Monday, January 11, 2010


Lately, the news has become obsessed with over-talking topics to the point people would rather watch paint dry. For instance, Tiger Woods was giving 15 (or more) days of fame as opposed to the standard 15 minutes. Why? There was nothing else to talk about...

Another such over-talked topics is the "hidden message" of James Cameron's Avatar.

On a side note, I simply love how people must refer to the movie as James Cameron's Avatar to avoid confusing it with the amazing TV show Avatar the Last Airbender.

At first, people were upset Avatar's message criticized white settlers for basically exterminating native populations. I use the word exterminated because I grow bored when people use euphemisms. Now, people call the movie racist for having a white guy save the day. They clearly did not pay attention to the movie. Clearly, the white guy preferred his wildly realistic, 10-foot tall, blue skinned, 3-dimensional Na'vi avatar!

I saw the movie twice, so I understand why people are so upset. How dare a guy make a movie with leftist beliefs and biases! What's all this protect the environment, love nature, life is a balance of energy crap? Clearly, box office hits are only allowed to include supernaturally sexy, unbelievably moody vampire boys!

Here's my honest, humble opinion. It's a work of art. I see Avatar in the same light I view Lord of the Rings. It's a wildly fantastic work of fiction, not an allegory. Cameron says he never intended Avatar to be viewed as racist, or as an allegory for settlers conquering natives. Tolkien insists Lord of the Rings is not an allegory for World War II. Both artists created new worlds to explore, filled with new races and new languages. Their creativity and their ability to share their creations with the world make them unique and worthy of praise, not of such rash criticism. I marvel at the power of their imaginations. To be able to form entirely new worlds, beings, languages, and weave it all together with a fascinating story is, in my eyes, an ethereal achievement.


Gabriel Gethin said...

Just to add to the fun, apparently the Catholic Church has been offended by Avatar as well. They feel it promotes neo-paganism in the form of worshiping nature. I think they're just jealous because Eywa, in the movie, is a real presence, measurable in the biology of the planet. The Catholic Church God is invisible. Honestly though, it's a movie. People need to chill out, unless they're hyped up over the experience that is Avatar. It's just a great movie.

Saeryne said...

I have not seen Avatar, but I am interested in two comments that you have made.

In your last comment, you said: "People need to chill out, unless they're hyped up over the experience"--Why is it okay to get excited about the experience, but not about what it promotes? Just because it's something you don't agree with, that means that it's not okay for people to get "hyped up"? Why?

You also said that the Catholic Church is "jealous" of the god in Avatar, because the Christian's God is "invisible." In short....that is ridiculous. By saying that, you show presumptuous contempt for a faith you know little about. Learn some things about what you're vilifying before you do it.

Gabriel Gethin said...

You're allowed to get excited about the experience but not what it promotes because the experience is the storyline, the effects, the artistic component of the movie. It's not intentionally promoting anything.

To address the second offense, I was making a highly sardonic joke. So, yes, my claim is ridiculous. However, I have attended Catholic School for 3 years now, so I'm hardly ignorant about the religion. I probably should not have attacked sure a widely venerated institution. I just enjoy my (evil) opinions too much. Mwuhahahaha.

Saeryne said...

Intentional or not, this movie (all movies, actually) does promote some things, and what a movie (as well as books, music, etc.) promotes, it will affect you, whether you want it to or not. That's why it's important to think about not only a movie's outside layers, but its underlying themes and the message it's really conveying.

I'm not looking for an apology (if that was one, anyway XD), I'm just interested in your view of Christianity. I realize that you may know some facts about it, but do you truly know what this faith is really about?

Gabriel Gethin said...

Faith is a tricky concept. I feel like it differs from person to person. I used to have loads of faith. I used to believe everything the Church said and I would go to Mass weekly. I believed in compassion. I believed in loving everyone. I believed that even the worst among us have the "indelible stamp of the Creator." It didn't really work out. As soon as I began to doubt the teachings, my faith just collapsed. Now, in religion class, I contradict the teacher on everything.

Saeryne said...

