The Devil is in the E-mails?

Favorite Scripture...
Judge not and ye shall not be judged; condemn not and ye shall not be condemned; forgive and ye shall be forgiven… Luke 6:38

http://lilyseymour.blogspot.com/

Neither email nor the internet is either a curse or a blessing. It is what we human beings choose to make of it.

Soja John Thaikattil:
“Does nuclear weapons need ethics or not” (sic)
The use of weapons, as with any device, including a simple clenched fist, is quite different, and completely separate from the mechanism itself. Nuclear weapons are themselves benign. Handguns, boomerangs, machetes, box knives, etc. are as well. When a person actually wields one of these things as a tool of force or coercion is when they become weapons. Even though the ‘intent’ or 'design' of a technology may be as a weapon, the device itself does not have within it a will, intent, or goal. Thus, it is not inherently ‘evil’.

The use or threat of force against another person or group of persons, regardless of the technology is well beyond ‘science’ or ‘technology’. The ethics involved has very little to do with the scientific discovery or theory; it has everything to do with the way mankind behaves in a society, which is beyond the scope of science. Math is science; physics is science, as are geology, paleontology, etc.
Interpersonal relations, cooperation, teamwork, diplomacy, leadership, are not science; they are, in fact, quite relative and subjective.
Along those same lines is sex. Yeah, sex. Science studies, measures, explains and defines the mechanics, chemistry and biology of sex, but makes no claim as to the morality of it. To live in a society, a community, or even as a couple in a household, rules, ethics, morality must be constructed to maintain that social system. The mechanics and the morality/ethics are not naturally intertwined.

andy:

I think there are a lot of people out there who are devils

March 12, 2008 10:30 AM |

Posted on March 12, 2008 10:30

Devils come in sheep's clothing and practice deceit:

andy:
"I think there are a lot of people out there who are devils."

March 12, 2008 10:30 AM

I second that motion.

March 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 12, 2008 10:48 AM

-----------------

That sounds very religious and fundamentalist/maybe even fanatical at that.

Andy, when was the last time you saw 'one' real devil, leave alone many devils?

And blogger 'Devil who comes in sheep's clothing and practice deceit:'

Since you second the motion, maybe you'd like to tell us when you saw the devil/devils the last time. It is always helpful to know what real devil/s look like.

Thanks.

My email with comments inspired by reading http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

Characteristics that define Yahweh:
*eternal
*all-powerful
*created everything
*all-good
*all-loving
*perfectly just
*all-knowing
*sees everything past and future
*perfect
*infinite

Some contradictions among Yahweh attributes:

Yahweh, a perfect being, created imperfect human beings with the all-loving intention for them to be happy for the eternity, but the imperfect humans spoiled the perfect plan that the perfect Yahweh had perfectly designed.

Then the all-loving Yahweh designed a perfect hell for the imperfect non-believers human beings based on the perfectly conceived justice of punishing the imperfect sins created by the imperfect humans in spite of the perfect Yahweh all-good intentions.

Not only that, the all-knowing Yahweh knew perfectly what was going to happen with the imperfect humans having a perfect free will, but the all-powerful went ahead anyway. The perfectly just Yahweh established eternal punishment for temporal sins, specially for the sin of not believing in him in spite that he is perfectly hidden in a place that the imperfect humans don’t know where it is.

Conclusion: “No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe”

Peace and the best for all.

JAC

I was speaking on behalf of Sophia, the goddess of wisdom! ;)

PS Gaby

Atheists who are raised in cultures shaped by religions for millennia (as all human cultures are) so easily forget that they are imbibing religious values unconsciously from their environment. The process goes on whether they personally believe in a God or not.

Possum

You wrote science doesn't need morality. Let's use the word ethics instead. Does nuclear weapons need ethics or not, or rather does use of nuclear weapons need a moral hand behind it - to stop its use i.e.?

