Spirit vs Science Discussion, continued

[gbh]

Zzyzx, I do not draft replies on the actual posting because I have heard it ties up the server too much, and because these are such long postings, it is easier to work with...so fortunately, I have some of them saved.

Where we last left off I was going to revisit some of the comments you had made in the thread that got deleted and ground you had covered in other threads. It is a pity that the thread was lost but such is life.

I find it curious that you are declaring me a rational theist. I suppose I am a theist, although rational may be stretching things a bit...at least by some people's estimation of my ideas.

Anyhow, here was my last response:

Z: Are you positive that you have supplied the correct answers to the last two questions? 1) Is your “proof” in the form of testimonials or relaying of personal experience (neither of which meet a reasonable definition of proof)? 2) Are you qualified to answer for me with certainty? It might be better to say that you expect (but not know) that I would reject your proof. In fact, if your proof is convincing I will at least strongly consider accepting. Do you realize that it is unconvincing because it is not proof?

GG: Not testimonials, but since the burden of proof is on me, I can safely state that my case is quite circumstantial, which in some trials is good enough depending on the defense counsel. As my adversary, I have decided that your closing argument to the jury would definitely win an aquittal.

Therefore, I’m not even going to chance it, but since this discussion originated with the idea of discussing your ideas, this is not about proving my theory right, but understanding your ideas in an effort to ascertain where the line is drawn in the sand between what I know of my beliefs and absolutes and yours. In short, it will be as if I am trying to prove your theory false, which is something you decried in the flood debate. That being said, “as if” does not mean actually doing so, but, in essence moving us towards a middle ground of understanding and perhaps resolve that line or walk away, perhaps a little wiser and gain more insight into each other’s positions.

Z: There is some evidence to suggest that humans developed large brains to compensate for lack in speed, agility, endurance, strength, eyesight, hearing, etc. Are you positive that our mental ability is at or beyond need fulfillment (or, more accurately, beyond what provides an advantage in survival and reproduction)?

GG: So, are you intimating that perhaps thoughts of God are a compensation that gives us an edge in survival and reproduction? I wonder about this especially with the guilt factor that the Catholics instill in their young. It would seem to me to be one thing that would cause one to die younger due in part to anxiety and grief over transgressions. There and again, if one had no worries at all about their actions and the corresponding ramifications, they may engage in reckless behavior and die young anyhow.

Further, we cannot generalize because clearly there are those who have such little ability that they cannot even provide for their own basic needs, while there are others who surpass their needs whether they become wealthy and have the luxury to ponder thoughts OR they find a simpler life and do the same. Nevertheless, these individuals would seem to have exceeded their basic need level and transcended into another realm...one of consciousness, and perhaps a different level of need.

Z: By chance alone some individual organisms (including people) will be outstanding in various ways – some positive, some negative. Why is that surprising?

GG: It is not surprising, but why? You say positive and negative, but do not express which direction is positive and negative. What is the point of consciousness, why delineation from animals? Animals have not evolved, why man? What is the purpose if we are just here scraping along if not to be conscious of something? Even if not God, one is conscious of creation itself which then leads one to step further and consider how it was created...even if but speculation and never to be more than just that, God is on the table...God would have to be considered.

Z: I reach the conclusion that some need “god” based upon the words and actions of religiously committed people I have observed. They often exhibit a great dependence upon their religion. Members of this forum have taken the position that without religion they would be totally lost and possibly immoral.

GG: And some would, which is why I cannot hold complete disdain for religion...it keeps some honest or honest enough. One can still have a need for God without being involved in religion...the two are not joined at the hip, despite what some would think.

Z: Perhaps it is easier to not believe, but I don’t see why that should be true (except if one is required to participate in ritual in order to “believe” or to demonstrate their belief to others).

In our society (and evidently others) there is great social pressure to at least appear to be religious. I can state with certainly that associating with people in the Ozark region would be far easier if one at least feigned religion. I do not do so because that would be against my ethics.

GG: Yes, I understand.

*********

Z: Thus, perhaps we can compromise on there being FOUR options (including keep the job and take another).

GG: I’ll still stick with two, the first seven are selfish and the last is selfless.

*********
Z: It is possible that your understanding of god is coming close to my philosophy of life.

Z: BTW, I do NOT recommend my lifestyle for anyone. I suggest that everyone keep their nose to the grindstone, stay in high stress situations, continue accumulating toys and possessions for heirs to fight over, then retire at a “proper” age and die soon thereafter. That keeps the economic system at least limping along (with plenty of work for salesmen, doctors, attorneys and undertakers).

GG: But this is not quite my understanding of God. Let me argue this point a bit:

Altruism and asceticism can be as dogmatic and ritualistic as the best organized religion. Being a martyr for the “greater good” garners favor and sympathy from the masses as being honorable and noble when the intent COULD BE neither, but self-serving. Organized religion contains many of these seemingly “do gooders” that have no altruistic motive other than to feed their ego. No, there must be a reason for true altruistic and ascetic lifestyles, otherwise, it seems as empty and meaningless as religion. So, the question is: What is that reason?

I have come to the conclusion that one doesn’t have to change the fact that one is wealthy and possesses many things, but more importantly, the focus is on one’s attitude and how they live their life. For I believe that a wealthy philanthropic man can have what you have and do a lot of good with his wealth and position, IF HE HAS THE SAME OUTLOOK ABOUT LIFE...an outlook that he could stand up and walk away from it all and never look back.

BTW, this relates to a very quotable Scripture about the young rich man who could not give up what he had to follow Jesus. Jesus knew this about him, for the young man claimed that he had lived by the letter of the law. Jesus knew the one thing holding him back from living the Spirit of that law...and that is that one cannot serve two masters.

This particular Scripture gets completely misinterpreted and used by organized religions to bring guilt upon the heads of those who have and how one should “give until it hurts” to the poor. It is not about that...it is about where your heart is, there lies your treasure.

This, too, is alluded to in the Scripture, wherein Mary Magdelene was to annoint Jesus’ feet with oil. The Apostles scolded that the oil could be sold and used to feed the poor. Jesus stated that the “poor will always be amongst us,” but that he would not...and instructed her to save it for his burial.

One may have given up all things in life and given everything they have to the poor, but still suffer in the throes of ego-centric behavior. There is more to being righteous than just doing good deeds, there must be a change of heart and mind. I believe this to be the most important struggle man attends to in life.

Z: Think about that, G. Do not be too confident that you have the answer and that I am struggling. The reverse might well be true.

GG: I am not confident in anything I am saying and if I gave that impression it is most likely the style in which I argue, but certainly not by authority. And indeed, I do believe I have a lot left to learn.

Z: I actually live by what I write here. This is NOT theoretical or hypothetical to me, nor is it a new role.

GG: Yes, nor is it to me. I have whittled down what I used to believe into something very basic and simple, which I have found recently to actually be a philosophical tool developed by a Franciscan monk by the name of William Ockham. They call it Ockham’s Razor.

You wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: However, religion is very popular. Common sense is not. If all it took to eliminate religion was common sense, if people were willing to question “miracles” and magic and invisible super beings, there would (IMO) be little appeal to religion.

GG: What about a religion without miracles and magic, but common sense? Or...what about theism without miracles, magic AND religion? Do you not think that one could be a theist, and yet, not follow the herd?

You also wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: Agree. Part of the reason for debating is to make “light” available for those who are looking for truth. In our society pro-religion sentiments and advertising dominate. Everyone is exposed to strong promotion of religion – “Jesus Saves” propaganda is far more common than “Jesus is a Fraud”.

GG: What concerns me about this statement, and I may be taking it out of context but: why does Jesus equate with falsity in your mind? In the above question regarding theism without the rest of the trappings, is there a place for the teachings of Christ without it being propaganda and a fraud?

Frankly, I think that what was attributed to Christ, after taking into consideration what the quotes have been through, could possibly have different meaning than what has currently been assigned to them. If you take the two most important commandments he uttered, they deal with love...a spiritual love that transcends brotherly, spousal, friendship and the like. A love that despite what is dished out, the person embracing this type of love can see past another’s egocentric flaws while he recognizes his own and still love this other person with sincerity and honesty.

If you take this as his number one priority, what has funneled down through the years to become modern day Christianity comes up a bit short. Further, Christ used people who were outcasts to show their redemptive qualities, such as the Samaritans, who were ostracized by the Jews, and the regular “sinner” crowd, who some of Christ’s Apostles were incensed over.

We also spoke of the “force of nature.” You stated that it was a closer definition to God than any other, but God is not bound by just this force. The mountains you study are but dense bodies of energy holding together particles that only a Physics Phd could explain properly. As matter, we too are held together by forces of energy, but we are also given something many other things in nature do not have and that is conscious awareness. Not all people utilize this ability and some have more than others, but this consciousness enables us to be cognizant of the magnitude of creation and held in awe of it as we lack the capacity and capability to recreate it.

We are given time on this earth to have this awareness and what occurs after life is but gentle supposition on anyone’s part. But if part of this “force” resides within us, enabling us to comprehend that something much greater than ourselves exists, then why would it destroy itself?

There was a story where the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satan, but Jesus replied: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? Using this same logic, if God exists within and without each one of us, why would God destroy that part of himself (the Spirit indwelling in man)? So, either there exists God and at least to the extent that we are conscious of God, and we have those properties somewhere within us to coexist with God, or God doesn’t exist and this is as good as it gets.

