templelady

Okay So does society practice Pure altruism as a whole or are we pretty much just altruistic when we do something--confining ourselves to those acts that we can, at the very least, expect warm fuzzies from? Sorry to say for myself, the warm fuzzy altruism, when I practice altruism, is the sort I go for. At the very least I feel good about making the "sacrifice" doing something I really don't want to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltruisticOkay this is one section from a lenghty articel on altruism. It seems the "professionals" are as confused as us From my perspective I say that true altruism is done neither , with expectation of future reward or present reward -even if that reward be only a good feeling

If I did everything I was supposed to He wouldn't decide that. As for morality, of course there are good morals without God or a belief in one. There is not a purely altruistic morality without God, As you pointed out everything we do has it's reward. Morality that is truly altruistic where the practicer gets no "return" is attributable and comprehensible only with God. That isn't to say that mankind practices it--we don't as a 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% rule of thumb, but at least there is the concept.

All the above outcomes are called "life" Saying God is unjust because He lets us experience life both the good and the bad and the consequences thereof is disingenuous at best. More accurately I refuse to stay in the boundaries of the world and Deity view that says there isn't a Deity And I agree -I am through "playing along"

\Okay I'll "Bite" I would like to know First person accounts of how He betrayed you. Not the generic, well he lets there be wars, He killed people in the OT. Children die--But honest First person accounts of How God has betrayed you. I know there must be some for so many of you to be so disillusioned.

When the Bible says "forgive" it does not say "forget" in fact if you read carefully Forgetting Sin is God's arena not ours. This "forgive and Forget" is is PI of mans When I say my nightly prayers I try to remember to put in a section that goes something like "don;t hold my enemies sins against them on my account, please make sure they have a warm, dry, safe place to sleep, enough to eat, and enough clothes" I have forgiven them in the sense I don;t want their sins held against them by God. Which, if you think about it, is why forgiveness is really necessary in a Christian;s life anyway--because God is more than willing to release vengeance on our behalf if we want it--but then in fairness he has to release vengeance on us when it is requested too. That is why we are to "forgive". Nowhere does the Bible say we are to clasp the viper back to our bosoms and let it sting again. One can love your enemy and follow the Bible without letting said enemy back in your door. In fact, it would be the height of foolishness to "forget" for by forgetting you would forget how to recognize the viper when he shows at your door in another guise

I am finally realizing that further discussion is futile. When you start with the premise that GOD is unjust -anything He does automatically becomes suspect. If you either 1- distrust GOD or 2- don't believe in GOD trying to explain Him by use of scripture is useless since those scriptures have already been rejected or distorted. In order for those perceptions to change --perception of God would have to change --but GOD has already been tried and found guilty precluding any perception change. TO be alone in this world dependent on the whim of your fellow man with no comfort when he betrays you I find very sad--But that is ME-- and for those who have chosen the path without God I wish you well

NO one said belief in God guaranteed or Moral behavior No one said atheists aren't moral What is under discussion is whether or not the concept of universal "morality" would ever have existed if not for there being a God. Being as concerned for your enemies well being as you are for your own and your societal groups well being making sure that they have everything that they need-regardless of your relationship etc I just don;t see it--as a society we don;t even practice that within our own borders, or our own lives. and that is with a knowledge of God -irregardless if one accepts Him. That isn't even practiced on these boards universally--why? because it isn't natural-

They heard about Him from their forefathers who learned it at some point in time from Noah and his family(you know the only people who survived the flood) And Noah learned it from his forefathers who at some point learned it from Adam who learned it from God in the Garden of Eden. Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=defin...G=Google+Search) That is the morality of man also called situational ethics The morality of God is universal --and if it were adhered to --not only would you let your enemy have the water -you would give to him in the first place when you noticed his need. To claim that Theists don't live up to this standard (which almost all don't) as proof that it doesn't exist is not any sort of proof at all

If they are cooperating they aren't enemies All you have done is prove my point "morality" when separated from God, only applies to those who are, if not friends , at least not enemies. If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"?? "love thy enemies" "do good to them that persecute you" -which is where true morality starts, is not a concept that is entertained by societal groups with no concept of something beyond this earthly plane. And while Buddhism , and many Eastern religions do not have a supreme deity they do have lesser deities and ancestor worship. They recognize a force greater than the sum total of man.

