The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

It works fine for those who believe in Plato's forms. They think we perceive the forms of moral truths the same way we perceive all the other forms.

Well I can understand how a "mind" can be the source of ethics, I'm not sure how a form can or even what it is. But even Plato's forms and our knowledge of them depends on us having pre-existing souls that existed in heaven, where we learned of these forms.

Plato believed that long before our bodies ever existed, our souls existed and inhabited heaven, where they became directly acquainted with the forms themselves. Real knowledge, to him, was knowledge of the forms. But knowledge of the forms cannot be gained through sensory experience because the forms are not in the physical world. Therefore, our real knowledge of the forms must be the memory of our initial acquaintance with the forms in heaven. Therefore, what we seem to learn is in fact just remembering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory...dence_of_Forms

[Doug Shaver]

On this issue of homosexuality, they do disagree with Scripture. Most of Scripture is pretty straight forward, not everything is open to interpretation.

How about Exodus 22:18? That looks pretty straightforward to me.

[seer]

How about Exodus 22:18? That looks pretty straightforward to me.

I thought you said that you were a Christian? Do Christian necessarily have to apply the penalties found in the Mosaic Civil code? Of course witchcraft is still immoral.

Galatians 5

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like..."

[carpedm9587]

I thought you said that you were a Christian? Do Christian necessarily have to apply the penalties found in the Mosaic Civil code? Of course witchcraft is still immoral.

Galatians 5

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like..."

If one is to follow the bible...why does one get to pick and choose? If the bible says "this is an infraction" and "this is the penalty," what is the justification for following the law about the infraction to the letter, but ignoring the designated punishment?

[Sparko]

If one is to follow the bible...why does one get to pick and choose? If the bible says "this is an infraction" and "this is the penalty," what is the justification for following the law about the infraction to the letter, but ignoring the designated punishment?

I thought you used to be a Christian? Christians are not Jews. The OT law was given to the Jews. The punishments were by their government. Christians are not under the mosaic law because we are not jews. Thus "the NEW covenant/testament"

We currently live in a secular society and that society determines the punishments for crimes. That doesn't meant that we don't agree on the moral aspects of the OT law. Like homosexuality is wrong, as is witchcraft, idolotry, adultery, etc.

[seer]

If one is to follow the bible...why does one get to pick and choose? If the bible says "this is an infraction" and "this is the penalty," what is the justification for following the law about the infraction to the letter, but ignoring the designated punishment?

Carp, I thought you were a Christian in the past too? And you don't understand this? Ancient Israel was a Theocracy, we are not. Now if God instituted a Theocracy here, we should apply those penalties. And when Christ returns death will be the judgement for all those who refuse to repent.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I thought you were a Christian in the past too? And you don't understand this? Ancient Israel was a Theocracy, we are not. Now if God instituted a Theocracy here, we should apply those penalties. And when Christ returns death will be the judgement for all those who refuse to repent.

I'll reply to both you and Sparko in one post. There are many many reasons why I am not a Christian (or even a theist) anymore. This is one of them. Yes, I am familiar with the "we are not under the old law" argument. And then come all of the inconsistent variations. We are not under the old law, except we keep quoting the OT to justify this position or that position. We are not under the old law for the penalties, just for the laws themselves. And, of course, we are not under the old law, except for these specific ones.

In my experience, as a Christian and afterwards, people tend to take a position, and then find a way to justify it using the bible - and then argue vociferously that they are justified because it is "in the bible." It's why I just don't get into bible discussions. They are largely pointless. The bible is a collection of books mostly written by unknown authors 2-3.5 millennia ago - in a different language and a different culture. Ultimately, these books can be, and have been, used to justify almost any position over the ages. And each interpreter claims to have "the" truth about it. When you base your life beliefs on the contents of a small collection of books, especially under such conditions, it is not a belief system that can be rationally discussed or examined.

[seer]

I'll reply to both you and Sparko in one post. There are many many reasons why I am not a Christian (or even a theist) anymore. This is one of them. Yes, I am familiar with the "we are not under the old law" argument. And then come all of the inconsistent variations. We are not under the old law, except we keep quoting the OT to justify this position or that position. We are not under the old law for the penalties, just for the laws themselves. And, of course, we are not under the old law, except for these specific ones.

That is nonsense Carp, and you know it. God did not institute a Theocracy under Christ, at least not until His return. And there are clear moral prohibitions that run through both Testaments, how a particular society deals with those moral wrongs is not addressed in the New Testament. Homosexuality, adultery, stealing, lying, etc... are wrong no matter how a culture decides to punish them or not punish them.

In my experience, as a Christian and afterwards, people tend to take a position, and then find a way to justify it using the bible - and then argue vociferously that they are justified because it is "in the bible." It's why I just don't get into bible discussions. They are largely pointless. The bible is a collection of books mostly written by unknown authors 2-3.5 millennia ago - in a different language and a different culture. Ultimately, these books can be, and have been, used to justify almost any position over the ages. And each interpreter claims to have "the" truth about it. When you base your life beliefs on the contents of a small collection of books, especially under such conditions, it is not a belief system that can be rationally discussed or examined.

Right it is easier to have a made up ethical system that is based on your personal preferences. Who can argue against that?

[Sparko]

I'll reply to both you and Sparko in one post. There are many many reasons why I am not a Christian (or even a theist) anymore. This is one of them. Yes, I am familiar with the "we are not under the old law" argument. And then come all of the inconsistent variations. We are not under the old law, except we keep quoting the OT to justify this position or that position. We are not under the old law for the penalties, just for the laws themselves. And, of course, we are not under the old law, except for these specific ones.

In my experience, as a Christian and afterwards, people tend to take a position, and then find a way to justify it using the bible - and then argue vociferously that they are justified because it is "in the bible." It's why I just don't get into bible discussions. They are largely pointless. The bible is a collection of books mostly written by unknown authors 2-3.5 millennia ago - in a different language and a different culture. Ultimately, these books can be, and have been, used to justify almost any position over the ages. And each interpreter claims to have "the" truth about it. When you base your life beliefs on the contents of a small collection of books, especially under such conditions, it is not a belief system that can be rationally discussed or examined.

[Doug Shaver]

But even Plato's forms and our knowledge of them depends on us having pre-existing souls that existed in heaven, where we learned of these forms.

At least some atheists accept mind-body dualism. Whether they would call the mind a soul would be more of a semantic issue than a metaphysical one. If our minds exist independently of our bodies, then I don't see why they can't do whatever Plato thought they had to do in order to perceive the forms, regardless of where they might have existed before they linked up with our bodies.

[Doug Shaver]

I thought you said that you were a Christian? Do Christian necessarily have to apply the penalties found in the Mosaic Civil code? Of course witchcraft is still immoral.

The issue is not whether witchcraft is still immoral. The issue is whether Christians have to comply with Bible's instructions or if they are at liberty to reinterpret those instructions to accommodate changes in society's attitudes about killing witches.

[carpedm9587]

That is nonsense Carp, and you know it.

It constantly amazes me how incredibly informed you (and others here) are about what I do and do not know. Apparently, even more than I am. It's absolutely amazing!

God did not institute a Theocracy under Christ, at least not until His return. And there are clear moral prohibitions that run through both Testaments, how a particular society deals with those moral wrongs is not addressed in the New Testament. Homosexuality, adultery, stealing, lying, etc... are wrong no matter how a culture decides to punish them or not punish them.

And that is YOUR take on it, Seer, and you will defend it "biblically." So will those who disagree with you. And THEY will defend it "biblically." It's a zero sum game - which is why I do not play.

Right it is easier to have a made up ethical system that is based on your personal preferences. Who can argue against that?

I think I'll forego that round again. We've already established that you have no argument beyond an appeal to definitions, about which we agree.

[carpedm9587]

The battle in the early church between those who saw the new sect as a cult within the Judaic world and those who saw it as a "new thing" is fairly well documented. Even here, many of the precepts put forward are no longer adhered to, and people see no problem with it. Your quote kind of makes my point.

I think maybe you were a pew warmer, not a Christian.

Color me surprised. But since you folks seem to think you're experts on what I think, feel, and what motivates me, I'm not surprised you seem to think you're an expert on what kind of Christian I was. As I've said before, what you think doesn't change what is (or was), so you are welcome to your opinions.

[seer]

At least some atheists accept mind-body dualism. Whether they would call the mind a soul would be more of a semantic issue than a metaphysical one. If our minds exist independently of our bodies, then I don't see why they can't do whatever Plato thought they had to do in order to perceive the forms, regardless of where they might have existed before they linked up with our bodies.

But Plato's perfect forms only existed in heaven, so we would have to had existed there before our physical births, because our present understanding of these truths are merely the remembering of this past existence/experience.

[seer]

It constantly amazes me how incredibly informed you (and others here) are about what I do and do not know. Apparently, even more than I am. It's absolutely amazing!

I'm glad you recognize brilliance when you see it...

And that is YOUR take on it, Seer, and you will defend it "biblically." So will those who disagree with you. And THEY will defend it "biblically." It's a zero sum game - which is why I do not play.

No Carp, it is where the texts lead. But I think you know this, but it serves your purpose the cloud these issues.

I think I'll forego that round again. We've already established that you have no argument beyond an appeal to definitions, about which we agree.

Talk about a zero sum game - you just defined moral relativism. No objective way to define right or wrong.