At this point in time, I do not see myself ever belonging to an organized group for the reason being that any organized group, including Atheism, distracts from the Truth and leads one back into the world of a false reality. Surely things exist in material form, but for how long? Even the mountains are not the same day after day with the subtle erosion from rivulets and streams winding their way down taking particles along the way and depositing them into the ground far below where it originated, as you described in the debate. Organized religious groups, as you have stated before, create absolutes that are unfounded...and this should also include atheism.

[Zzyzx]

.
Gbh,

I have taken a very BOLD step in our discussions -- and bolded my replies to reduce confusion (mine). This is not to suggest that I am bolder (or more confused) than you or vice versa.

In short, it will be as if I am trying to prove your theory false, which is something you decried in the flood debate. That being said, “as if” does not mean actually doing so, but, in essence moving us towards a middle ground of understanding and perhaps resolve that line or walk away, perhaps a little wiser and gain more insight into each other’s positions.

ZZ: Exactly what theory of mine are you attempting to prove false? (I have thoughts and theories regarding a number of matters, and am not sure exactly what you mean).

Z: There is some evidence to suggest that humans developed large brains to compensate for lack in speed, agility, endurance, strength, eyesight, hearing, etc. Are you positive that our mental ability is at or beyond need fulfillment (or, more accurately, beyond what provides an advantage in survival and reproduction)?

GG: So, are you intimating that perhaps thoughts of God are a compensation that gives us an edge in survival and reproduction?

ZZ: “Thoughts of god” are quite distant from any advantage I might attribute to increased mental capacity. I would tend to think that god thoughts were counter-productive (religious competition, conflict, warfare, destruction of civilizations, etc).

Why do you suggest that I would be saying something about god thoughts when I have said no such thing -- and would not be expected to make god-supporting statements.

Z: By chance alone some individual organisms (including people) will be outstanding in various ways – some positive, some negative. Why is that surprising?

GG: It is not surprising, but why?

ZZ: Why? Because unless there is total uniformity in a population the variation MUST result in some being above the “norm” and some below.

So, in fact, differences are expected BECAUSE there is variation. Some people are taller than others; some are very short. Is the matter of “why” some are taller, or more intelligent, or more blue-eyed important to the discussion somehow?

G: You say positive and negative, but do not express which direction is positive and negative.

ZZ: I feel no need to identify positive and negative directions in general terms – but may apply the concept to specific items. Positive, for example, might be a trait which increases ability to survive specific environmental conditions.

G: What is the point of consciousness, why delineation from animals?

ZZ: The “point” of conscious means nothing to me. I do not make a distinction between humans and animals because I realize that humans ARE animals.

G: Animals have not evolved, why man?

ZZ: Animals certainly HAVE evolved. Why would one claim that they have not? Are you saying that other animals, as far as we know, have not evolved mental capacity similar to those of humans? That is FAR different from saying that “animals have not evolved”.

Z: I reach the conclusion that some need “god” based upon the words and actions of religiously committed people I have observed. They often exhibit a great dependence upon their religion. Members of this forum have taken the position that without religion they would be totally lost and possibly immoral.

GG: And some would, which is why I cannot hold complete disdain for religion...it keeps some honest or honest enough. One can still have a need for God without being involved in religion...the two are not joined at the hip, despite what some would think.

ZZ: I agree that gods and religion are not joined at the hip. However, ours is an uncommon position.

Z: I actually live by what I write here. This is NOT theoretical or hypothetical to me, nor is it a new role.

GG: Yes, nor is it to me. I have whittled down what I used to believe into something very basic and simple, which I have found recently to actually be a philosophical tool developed by a Franciscan monk by the name of William Ockham. They call it Ockham’s Razor.

ZZ: The admonition to favor the least complicated answer is often – NOT ALWAYS – appropriate – PROVIDED that the least complicated answer ACTUALLY and adequately addresses the problem. A simplistic incorrect answer is not preferable to a complex correct answer.

A simple answer is often incorrect – even one that is very commonly believed. For instance, ask if we ask 100 people to state the boiling point of water in degrees Fahrenheit, those who “know” will almost always say 212 degrees – which is true ONLY at sea level under 29.92 inches barometric pressure. In every other circumstance, that simple answer is dead wrong. If one is well above sea level, the boiling point of water is strongly reduced.

Or, “It takes eight minutes to cook a three minute egg at the top of Pike’s Peak” (in an open pan of water because water boils at a much lower temperature at high elevation). The effect is the reverse of using a pressure cooker to acclerate cooking time by causing water to become much hotter before boiling.

G: You wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: However, religion is very popular. Common sense is not. If all it took to eliminate religion was common sense, if people were willing to question “miracles” and magic and invisible super beings, there would (IMO) be little appeal to religion.

GG: What about a religion without miracles and magic, but common sense? Or...what about theism without miracles, magic AND religion? Do you not think that one could be a theist, and yet, not follow the herd?

ZZ: It would be my opinion that theism without miracles, magic and religion would be an improvement over what I have observed of present religions – particularly the popular organized commercial varieties.

I have no doubt that one could be a theist yet not follow the herd. It appears as though a couple members of this forum fit that description.

G: You also wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: Agree. Part of the reason for debating is to make “light” available for those who are looking for truth. In our society pro-religion sentiments and advertising dominate. Everyone is exposed to strong promotion of religion – “Jesus Saves” propaganda is far more common than “Jesus is a Fraud”.

GG: What concerns me about this statement, and I may be taking it out of context but: why does Jesus equate with falsity in your mind? In the above question regarding theism without the rest of the trappings, is there a place for the teachings of Christ without it being propaganda and a fraud?

ZZ: My comment was not directed toward “teachings of Jesus” but at organized religion advertising its wares. How can one know what JC taught from what is written – with the obvious changes in meaning that have occurred?

G: Frankly, I think that what was attributed to Christ, after taking into consideration what the quotes have been through, could possibly have different meaning than what has currently been assigned to them.

ZZ: You evidently agree.

G: If you take the two most important commandments he uttered . . . .

ZZ: HOW can we be absolutely CERTAIN that "he uttered" those words exactly (or even close)?

How do we know for certain that they were not “sounds good” statements made up by churchmen as "put into the mouth of Jesus" in writings long after the supposed event?

For that matter, can one say with certainty ANYTHING about what was spoken 2000 years ago and recorded long after the statements were made? Some statements could not have been heard by any person other than JC himself (i.e., when he was supposedly alone) are reported as though witnessed.

G: We also spoke of the “force of nature.” You stated that it was a closer definition to God than any other, but God is not bound by just this force.

ZZ: What is the evidence to support the statement, “but God is not bound by just this force”? I suggest that it is an unsupportable assumption or assertion based upon belief or faith but without other verification.

G: We are given time on this earth to have this awareness and what occurs after life is but gentle supposition on anyone’s part. But if part of this “force” resides within us, enabling us to comprehend that something much greater than ourselves exists, then why would it destroy itself?

ZZ: I do not accept, “we are given time on this Earth”. I will accept that we have a limited time to live on the Earth, but given implies a giver – which I do not accept.

G: Using this same logic, if God exists within and without each one of us, why would God destroy that part of himself (the Spirit indwelling in man)? So, either there exists God and at least to the extent that we are conscious of God, and we have those properties somewhere within us to coexist with God, or God doesn’t exist and this is as good as it gets.

ZZ: False dichotomy. Other alternatives exist. For one example, which I do not support, is a creator god who has no further interest or involvement in the experiment.

I have seen no evidence that even suggests to me that gods exist.

G: At this point in time, I do not see myself ever belonging to an organized group for the reason being that any organized group, including Atheism, distracts from the Truth and leads one back into the world of a false reality. Surely things exist in material form, but for how long? Even the mountains are not the same day after day with the subtle erosion from rivulets and streams winding their way down taking particles along the way and depositing them into the ground far below where it originated, as you described in the debate. Organized religious groups, as you have stated before, create absolutes that are unfounded...and this should also include atheism.[/quote]

ZZ: Have you noticed that I do NOT identify myself as an Atheist? I agree that group membership tends toward acceptance of group mores – which does not appeal to me in any area of life.

[gbh]

ZZ: I have taken a very BOLD step in our discussions -- and bolded my replies to reduce confusion (mine). This is not to suggest that I am bolder (or more confused) than you or vice versa.

G: *smile* Well, I have this class I am taking is making it easier for me to begin using the proper code, as my brain is slowly migrating to that way of thinking…but it is my fault for being so lazy. I like the bold.

ZZ: Exactly what theory of mine are you attempting to prove false? (I have thoughts and theories regarding a number of matters, and am not sure exactly what you mean).

GBH: Your ideology of taking an alternate view of Christianity and, for that matter, theism as not being necessarily the answer to the universe. The problem lies in the fact that I am not a standard Christian but one who tries to understand the silver thread running through those words attributed to Christ and attaching them to something that makes sense in life.

I’m not really sure you have made any firm stands in anything but you take an oppositional side from Christians and theists in arguments and have a grasp on how to stay true to that side in an argument, so you are a good debater…

ZZ: “Thoughts of god” are quite distant from any advantage I might attribute to increased mental capacity. I would tend to think that god thoughts were counter-productive (religious competition, conflict, warfare, destruction of civilizations, etc).

Why do you suggest that I would be saying something about god thoughts when I have said no such thing -- and would not be expected to make god-supporting statements.

GBH: Hmmm…I am using a different computer now, and do not have the old file from which I wrote this response. What I do remember of the substance was that I was posturing that men, by virtue of means or those who live simply that lend them to be able to satisfy basic needs, have evolved into thinking men…whose needs have evolved into something of a higher realm. It is when you responded with this statement:

Z: There is some evidence to suggest that humans developed large brains to compensate for lack in speed, agility, endurance, strength, eyesight, hearing, etc. Are you positive that our mental ability is at or beyond need fulfillment (or, more accurately, beyond what provides an advantage in survival and reproduction)?