Dear Gaby

I'm convinced that there are heaps of atheists who are wonderfully moral people and millions of religious hypocrites who do not practice what they preach. Maybe I should include myself among them for I am unable to live up to my own expectations of what I know to be noble and selfless. But I can say with certainty that my desire to do what is right is inspired by my faith in God. No science textbook taught me about right and wrong, but Scripture and spiritual books did.

If understanding right from wrong, morality, was so simple as you claim, how come a child has no concept of morality and the values it comes to adopt depends very much on what it picks up from its environment, its own efforts to understand right and wrong and practice them as an adult?

It is true, moral law in written in our hearts, but sadly it is also so susceptibe to conditioning. Hence having a set of rules to guide us, especially when there are no good feelings to motivate good actions, is always a help.

My conclusion: With all its limitations, religion is all we have to give a universal and eternal context to our short span of life on this earth. The moral laws that protect the weak, and seeks to cater to their happiness in a society where they could easily get crushed by the strong, is the contribution of religions.

Best wishes
Soja

Someone you wrote 12 March 2008 11:35 AM:

"This is one of the best statements I have ever heard in my entire lifetime. I am going to, if it's ok with you, save this in my library of quotes and use it as often as I see fit. I don't think it could have been said better. Thanks.

God bless!!!"

I'm truly honoured and humbled to say the least. Of course it is okay with me for you to use my quote in anyway you like.

new humanity.
new humanity and new jesus is another delusion of humanism(man made),none but the logic of the dream the logic of the delusion the logic of shatan.
again and again and again mankind is not on his/her own in this life your life and death is in the hands of your creator god (there is only one creator).if you can initiate your life and prevent your death then you can be your own god then you can start your own new humanity or your new jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
in the age of reason and hi technology people realy need to use their brain and the best way and accesess to information and discover their creator god ,humanity will be much much better .

the truth is ONE and the delusions are many.
the shortest way to development of the brain is to know your creator.

To my dear sweet heart
A loving email I sent
Unfortunately I sent it encrypted
And she knew not what it meant

Of course she knew it was from me
My email address she knows
And the subject line said 'Love letter'
..Only she could not read my prose

So she sent an email back to me
Her frustration ever so clear
"Please write me again when your sober
..not after a six-pack of beer."

New world Technology, e-mail:

Are you being sarcastic with, "No, but according to many studies believing in God makes a world of difference. Christians are less likely to engage in pre-marital sex, commit vicious evils, plot revenge against others, and harbor hatred."?

And if, "many studies" found anything to the contrary would they be published, ignored, explained or hid?

Wanna get ripped off by a tradesman? Find him at church -the voice of experience.

Spitzer resigned today because, according to him he's a bad man. Did that just happen this morning or was he a bad man last week, last year, all along? Why did he wait until today to resign? Oh yeah, he got caught.

Beware of "studies" that find things favorable to the position of the studier. Want to talk about Jimmy Bakker, Jimmy Swagart and Ted Haggard? Do they hold to the notion, "believing in God makes a world of difference"? How many don't we know about? Which list would be the shortest, the ones that should resign or the ones that actually do what the "studies" suggest?

Anyone who can read knows, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul has the truth about, "believing in God makes a world of difference." It makes a world of difference for those who get the money off the plate. What does it do for those who put the money on the plate?

A ticket to hell should be free shouldn't it?

G., "Just because a person believes in a god does not make him/her moraloly superior to those who don't."

No, but according to many studies believing in God makes a world of difference. Christians are less likely to engage in pre-marital sex, commit vicious evils, plot revenge against others, and harbor hatred.

Try apologizing to a non-Christian and see how fast you are rejected because they harbor anger, bitterness, and hatred.

G., "Just because a person believes in a god does not make him/her moraloly superior to those who don't."

No, but according to many studies believing in God makes a world of difference. Christians are less likely to engage in pre-marital sex, commit vicious evils, plot revenge against others, and harbor hatred.

Try apologizing to a non-Christian and see how fast you are rejected because they harbor anger, bitterness, and hatred.