Doubts can destroy us, or they can make us stronger. I have had doubts too, but when I found answers to them, they disappeared. There's a saying, "Feed your faith and your doubts will starve to death." Don't let them consume your faith; search for answers! The Bible alone can satisfy all doubts. Also, Googling questions will often help as well. (However, humans are not omniscient so their answers should be checked against the Bible) What kind of doubts have you had?

Gabriel Gethin said...

I doubt the legitimacy of the Bible, the Church, and the existence of God.

Saeryne said...

I am by far no scientist, thus this will be very general.

Does God exist? Think about our planet Earth. Did you know that it is absolutely perfect to sustain life? If it were any smaller or larger, the atmosphere would change and we wouldn't be able to breathe. If it were closer or father away from the sun by the smallest of fractions, the planet would either burn up or freeze. And yet Earth is the perfect size, rotating around the sun the perfect distance to sustain life. Take nature as another example. Have you ever thought how completely and perfectly balanced everything in nature is?

Another example is the complexity of the world; consider the human being--anyone who has ever been in school knows how ridiculously complicated and complex it is. Human consciousness alone has dumbfounded sane people around the planet. We know what our entire brains are made up of by way of all the advanced technology we have. Yet no matter how much we understand, we can’t make it ourselves. Why can’t we create life? What’s missing?

Such complexity and preciseness, such microscopic detail and perfection simply cannot be by chance. Take this as an example--If you see a splatter of paint on the floor, you'd think that it was an accident, something that happened out of chance. However, if you see an enormous painting of a gorgeous landscape, why wouldn’t you think that that was an accident? You know that a paint can didn’t just fall by itself and that was the result! No, just like the world, something so perfectly balanced, so extremely complex, could never have happened by itself on accident. And if the world is not a work of chance, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that it was created by an intelligent Maker?

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that God exists?

If you would like to learn more, this site is very helpful:

Gabriel Gethin said...

Okay, so if the universe required an infinitely intelligent, powerful being to create it, then how did the infinitely intelligent, powerful being come into being. The Bible starts with "In the beginning." Either God had a beginning, or we are accepting God as eternal and therefore, always there. If God was always there, why can't the universe just always have been?

I still consider all those things chance based. Yes, earth is perfect for sustaining life. However, there are 8 other planets in our solar system. There are plenty of solar systems in the Milky Way and plenty more galaxies filled with even more solar systems. Chances are at least one would be in the perfect location.

Saeryne said...

When the Bible starts out with, "In the beginning" it means the beginning of everything humanly comprehensible. But God Himself has no beginning or creator; He has always existed, and always will.

We have already gone through the universe being so complicated that it must have been created, thus it cannot have “always been.” Because of that, everything in the universe has had a beginning, bound by the laws of time. But God created time, thus He is exempt from needing a beginning, and always was and will be.

It is true that there are probably bazillions of planets within all of space, and maybe there is a “chance” that one will have the absolute perfect combination of absolutely everything to make a world just like Earth. But these chances are about as big as the possibility of pigs sprouting wings and flying. Pig’s genes *could* by some ridiculously complex scientific anomaly instantaneously morph into avian genes. There is a “chance” of *anything* happening, but when the chance is so small to such an infinitesimal degree, then it is deemed impossible. Because of this extreme unlikelihood, it must have been intentionally created.

Gabriel Gethin said...

Time wasn't God's invention. Time is relative. Time is a measurement humans came up with. One day is the equivalent of one cycle of sunlight and moonlight. Now it is 24 hours. Humans got more precise. Hooray for us. Time is just an abstract concept given concrete measurement.

Also, you say the universe is so complex it must have been created. While, God has just always existed. You seem to be claiming that in order to always exist, the object in question cannot be complex. Are you calling God simple? And if God is simple, how did God create something so complex as the universe.

Also, I'm going to have to disagree about your claim that the chances of another perfect situation are slim. I mean, the amount of planets in the universe is just so unimaginable. It's likely we just can't see the other planets with life because they're just soo far away. But like, we've found dead bacteria on Mars (if i'm not mistaken). That would mean life existed elsewhere.