GBH: In looking at this now, I see my error…you were trying to explain the evolution of mind with something other than a God response.

ZZ: Why? Because unless there is total uniformity in a population the variation MUST result in some being above the “norm” and some below.

So, in fact, differences are expected BECAUSE there is variation. Some people are taller than others; some are very short. Is the matter of “why” some are taller, or more intelligent, or more blue-eyed important to the discussion somehow?

G:Yes, because those that rise above the norm have evolved past the base level of humanity…the bar has been raised. With each succeeding generation of philosophical thought since the Pre-Socratics, the ideas that were generated back then have evolved from a polytheistic notion that elements of the Universe were themselves gods to something that, at least I am, trying to flesh out, is a God that makes sense given what we do know. Galileo is a big example of someone who evolved past the Church, it does not mean that science should necessarily replace God, but that possibly the Church’s understanding of God was not accurate.

This argument, however, is leading itself into the idea of a unicorn with a silver mane, so I shall end it.

ZZ: The “point” of conscious means nothing to me. I do not make a distinction between humans and animals because I realize that humans ARE animals. Animals certainly HAVE evolved. Why would one claim that they have not? Are you saying that other animals, as far as we know, have not evolved mental capacity similar to those of humans? That is FAR different from saying that “animals have not evolved”.

G: Fair enough, but why are humans higher up the food chain with obvious dominion over them by virtue of reason and intellect…it is not to deny that given I am left alone in a jungle that I would survive by any stretch, but why were humans endowed with thought, whereas animals do not have such a wide range? My dog is very smart, and if she could talk, would most likely have the brain age of a 2-3 year old child, but she will not have the capacity of thought like you.

I am not a scientist, but based on my limited knowledge, animals have been around longer than humans, and yet, humans, at whatever point they became conscious, did so, while the remainder of the animals progressed at a lower level. Further, some animals have abilities that far exceed that of a human being, as you discussed above, but humans have, as you also discussed above, compensated by having larger brains…but that is my point – if we are an evolutionary species, why were we as a genus/species selected to have this ability over any other animal…why not all animals?

ZZ: I agree that gods and religion are not joined at the hip. However, ours is an uncommon position.

G: I am glad that is in agreement.

ZZ: The admonition to favor the least complicated answer is often – NOT ALWAYS – appropriate – PROVIDED that the least complicated answer ACTUALLY and adequately addresses the problem. A simplistic incorrect answer is not preferable to a complex correct answer.

G: Why Z, are you admitting that my simplistic answer is incorrect? This is very bad news. However, I have started from nothing and made it to this basic state, and unless you can prove to me how something was derived from nothing, I have to presume that a something is out there that is greater than myself and move forward from that assumption.

G: You wrote in another thread elsewhere:

Z: I have no doubt that one could be a theist yet not follow the herd. It appears as though a couple members of this forum fit that description.

G: I am glad that, too, is in agreement.

ZZ: HOW can we be absolutely CERTAIN that "he uttered" those words exactly (or even close)? How do we know for certain that they were not “sounds good” statements made up by churchmen as "put into the mouth of Jesus" in writings long after the supposed event? For that matter, can one say with certainty ANYTHING about what was spoken 2000 years ago and recorded long after the statements were made? Some statements could not have been heard by any person other than JC himself (i.e., when he was supposedly alone) are reported as though witnessed.

G: These are all very good arguments, and I agree except for the fact that even history, science and every other thing was written also on these same terms and the fact is that people have to prove in other ways how to get to the truth, right? In my line of work, I have to listen to a bunch of various people’s view points of an event and with the various versions in hand, plus documents and analysis, reconstruct the most likely event scenario that occurred. I try to use this same skill in evaluating what Jesus Christ "said" and what he may have meant.

If you agree that logic and reason must dictate one’s thoughts, then you will also agree that there must be, whether known or unknown, certain absolute truths that exist that cannot be denied because of their absolute-ness, right? If Jesus Christ was the Way and the Truth to God, then he would have to follow this logic and reason, otherwise, he is a fraud. So, one must discount all interpretative opinions and editing, take into consideration that those who wrote the Bible were trying to support their institution, but not necessarily trying to blatantly rewrite what was said but garnish it a bit to improve their position, and collect all of this with one’s thinking process, experience in life, discussion and other source information and come to some conclusions about what was really meant by what he said. It is not a hanging on to what he literally said, anymore than literally interpreting The Flood, does the end result make sense...does it seem to fit a Right Way of life? It is a process to be sure.

ZZ: What is the evidence to support the statement, “but God is not bound by just this force”? I suggest that it is an unsupportable assumption or assertion based upon belief or faith but without other verification.

G: There are things that are seen and unseen by man. What we perceive is not all that is. If one is to state that part of the definition of God is this “force of nature,” this statement is not inclusive of all things. If God is the “something” from which all things have been derived then isolating God to one facet is limiting. If you wish to state that I believe this by faith, then I will accept your opinion, for there is no other argument I can give.

The problem with this explanation is that one who is critical may say to me, “so, you think this rock is God?” My answer is no, but the energy that sustains it may well indeed be…but again, we are now trying to scientifically explain God in units of energy which is not altogether what I believe to be either. This consciousness that means nothing to you, means everything to me. It is the will, the intent to create for a purpose…it is supposition by me to assume that things are not random in nature, and I wish I could prove otherwise, but the design is so intricate and if it were random, would science not be made ineffectual? How could one ever prove anything if all things randomly occur in nature? It makes no sense.

ZZ: I do not accept, “we are given time on this Earth”. I will accept that we have a limited time to live on the Earth, but given implies a giver – which I do not accept.

G: ZZ, you are teasing me now. You are a scientist and know that everything is causal in nature, but what sets you apart is the fact that biological cause and effect did indeed take place, but your birth was a choice by someone other than yourself to give you life. Even if you cannot accept God as the giver of life, at least your biological parents did…and of course, you know the song and dance about their own lives. The important thing at work here is that there exist the two separate items in which I partially define God – that is, the actual energy that sustains the existence and the will/intent to create for a purpose.

ZZ: False dichotomy. Other alternatives exist. For one example, which I do not support, is a creator god who has no further interest or involvement in the experiment. I have seen no evidence that even suggests to me that gods exist.

G: Do you support other alternatives? Certainly it cannot be that we are our own god? And if it is that we are causality in motion, then I suppose I can understand the source of this other alternative, but I am glad you do not support it. However, why not? What has caused you to discount that possibility?

ZZ: Have you noticed that I do NOT identify myself as an Atheist? I agree that group membership tends toward acceptance of group mores – which does not appeal to me in any area of life.

G: I suppose that just because you argue in opposition to theism, I naturally assumed something that I shouldn’t have.

[gbh]

Z, I wish we had unlimited time to edit. I try to read and reread things to make sure I am clear, but here is an error:

Even if you cannot accept God as the giver of life, at least your biological parents did…and of course, you know the song and dance about their own lives.

I did not mean to insinuate that your parents believed in God, what I meant was that even if you cannot accept God as the giver of life, that at least your biological parents were givers of life...

Sorry!

[Zzyzx]

.

*smile* Well, I have this class I am taking is making it easier for me to begin using the proper code, as my brain is slowly migrating to that way of thinking…but it is my fault for being so lazy. I like the bold.

I like the bold too, but suspect that readers are more accustomed to the usual quote form. My use of bold rather than the usual quotes was a bit like instances when young friends of a chemotherapy patient shave their heads so the patient won’t feel conspicuous. I wanted you to feel comfortable in our forum because you have a lot to contribute.

Our readers are very important to me. If it were not for them, we could simply email back and forth. Putting our thoughts out in public lets others evaluate what we say, and perhaps comment if they choose. Just now I checked the forum statistics and in the last 24 hours there have been 37 members and 61 guests reading. Even our little thread has 42 views (which probably indicates at least a few people besides the two of us).

Exactly what theory of mine are you attempting to prove false? (I have thoughts and theories regarding a number of matters, and am not sure exactly what you mean).

Your ideology of taking an alternate view of Christianity and, for that matter, theism as not being necessarily the answer to the universe. The problem lies in the fact that I am not a standard Christian but one who tries to understand the silver thread running through those words attributed to Christ and attaching them to something that makes sense in life.

My challenging theism and Christianity is not an ideology in that I have no body of thought or theory to oppose supernaturalism. I simply do not accept tales of gods AND I disagree with public promotion of such tales as truth unless they can be demonstrated to be true.

You are pretty unique – among the rare few non-traditional Christians on this forum (and elsewhere) who express sensible ideas regarding spirituality rather than the intolerant and elitist dogma that is so typically spouted by theists. Other strong non-traditional theist debaters who come immediately to mind include Greatest I Am, Tselem, MagusYanam, and Achilles.

I’m not really sure you have made any firm stands in anything but you take an oppositional side from Christians and theists in arguments and have a grasp on how to stay true to that side in an argument . . .

Excellent observation. I am NOT championing a cause. I do not identify myself as an Atheist. I oppose ignorance, intolerance and coercion in any form. Those who state that their gods are __________________________ (fill in the blank), bear the burden of providing support for their arguments. I simply ask for that support – and find it lacking. I have the “easy side” of theism debates.

With each succeeding generation of philosophical thought since the Pre-Socratics, the ideas that were generated back then have evolved from a polytheistic notion that elements of the Universe were themselves gods to something that, at least I am, trying to flesh out, is a God that makes sense given what we do know.

