God's Intent

[POI]

1. Does God cause some to become inexorably drawn to Him, or not?
2. If so, why not all?
3. If not, then why do some believe and some not? Meaning, is it more-so based on logical reasoning that some believe or not believe, or, more-so based upon emotion?

[TRANSPONDER]

Johnny would still be Johnny if not the same Johnny, just as I'm not the same me I was before I entered atheist apologetics (it has made such a Difference to my Life) , but I was still the same me. But sure, ethics and morality is a matter of ongoing education like misic, technology, critical thinking and computer evolution. But the basics are there. An innate fairness is there as soon as teacher says 'How would you like it if someone did that to you?'

At what point then, do you think you would not be you? That innate fairness, what if you had that taken away and instead of introspecting when the teacher says, "How would you like it if he did that to you?" you instead thought, "I wouldn't like it, but so what?"

Well, there's the objective basis of morality - an instinct of fairness. The codes build on that. So Bible morality is just man made, but the instincts we find all over cultures where they vary, just as we have art and music and they are the same thing even though culturally different. So these instincts may be 'God -given', but Nature (evolution) accounts for it better. And we are still left with 'Which god?' because the moral codes of this or that culture or religion are not obviously the true one. And yes, it's a problem. People do know right and wrong, but still prefer to be selfish. It's an instinct as strong as empathy. And the 'Why not' is simple, as 'why spend money on space research?' is simple, and obvious, but the benefits to everyone are less obvious, but telling if we point them out, but who does? As Bull Burr says: "We're too busy watching Shark Week". Nobody listens to the more complicated stuff.

But your point, I'm still the same me, for better or worse but I've changed. People change, for good reason or bad, they convert, they deconvert, but they are still the same person.

Bottom line, It makes sense if we evolved, but not if we were Created.

I agree. It's probably why I find morality so interesting. I don't think anyone thinks morality is just something that evolved to help us survive. That sort of makes, what they think morality is, higher than what it actually is.

Yes. I think it's beginning to be understood that the origin of Morality is evolution, Biological and social. Animals have moral Rules, too, and they can learn; they can be taught. Dogs get vicious because they don't get taught right, because their owners are ignorant and there is no program to teach them how to bring their dogs up right. They go with humans delusion that the critters can speak English and understand every word they say. Nobody is teaching this stuff because the ones at the top never use it and don't see the need. It may not be useful to them to empower the bod in the street.

(Socrates) "I taught them to enquire, to question; why is this so? Why is this as it is?" (Menesilochus) "If only you'd been cut in little pieces, first" (Aristophanes, the Clouds).

Discussion (and you may call it proselytization, if you wish) is the way people get to decide. What is wrong is when only One side ever get to put their case.

I agree.

Teach the controversy, indeed, but sort it out Before it gets into the textbooks. Argue the alternative hypotheses in Accademia, with experts, not feed it (trashing evolution and spoonfeeding Creation...Oh yes, of course that's how it would be) to kids in class.

Final point, I hear what you say about the current civil polemics war between the crazies of both sides. What we need (and not just in America) is a rational and reasonable majority who say with me "A pox on both your crazy houses". The majority reasonable and law -abiding mass is still there and they need support.

I think reasonability falls prey to extremes because the extreme version of a morality (that's what these political positions are; they are moralities) will always seem more moral, and higher, than the less extreme. A pacifist will seem to be higher than someone who abhors violence but commits defensive violence anyway. The moderate will not be ruinous while the extreme is, but if he's thinking in terms of who is more moral, the moderate will always be ashamed not to be the extremist.

Yeah....One lesson I leaned early on was to reject "At least he has the courage of his convictions". Yes, I have the same sort of grudging respect for the Fundamentalist who will not budge, but it ain't reasonable nor admirable.That is why my slogan was rather Charlie Brown's "Stand up for your right to be wishy - washy". Wishy washy is good. Wishy washy is reasonable. Of course that doesn't mean "But I want to believe both of you" (open mind video) but it's following the evidence, being willing to be wrong and move on; it makes one stronger in the end, and refusing to budge makes the core beliefs weaker. That's why I see Faith as fragile and has to be fenced round with deep defences, rejection and denial, and being willing to let a country be taken over by crazies rather than accept being wrong.

A p.s here as much as anywhere. The Bible is wrong.I know it's wrong.I know on evidence and reason, it's wrong. How couldn't I be mistaken? How can I be sure? There could be unknown factors; there could be other evidence down the road that would change everything. We could all be a brain in a vat. But we go with what seems to be the better theory while keeping the door open. I was minded to post this because of watching one of those interview vids (1) and this was some guy with the shakes and his girl being interviewed separately. Despite the commentator playing it straight, I was suspicious that he might be putting it on. Especially when his claim to have 'found' the gun was debunked. "Clean hands" - you get caught lying once, your credibility goes down, no matter how much they might protest. So he was talking about some guy forcing him to do it. But his story was falling apart quicker than the 'Mary's lineage' apologetic. I Knew. And they'd already shown the CCTV footage. He was on his own. There were some unclear points. Was he really crazy or faking? Was there a real person he called but was it just imagination? But I knew there was no other person, just as I know the resurrection stories do not stack up.

(1) now someone will tell me they are all spoof vids for entertainment only. Though, if so, like those Ghost shows, they should say so.