THIS IS FOR FUNCHES!

Read it.....

"The two questions that lead to God are simple ones. What is right and what is wrong? Is this all there is?

I considered the second question to be of greater importance than the first, because if this life is all there is, the answer to the first question is irrelevant. This isn't to say that an afterlife actually exists for us, just that in order to make this life objectively meaningful, there must be an after-life.

Logical thought tells us that there is no such thing as absolute moral truth. We can say that killing is wrong, but is it always absolutely wrong? We can give exceptions but quickly find that there are exceptions to the exceptions! Hence, the view of moral relativism. Yet none of us would deny that there is a right and a wrong concerning issues of human behavior. We simply disagree over what is right and what is wrong!

What is the truth about morality? If we say that no such truth exists because it can't be captured through logic, then we are hypocrites every time we demand justice and our entire legal system is the result of a delusion. Moral truth exists - we just can't seem to pin it down.

In asking the first question, I found that I could logically justify contradictory behavior. I could give logical reasons for divorcing my spouse and I could also give logical reasons for staying married. I could justify lying, and I could justify telling the truth, both for the same situation. If I could intellectually reason to equal and opposite conclusions, then I had to admit that moral behavior could not solely be determined through logic. If logic alone could not allow us to determine the truth about right and wrong, then perhaps logic alone could not tell us the truth about a god who is closely connected with morality.

When Christians make a distinction between a person's mind and a person's 'heart', this is the issue they are addressing. The logic of the mind can come up with any number of moral, rational options, but the 'heart', that part of the mind that is above logic, is what makes the decision. What allows the heart to make a decision for the 'good' depends upon the goodness that is present in it. While that sounds circular, I believe it is circular only because it is true. Consider the following example:

(Matthew 20:1-16) A vineyard owner hires 10 men to work in his fields from sunup until sundown and agrees to pay them $100.00 for their efforts. As evening approaches, he hires 10 more men to work the last several hours but pays them the same amount as the men who have worked all day. The first group of men is irked that the other group of men received the same pay. Judge the actions of the vineyard owner; was what he did right or wrong?

When I saw that parable, at first I thought the vineyard owner was unfair and I sided with the first group of men. The more I thought about it, however, I began to realize that my selfish nature was influencing my perception of the vineyard owner. Why couldn't I find joy in the idea that the other 10 men would be able to provide for their families as much as I could for my own? The vineyard owner had paid me what he had promised, so he had treated me justly. It was only my jealousy concerning his generosity that caused me to gripe. After going through countless paradoxes of morality in scripture, I concluded that selfishness (sin) is what blinds us to an accurate perception of what constitutes good'. Therefore, the only person who could know what was good would be one who was completely unselfish (sinless).

No man is without selfishness and so no man can tell us the truth about what is right or wrong. It is this dilemma that causes man to reach out to, or generate the concept of, a god or gods. The idea is that God is perfect and holy, without sin, and therefore only God can know the truth about right and wrong. But if no man is selfless enough to recognize that which is right and wrong, then man can't generate the concept.

Believing that such a Good Being exists, creates in our consciousness the idea of seeking its approval, realizing that we can't know right from wrong. We are actually seeking the approval of a personality, or the person of God. When we act within the context of a personality, we escape having to define moral absolutes because we can speculate on the personality's reaction to our actions. For example, I know my mother. I'm familiar with her as a person. We never discussed the issue of drugs, their legality or the morality involved in using them for recreational purposes. However, I don't need to hear my mother explicitly state her opinion to know that she probably wouldn't approve of me smoking a joint.

Knowing the personhood of a god would enable us to act in the spirit of the law instead of being bound by the law, which we can't adequately define. I think that we CAN, however, adequately define a personality through text alone, and I think that any writer who depends upon character development, in creating a story, will agree. This is why Christians place such an emphasis on KNOWING God, something that can easily be done by studying the words and actions of Jesus Christ. The spirit of the law, then, is loving a good God and seeking its approval in the way we live our lives.

In seeking a god's approval, we make it a judge and try to please it by living according to its standard. We know that the standard is higher than our own standards but we don't know what the standard is. How can we be judged fairly if we can't even know the standard by which we are to be judged?

Every time we encounter another person, we start forming an opinion about them. We discover that we can be very critical of the faults of others, but pretty lenient, or even blind, when it comes to our own. If God, being without sin, could be presented to us as a person, it would be interesting to see how we would judge the personification of God. In judging a good and innocent person, we would be establishing the criteria by which we ourselves would be judged. What could be more fair? This idea is summed up in Luke 2:34-35; "And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

If we can be judged fairly, then there should be justice. I won't repeat the argument that I give in 'The Games Skeptics Play', but there should also be mercy. If justice and mercy, then reward and punishment.

I arrived at these conclusions independently. In other words, I didn't have to rely on the bible or any other sacred text to TELL me these things. I'm not saying that my reasoning was not influenced by my knowledge of religion, only that these arguments stand logically on their own. My argument is similar to that given by Immanuel Kant.

FAITH WITH FUZZY LOGIC
So far, I have only given reasons why the CONCEPT of god - specifically, the concept of the Christian god, which contains all of these elements - makes sense, but I believe that the Bible describes a very REAL God because of the way in which it was revealed. It wasn't as if the prophets sat down and decided which elements would go into making a good god model. It's as if they were given the parts to the model and, with no understanding of how they would fit together, accurately described them. The parts of the model were delivered over a span of 1500 years and through over 40 different authors, yet they come together to make sense when they are viewed in the light of their entirety. That's why the Bible is said to be authored by God, because the writings were designed and directed by one source. The model isn't a product of reason, but a product of alleged perceptions that result in a reasonable model. In other words, I don't think that Christianity is true because it works, but that it works because it is true.

I consider the gospels to be accurate and honest documentation, because the logic and nature of men who would knowingly create a false god, would not have included so many ambiguous passages, which could have been misunderstood to indicate that Christ wasn't God. It is man's nature to tell, "I am God." It is divine nature to allow a person to arrive at that truth on their own; "Who do you say I am?" I don't get the impression that this is fiction.

The words of Christ also indicate that He knew the effect that His resurrection would have on people. How could any man think that to be crucified would result in him being glorified unless he also knew that he would be resurrected? Yet His words carried Him confidently to Calvary. Christ knew that faith in Him as God was the answer. I believe that He knew the things He knew because He is who He alluded to being."

...yeah Funches eat that one

This is the silence before the storm...I am coming

"If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon."


.....swords ready...posting time 1 of 10

Mr.Hudson and The Library

It's not emotion? What, so if we follow your logic, Sir, then I have to ask what are morals and how are they rational?

Oh yeah many people have answered your ( your is giving you to much credit how about the) question you just don't like the answer. Answer my question is it logical to love?

The Pope is one of the most Unchristian institutions out there. my friend. Catholicism in general.

I see your flaw. Funches shall I exploit it? Your permission please....hmmmm....I shall laugh out loud

One more thing, explain the esoteric notion of Logic. Explain the Logic of Love. Why does logic trump everything, at least in your eyes?

Okay, FUNCHES. Answer your own question. Whats your stance?

What do you believe?

Its like asking a man to leave his arm or leg at home. Religion is apart of us. Its in our root system.

"F" to the "U" to the "N" to the "C" to the "H" to the "E" to the "S" FUNCHES

Cool, you learned how to play the thread game. Put up a few controversial topics and you get a bunch of play. Its been done.

Oh yeah, Who created the creator, same chicken or egg crap. Its been done.

Believers don't adhere to mans logic, as stated before. Again as its been stated Faith is irrational.

Ding-dong, open the door Agent Funches, its pasts threads about the same thing.

Who decides whats enough? Time thats is

Mr. Funches, if I may interject sir, innuendo is the same as blantnly saying Christians.

Well lets educate you on innuendo for a sec. Dim the lights please. Close the shades. Heres the first slide, Innuendo " an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature"

Sounds like an "F" ends with a "unches" hmmm....

Cheers, swallow that one.

Well I wouldn't expect in Gen. Pop. The ramifications if he was oh my. I don't think he be able to out run that defensive line. *Ouch* wouldn't be able to sit for weeks.

I know just felt like brining it back

Jtevans, your wrong I think its the opposite.

"The suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback could have been sentenced up to five years by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson. Vick, who turned himself in Nov. 19 in anticipation of his sentence, was wearing a black-and-white striped prison suit."

"After Vick apologized to the court and his family, Hudson told him: "You need to apologize to the millions of young people who looked up to you.""

23 months hmmm... What do you guys think?

If you raised your you would be wrong. read on...
The 13 th amendment did not end slavey... why well read on....

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 1. "...except as a punishment for crime.... "

Whats your thoughts?

How mature Mr. Funches… you’re in a corner…so you take a cheap shot…wow…how expected. If you want to argue philosophical beliefs than give some parameters.

Oh forgot to add that many religions don’t believe that god created the universe. So you must be targeting a select few. Hmmm… Just something to ponder.

“Wow, that brother got a point. ”
“Amen, brother”
“Now that’s logic”

Mr. Fuucnhes if I may, the post is irrelevant because your comments have spoken your true intent, especially concerning creation. No mention of any other ‘esoteric theories’. So be honest good sir, what happened that made you so bitter and ill? Why allow your soul to be tormented? Why lie to me and the rest of us?