I commend you on your efforts to seek truth. The advancement of knowledge often conflicts with organized religion’s dogma – so it is resisted. The debates about biblical literacy are an example of this – wherein present knowledge is dismissed as incorrect solely because it conflicts with bible stories (and with no solid contradictory evidence). “Sharpshooting” and “nitpicking” are tactics used by theists to attempt to discredit conflicting knowledge.

Galileo is a big example of someone who evolved past the Church, it does not mean that science should necessarily replace God, but that possibly the Church’s understanding of God was not accurate.

I agree completely. A rational god concept can fit with present knowledge and not insist upon operating at Bronze Age level to stay consistent with “scripture”.

The “point” of conscious means nothing to me. I do not make a distinction between humans and animals because I realize that humans ARE animals. Animals certainly HAVE evolved. Why would one claim that they have not? Are you saying that other animals, as far as we know, have not evolved mental capacity similar to those of humans? That is FAR different from saying that “animals have not evolved”.

Fair enough, but why are humans higher up the food chain with obvious dominion over them by virtue of reason and intellect…it is not to deny that given I am left alone in a jungle that I would survive by any stretch, but why were humans endowed with thought, whereas animals do not have such a wide range?

Let’s skip “food chain” consideration because that simply implies which species eats which other species – and probably doesn’t depend upon relative intelligence (and some humans are eaten by sharks and alligators).

Dominion is defined as “supreme authority” or “absolute ownership”. Perhaps it would be best if we viewed animals as fellow residents with whom we share the biosphere. We have advantages mentally and many of them have advantages physically. Each functions within its “niche”.

Some evolved excellent eyesight, others great speed, still others great strength. It does not surprise or puzzle me that some animals excel in some areas and some in different areas – and that our forte is intelligence.

Our intelligence may NOT be a long-term advantage if we manage to destroy species with the weapons we develop in attempts to compete with one another. If (or when) that happens, other species will adjust and adapt and we will not be missed.

I do not consider our intelligence totally different from that of your little dog. I have had a couple really smart dogs too, and give them credit. A blind friend had a guide dog that was absolutely amazing. He was a regular guest in psychology classes showing students the capabilities of a “mere” dog. The dog could figure out situations well beyond the ability of a very young child – perhaps more on the order of a ten-year-old.

I am not a scientist, but based on my limited knowledge, animals have been around longer than humans, and yet, humans, at whatever point they became conscious, did so, while the remainder of the animals progressed at a lower level.

A thousand freshmen start college. They go in different directions at different speeds. Some make remarkable progress, others are resounding failures, many are “average”. At the end of four years there is tremendous difference between the level of their accomplishments. The actual difference in causative factors may have not been very great but it is reflected over time and circumstance as producing great difference.

I see evolution as being somewhat similar to the students. Small differences magnified by time and circumstance (genetically, of course). Some changes (mutations) are advantageous but many are not. Those that have advantages in certain areas tend to develop more of those characteristics. Running speed might be an example. A large cat that can run particularly fast can catch prey, eat well, be healthy, have lots of offspring, feed them well – and thus promote the genetic endowment for speed.

Homo sapiens developed large brains that allowed them to obtain food and shelter and to avoid predators without great speed, eyesight, strength, etc. Over thousands of generations the most capable were best able to reproduce (though that may not be happening presently due to social considerations).

Further, some animals have abilities that far exceed that of a human being, as you discussed above, but humans have, as you also discussed above, compensated by having larger brains…but that is my point – if we are an evolutionary species, why were we as a genus/species selected to have this ability over any other animal…why not all animals?

Every animal cannot be the fastest or the strongest or the smartest. Humans are not the fastest or the strongest, but are the smartest. Win some, lose some. No surprise there.

I do not accept that we are the species “selected” to have relatively high intelligence. Selection implies a selector – a concept that has no meaning to me. I will accept that we are the species that has the highest intelligence.

The admonition to favor the least complicated answer is often – NOT ALWAYS – appropriate – PROVIDED that the least complicated answer ACTUALLY and adequately addresses the problem. A simplistic incorrect answer is not preferable to a complex correct answer.

Why Z, are you admitting that my simplistic answer is incorrect? This is very bad news. However, I have started from nothing and made it to this basic state, and unless you can prove to me how something was derived from nothing, I have to presume that a something is out there that is greater than myself and move forward from that assumption.

I do not dispute that “something out there that is greater than myself” is possible. None of us know what that means (though many THINK they know). I can deal with that if the “something” is nature – and we are children of nature. That works for me. I don’t need invisible super beings to create me or the universe.

In my line of work, I have to listen to a bunch of various people’s view points of an event and with the various versions in hand, plus documents and analysis, reconstruct the most likely event scenario that occurred. I try to use this same skill in evaluating what Jesus Christ "said" and what he may have meant.

Are you an insurance adjuster, a coroner, a detective?

What you describe is “convergence of evidence” – gathering information from a wide range of sources, compiling and analyzing, then drawing conclusions. That is very similar to the Scientific Method. The next step in the SM is to test the hypothesis, then to modify it to increase accuracy, and have it tested by others.

Can you actually apply that to what JC “said”? There is only ONE source and NO corroborating evidence. Those words appear nowhere but in church literature – written, collected, translated, transcribed, revised, modified, rewritten by churchmen – with an agenda of promoting their version of theism in competition with other religions.

How can anyone know what, if anything, JC said when the supposed conversations were often NOT recorded by eyewitnesses and were not recorded until generations after they were supposedly spoken. HOW can there be an accurate record of what was said under those conditions?

If you and I have conversations and they are not recorded until your grandchildren’s generation (but merely repeated), what are the chances that our EXACT words will be preserved? Fat chance – right? Some of the bible writings were made a century or two after the supposed conversations. In my opinion, there is approximately zero chance that verbally repeated stories over several generations will preserve the original unmodified.

There are numerous learned opinions that suggest that the bible stories are total invention. None of the main characters can be found in extra-biblical sources. The authors of biblical writings are NOT known with certainty (and other works by them are not available for study). The tales are incredible. Even many theologians state that some of the bible tales are not literal.

If some of the bible is not literal, how can one identify with certainty which parts ARE literally true? Which should be ignored and which should be taken seriously? Many of the bible stories are absolute atrocities – bears mauling children for making fun of a bald man – a man being killed for breaking the Sabbath by gathering firewood – infants being deliberately killed in great numbers – young women being taken captive for sexual purposes – all humans on Earth being killed because they are “wicked” and “evil” (i.e., do not worship the jealous god correctly) etc.

If you agree that logic and reason must dictate one’s thoughts, then you will also agree that there must be, whether known or unknown, certain absolute truths that exist that cannot be denied because of their absolute-ness, right?

To tell the truth, G, I don’t give a great deal of concern to “certain absolute truths”. I deal with the real world I inhabit – not with ultimate absolutes such as infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life. I leave those matters to those who chose to devote their lives to such matters. The extremes of philosophy are similarly beyond my capabilities and/or interest.

What is the evidence to support the statement, “but God is not bound by just this force”? I suggest that it is an unsupportable assumption or assertion based upon belief or faith but without other verification.

There are things that are seen and unseen by man. What we perceive is not all that is.

There are things beyond our present ability to observe and measure. Is that what you mean? Why is that significant or surprising? My parents’ generation did not have the electron microscope – now we do. Ten generations from now (if humans last that long) even greater capabilities should be commonplace.

I do not feel any need to “explain” what cannot be detected or understood. Thus, I do not need to invent any gods to create or fiddle with things in order for me to feel satisfied with what I know about the world around me.

I am not the least bit hesitant to say, “I don’t know”. I usually add, “and neither do you” when the subject is supernaturalism.

If one is to state that part of the definition of God is this “force of nature,” this statement is not inclusive of all things. If God is the “something” from which all things have been derived then isolating God to one facet is limiting. If you wish to state that I believe this by faith, then I will accept your opinion, for there is no other argument I can give.

The problem with this explanation is that one who is critical may say to me, “so, you think this rock is God?” My answer is no, but the energy that sustains it may well indeed be…but again, we are now trying to scientifically explain God in units of energy which is not altogether what I believe to be either. This consciousness that means nothing to you, means everything to me. It is the will, the intent to create for a purpose…it is supposition by me to assume that things are not random in nature, and I wish I could prove otherwise, but the design is so intricate and if it were random, would science not be made ineffectual? How could one ever prove anything if all things randomly occur in nature? It makes no sense.

You lost me on most of this, but that’s okay.

However, I do not accept “intricate” or “complex” as an indication of intent or a creator. I do not feel obligated to understand or explain how complexity occurs because I readily admit that I do not know. Others insist that they do KNOW because their favored gods are responsible. That assumption is based on their faith, not upon knowledge or evidence.

I do not accept, “we are given time on this Earth”. I will accept that we have a limited time to live on the Earth, but given implies a giver – which I do not accept.

ZZ, you are teasing me now. You are a scientist and know that everything is causal in nature, but what sets you apart is the fact that biological cause and effect did indeed take place, but your birth was a choice by someone other than yourself to give you life.

Shucks, it ain’t all that complicated. Mom and Dad were “fooling around” and she got pregnant (Catholic, you know). You’d think that my birth would be enough to discourage them – but they kept fooling around until they had three more boys (no girls).

False dichotomy. Other alternatives exist. For one example, which I do not support, is a creator god who has no further interest or involvement in the experiment. I have seen no evidence that even suggests to me that gods exist.

Do you support other alternatives? Certainly it cannot be that we are our own god? And if it is that we are causality in motion, then I suppose I can understand the source of this other alternative, but I am glad you do not support it. However, why not? What has caused you to discount that possibility?

