Hello all and thank you for the conversation started here. It makes my job much easier when it comes to writing new posts :) So, I would like to refresh the conversation started on the comment string of Morality - Absolutism v. Relativism with new post here. This is, however, simply a response to conversation below.
First off, to J.C. ~ I do agree with you that we can look into the Bible as our guide for what is to come and see that the world is going to do alright until God decides when it is time for judgement. I have always found it interesting that the event which will eventually destroy the universe, (nuclear explosion it seems [2 Peter 3:10]), was built into the world from the beginning. I have read that it would take a matter of seconds for an uncontrolled nuclear explosion to eliminate the entire universe. Very interesting. Another sign of God knowing the end from the beginning. I would, however, like to have you elaborate on your two God statement. The way I think about it, I believe in one God manifest in three Persons, but it is very possible to have more than one infinite being, as all Christians will one day be infinite, physical beings living with God in New Jerusalem. (Rev 21) Something to think about...
Anonymous - Glad to see you are engaged here, and I thank you for the time you are putting into this conversation. It's much appreciated.
Now, to expand on what I started yesterday (about the personal objective God and the impersonal, subjective 'infinite beings'). I would like to move to your next question about animals.
I believe that animals do not have a soul, but are simply physical beings on this planet that were created by God. That does not, however, mean that they do not have the means to think. Their brains can still function and make decisions; even some basic reasoning functions are present in animals. The soul, on the other hand, is something different. It is eternal and ever-lasting. The soul allows us, as humans, to have the hope of future glory in eternity.
I wonder, if animals have souls, as you say, and we all evolved in a billion year long process (am I wrong in assuming you believe this?), where the soul came from? I cannot come to an answer there, which leads me away from that theory and back to my Bible, the source of God's word and knowledge.
To answer one further question you have brought up, (I hope I am getting them all, let me know what I am missing), I believe that humans are valued above all living things because we were created apart from the rest of creation in God's image. During the creation week, God made all the animals in groups, (land creatures, creatures of the air, creatures of the sea, and bugs), but Man was created separately. The history of the world is not centered around the history of animals, but the history of man. Animals are a resource, and as such, should be treated with care and compassion, yes. However, human life is so much more valuable. If we were on the same level as animals, we would then be forced to say that it would be better to save twenty cows from death than to save one person from death. That is something I cannot except, and I believe that if that were excepted, human morality would be lost.
Thank you for the information about Lovelock and the Gaia theory. I did do some research and found it to be quite interesting. I think that the Gaia theory does, in a very unscientific way I will admit, attempt to explain a biblical view of the world (without the Bible, however).
And thank you to all who are reading this now. I welcome anyone to join in on this conversation with the comment section below, or by emailing me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I am interested, before going any further, what your definition of a "soul" is. It would seem that you have danced around the subject a lot here but not given a statement of what you believe it really is. I am not sure if this is by design or if the Christion definition of a soul is too complex, thus defying a true definition.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that animals have no sense of future or do not have a "hope of future glory"? The Bible tells of the Tower of Babel. What is to say then, that we as people simply can not understand the language of other beings on this planet?
It is interesting that you found the Gaia information interesting. Part of that has to do with the fact that Gaia herself does indeed have a soul. I'm curious to see how you explain that. Many cultures believe that all living things have a soul. It wold seem to me that, throughout history, these are the cultures that have ultimately caused the least harm to thetmselves, others and their environment.
Of course, they are the ones who have ultimately paid some of the highest prices for their beliefs. Theft of lands, slavery and lest we forget the Christian Crusades. Had something gone terribly awry with man's soul during that period? I'm guessing that there weren't a lot of "human life is so much more valuable" conversations during that period.
I can see that we are heading toward a complete loggerhead over the animal soul issue. In fact it would seem that we are complete polar opposites on the value of, and place of, animals in this world. If we see them as only resources (we have done so well in using our resources properly to this point), where do you think we will be when we use them all up and they are no more? How will Gaia continue to exist?
I may be becoming bored with this conversation, or maybe, like you, I am rather set in what I believe. I (and please take no offense to this - once again it is a statement meant only to prove a point) take some of your statements as rather "cultish".
Lest you take this completely the wrong way, here is the definition which I am refering to:
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
Maybe that will be a direction for a future topic.
I think 2nd Peter, and while it could be a nuclear explosion, let's be ready for whatever it might be.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I didn't explain that other part well enough. I wasn't suggesting heresy or anything. It was just something that I read recently and was wondering what your thoughts on it were (that applies to Mr. Anonymous as well (Who if it's alright, maybe since you addressed yourself as Devil's Advocate before, maybe we could just call ya Dave, if that's alright with you?)
