelming majority of our laws are prohibitive in nature.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Had your course studies been anything beyond "How to Sound Righteously Indignant," you likely would have noticed how the overwhelming majority of our laws are prohibitive in nature.

If you ever actually look in a collection of books that have all the statutes of a State (which I have about 5 feet away from me), you will find that you are absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I was citing from memory (I remember reading that the book of Job is 3500 years old). I'll find you a reference.

Estimates vary from Moses' time to the Babylonian exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job).

Perhap you'll find the argument that Job is an Ice Age document persuasive: http://www.ldolphin.org/iceage.html

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, the Bible (along with every society with any system of jurisprudence) recognizes the sin nature of its adherents.

Zarathustra also recognizes the bad within us. But he doesn't give it too much focus. When you get real with yourself, you won't have to worry about ahriman taking control over your actions.

Simple as that. Feel what is the right thing to do in the bigger scheme of things. Think hard about it. Then do. Always, always, take care to consider the impact your actions will have on the world around you (whether you like it or not).

If that's too hard, lock yourself up in your ivory tower and ponder the questions of life. No harm to anyone there. Well, unless you expect people to take care of you, that is...

Originally posted by David C
Do you think it would be impossible to be a social being without sympathy and empathy?

Perhaps. And? Are you going to demonstrate that Hitler and Manson were devoid of sympathy and empathy? I can hardly wait.

"But for the grace of Bob" - LOL. You can barely express the idea without running into God.

Forgive me...I was dumbing it ...[text shortened]... elief in Jesus as Christ will not prevent Kim Jong-il from dropping a nuke on your hometown. So?[/b]

Are you going to demonstrate that Hitler and Manson were devoid of sympathy and empathy? I can hardly wait.

That's what you have to demonstrate. You claim that sympathy and empathy is what keeps men moral. Since these men were clearly not moral, you need to demonstrate to me that these men lacked those attributes. Otherwise, you cannot justify your claim.

Forgive me...I was dumbing it down for you, Hammy. You might not understand it otherwise.

"Dumbing it down" for me? ROTFL. Have you forgotten the high school math lesson you received from me not too long ago?

However, my natural empathy will allow me to place myself in the other person's shoes, so to speak. This will prevent me from stealing the hubcaps on your car, and then doing your wife while you're out of town. So to speak.

My point is that it will not prevent you from doing these things - you can still do them if you choose to. See the point on Hitler and Manson above.

Super. What will?

Nothing you do will.

Your belief in Jesus as Christ will not prevent Kim Jong-il from dropping a nuke on your hometown. So?

What's your rationale for being moral?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I like this quote:

"We are co-workers and co-creators of God. We are here to fulfill the divine plan, not to become obedient slaves of God, nor to be helpless children of God. And this is why we are given the choice. Even the choice not to cooperate with God’s plan and go against it, and that is why we find evil in the world. Because there are some ...[text shortened]... ls, devil, with the eventual addition of a saviour, Mithras)--the reverse of the usual process).

So God is Henopecked?