Actually, I do not support any idea of a “creator” simply because I have seen absolutely NO evidence that such a thing exists. I am open to being convinced by gods or by visitors from outer space, but I am NOT open to being convinced by TALES of gods or extraterrestrials – particularly if told by Bronze Age writers with an agenda and repeated in various forms by their self-appointed “representatives” (or by obviously delusional people or people seeking to make a profit).

Have you noticed that I do NOT identify myself as an Atheist? I agree that group membership tends toward acceptance of group mores – which does not appeal to me in any area of life.

I suppose that just because you argue in opposition to theism, I naturally assumed something that I shouldn’t have.

You are among the few who acknowledge an understanding that not all opponents of theism are atheists. Some are agnostic and some are absolutely unconcerned with the matter. I would tend to be the latter, except that theists have made me an enemy of their cause by attempting to take a superior position in discussion in person or in forums. I do not take kindly to anyone attempting to outrank me or to claim superiority, particularly when that claim is based on religious beliefs – for which there is no evidence of credibility.

[gbh]

I simply ask for that support – and find it lacking. I have the “easy side” of theism debates.

G: So, I guess I won’t be challenging you after all, the ball is back in my court, once again.

I agree completely. A rational god concept can fit with present knowledge and not insist upon operating at Bronze Age level to stay consistent with “scripture”.

G: I am glad you are that open-minded.

I see evolution as being somewhat similar to the students. Small differences magnified by time and circumstance (genetically, of course). Some changes (mutations) are advantageous but many are not. Those that have advantages in certain areas tend to develop more of those characteristics. Running speed might be an example. A large cat that can run particularly fast can catch prey, eat well, be healthy, have lots of offspring, feed them well – and thus promote the genetic endowment for speed.

G: So you do not see intelligence as something that is greater than say speed or advanced eyesight? (Specifically, as a general characteristic rather than how it is applied. ) If you were given a choice, would you choose intelligence over any other?

I do not accept that we are the species “selected” to have relatively high intelligence. Selection implies a selector – a concept that has no meaning to me.

G: Does the concept have no meaning to you because it is unfounded or you do not care one way or the other?

What you describe is “convergence of evidence” – gathering information from a wide range of sources, compiling and analyzing, then drawing conclusions. That is very similar to the Scientific Method. The next step in the SM is to test the hypothesis, then to modify it to increase accuracy, and have it tested by others.

G: In the case of Scripture, I test the hypothesis by trying to live it. It is oftentimes difficult to do this, as in recently having to make a decision to do something that was right despite the possible bad outcome. Both decision and outcome have been decidedly uncomfortable for me, and it isn’t quite over yet, but I know it was the right thing to do. The decision made is in accordance with my hypothesis, so we shall see, perhaps one day if it merits modification.

In some churches, a hypothesis held by the current preacher could be tested by trying it out on his/her congregation, and seeing how it flies. If the preacher is too unconventional, he may be replaced by another with a different hypothesis that suited the congregation.

Can you actually apply that to what JC “said”? There is only ONE source and NO corroborating evidence. Those words appear nowhere but in church literature – written, collected, translated, transcribed, revised, modified, rewritten by churchmen – with an agenda of promoting their version of theism in competition with other religions.

G: It is the only way to prove anything, but is anything exact science? You are always working with a theory. You prove one, which then leads to another. In my line of work, we never know the true story, we have to go with the “convergence of evidence,” and how it is presented, for others to decide. We do not get the luxury of unlimited time as are given in science and religious theory, so we have to hope we did a good job ferreting out the truth. In the end, one’s religious theory is still just that, but hopefully the truth one ferreted out enabled them to live a righteous life, while acknowledging the beauty in life along the way…even those times that did not seem so beautiful.

How can anyone know what, if anything, JC said when the supposed conversations were often NOT recorded by eyewitnesses and were not recorded until generations after they were supposedly spoken. HOW can there be an accurate record of what was said under those conditions?

G: There cannot be, but again, if what was written does not stand the test of logic, reason and sound judgment, then its failure will manifest. The problem is not so much the words themselves, but the interpretation of them. Again, if there exist absolute truths, which even science works towards, then there must exist a right way of living, a logical, reason-filled code to live by. The essence has to be there or it is in error. There are many logical statements attributed to Jesus Christ…could these have been placed there by monks in a Catholic Church who wanted to plant an “easter egg” in the Bible, certainly…but does it take away from its essence, its fundamental truth?

Something that was attributed to Christ was the story of the Apostles who came to Christ stating that others not of their group were casting out demons in his name. He replied that if they were doing this in his name, they were not against him. So, if these "renegades" were doing good deeds not authorized personally by Christ, they were still doing what was right, and that was what Christ's mission seems to be - that is, living the right way.

What bothers me the most, and I have good friends who are this way, is this attachment to the Bible as if there is nothing else to God. I know you do not ascribe to God theory, but, to me, the Bible is an accessory to what should be. Is justice found in written laws or does the judge/jury dispense it? What is the nature of what the judge/jury gives versus the written word of the law? It is an essence of something, not the words themselves. If law was that black and white, you might as well go to a discount store to receive your punishment.

Z: If you and I have conversations and they are not recorded until your grandchildren’s generation (but merely repeated), what are the chances that our EXACT words will be preserved? Fat chance – right? Some of the bible writings were made a century or two after the supposed conversations. In my opinion, there is approximately zero chance that verbally repeated stories over several generations will preserve the original unmodified.

There are numerous learned opinions that suggest that the bible stories are total invention. None of the main characters can be found in extra-biblical sources. The authors of biblical writings are NOT known with certainty (and other works by them are not available for study). The tales are incredible. Even many theologians state that some of the bible tales are not literal.

If some of the bible is not literal, how can one identify with certainty which parts ARE literally true? Which should be ignored and which should be taken seriously? Many of the bible stories are absolute atrocities – bears mauling children for making fun of a bald man – a man being killed for breaking the Sabbath by gathering firewood – infants being deliberately killed in great numbers – young women being taken captive for sexual purposes – all humans on Earth being killed because they are “wicked” and “evil” (i.e., do not worship the jealous god correctly) etc.

G: I cannot take it all literally, but what if the stories are historically accurate, but man, being the superstitious being that he is, attributed acts of man to an act of God? What if the stories are fictionalized versions of a less grandiose history in order to make a point? And why did God talk to people a lot more back then "out of the cloud" than he does today? God is alive not in a book. These people would do well to go to the mountains and be for awhile without any books...and pay attention to God...as would I.

Z, I cannot testify to the validity of the Bible nor is that my goal. My goal is to understand a Right Way to live and Christ purportedly espoused that Ideal objective. As you know, there are other religions who’s Way includes much of the same tenets as Christ taught, so his teachings are a little more universal than just Christianity. I suppose I can add this one to the SM of hypothesis testing.

Z:There are things beyond our present ability to observe and measure. Is that what you mean? Why is that significant or surprising? My parents’ generation did not have the electron microscope – now we do. Ten generations from now (if humans last that long) even greater capabilities should be commonplace.

G: Yes, sorry for the unscientific language. But if we assume that there is a First Cause made up of substance, energy and creative force, part of which is imbued in Nature itself, it is infinite because it is all that is and is not limited in scope. All is All.

I do not feel any need to “explain” what cannot be detected or understood. Thus, I do not need to invent any gods to create or fiddle with things in order for me to feel satisfied with what I know about the world around me.

G: So why does it bother you that others do feel the need to explain and attempt to do so? As long as their belief in God or gods does not interfere with you and your world, why do argue against what they say? Perhaps rather than asking for proof that their gods or God exists, you should address their poor psychological behavior at feeling the need to chastise others for their lack of belief. These people may need a therapist instead. After all, this may be the point of contention for you.

Instead of asking these Bible-beaters and Hell-threateners how they justify their God, you may want to consider asking them how this behavior they exhibit is Christ-like. Ask them to show you where in the Bible that Christ says they can behave as they do…they will never find it in there. And if one tries, I would be very interested in hearing it.

I am not the least bit hesitant to say, “I don’t know”. I usually add, “and neither do you” when the subject is supernaturalism.

G: And that is entirely a fair request, but I must say that I believe in God, not one that can be quantified and qualified or explained why I do.

However, I do not accept “intricate” or “complex” as an indication of intent or a creator. I do not feel obligated to understand or explain how complexity occurs because I readily admit that I do not know. Others insist that they do KNOW because their favored gods are responsible. That assumption is based on their faith, not upon knowledge or evidence.

G:You must be a happy person, maybe happy isn’t a good word, but accepting of what life brings about and further that your life is full of meaning such that you do not wonder what the point is. If so, should we all be this way. Jesus Christ stated that the “Kingdom of Heaven” belonged to one who is as a child, loving and trusting and innocent. Perhaps being a realist would make it easier to be this way, while being an Idealist lends one the tendency to live in one’s head too much contemplating the nature of a thing rather than living in the nature of the thing.

What I was trying to discover is whether or not “what is” occurred randomly or has design to it. Some people would like to think that the creation of all things was random floating particles that just happened to ignite themselves without purpose, we are an accident. If there is design and we acknowledge something greater than ourselves, then it is in the realm of possibilities that this something greater than ourselves created the Universe by design and for meaning and purpose.

You are among the few who acknowledge an understanding that not all opponents of theism are atheists. Some are agnostic and some are absolutely unconcerned with the matter. I would tend to be the latter…

If discussing this Ideal View of Life is of no interest, please let me know. I had no idea that you did not wonder about such things. One thing that would be interesting is to see your arguments challenging what he has to say…not that he could defend himself...