Genes don't instantly morph. Genes can mutate, but a handful mutations out of somewhere around 6 million (or billion... i forget) genes doesn't cause drastic changes. Unless the mutation causes cancer. That is pretty drastic...

Saeryne said...

I apologize for the delayed reply; I have been extremely busy as of late.

Let’s look at an aspect of time—aging. Everything in the universe, even the sun, is degrading, and will at some point in time “die.” Even evolutionists date Earth to be however billions of years old—meaning, Earth still had a beginning, and cannot have “always been.” Birth, aging, and dying are all aspects of time, and everything in the universe is bound by it. God, however, existed before He created time, and does not nor can He get any older because that requires a starting point, which God does not have. God will not die, either. He is exempt from the bounds of time.

No, I am not saying God is simple, just the opposite. Of course He is more complex than His creation. It’s not just complexity that ensures us that the world is created, it is also aging, as stated above. God is infinitely more complex, but He does not age, just one of the aspects that ensure us that He is eternal.

I’m not saying that there isn’t life on other planets--Maybe God did create complex civilizations in other galaxies, but as for the bacteria on Mars, it’s only bacteria. One bit of bacteria by chance compared to absolutely everything on Earth, from the enormously complicated leaf, to the far more so human to the ozone layer, which are incredibly more complex and made on purpose, is a stark contrast. Anyway, we are getting beside the point of the creation of Earth.

For some people, there isn’t any “concrete evidence” that the Earth was created--to believe so takes a certain amount of faith, besides scientific facts. Yet, there is also no solid, “concrete evidence” for evolution, the big bang, or any other theory. To believe those as true takes a certain amount of faith as well.

I was being sarcastic; likening the improbability of pigs sprouting wings to the world being anything other than intelligently designed.

Gabriel Gethin said...

Sometimes, people get scientific theories confused with conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are thought up in a moment and a half and are considered theories, however invalid. Scientific theories actually hold weight. They aren't thought up overnight. They have evidence backing them, substantial evidence. Not that any of this matters, its just a good thing for people to remember.

Here's the thing, how do we know God is eternal, with no beginning, no end, "living" outside of time? Where did all this come from? The Bible? When you think about it, the Bible is more or less a several thousand year old collection of questionably translated desert scribblings. I have found that every single religious doctrine is built upon faith. However, if you break down the faith with a shred of doubt, religion seems rather unbelievable.

That being said, it is easy to believe God is eternal, outside of time, has always been, will always be, because that is what you've been told since you were 5 and started going to Sunday school or whatever. However, if you begin your logic by asking, how do I know God is all of these things, the only answer is "because I believe." There's no logical reason for it. Moreover, you deny an eternal universe but allow an eternal God. Why do they get a double standard? I mean, isn't God just a way of answering the impossible questions? Where did we come from? When did all this begin? God's the easy way out. He's allowed to do the impossible because He's God.

I feel like the concept of God hasn't changed much in this fundamental sense. Greek's explained weather, seasons, and even the origin of fire with tales of gods and goddesses. The Bible does the same thing. Tower of Babel is the origin of different languages. Some Old Testament book closely resembles the Epic of Gilgamesh. And honestly! A flood?? they could've been more creative. Half the civilizations in the world have a flood story.

My point in all this is simple. We deny the existence of Greek gods because they had human qualities and weather is scientifically explained (sacrificing your cow won't help). I deny God for a similar reason. God in the Bible is like the same way. One minute he's wrathfully destroying people with a flood, the next he's loving and compassionate sending his only Son to die for the salvation of mankind. Woo! An eternal God shouldn't be so inconsistent. Plus, our beliefs are so rooted in faith, they remind me of belief in Santa Claus. We believe because other people teach us to. We sing songs, we act good for a reward (Christmas day versus eternal life), and eventually we find out he's not real.

Saeryne said...