Is it possible for two things, I guess it doesn't even need to be gods, that are infinite to coexist. Sorry you can totally ignore this, it's just something I've been thinking about.
I think what you mean up above by infinite is eternal. I think we will be eternal but to say that we'll be infinite, I guess that really depends on what ya mean by infinite. Lol, like I said, ignore me.
I asked Mr. Anonymous how he determines right and wrong. I'm still waiting for a reply from that question if you'd be so kind. I haven't checked out the Gaia Theory yet, but I hopefully will.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI didn't send you that link to change your mind, I sent that link to show you what the Bible says about it and therefore what most Christians believe. That's all.
I'm not going to hyper-ventilate even if you did say the Christian God is corrupt. Might be a little sad for ya, but not enraged by any means.
"it doesn't take a genius to know that somethings missing or somethings wrong."
It's nice to see we agree on that, but I think we might disagree on what is missing. We might disagree on some of the people on the long list of idiots as well. =)
We could get into the global climate thing, but you're probably right in leaving that to another time. That's another novel.
Mr. Klemencic,
ReplyDeleteI assure you I am not the Devils Advocate (or DA as he often signed). And from what I have read, he won't be back. That aparently became a family thing between two Mr. Loveladys. Sorry to disapoint you for having thought you figured out something.
Now on to your question that I somehow overlooked, my appologies.
Here is an interesting article that summarizes right and wrong in a way that I can agree with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html
It is very well written and will save me the time of having to express the same basic thoughts.
Mr. K.
ReplyDeletePlease do not call me Dave.
Thank you.
I'm not really disappointed, it's just slightly hard to tell who's who when everyone leaves notes as anonymous.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you believe that "people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution." is that fair?
Have you read his book?
ReplyDeleteI see your frustration trying to keep track of who is who. You should though, I think, be able to distinguish my writing from others, but maybe sometime in the future, I will see the need to leave a moniker.
ReplyDeleteNo, regrettably I have not read the book. I remembered having seen the cited article though and thought the topic quite interesting. It would be much like the "Flight or Fight" mechanism also hard wired into all beings (Beings being both man and animal for clarification).
The list of Idiots? how could you question the list with the recent lack of environmental concern? deregulation of most environmental control in favor of the almighty dollar? the ignoring of the Kyoto treaty? the wanted destruction of wilderness for a few years worth of oil, most of which does not benefit our own country anyway but is sold for export? Seems like an obvious list to me.
Oh, one more thing from one of your earlier posts, please do not feel sorry for me. I am at peace with my world and my beliefs (or lack thereof according to some, and as misguided as some would believe). We should all feel sorry for the ones that are so narrowminded as to choose not to see the big picture. I fear they are the ones in for the shock at the end of the line.
Well, it seems, Mr. K and Anonymous, that there is quite a debate going here. That makes me glad to know that this site is being used for it's intentions; a place for conversation on the topics that arise, whatever they may be - and I thank you both for the time you put in here.
ReplyDeleteTo answer questions posed to me, here is my definition of what a soul is:
-- The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason, and which renders him a subject of moral government. The immortality of the soul is a fundamental article of the christian system. Such is the nature of the human soul that it must have a God, an object of supreme affection.
(I found this in a search for a definition that fit my thoughts, so I will openly admit this is not my own). In this definition, which is accurate to what I believe, the sould is not something that is in all things, but exclustive to humans.
I found the Gaia theory interesting in that it talks of a world that is 'healing itself' and reaches it's own equilibrium. This theory is, from what I read, an Earth worshiping type of theory. However, if you replace the 'spirit of the Earth' with the Spirit of God flowing through his creation, you start to get closer to the Christian view. This world was set up quite amazingly and has the built-in means of equilibrium. No where else in the known universe do we see that. A sign of God? I believe so, others may not.
Let me explain one more thing. The Tower of Babel (Gen. 11 if you feel inclined to read it) is the story of how human language differences came about after the flood. It explains how man's pride and disobedience caused him to stop spreading across the Earth as God demanded and try to settle in one place. The tower itself was something of a monument built to man's own glory. This was punished by God with the confusion of languages, which naturally brought people into groups of common language and made them continue to spread out. This story in no way is about animals and animal language. Animals and humans are seperate. But we've been around this bush before :)
The "cultish" definition used could easily be turned around to anyone. Someone enjoys watching a TV show, and talks about it with friends. By that definition given, that could be considered cultish. You believe that animals and humans are of equal value. Cultish. I believe that my Bible has the answers that I need every day. Cultish. Mr. K, (and myself, to be fair) believes that abortion is wrong and should be banned. Cultish. That is a wide spreading, many faceted definition. But, this is just a side note, I suppose.