[Zzyzx]

.

So you do not see intelligence as something that is greater than say speed or advanced eyesight? (Specifically, as a general characteristic rather than how it is applied. ) If you were given a choice, would you choose intelligence over any other?

In many instances intelligence appears to be a greater advantage than any one physical characteristic. Of course, I would choose intelligence. However, I do not feel superior to animals that have and abundance of other characteristics. I love to watch hawks and eagles, for instance (which we can do where we live). Majestic. I do not feel superior.

Intelligence is just one of many characteristics that have evolved. Some animals got more of one thing characteristic than did others. The “long suit” of humans is intelligence. I do not regard that as requiring “explanation” or “divine interference”.

I do not accept that we are the species “selected” to have relatively high intelligence. Selection implies a selector – a concept that has no meaning to me.

G: Does the concept have no meaning to you because it is unfounded or you do not care one way or the other?

Of the choices you provide, “unfounded” is closest. I would tend to say that there is no convincing evidence of a “selector” (or creator).

What you describe is “convergence of evidence” – gathering information from a wide range of sources, compiling and analyzing, then drawing conclusions. That is very similar to the Scientific Method. The next step in the SM is to test the hypothesis, then to modify it to increase accuracy, and have it tested by others.

G: In the case of Scripture, I test the hypothesis by trying to live it.

Scripture does not allow “convergence of evidence” because there IS no evidence to converge. There are mere writings of humans that have been variously translated, transcribed, revised, rewritten, and variously interpreted – and given “holy meaning” by churchmen. Gods did not write any religion’s “holy books”. They are all written by man claiming to speak for gods.

I favor basing decisions in the real world upon information from the real world. I find no need for supernatural assistance in decision making – and make some decisions that stand the test of time and truth, and some that do not. I take credit for my successes and take full responsibility for my poor decisions.

It is oftentimes difficult to do this, as in recently having to make a decision to do something that was right despite the possible bad outcome. Both decision and outcome have been decidedly uncomfortable for me, and it isn’t quite over yet, but I know it was the right thing to do.

Congratulations on doing what you considered to be the right thing – particularly if no one was watching. I regard “when no one is watching” as a test of one’s personal ethics.

Can you actually apply that to what JC “said”? There is only ONE source and NO corroborating evidence. Those words appear nowhere but in church literature – written, collected, translated, transcribed, revised, modified, rewritten by churchmen – with an agenda of promoting their version of theism in competition with other religions.

G: It is the only way to prove anything, but is anything exact science? You are always working with a theory. You prove one, which then leads to another.

I disagree. There are many ways to prove something correct (or at least to suggest strongly from many points of reference what is correct). When there is a single source of information, the probability of error greatly increases (as I am sure you are aware in your work). Convergence of evidence is far superior to single source, IMO.

In the end, one’s religious theory is still just that, but hopefully the truth one ferreted out enabled them to live a righteous life, while acknowledging the beauty in life along the way…even those times that did not seem so beautiful.

One can live a “righteous life” (meaning morally right) without religious theory.

I maintain that one is more likely to discover truth if not bound by religious limitations. No religion possesses “The Truth” though all seem to claim to. Therefore, truth should be pursued where it is – rather than where it is not.

How can anyone know what, if anything, JC said when the supposed conversations were often NOT recorded by eyewitnesses and were not recorded until generations after they were supposedly spoken. HOW can there be an accurate record of what was said under those conditions?

G: There cannot be, but again, if what was written does not stand the test of logic, reason and sound judgment, then its failure will manifest.

The failure manifests earlier to some than to others. What is written in the bible does not stand the test of logic, reason and sound judgment IMO. I think that has been adequately demonstrated in these threads.

The problem is not so much the words themselves, but the interpretation of them.

I agree partially. The words are suspect since they were recorded long after supposedly being spoken. Interpretation is purely a function of the interpreter. One can “interpret” biblical passages to mean anything they wish depending upon which passages are selected and what meaning is attached to the words or ideas. “Weasel words” are characteristic of biblical interpretation – “Day doesn’t mean day, it means a million years”, for instance. Or, “Here is what god really meant by what he said”.

Again, if there exist absolute truths, which even science works towards, then there must exist a right way of living, a logical, reason-filled code to live by.

There may be more than one “right way of living”. In fact, there may be as many different “right ways” as there are human beings. What is right for one is not right for another. Perhaps our task is to find the path that is right for us. I have.

The essence has to be there or it is in error. There are many logical statements attributed to Jesus Christ…could these have been placed there by monks in a Catholic Church who wanted to plant an “easter egg” in the Bible, certainly…but does it take away from its essence, its fundamental truth?

This assumes that there is “fundamental truth” in what is recorded. How does one know that is true?

If monks placed “Easter eggs” in the mouth of JC, they have committed fraud – unless they identify their work as fiction. Fiction can relay important information and concepts; however, fraud cannot be justified by claiming that it produces good effect.

. . . . that was what Christ's mission seems to be - that is, living the right way.

Some of the statements attributed to JC appear to be consistent with a mission to convey the right way to live. However, other statements appear to be those of a madman.

What bothers me the most, and I have good friends who are this way, is this attachment to the Bible as if there is nothing else to God.

Literalists and fundamentalists appear to be very bound to the bible.

I know you do not ascribe to God theory, but, to me, the Bible is an accessory to what should be. Is justice found in written laws or does the judge/jury dispense it? What is the nature of what the judge/jury gives versus the written word of the law?

Perhaps we should consult someone who knows more about law than I (or we) do. Flail might help us on this matter.

My understanding is that under our system of criminal law, the law as written is enforced by the court.

It is an essence of something, not the words themselves. If law was that black and white, you might as well go to a discount store to receive your punishment.

The duty of the court is to determine whether there has been an infraction of the law by the defendant (as proved by the prosecution)

Z: If you and I have conversations and they are not recorded until your grandchildren’s generation (but merely repeated), what are the chances that our EXACT words will be preserved? Fat chance – right? Some of the bible writings were made a century or two after the supposed conversations. In my opinion, there is approximately zero chance that verbally repeated stories over several generations will preserve the original unmodified.

G: I cannot take it all literally, but what if the stories are historically accurate, but man, being the superstitious being that he is, attributed acts of man to an act of God?

I would say that in that instance we can call it The Bible. It is my contention that the bible stories were invented, retold and recorded by churchmen with an agenda to promote their brand of religion.

What if the stories are fictionalized versions of a less grandiose history in order to make a point?

Again, I would say that is exactly what the bible represents.

And why did God talk to people a lot more back then "out of the cloud" than he does today?

The lack of “god contact” is a great defect in conventional Christianity. A bunch of religionists 2000 years ago claim frequent contact – then nothing since.

God is alive not in a book.

I understand that you believe that.

These people would do well to go to the mountains and be for awhile without any books...and pay attention to God...as would I.

I have “gone to the mountains” and live very close to nature. The Earth is awe inspiring. Nature is grand. It needs no “supervision” from supernatural beings.

Z, I cannot testify to the validity of the Bible nor is that my goal. My goal is to understand a Right Way to live and Christ purportedly espoused that Ideal objective.

I commend you in your determination to live by your conscience.

There are things beyond our present ability to observe and measure. Is that what you mean? Why is that significant or surprising? My parents’ generation did not have the electron microscope – now we do. Ten generations from now (if humans last that long) even greater capabilities should be commonplace.

G: Yes, sorry for the unscientific language. But if we assume that there is a First Cause made up of substance, energy and creative force, part of which is imbued in Nature itself, it is infinite because it is all that is and is not limited in scope. All is All.

I see no reason to “assume there is a First Cause” or to spend time and energy contemplating the matter.

I do not feel any need to “explain” what cannot be detected or understood. Thus, I do not need to invent any gods to create or fiddle with things in order for me to feel satisfied with what I know about the world around me.

G: So why does it bother you that others do feel the need to explain and attempt to do so? As long as their belief in God or gods does not interfere with you and your world, why do argue against what they say?

Thank you for asking. I view organized, commercial, competitive religion as the greatest evil ever invented by humans. Religions attempt to gain superiority for their cause (and increase income and influence) by competing vigorously for customers.

The “sell” salvation (from “hell” that they invent) and promise rewards in an “afterlife” that they cannot demonstrate exists – for those who obey clerics.

In the process of competing with one another, religious promote divisiveness, hostility, conflict and warfare. Religious wars are a constant feature of human history.

Religions have steadfastly resisted the advancement of knowledge (even medicine) because new information conflicts with dogma based on Bronze Age ignorance recorded in “sacred” books by several religions.

I do not challenge or criticize anyone’s personal, private beliefs. However, when they display their beliefs in public they are promoting those beliefs. I disagree with promoting a product that cannot be shown to be anything more than fraud.

Perhaps rather than asking for proof that their gods or God exists, you should address their poor psychological behavior at feeling the need to chastise others for their lack of belief. These people may need a therapist instead. After all, this may be the point of contention for you.

I do address the poor behavior of theists who attempt to claim moral or personal high ground by virtue of their religious beliefs. I just do not do it as directly and kindly is might be possible.

Instead of asking these Bible-beaters and Hell-threateners how they justify their God, you may want to consider asking them how this behavior they exhibit is Christ-like. Ask them to show you where in the Bible that Christ says they can behave as they do…they will never find it in there. And if one tries, I would be very interested in hearing it.

I can appreciate the potential in what you suggest; however, it is my style to approach the matter quite differently. I ask questions to which traditional Christian answers make no sense at all. The answers cannot be based upon evidence, because there is none (other than the bible).

My intended audience is often not the person to whom comments are addressed (present company excepted), but rather other readers who can evaluate what is said on both sides of a debate.

I am not the least bit hesitant to say, “I don’t know”. I usually add, “and neither do you” when the subject is supernaturalism.

G: And that is entirely a fair request, but I must say that I believe in God, not one that can be quantified and qualified or explained why I do.

I accept that you believe in god – and do so in a rational way that is far removed from the typical intolerant, hateful, condemning Christianity that is characteristic of many posts on these boards.

However, I do not accept “intricate” or “complex” as an indication of intent or a creator. I do not feel obligated to understand or explain how complexity occurs because I readily admit that I do not know. Others insist that they do KNOW because their favored gods are responsible. That assumption is based on their faith, not upon knowledge or evidence.

G:You must be a happy person, maybe happy isn’t a good word, but accepting of what life brings about and further that your life is full of meaning such that you do not wonder what the point is.

Thank you for recognizing that. “Happy” works but perhaps I would add satisfied and fulfilled. I have a wonderful partner and we have created a lifestyle that suits us completely – no bills, no boss, no obligations, no expectations, no unmet needs.

If so, should we all be this way. Jesus Christ stated that the “Kingdom of Heaven” belonged to one who is as a child, loving and trusting and innocent.

We are loving, trusting and generous toward others – until we have reason to withdraw, which we do very strongly if needed. We are often disappointed that many people are “on the take” and have no idea of the beauty of balanced relationships. However, we know how to draw and enforce boundaries.

Perhaps being a realist would make it easier to be this way, while being an Idealist lends one the tendency to live in one’s head too much contemplating the nature of a thing rather than living in the nature of the thing.

Being a realist does have advantages.

What I was trying to discover is whether or not “what is” occurred randomly or has design to it. Some people would like to think that the creation of all things was random floating particles that just happened to ignite themselves without purpose, we are an accident. If there is design and we acknowledge something greater than ourselves, then it is in the realm of possibilities that this something greater than ourselves created the Universe by design and for meaning and purpose.

One can acknowledge “something greater than ourselves” without crediting that “force” with creating the universe and giving purpose. Nature is awesome. It needs no creator.

You are among the few who acknowledge an understanding that not all opponents of theism are atheists. Some are agnostic and some are absolutely unconcerned with the matter. I would tend to be the latter…

If discussing this Ideal View of Life is of no interest, please let me know. I had no idea that you did not wonder about such things. One thing that would be interesting is to see your arguments challenging what he has to say…not that he could defend himself...

I am interested in discussing views of life with people with any point of view. Your views are particularly interesting.
.

[gbh]

I favor basing decisions in the real world upon information from the real world. I find no need for supernatural assistance in decision making – and make some decisions that stand the test of time and truth, and some that do not.

G: I had learned once in a class about Natural Law, which defined states that it is a pattern of necessary and universal regularity; a universal moral imperative; a description of what ought to happen in all human relationships. This law was credited to Aristotle, however, Aquinas integrated it into his theories, obviously stating that God had placed it in nature when he created it. Barring Aquinas’ God theory, would you ascribe to a set of right living through this idea of natural law? Or do you believe us to be determined by nature, incapable of change?

I disagree. There are many ways to prove something correct (or at least to suggest strongly from many points of reference what is correct).

G: Yes, first source eye witness is good, but there must be additional evidence to support because people do not always remember things exactly as they were. I suppose if a film camera were running constantly with audio, it may work. But let’s think of it this way, even if you had a film camera on one spot, and there was a scuffle where the camera only picked up when the good guy pelted the bad guy after the bad guy had tried to stab the good guy, but no one was around. The bad guy may claim that the good guy was actually the bad guy, and it would be hard to prove otherwise if the film was all you had. Similarly, if one completely relied upon the Bible as their main source of information on God, they are sorely lacking in the proof department. There has to be more.

[T]ruth should be pursued where it is – rather than where it is not.

G: I like this statement very much.

There may be more than one “right way of living”. In fact, there may be as many different “right ways” as there are human beings. What is right for one is not right for another. Perhaps our task is to find the path that is right for us. I have.

G: In thinking about this, you are right because all of us are born with different predispositions, therefore, statistically there could be any number of combinations of things that would lend one person to live right while it may make another live wrong. But it seems that this all goes back to choices one makes. When I attended Church a several years ago, our priest told us a story that could be true or fiction, I cannot recall. Anyhow, the story dealt with twin sisters of a severely alchoholic and abusive father, with possibly no mother. One of the sisters ended up in a life of drugs and prostitution while the other lived a normal life. The one that self-destructed blamed her misfortune on her father. Why does one rise above the ashes while the other stays in them? Does one choose to live in the mire from which they come rather than trying to make it right? I really liked Flail’s story of the two wolves inside us all; stating you get to choose which one you feed.

This assumes that there is “fundamental truth” in what is recorded. How does one know that is true?

G: I suppose I see your point here as it relates back to the previous comment, but it would seem to me that you are being relative if you do not state that there are certain moral imperatives in life, how does one measure what is right to know if one has found the correct path? Certainly, it cannot be because one may think it right, so how do you judge this in your own life?

If monks placed “Easter eggs” in the mouth of JC, they have committed fraud – unless they identify their work as fiction. Fiction can relay important information and concepts; however, fraud cannot be justified by claiming that it produces good effect.

G: Does the story in the Bible concerning the dispelling of demons in the name of Christ without his authority and Christ stating that as long as it was done in his name is not wrong, not mitigate this fraud? This story presupposes a valid record of the event, but assuming it was a factual story, would it then?

Some of the statements attributed to JC appear to be consistent with a mission to convey the right way to live. However, other statements appear to be those of a madman.

G: What statements appear to be those of a madman? Can you give me an example or two?

I have “gone to the mountains” and live very close to nature. The Earth is awe inspiring. Nature is grand. It needs no “supervision” from supernatural beings.

G: So we can concede that the possibility exists that it needs no supervision from supernatural beings because it is What Is? For how can one supervise oneself?

I can appreciate the potential in what you suggest; however, it is my style to approach the matter quite differently. I ask questions to which traditional Christian answers make no sense at all. The answers cannot be based upon evidence, because there is none (other than the bible). My intended audience is often not the person to whom comments are addressed (present company excepted), but rather other readers who can evaluate what is said on both sides of a debate.

G: You give compelling arguments, which supports the notion that again it is easier to not believe than to believe. Does the Bible have any significance to you at all? Clearly, it is a historical document, whether you believe it to be fiction or distorted truth. The Letters that Paul wrote reflect historical evidence of the early church, but I suppose this doesn’t go far to lend any more credibility to the Gospels.

One can acknowledge “something greater than ourselves” without crediting that “force” with creating the universe and giving purpose.

G: But then “something greater than ourselves” is just a nebulous term and has no meaning. You see a mountain and you want to learn everything you can about it, its formations, composition, its age, how it was formed because it is of interest to you. Do you think that if you had any interest in the “something greater than ourselves” that you may be surprised at what you discover?

As to the Lectures, do not trouble yourself. I will read them and will post it for discussion if anyone is interested in responding.

[Zzyzx]

.

I favor basing decisions in the real world upon information from the real world. I find no need for supernatural assistance in decision making – and make some decisions that stand the test of time and truth, and some that do not.

G: I had learned once in a class about Natural Law, which defined states that it is a pattern of necessary and universal regularity; a universal moral imperative; a description of what ought to happen in all human relationships. This law was credited to Aristotle, however, Aquinas integrated it into his theories, obviously stating that God had placed it in nature when he created it. Barring Aquinas’ God theory, would you ascribe to a set of right living through this idea of natural law? Or do you believe us to be determined by nature, incapable of change?

I find no reason to contemplate “natural law”, “universal regularity”, “universal moral imperative”, etc. I live my life in the real world that surrounds me – and deal with fellow humans, other animals and the environment as best I can from what experience has taught me. I do not seek external guidance or “ultimate truth”.

Others disagree and feel a need to contemplate lofty matters and ask invisible beings to guide their decisions. They are certainly welcome to do those things. I simply live (simply) without them. Sometimes it appears as though they wonder why I appear to be happy and fulfilled while others do not. Perhaps herein lies part of the answer.

I disagree. There are many ways to prove something correct (or at least to suggest strongly from many points of reference what is correct).

G: Yes, first source eye witness is good, but there must be additional evidence to support because people do not always remember things exactly as they were.

I would say that eyewitnesses are NOT a good means of proving something correct – because eyewitnesses are so often wrong. Several witnesses to an event have totally different recollections of what happened.

My areas of concern are generally not areas that are heavily dependent upon eyewitness statements as evidence. I prefer as evidence data that can be, and have been, verified by convergence of evidence.

Similarly, if one completely relied upon the Bible as their main source of information on God, they are sorely lacking in the proof department. There has to be more.

What other sources of information can one use to learn about gods?

Why does there “have to be more”? I don’t feel that need and do not understand it being a requirement of life.

T]ruth should be pursued where it is – rather than where it is not.

G: I like this statement very much.

When I attended Church a several years ago, our priest told us a story that could be true or fiction, I cannot recall. Anyhow, the story dealt with twin sisters of a severely alchoholic and abusive father, with possibly no mother. One of the sisters ended up in a life of drugs and prostitution while the other lived a normal life. The one that self-destructed blamed her misfortune on her father. Why does one rise above the ashes while the other stays in them? Does one choose to live in the mire from which they come rather than trying to make it right?

Every life involves a series of decisions. Many choose to make decisions that are self-destructive (often in search of immediate gratification or other forms of greed). Others make decisions that (generally) produce positive effects in their life (by their own standards). Many do not learn to make decisions – and “go where the wind blows” (or assume that whatever happens was “intended”) – which implies a lack of the will to make a firm decision for one’s self and to follow one’s own path.

Each of the above produces certain effects upon a person’s life. Add to that the effects of chance, and one can appreciate how siblings can go in completely different directions.

This assumes that there is “fundamental truth” in what is recorded. How does one know that is true?

G: I suppose I see your point here as it relates back to the previous comment, but it would seem to me that you are being relative if you do not state that there are certain moral imperatives in life, how does one measure what is right to know if one has found the correct path? Certainly, it cannot be because one may think it right, so how do you judge this in your own life?

I DO judge the correctness of my path by my own standards. I reflect upon past decisions that have resulted in the life that I am living – and adjust current decisions on the basis of experience and thought. I regard most of the major past decisons as generally correct – decisions that produced what I regard as positive directions and effects. I am satisfied with my relationships with other people and with the person that I am in relation to them.

Decisions that produced unwanted effects are not repeated. Mistakes are corrected and damage is repaired if possible or reasonable, and a very strong effort is made to not repeat mistakes and to minimize the number of unsatisfactory decisions,

Perhaps I should worry about whether I meet some “higher” standard – but I do not. I feel no obligation to conform to the expectations of family, friends, society, groups, governments or invisible super beings. That is NOT just a glib statement – it is exactly how I live.

I do not “justify” my attitude to others because I do not need approval.

The above sentence is a key issue. Those who require approval of others are required to conform to the expectations of others (and to make excuses when they “fail”).

If monks placed “Easter eggs” in the mouth of JC, they have committed fraud – unless they identify their work as fiction. Fiction can relay important information and concepts; however, fraud cannot be justified by claiming that it produces good effect.

G: Does the story in the Bible concerning the dispelling of demons in the name of Christ without his authority and Christ stating that as long as it was done in his name is not wrong, not mitigate this fraud? This story presupposes a valid record of the event, but assuming it was a factual story, would it then?

That story has absolutely no meaning to me.

Some of the statements attributed to JC appear to be consistent with a mission to convey the right way to live. However, other statements appear to be those of a madman.

G: What statements appear to be those of a madman? Can you give me an example or two?

Here is one that says it all – the statement of a madman:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Of course, the above is “interpreted” by religionists to mean something other than what it says – to make it less insane. That is typical of bible “interpretations” – make them say whatever the interpreter wishes and make them appear more rational.

I have “gone to the mountains” and live very close to nature. The Earth is awe inspiring. Nature is grand. It needs no “supervision” from supernatural beings.

G: So we can concede that the possibility exists that it needs no supervision from supernatural beings because it is What Is? For how can one supervise oneself?

My wife and I have no difficulty at all supervising ourselves. Our life is full and meaningful, we associate with people of our choosing, we do what we wish to do and go where we wish to go. We conform to no one’s schedule or expectations. We feel absolutely no need for “structure”. We have lived that way for eight years together and I lived that way for many years previously.

Is there some problem with that?

I realize that those accustomed to a more standard lifestyle have difficulty envisioning a freedom lifestyle. One might try to picture it as being on vacation with a month with NO plans to see “tourist attractons” or to rush about to get the most into a limited time – then extend the concept to a lifetime.

The typical response to that idea is, “I wouldn’t know what to do after a few days” – which indicates need for structure supplied externally. If one is comfortable with INTERNAL structure, then deciding what to do is not a problem. Our life is very full, changing and exciting. Every day is an adventure – some greater than others.

I can appreciate the potential in what you suggest; however, it is my style to approach the matter quite differently. I ask questions to which traditional Christian answers make no sense at all. The answers cannot be based upon evidence, because there is none (other than the bible). My intended audience is often not the person to whom comments are addressed (present company excepted), but rather other readers who can evaluate what is said on both sides of a debate.

G: You give compelling arguments, which supports the notion that again it is easier to not believe than to believe. Does the Bible have any significance to you at all?

The bible has absolutely no significance to me – personally. I realize that it effects people around me (particularly since we live in the Bible Belt) and may affect me indirectly; however, that is not binding upon me personally.

Clearly, it is a historical document, whether you believe it to be fiction or distorted truth.

I do not regard the bible as having any legitimate historical accuracy. If interested in history of the time period 2000 years ago (which I am generally not), I would consult legitimate historical accounts of the period.

The Letters that Paul wrote reflect historical evidence of the early church, but I suppose this doesn’t go far to lend any more credibility to the Gospels.

I have no opinion regarding the writings attributed to Paul, and have no reason to regard them as being historically accurate. I know of nothing that lends credibility to the gospels.

One can acknowledge “something greater than ourselves” without crediting that “force” with creating the universe and giving purpose.

G: But then “something greater than ourselves” is just a nebulous term and has no meaning. You see a mountain and you want to learn everything you can about it, its formations, composition, its age, how it was formed because it is of interest to you. Do you think that if you had any interest in the “something greater than ourselves” that you may be surprised at what you discover?

When I express interest in the landscape I know that it is real. When I have interest in people, they are real. I know that I can invest time and energy learning about the environment and its inhabitants with an expectation of greater understanding of things that actually exist.

I would not, for instance, invest time and energy into studying a fictional character – say, Sherlock Holmes. That to me is a great waste of time. I reach the same conclusion regarding study of supernaturalism and “ultimate truth”.

What would motivate me to devote time and energy to searching for the meaning of “something greater than ourselves”? I feel no need to “understand” infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, etc. Others are free to ponder such matters. I choose to devote my attention to the real world I inhabit – and to leave pondering lofty matters to others.

[gbh]

Z,
 
You have proven many of your personal character traits to be honorable – that is, you made a courageous decision many years ago to turn your back on the world and all its fineries to live a more simple life without attachment.  Your television set is the sky and the earth, and your labor is for the enrichment of those less fortunate than you.  You are strong in your convictions and hold them fast – they have value to you because they were developed over the years of walking life’s path in an attempt to do what is placed before you in the best way you are capable of achieving it.  You have also convinced me that the Bible must be taken with a grain of salt and not to be used as evidence when debating agnostics, atheists and those not of the Christian faith.
 
The one thing that has not yet been proven to my satisfaction is your denial of a “right” way of life - that is, an absolute - and that there are no absolutes as the right action is relative to each person.  Here is my argument for your consideration should you choose to discuss it:
 
You make a decision to do X.
 
X turns out to be an unwise decision and has deleterious effects.
 
The value system instilled within you, prompts you to take responsibility for those effects, caused by “decision X.”
 
This responsibility is unarguably the “right” thing to do.
 
We can even go so far as to establish that this responsibility is an absolute right thing to do and place it on our list of absolute truths.
 
What we cannot claim is that “decision X” was the “right” thing to do nor can it be an absolute, AND YET, the responsibility taken for it, IS.
 
So, what lingers on my mind is that there must be an absolute right decision, but the only way we would ever know IF it was right is if we had omniscience.  But this is not to say that there is no right path, it is only to say that we are incapable of omniscience, and therefore WE can never know the right path with absolute certainty.  A right path can exist because we can achieve right decisions based on absolute truths we hold.  These truths can be a realistic endeavor when we reflect back onto our own lives to see where we have made the same bad decisions time and again and adjust accordingly.  
 
GIA stated that God knows we are imperfect and for that we have been forgiven.  However, it is not enough to say, "I am imperfect" and so continue to live in imperfection or even use it as an excuse when we fail – that is an absolute truth as well.  So, Z, there are “absolutes” in this life, we just have to figure out what they are.  These absolutes arise when we keep hitting that same brick wall and finally thinking, "This hurts too much, why do I keep doing it?"
 
I do not need a god to supervise me, I need God to walk with me and show me that path.  God does not show up in the clouds to show me (another of your wise realist/rationalist posits) rather God does show up in people like you to lead me there.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking approval from others, but it has everything to do with sharing that part of God you possess with others...and that is one of my absolute truths.
 
As to Madman Jesus Christ…Jesus Christ is the Right Path, the Right Way .  Rather than thinking of him as a man, which is what he scolded Peter for doing when Peter wanted to save him from persecution, think of him as a Right Way of living.  I think about this Scripture as it affects my child or my spouse.  If I love them more than the Right Way of living, then I shall suffer the consequences of that bad judgment – that is, if I allow by either absence of action or condoning behavior that is clearly wrong in my child or spouse without attempting to correct it, I am as responsible for the consequences of the behavior as if I did it myself…and I will suffer those consequences, such as bad marriage or bad child.  
 
However, if I live the Right Way and cause a decision to be made by the child or spouse to either live the Right Way or go away, they have a choice.  If they choose the wrong way, there is the sword.  It does not imply that this sword must take permanency at that moment and for eternity for the child or spouse can see the error of their ways, and be redeemed.  It is YOUR absolute truth – that is, to take responsibility for one’s actions…the problem is that had they known the right action to begin with, no responsibility would have had to be met.

So, if John goes to Susan for guidance and Susan decides X, then Susan must take responsibility for X, as per the absolute truth. If Susan does not take responsibility for Decision X, then she is violating an absolute truth AND is not living the Right Way. There is a moral imperative. This is what I believe to be the meaning behind what this particular Scripture means. To me, it seems to support your way of living. Am I wrong in this conclusion?

I suppose the difference between you and me is that you live your moral imperative, and I think about it too much! Sometimes it is difficult to see the black and white in the shades of gray, but apparently, based on what you have said, you can see the contrast quite well.