When you think about it, everything we know of ancient civilizations is from thousands of year old collections of “questionably translated desert scribblings.” If you think the Bible’s source is so dubious, why do you believe that the Greeks created math or that Socrates even existed? No one has ever seen with their own eyes either of those things, and there aren’t any photographs of them—just scribblings. These are all that we have, and yet we take those scribblings as fact. And if the Bible is not fact, what is it? A hoax? A lie? Consider the circumstances in ancient times. Writing anything was a painstaking, expensive process, so it was only used to record the most important of things. Take for example the Koran; there have been found 200 copies, and this is among one of the more widely circulated documents. There have been over 25,000 extant copies of the New Testament found in many different languages. You doubt the authenticity of a document that has been copied 25,000 times, and yet believe your Greek, Roman, and Latin history textbooks to be true. Something would not be so popular if it were not amazing. Also, take into account the martyrs. There were thousands tortured and killed for their faith during the church’s early years, but it did not stop then. Throughout history to even today, there are millions of Christians persecuted in foreign countries, millions that are willing to sacrifice their lives for the message of the Bible. Now tell me, if you had even the slightest doubt that what you believed was false, would you sacrifice everything you had, including your life? Oh, you can explain away one or two fully insane loons who would die for a foolish cause, but not millions. Therefore, if the Bible is not a hoax, and not a lie, what do you think it is?

I have already explained how the world is simply too complicated for it to be a product of chance and therefore must have been created; the matter of the “creator’s creator” problem was addressed earlier too. You can break down anything with a shred of doubt; if you really wanted to, then you could conclude that reality itself is unbelievable. Everything is built on a certain degree of faith.

So what do you have to say of those who have been converted to Christianity when they were full adults, with fully formed opinions and were fully capable of thinking for themselves?

Ultimately, it is “because we believe,” but the same applies to evolutionism and any other theory. There is no logical reason for anything if you delve deep enough. Again, it is not a “double standard,” God exists outside of our standards, comprehension, and what we know to be true, thus He can be eternal and the world can’t be. We come from God; we know this by observing the intentional design in nature and from the Bible, and we know that the Bible is true by its history and the facts surrounding it.

Saeryne said...

We don’t know all the answers, nor are we meant to, because we are not God. If you don’t know why the sky is blue, does that mean that you no longer believe that the sky is there? You don’t always have to have all the answers.

Just because other civilizations attribute things they couldn’t explain to gods and goddesses doesn’t mean that the entire concept of a God can’t be true. Likewise, even if other religions have similar stories and events, it doesn’t automatically cancel out all validity. Besides, is there something wrong with a flood? Just because it’s not the way you would have done it, because you think it’s dumb, it must be wrong?

We know that Greek gods do not exist because there is absolutely no evidence to support them. However, the complete opposite is true of God, as we can see proof of Him in everything that exists.

Have you thoroughly read your Bible? It says that God destroyed the earth with a flood because the people were so wicked, God could not stand it any longer! God is a loving God, but He is also a just God. Think of it this way—if I were to show you two videos of a mother and her child, one where she is reading a story to him, and another where she is spanking him, would you say that she is bipolar? Of course not! She loves her son, but she must discipline him when he does wrong. So too, God loves us more than you can imagine, but His holiness demands justice when we sin. That is the reason God caused the flood, and it’s also the reason why He sent His Son to die on the cross for us—the price for sin was still paid, but by Someone else, not us.

If you really think that that is all Christianity is, then you truly don’t know what the Bible is all about. It’s true that there are many false Christians who act like you have described, and they are wrong. But true Christians believe because God has told them, not others, what is true. Christians praise and worship God because they are indebted to Him for their life, because they love Him.

Gabriel Gethin said...

Snaps for Saeryne. Those last two posts were your best yet. I particularly like how you flipped my desert scribblings comment on me. Well done. Christianity is an amazing belief. Part of what makes it great is its ability to warp into many forms, whatever is best for the individual. How many versions of the Bible are there? How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many times has the Catholic Church, as my religion teacher said, "grown in its understanding of itself and God?" There are countless examples of Christianity's variance. In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, he gets two different versions of Hell from his two guardians. They totally contradict. He's confused by it actually. It's rather amusing. Some people say Christianity is Capitalist because of the parable of the tenants. However, it's equally arguable that Christianity is Communist because Jesus said something along the lines of "whoever is greatest among you, make him your servant." Similar to the Communist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Christianity is polytheistic, monotheistic, AND pantheistic all at once too. Polytheistic because of the Trinity concept (three gods in one). Monotheistic for the same reason (emphasis on the 'one'). Pantheistic because every person is a Temple of the Holy Spirit. Every person has the light of God in them. Every person has Free Will. However, everything that happens is part of God's plan. God's Will is always done. How does that work? So, why do I say all this? It is hard to argue against a faith that can spin its own beliefs in this many ways.

Have you ever played a childhood game, like tag or cops and robbers, where one kid makes up rules as the game goes along in order to promote his own performance? I have. It's so annoying... Anyway, the same concept applies to religion. All those councils... Jerusalem, Nicea, Vatican I and II, Trent, and so on. That's what they did. They adjusted the rules to fit their own needs. Council of Jerusalem. The issue? Should Gentile converts follow Jewish customs? The solution, no. I don't know the "real" reason why. But it seems to me they did it just to make conversion less of a hassle. Council of Trent, lets reform the Church because its corrupt as Hell. The Church is the wife of Christ, it really shouldn't be this corrupt. Selling indulgences? Really? Yes, I'd like to buy 40 years off my stay in Purgatory. Thank you. Blah. Council of Vatican I. The age of reason threatens the Church, which relied on faith. The concept of "reason illuminated by faith." That's cute. Put their word in front of yours and TaDah! It's perfection.

I'm curious about one of your paragraphs. "We know that Greek gods do not exist because there is absolutely no evidence to support them. However, the complete opposite is true of God, as we can see proof of Him in everything that exists." What do you mean no evidence? There's plenty of books about them. Plenty of people believed at one time. The Greeks attributed fire, victory in battle, the seasons, and the weather to them. So don't they see proof in the gods everywhere in existence too? Plus, you say we can see proof of God in everything that exists. I don't see it. A growing amount of people worldwide (especially Europe) don't see it. Millions of people see truth in Allah, or Buddha, but not in God/Jesus/and Holy Spirit. I guess what I'm saying is... you make lots of vague generalizations in this paragraph. Please smooth them out for my sake hahaha.

Gabriel Gethin said...

I feel I must end this rant with another round of snaps for you. You made a good point. Everything requires a little faith. I can agree with that. The English materialists Hume, Hobbes, and the Irish Berkeley once reasoned that matter and mind did not exist because they had SO much doubt! Can you imagine that? I guess what I'm trying to say is I cannot blindly accept all the Bible says and all the Church says as complete, total truth. I must search for truth on my own. However, I believe in the individuality of Man. Notice, I believe implies faith hahaha. Truth is subjective. What is true for one person may be untrue for a million others, but that does not make it any less true for that one person. therefore, this is essentially the end of our spirited debate. I accept that I will not change your mind and you must accept that you cannot change mine. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Then, truth is in the mind of the believer.

Saeryne said...

It’s true that there are many different denominations of churches. But they do not “warp into many forms” simply to suit “whatever is best for the individual.” They are the result of sincere differences in understanding (and misunderstanding) the Bible’s teachings such that each ensuing conflict resulted in divisions. Yet even though they have their differences, all the people of different denominations are still Christians because of their core beliefs, similar to how it doesn’t matter whether you are Indian, African American, or Hispanic, you are still a human being. Similar issues exist with the many different translations of the Bible. They are sincere attempts to explain the original documents more clearly; whether by being more literal or trying to be more readable to a target audience, etc., it was not to come up with something different. Each translation doesn’t equate an entirely different Bible, but it shows the attempts of sincere, well-intentioned men to stick to the truths already written. You can think of it like how different news stations report the same story. They say it differently, yet essentially they say the same thing. Still, there is much disunity in the church; but this fault reflects the imperfection of man, not of God.

Christianity is neither capitalist nor communist, and you would do well to understand more of what you are criticizing before you criticize it. The verse you’re referring to was not meant as a mandate to control others; the context clearly indicates that it was for self consideration, that one should not be as their religious leaders were, but distinguish the valid authority of God’s Word from the twisted understanding men have placed on it. So with the proper understanding, this verse teaches us that the person who needs to be a servant is ourselves. This idea coincides with other references in which we should allow God’s Spirit to help us comprehend it, not to read into it ourselves and see only what we want to see.