I am working on one more peice of writing on morality that I will post when I am done, to attempt to pull everything together. I also plan on moving into the environmentalism debate soon to, but, that is much to much to dive into right now, so I will digress.
Thank you both for the time and effort you are taking to make this site work. I enjoy our talks here greatly and hope you do too. Thank you.
~Kelby
Mr. Lovelady,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. The term "cult" has been used in reference to many things (television programs, movies, music), but I believe that not to have been the direct intent of my statement, which I think you probably could tell.
I was indeed refering to the fanatical, above all else, this must be right no matter what type of following. I will, before this takes a turn for the worse, agree that we can drop that line of discussion. Probably for the best.
Yes, the story of Babel is widely known to all, myself included. Again, I was using something to make a point. Who is to say that man is the only organism to posses the power of communication? Again I say, maybe we simply are unable to understand it. And you are correct, I think we can forgo the animal's soul conversation going forward.
You have not touched on the Crusades. Is this by design or are you simply "gathering your thoughts"? And please do define "Brutes". That particular statement intrigues me.
Please keep in mind that the fight or flight response is only a theory. Even if it is true, this theory is better applied to animals than humans. In a couple of seconds I've thought of three instances in history where people have neither picked to fight or flee and they were not frozen with fear, even though in two cases it meant their death. Can't think of any animals that would do that.
ReplyDeleteMr. Klemencic,
ReplyDeleteThe flight or fight mechanism is a truth. Sorry to be blunt, but if you are dismissing it based on three instances, that is a very small percentage over time wouldn't you admit.
Your statement - "I've thought of three instances in history where people have neither picked to fight or flee", does not argue against the natural response the way you had hoped in my opinion. Obviously, one can choose to neither flee or fight. I am realitively assured that would be the case in the examples you thought of but did not present. This, I have no doubt, has been the case many times during peaceful demonstrations gone awry. The recent squelching of Tibet by China comes to mind readily.
Mr. Klemencic,
ReplyDeleteAs an afterthought, should you want to try out the flilght or fight mechanism, I have an experiment you can try.
Find a child playing somewhere (obviously this will have to be a child that is familiar with you, lest the authorities be called) and surprise them. Best is to come at them in a threatening manner when they don't expect it (like you are going to eat them or otherwise harm them). Please let me know your results should you chose to try this.
Obviously, no children should actually be harmed (or eaten) during this experiment. It is simply a way to see the flight or fight mechanism in action.
You completely missed the point and I am just to tired to continue this pointless conversation. You are not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. Some might say that's very "cultish" of both of us.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your next blog Kelby.
Sorry you feel that way, but I guess the choice is yours.
ReplyDeletePlease soldier on Mr. Lovelady. Where will you take us next? Please don't forget the brutes and Crusades.
Hello all, and thank you for your continued interest. I am currently working on my next posting, which I hope to have up tommorow. Thank you for your patience as I find the time to gather my thoughts and pull ideas together.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to the Crusades, I would first of all say that it is a wholly Catholic undertaking, and that I do not hold to Catholic tenets. I am not trying to blame anyone for the wrongs that happened during that time, as the hysteria that was wrapped around the Crusades overtook man's better judgement. However, during that time, the Catholic Church was corrupted and powerful. The main objective of the Crusaders themselves was to be absolved of their past sins. In any other church besides a Catholic church, this would not have happened, as salvation and forgiveness is by faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour, that's it. The Catholic belief of papal confessions and ritualism lead these men to the Crusades. Terrible? Yes, I believe so. But, this is what happens when a religion built on the shoulders of corrupt men takes hold.
Let me rephrase and repeat that. A religion built firmly on the true Word of God, not on the backs of corrupt men, would not have done this. (Nor would it do things like a jihad against western culture as Islam has lead to)
Here is the definition for brutes:
-- n. A beast; any animal destitute of reason, and of course the word comprehends all animals except man
Anyway, I need to continue work on my next posting. Thank you all for your time and comments.
~Kelby
Hmmm. Easy for you that you are so quickly to say that the crusades were some other part of religion, even if it's your religion, just not youre floor in the building. must be nice to have for easy escape when you need a out.
ReplyDeleteLet me rephrase and repeat that. i dindn't make this coment, my other me did when i wasn't looking so its ok.
yay! i get to do it to!
Actually, Mr. Anonymous, I believe that the Catholic faith is a corrupted and false version of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem in modern society. We are quick to throw the blanket of Christianity of all churches, not realizing the Catholicism is far different from other churches. This problem is perpetuated by Hollywood using Catholicism in movies, due mostly to it's ritualistic and showy nature.
However, Catholicism is not the same Christianity I hold to.
I could easily ask you to explain naturalism by trying to tie every evolutionist to Hitler. I don't though, because I believe it to be an unfair comparison. Hitler believed in evolution, and therefore believed in breeding for perfect race. He also, believed in 'powers' (Gods) apart from the universe.
I do not ask anyone who believes in evolution to explain Hitler. I don't believe that everyone who holds to Christianity should be asked to explain the Crusades. It is purely a Catholic problem.
Thank you for your comments and continued discussion.
~Kelby
Mr. Lovelady,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that someone else has joined the conversation. Apparently the time has come for me to leave a name. Please refer to me as Thorne, Mr. Thorne. Thank you.
I have an off topic question for you. I see that you are from Wisconsin. I have read that the Mid-west is far more into religion than other ares, hence the name "Bible Belt" I suppose. Is that true? In my area of the country, it would seem that the old people would much rather play golf than go to church. Just curious I guess. Forgive my digression.
Your thoughts on the crusades are interesting. Could I draw the conclusion that maybe the Catholics are still "corrupt"? I don't believe the millions in settlements are going to solve their priest problem do you?
Touche'. A dictionary answer for brutes. I have known many men that I would fit that definition also. So this falls back to your earlier position that, for man, everything is simply a "resource" to be used?
Actually, Hitler (a very sick man), under your crusade reasoning, might have made a good Catholic way back when, a good Crusader. Is that possible? No need to answer I suppose, just rambling outloud.
Please take all the time you need for your next posting. Maybe we can all stay closer to point this time. I would say we have strayed a little bit over the course of the last few days.
Mr. Thorne
But, what if Hitler was just responding to the moral (or immoral) grammar wired into his neural circuits by evolution? If that was the case, then is he really to blame for his actions? That's just how evolution "wired" him. If Hauser's theory is true, is it right to blame Hitler? Maybe evolution just screwed up with him and right was wrong and wrong was right to him.
ReplyDeleteI'm not expecting an answer Mr. Thorne, it'd be unfair for you to respond to something like this since the article is very short and you haven't read the book. Maybe just something to think about.
Purely harmless question here. Hauser talks about a moral grammar put there by evolution. Does that moral grammar evolve? Meaning does right and wrong change, or is there a firm standard that doesn't change?
ReplyDeleteFor people that don't know what I'm talking about http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?_r=1
Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing Hitlers actions, he was a very bad man.
Mr, Klemencic,
ReplyDeleteI would that the basic right and wrong would not evolve. I believe that changes that occur to the basic moral grammar are then influenced by environment. Obviously there ae other things to consider.
In the case of Hitler, I believe that there was probably some sort of "short circuit" if you will. The brain being basically an over-abundant electrical circuit (I think we can agree on that point, can't we?), will obviously be prone to problems. Dahmer, Hannibal Lechter, Charles manson - those are just a few famous names that would fall into such a catagory along with, yes, Adolph himself.
Oh, and by the way, I am happy to see you rested and back at it.
I am assuming that you have not read the book either, therefore rending both of our points rather moot in regards to what Hauser may indeed fully claim. The article becomes more of a focus for a "point of view discussion" such as we have been doing.
And yes, another point of agreement, Hitler was a scurge upon the face of the earth.
Mr. Thorne
Just a thought.... This is the main reason that nothing in Washington gets done. People get hung up on foolishness and opinions that are asinine and don't focus on the business at hand. I would like to redirect and ask that the blog be used as I am guessing it was intended and not a pissing match for wannabe historians, psychologists, philanthropists, and religious fanatics. Kelby, do you plan to take this information to lobby with? What good is a blog for someone who wants to make a difference if the information isn't given to people who are supposed to be giving vocal chords to our voices??? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteA new voice has arisen. I think, if you read Mr. Lovelady's description of his blog: "This blog is, quite simply, a collection of my thoughts on various issues of the day in this country" that what is being done here is exactly int he spirit that he intended. He further states: "I hope this site can become a means of open conversation and debate with all sides" and has thanked contributors throughout his musings.
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten us then, with your views on what you would like to discuss. I have no doubt that we are all atwitter with anticipation.