Of what use is empathy for your enemy in a society which views only the here of value? When You take God from the equation that is what you have --The here --There is no guarantee of tomorrow and there is no life after death--So what you do on this earth carries no consequences beyond what the societal group values. Non-believers point to the fact they have empathy, love, concern etc for those not of their group. But that is only because society as a whole is theistic (of one kind or another) and the values of said society are based on a theistic foundation. If, as the original question was posed, "Assume there is no God" I submit that these concepts in relationship to those outside the group never would have evolved because it would not be necessary for the societal group--in fact it would be antithecal to that group's survival. It is only by looking at our enemy as God ( however you conceive Him/her) looks that we develop those attitudes toward said enemy

This is still a moral stance to support a societal group. The moral stance derives from the need for that group to survive. God driven morality derives from the need to conform to a higher standard 1-The standard of feeding your enemy when he is without 2-Sheltering the sttrnager when they provide nothing to the betterment or function of the group 3-Doing with out material comforts OR needs so than others outside the group can survive These things would not be viewed as either necessary or needful under a society without God if they were conceived of at all

Amen Garth [[Templelady frantically fans Garth --who has fainted at the mere thought that TL should agree with him about ANYTHING remotely spiritual ))

No one I ever knew in TWI stayed in contact after I left. CoolWaters and I stay in contact now--But it was through our connecting through the old Waydale site and here at GS that we worked through our issues and built a friendship. Without WD and GS no such reunion much less reconciliation, would have been possible. TWI so burned me that even when I went back to church I consciously never would let myself make friendships with those I went to church with, outside of the church setting, since I never wanted to go through the pain of that separation again. Now things are better I have many friends both in and out of the church all of whom I see and fellowship with outside of the "church" arena

"you lack meekness to receive' the all purpose cover all as to why you, 1-aren't doing what "they" want you to, need you to, or think you should, 2- living up to their expectations 3- not seeing things like they do................... The list is endless where this one was concerned

I've always wondered What did they teach the Corps about the "rank and file" You know, the not so wealthy, average family, who wasn't going to go WOW, who faithfully attended Fellowship, was there for chair stringing etc, whose ABS was just as spendable. But what were we really thought of. Were we important or just so much grist for the mill --our usefulness being for gathering in others who might go Wow and then Corps?

Can any one say "Athletes of the Spirit"???

Resolution? I wasn't aware we we supposed to resolve anything--my understanding was that this was an exchange of different viewpoints. As for resolving --I doubt we can resolve the question of whether there is God or not or whether He is worthy of worship, or whether he is moral, to the satisfaction of all who post here nor am I trying to. I hold fast to my testimony that there is a God who is the Father of us all who is infinitely loving and accepting, infinitely moral, and infinitely just--and know he is the object of my adoration, reverence and obedience.

Never said that is what you thought nor did I ascribe said thoughts to any other poster hereI approached the question of morality strictly from a "Why if there is no God do we need it?" point of view- Nowhere at any time have I said or inferred that this was your or any other non-believers moral stance I would suggest as "someone" put it so excellently

And while we are on the subject of Morality-- If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality? I mean morality isn't necessary for survival In fact a pretty good case can be made that the "me and Mine" philosophy is far better for survival Make sure you have the best of everything in abundance-- so that your societal group has the best chance to survive and reproduce. Morality, in fact often is contraindicated if your concern is the best life for yourself and your societal group Worrying about others outside your group having enough takes valuable time and resources away from fortifying your position and making sure you have not only adequate but more than adequate goods for you to live the life you desire and need. Morality by its very nature calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice for those outside the group is wasteful not to mention often dangerous in the long run. So "morality would be best confined to parameters of what ever social group you espouse. Oh-- that's exactly the problem you have with God---------

We're not talking about doubts, questions or proof here in the OT we are talking about people who knew the answer to the question, knew about God, had the proofs and CHOSE TO DISOBEY ANYWAY. A far different cry from the picture some here would paint -namely a group of "innocents" who knew nothing and were just merrily going about their lives when ---BAM If in fact the case were the latter I would be forced to agree that God was unjust--but since we are talking about the former -- while the consequences were deadly they were in no way unexpected ---except in the sense that those who chose to disobey probably disobeyed with the mindset of "oh, it won't happen to me" --

For the purposes of this next question, we'll assume God doesn't get to define what constitutes "superior" Who defines what is "Superior" when it comes to God?? Oh, And BTW LDS DO NOT believe that man is responsible or accountable for any sins but the ones he himself commits-- Adam and Eve's actions brought physical death and spiritual separation from God

sigh --------- :( ---------I really don't care of other persons in their life choose not to follow God That is their business But it would be refreshing to have someone just come out and say --"I am not going to obey God" and be done with it-- instead of trying to explain all the reasons why it's God's or some denominations belief systems fault that they have chosen this path

"the wages of sin is death" That's about as succinctly as I can put it-- or in contemporary parlance "if you can't do the time , don't do the crime" Even If I set aside my belief system about a pre-existence The rest of LDS doctrine is supported by most of Christendom--Namely this life is a testing/proving/ refining ground Those who endure and remain faithful to the end spend eternity with God and His Son Jesus Christ Christians disagree about many things -but that is core doctrine elsewise there is no purpose for this life

There is no indication that the abominable practices are limited to this one point No it's not The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings is to prove that we can remain faithful and true to God and his ordinances. The whole purpose of this earthly existence is as a proving ground to still if we will remain steadfast to God no matter what. If we choose to disobey his rules we choose the consequences that go with that choice. Adam and Eve took the knowledge of wrong and right with them from the Garden of Eden --and passed it down to their posterity --which is everybody. Therefore everyone knew the rules and could exercise their freedom choice as to whether to follow them or not--- the consequences followed their choice of action.