Now this is God we’re talking about—we cannot even begin to expect to justly describe Him in our finite terms. The closest we can get is a general idea.

God is not polytheistic. In the Bible He is not described as three gods in one but three persons, yet the same God. Just as a man can be a husband, father, and boss all at the same time by being different persons to different people yet one and the same man, so God is also shown in the Bible to be a trinity. God is not pantheistic, either, no more than what you wear is who you are. Just because you inhabit them doesn’t mean that they become you, or you become them. God is monotheistic, though. In the Bible He is clearly described as one God.

Every person does not have the light of God in them no more than every building on the planet is lived in. Lights are turned on in houses only when there are people in them.

Man does have free will, and he chooses to do whatever he pleases. God has chosen to work within men’s choices, however stupid or evil. God’s plan doesn’t necessarily mean He is the cause of everything that happens, but that He has plans worked out for everything.

“A faith that can spin its own beliefs in this many was”? It is *you* that have convinced yourself that this is true. This statement is baseless. The Bible tells only one story with one cohesive truth. You are only looking for an excuse to allow yourself to believe and live as you choose to do, though God will not stop you.

The many council meetings and such you mentioned are all about men arguing over various issues. Try reading the Bible with a humble and open heart, without the filter of manmade declarations of what is right. Ask God to show you what’s true, not what men tell you is true.

Saeryne said...

I know I was being vague, and I did so because I thought my reply was already rather long; I apologize. When I said that there is no evidence to support Greek gods, I meant that science has clearly shown that sacrificing cows does not change the weather in any way (as you yourself pointed out earlier). Since when did what people believe mean that something is true? At some points in time, millions of people thought that the earth was flat, leeches got rid of cancer, the universe was geocentric—you name it. Obviously, we now know these to be wrong. Just because everyone believes something to be true doesn’t mean that it is. This also applies inversely. If everyone on the planet says that God isn’t real, that doesn’t change what’s true. It is known very well that people are often wrong, so how can you go by what people think to be true? As for yourself, maybe you “don’t see it” because you choose not to see it, just as a person might cover his ears and hum in order not to hear bad news.

Christianity is not blind! To be blind means that there is no evidence at all, and yet I have presented you with plenty.

I strongly encourage you in your search for truth; reading the Bible would be an excellent start. But I hope that you do so to find answers to believe the truth, not to look for answers to defend your unbelief. I don’t mean for you to believe anything blindly, because you’re right, that’s the worst kind of belief. If you consider the facts carefully without presuppositions, then you will surely find the truth.

That’s ridiculous! If truth were subjective, then no one would have to obey the law—the world would be in utter chaos. You might believe that lying, theft, and murder is wrong, but for other people it might be perfectly fine. Does that then give them the right to do those things because they believe it’s okay? Truth cannot be subjective because that makes every person his own “god,” in control of what is right and wrong. And if people answered only to themselves, well, the world wouldn’t last a week. No, truth needs to be objective in the form of the law to keep humanity alive. Also, I would like to point out that people in general think that the aforementioned things are wrong—everyone has a similar sense of morality instilled in them at birth. Isn’t that a curious “coincidence”?

I know that I cannot change your mind—only you can do that. My point in all this has been to show you that you don’t believe because you can’t—i.e. there isn’t enough evidence to justify it. You don’t believe because you choose to turn a blind eye to all the evidence. It isn’t a problem with your mind; it’s a problem with your will.

I found an interesting quote: “I'd rather live as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and die to find out there is.” In the end when we will all eventually die, if you’re right, I’m wrong, and the whole Bible’s just a sham, then nothing happens; our conscience just disappears. But what if the Bible is true? I don’t need to tell you where you will be spending eternity. I don’t know why you are so set against Christianity—can’t you see? You have everything to lose and nothing to gain! With such stakes, isn’t the Bible worth a second look with an honestly open heart?

I think you’re right; we’ve essentially said all that’s relevant to this discussion. Unless something changes or if you feel you really have a genuine issue that is pertinent in choosing to believe, then there is nothing more to be said.