Mr. Thorne
Hello and good morning all. Thank you, once again, for the large amount of interest being shown here. I'm glad that our conversation grouping seems to be growing, and hope for a day when we can get even more people involved. Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteSome quick responses to the things said here. First, to Mr. Thorne, I am from a small town in Northern WI. The MN/WI area is actually a very liberal, athiestic area. The bible belt is more around the TN, AL, GA area. Wisconsin does have more alchohol serving establishments per capita than any other state. I'm so proud (insert sarcastic tone there :) )
Moving on, yes, the Catholic church is still corrupted, being on the shoulders of men (the papacy) instead of the shoulders of God (and the Bible). Their bible isn't even quite right, as they hold the apocryphal writings to be inspired works.
And yes, my definition of brutes is all wrapped up in my thoughts on animals and humanity. It all pulls together there. Glad you are remembering backwards as we move on here :) I know I'm taking notes.
Mr. Klemencic - Thank you for your thoughts on whats going on here. I agree with what you're saying, that evolutionary theory and morality are a hard mix. Of course, minds that are buried into evolution as the answer will continue to work out their 'conclusions' of where morality comes from. :)
And to the new Mr. Anonymous - I do agree with you to some extent that people in Washington get hung up on foolishness, like how to get more money instead of how to spend less, for example. I believe wholly and truly that this blog is being used as it was intended in the beginning. If you look back in my writings archive, the style has changed a bit, I will agree. However, I also believe that things like morality, religion, and history all wrap up into the way Washington works too. Do you think that morals have no place in DC politics? They are why decisions are made the way they are. They are in every single vote.
So, as Mr. Thorne has said, I am holding to the basic tenets of this sites purposes. Am I talking about what Obama is having for breakfast? No. But I am talking about things, openly and unabashedly, that effect every decision made, every day.
So I would ask, where would you like to see this blog go? I am open to ideas. Please let me know. I plan on working forward from ideas brought to light in the comment section anyway, so let me know what you think. Thank You.
And thank you all for your time, making this site what it was meant to be from the beginning; an open debate, a public forum, and a good time :) Thanks
~Kelby
Seriously....this is what Washington discusses??? No wonder the American people have no faith in the government. If our senators and representatives sit around and discuss whether Catholics are Christian, what a waste of time when things are so messed up. Just curious if you have met many Catholic people.... IF you are from a small town in WI, I am guessing your outside influences are limited, so that may explain some of the judgmental, self-rightousness that comes through your comments. I would like to know what your plan is specifically....are you lobbying for votes against abortion, evolutionism, and making Catholicism a non-christian institution. Are you for or against limiting government involvement, because you tend to have contradicting comments. And for the record, I know many devoutly Christian Catholics (whom I care for and have learned to be a better Christian myself from)who would put your morality and biblical rhetoric to shame. Not sure how you plan to get anywhere or make a difference by denouncing peoples beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I am not saying that this is what people sit around in DC discussing during the day. That would be a complete waste of time, for the most part. I am holding, however, to the fact that a persons morality that they hold to will directly effect the decisions they make when asked to vote on the issues. For instance, if asked to vote on banning partial-birth abortion, someone who holds to biblical truths will say abortion is murder, while someone who is more of a relativist will most likely go the other way. A person's morality and religious choices are part of who they are. It's inseperable.
ReplyDeleteI am, in fact from a small town. I grew up in Chetek, WI, (pop. around 2000), lived in and around Rice Lake, WI (pop. around 9000) after high school, got married and lived in Richmond, VA for a while (pop around 350000), then in southern WI in a town called Prairie Du Sac, (pop. around 2000) and currently reside in New Richmond, WI (pop around 10000). You can look up all these towns and track my progress if you want. I am who I claim to be, and want to have a certain amount of transperancy here on this site.
I try my hardest not to be judgemental, self-righteous, or in any way offensive. I am sorry if it ever seems that way. I am simply, as my mission statement says, presenting a collection of my thoughts and views on issues of the day, whether Obama and politics or morality and religion.
As far as specifics as to what I want to do here, my main idea with this site was to get people talking. That's it. No lobbying for votes, no setting myself up for a political run. I just want to engage people openly and fairly. That's it. I believe truly that having a place for open conversation and getting people talking about things is a way to make a difference. As the saying goes, 'a seed sown in the spring may burst forth into life'. Where the future of this blog lay, I don't know. I do intend on continuing on, wherever it ends up.
Thank You for your time and conversation. Your involvement here is greatly appreciated. Hope to hear back soon,
~Kelby