Someone:
“Science is an Atheist's (or anti-theist's, whatever you want to label yourself as) guideline to life”
No it isn’t. This is completely incorrect. Science is about mechanics, period. Not motive, intent, feelings, or behavior, it is strictly about the mechanics of the universe.
I know no one that ‘worships’ science, probably because it’s a moving target… and science does not claim to be otherwise.

And for a thousand years the church insisted the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe.. but their resistance, insistence, their ‘infallibility’ could not make it so; even as they persecuted the blasphemous scientists.

Science changes, it evolves…. It learns new stuff and discards old stuff. It does not claim absolutes… it is only about mechanics.

“which is constantly proving itself wrong, and/or contradicting itself.”
It is growing, changing, adapting to new discoveries…. As you yourself matured have you not done exactly the same? The whole point of scientific processes is to find proofs and faults and flaws… and on the way, knowledge and improvement….. but once again science is only about the mechanics of the universe.

“and they disregard the supernatural just because it can't be seen or proven scientifically.”
Do you believe in leprechauns? Unicorns? Elves and sprites? Why not? Science has not proven they exist or don’t either. I do not believe in a god simply because I have found no reason to believe in one. I am not waiting for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or a Nobel award winner to alert me for confirmation.
I do not know when/where/how the universe began nor have I seen or smelled the primordial puddle where life on earth allegedly began, that does not mean that I automatically acknowledge the existence of a god. There’s just too many extra fuzzy logical leaps involved to get to that point.

“This is an extremely dangerous position to hold”

That sounds like a threat.. that’s not a threat is it? Monsters in the closet?

“because there are things and always will be things that science can not begin to comprehend”
Like I said, is pieces of a puzzle, or puzzles unfinished. There are things that science does not understand… I agree, completely, so does nearly every eminent scientist… But that lack of complete knowledge hardly proves the existence of mystical all-powerful eternal god-things…
Science is not about morality, it is not about eternal life, souls, cosmic justice or karma, it is just about the greasy dirty gears and levers that make the universe physically itself tick.

: But using it as your ultimatum to life is both foolish and unwise, in my opinion”
We don’t! It is not our horoscope, fortune cookie, or moral compass, nor sermon on the mount.… it merely tells us HOW things work, how physical pieces fit together through time and space, that’s all nothing more…. our morality, our values we get from our family, community and friends.

Dear Soja,

You write: "Without a value system to guide us, science in itself does not save us. Anti-theists who sing about the infallibility of science and are intent on abolishing religions need to take note how science does not come with an inherent value system, and the role of religions to provide it will never end."

While I agree that science in itself does not have a value system, I disagree when you suggest that we need religion to have value systems.

I consider myself an ethical person with many humanistic values, maybe more so than many religious people i am acquainted with, yet I am not religious or bound by religious dogma to act socially and morally responsible.

Just because a person believes in a god does not make him/her moraloly superior to those who don't.

All my best!

Possum: "Of course it doesn’t. That’s why it is called science, not religion or dogma."
"Science does not claim morality. It does not claim absolute truth."

Oh, but it is religion and dogma. Your definition of science is good, but people should keep it that way. But that isn't the case these days, especially here on OnFaith forums. Science, in and of itself, is not religion or dogma, but people are beginning to use it like that. People take science and assume it their "religion" but not calling it that because then they become religious. Science is an Atheist's (or anti-theist's, whatever you want to label yourself as) guideline to life, and they disregard the supernatural just because it can't be seen or proven scientifically. This is an extremely dangerous position to hold. They assume that because science isn't proving a god exists (in their interpretation of facts might I add) then God or gods must not exist. Well, a thousand years ago, science had not proven the earth was round. Does that mean a thousand years ago the earth was flat? Science has its place. But using it as your ultimatum to life is both foolish and unwise, in my opinion, because there are things and always will be things that science can not begin to comprehend. And too many people base their lives on science, which in the scope of eternity and reality, is a very shaky foundation, which is constantly proving itself wrong, and/or contradicting itself.