Gabriel Gethin said...

Two things, and they're not about God's existence hahaha.

One, you are Catholic right? Not a different sect of Christianity? I referred to the teaching that every person has the light of God in them. I'm positive that is a Catholic belief. The right to life is based off it. Every person has "the indelible stamp of the Creater." The body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit. That's basically the same thing...

Two, do you really think people are born with a sense of morality? I've struggled with this one. For the most part, people agree killing is wrong. Yet, there are people with mental disorders who feel no guilt, no remorse. They kill like its nothing. I believe morality is learned, however the process by which you learn it makes it so everyone fundamentally agrees. When developing, you feel empathy towards people. You feel happy when they're happy, sad when they're sad, etc. Therefore, you associate negative emotions with actions that harm others. Those without guilt are also without empathy. They do not feel the emotions of others (thought they can identify them skillfully). Therefore, they do not develop a morality. What do you think?

Saeryne said...

Hahah, no, I am not Catholic.

If that is a Catholic belief, then it is a clear example of unsound teaching; man has taken a bit of Biblical truth, then distorted it and taught it as true. You shouldn’t believe everything you’re told—this applies to even textbooks and priests. Checking the Bible shows you what is true and what has been made up by man. To save you some time, for this post I will show you some verses that I have found. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12) Jesus said to His disciples (which speaks to future disciples as well), “you are the light of the world.” (Matthew 5:14) “…your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God,” (1 Corinthians 6:19) and “…God made man in His own image.” (Genesis 9:6) show our bodies to be a container, or lantern of God’s light. Also, the “light of God” is a simile for those who have Christ in them, not every person who breathes, and those people only to the point of holding the light, not actually being the light. John 1:9; 3:19-21, and12:46 also confirms these distinctions. Also, the right to life is not based on that teaching, but on very clear verses in the Bible—“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) for example.

Yes, actually, I do think that people are born with a sense of morality. But my opinion isn’t important; what the Bible teaches is what matters.

If morality is learned, where did it come from? No matter what you believe, you have to admit that there had to be a “first” human being. How did this first human being get his morals? Obviously he didn’t learn it from others or experiences because he was the first one, so either he got the brilliant idea of making up a moral code out of the blue, or it was instilled in him before he was made, or evolutionized from a fish if you prefer. The Bible says that man acquired knowledge of good and evil (morals) when eating of the tree of life, thus prior to that event man knew only good. (Genesis 2:9,16-17; 3:6) Romans 1:18-32 speaks at length about men having a conscience. For those who do not feel remorse, disorders aside, they choose to do wrong, but just because they do not feel empathy doesn’t mean that they don’t know what is right or wrong. Also, some have had their morality “erased” because of their environment, experiences, etc. 1 Timothy 4:2 speaks of consciences that are “seared,” burned to the point where there is no longer any sense of right and wrong.

Gabriel Gethin said...

The first example historically of a written code of law is Hammurabi's (forgive my lack of skillful spelling). He had that whole "an eye for an eye" thing. I believe the first laws came with the first "government." When a group of people gathered together, assumedly to hunt and gather, they essentially formed a tribe, which is a primitive government. One man was probably "chief." Whether the title was spoken or implied is unimportant. The chief, in order to maintain some order in his society, would have told his tribe not to steal from one another, not to kill one another or else there will be retribution. Laws arise from the societal need to work together towards some common purpose. As for morality? People learn what is socially acceptable growing up. So overtime, these laws became acceptable. However, not everywhere. Cannibalism is a legitimate practice some places in the world. In the developed world, it is downright horrid. I hope I've explained sufficiently where morality comes from, according to my beliefs.

Saeryne said...

I believe we should end this discussion, not because I can’t answer your questions but because there really is no further need to continue. I have already shown you much evidence in favor of Christianity, and any other issues are irrelevant. I’ve tried to reason with you, but your mind is obviously already made up; nothing I say will change that. You might not believe that hell exists, but if it does, are you willing to take that risk? I hope that you think long and hard about everything that has been said here. What have you got to lose?

Gabriel Gethin said...

I've got things to lose.