SOJA JOHN THAIKATTIL
“. . .need to take note how science does not come with an inherent value system”

Of course it doesn’t. That’s why it is called science, not religion or dogma. Science is built upon provable, repeatable, measurable facts and evidence about the universe around us,nothing more, not magic or threats of eternal damnation for questioning an almighty. Science does not claim morality. It does not claim absolute truth. Science in all it’s branches is nothing more than puzzle pieces in a yet to be completed puzzle, or puzzles. It doesn’t have morality, it doesn’t need it. It is not a religion.
Religions come with inherent value systems, too bad there’s so many different religions/value systems. Then we might be better able to get along without the my god is bigger than your god throwdowns….

"Whatever God may ultimately be..."

Let me give you a hint. The word g-o-d spelled with a small g like, god, is a supernatural being with the distinguishing characteristic of being able to make materials things, things with bodies, things that occupy space and possess weight move without itself having a body. Spelled with a capital G, God is a person, a male that is the son of a son of a god. That person holds an office known as king, emperor or even tyrant. Thus God is an office held by God, the son of god. Sons of sons of gods are Gods. Since the office of God is an inherited one only the first holder is only a son of god with all others being the sons of Gods, previous holders of the office of God. Sons of gods are therefore Gods.

The whole g-o-d mess clears right up with the knowledge that gods are always supernatural beings while Gods are always men. Since the office held is usually named after the holder, the office of president is held by the president for example, the office held by God is God.

It's my understanding that God is the best job there is so small wonder there are so many that want it. At present we've reduced the set of real contenders to one god, Lucifer and one man, Jesus. It depends on one's political affiliation which one is supported. Through the miracle of technology, E-mail no less we find out all kinds of things about both we never knew before and were afraid to ask.

For example, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul must be promoting one or the other, Lucifer or Jesus but for some strange reason it doesn't come out that way. The problem lies in the fact that it says Jesus was the son of the god named Lucifer while Jesus supporters claim there is still another invisible being that fathered Jesus and the rest of us too for that matter. The only thing we know for sure is whichever being it was that fathered Jesus was/is on fire. And I found that out from E-mail like a few million other folks.

Some will say it's a blessing while others will declare it to be a curse. Two sides to every story I guess.

Do you plan to allow cross examination of dogma in the new world you anticipate? Those who question the dogma of the three great faiths are immediately condemned to hell. Strange since Lucifer is the Lord of hell and they claim to be Jesus, or His father supporters planning themselves to take up residence in the house of the father of Jesus. Don't you imagine that will lead to a terrible fight in hell?

Happy I could clear the mess up for you.

Soja: "Anti-theists who sing about the infallibility of science and are intent on abolishing religions need to take note how science does not come with an inherent value system, and the role of religions to provide it will never end."

This is one of the best statements I have ever heard in my entire lifetime. I am going to, if it's ok with you, save this in my library of quotes and use it as often as I see fit. I don't think it could have been said better. Thanks!

God bless!!!

"At the most mystical level, the Internet is God talking to himself through technology at the speed of light."

Substitute 'basic' for 'mystical', 'Universe' for 'God' and 'itself' for 'himself' in that statement and it goes from being superstitious to profound.

andy:
"I think there are a lot of people out there who are devils."

March 12, 2008 10:30 AM

I second that motion.

I think there are a lot of people out there who are devils

Dear Dr Chopra

You are right, the Internet is a double edged sword - it can be a mind-boggling good or a nightmarish evil, depending on how one uses it. Personally, I have not yet gotten over the wonder that is the Internet. Instant contact with anyone around the world! How could I even remotely dream of being part of a global conversation happening right in the middle of Washington? How could I be writing to you, knowing that my message doesn't get thrown into the huge wastepaper basket that your secretary must have beside her chair, without you ever knowing that I made an attempt to write to you?

The evils of the Internet are mind boggling too. We might get to know a false persona and be affected by propagation of hate and dangerous ideas...the list is endless. Without a value system to guide us, science in itself does not save us. Anti-theists who sing about the infallibility of science and are intent on abolishing religions need to take note how science does not come with an inherent value system, and the role of religions to provide it will never end.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia