' Defining Christianity ' How?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

' Houston, we have a problem! '

On the surface of things, Christianity is easy to define. It comes from Christ and Christ comes from the 1st century personage of Jesus.

With the proliferation of interpretation and disagreement around the circumstances of the Jesus happening...the whole thing becomes like a competitive game of stick- stacking. Invariably ,all ends down in a heap.

Define - late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define).

How do you set bounds to this metropolis of a religious sprawl?

I would start here and probably end very close by.

Matthew 5:16
' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Start at the table of hard graft.

Question:How would you begin to define Christianity?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

I consider modern Christianity as I would, a global food franchise.(take your pick)
The branding can be slightly different depending on language and custom, the pricing can be reflective of location, but the core experience is to be replicated, no matter what. This makes production and logistics as streamlined as possible and it cocoons the franchise against most competition. Give the people what they expect to get.

I am a Catholic, my next door neighbour is a Protestant minister. We go about our business and we are the best of friends,...as it should be. Everything is rosey in the garden and a far cry from the brutality of conflict that has dogged these two denominations for centuries.
We share Jesus and we share the Bible and our intentions appear similarily good. I could live beside an Atheist in the same way.

This compromise goes deeper into my family unit. Agreement is a daily adventure for us. This struggle to belong follows you as you move into your community. Never park on the lines.

The Jesus message is subvertive to all this, by declared revelation. You are being asked to do what is not normal. You are now, to be saying that you want chicken-wings in Mc Donald's....you are not supposed to do that.

You have to turn the heat off and wear a coat.
You have to take in 2 Ukrainian refugees to fill your spare rooms (and give them coats)
You have to spend your day picking up litter on your local beach....for free ...and then you go down to Social Welfare on Friday and renege on yourself as you collect your unemployment benefit.

We are rats scurrying around opportunistically, comfortable under an over-blanket of Christian debris.We need a total recalibration,as followers of Jesus.

Luke 21:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Looks like my family are half-way there already!
What about the Father against the Mother-in-law??

Thanks

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

I’m very glad you missed my point. It was a message to Masterblaster that was veiled on purpose. I can only say, “whew, dodged that bullet.”

I'm more concerned with the very plain message to me, intended to wrongfoot me. No, no, sorry.That was to masterblaster. Let me look. Or maybe not. Masterblaster purported to be above responding to my post (as distinct from being unable to) and invited others to pinch -hit. That you did chucking Screwtrape at me, which I dult took down. Ball back in your court.

You still don’t understand my post which frees me from a direct response as your understanding does not match what was written. Shot wide from the target. Let’s let be as is. It’s best you don’t understand as it preferable that you cannot respond to what was written.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

I’m very glad you missed my point. It was a message to Masterblaster that was veiled on purpose. I can only say, “whew, dodged that bullet.”

I'm more concerned with the very plain message to me, intended to wrongfoot me. No, no, sorry.That was to masterblaster. Let me look. Or maybe not. Masterblaster purported to be above responding to my post (as distinct from being unable to) and invited others to pinch -hit. That you did chucking Screwtrape at me, which I dult took down. Ball back in your court.

You still don’t understand my post which frees me from a direct response as your understanding does not match what was written. Shot wide from the target. Let’s let be as is. It’s best you don’t understand as it preferable that you cannot respond to what was written.

Perhaps you could explain what was written, what it meant and how I missed,rather than the all too familiarrunning away shouting "I win".

I'll be happy to be corrected by anyone. I do hot have an idea that a god is giving me all my standup material, so I can never admit being wrong.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

Have you read Screwtape Letters, by chance? There’s a chapter where the Uncle undergoes a change. There’s a reason why and there’s an outcome that is connected to the reason. This might be of help to you. Your posts have been helpful to me, if that’s any comfort.

I have read the Screwtape letters. Also the Perelandra trilogy, have you? Indeed I was quite a CS Lewis fan in my teens, though I of course saw the obvious Christian propaganda. Indeed, it was seeing through his flawed propaganda that made me even more of a questioner and doubter.

The Scewtape thing is a Plot line set up to validate his points.

What does he know about Demons, really? I reckon nothing. They are fairytale characters invented to underpin his own faithclaims.

They are lovely fantasies, but fantasies, nonetheless.

I’m very glad you missed my point. It was a message to Masterblaster that was veiled on purpose. I can only say, “whew, dodged that bullet.”

I'm more concerned with the very plain message to me, intended to wrongfoot me. No, no, sorry.That was to masterblaster. Let me look. Or maybe not. Masterblaster purported to be above responding to my post (as distinct from being unable to) and invited others to pinch -hit. That you did chucking Screwtrape at me, which I dult took down. Ball back in your court.

You still don’t understand my post which frees me from a direct response as your understanding does not match what was written. Shot wide from the target. Let’s let be as is. It’s best you don’t understand as it preferable that you cannot respond to what was written.

Perhaps you could explain what was written, what it meant and how I missed,rather than the all too familiarrunning away shouting "I win".

I'll be happy to be corrected by anyone. I do hot have an idea that a god is giving me all my standup material, so I can never admit being wrong.

My very dear T,
You would need to be less aggressive before I’d believe you’re happy to be corrected. Just disagreeing with you results in you being terribly insulting. Telling you you’re wrong would unleash worse.

However, at the risk of a severe verbal thrashing, you are incorrect in your accusation that our side thinks or even has the slightest awareness that God is giving us “standup material.” We don’t pretend to have that advantage.

As to your otherwise humbly asked request (a sincere compliment on you,) I prefer to decline elucidating further. This has been a few relatively cordial exchanges and I prefer to keep it that way.

[Purple Knight]

A christian is a person who is following Christ. That’s relationship. When I wrote I’d be careful about what a fake christian says, it’s because I know they aren’t receiving understanding from Jesus. They’ve no relationship to do so. I suspect an atheist hasn’t a clue as to how one knows this and it’s difficult to find a good example. If several people were on a project to write a book about a man, and two of them had actually been close friends with him and another just pretended he was, the real deals would know the faker was faking. How? By what he said. That’s the closest example I can think of.

That's close to something I often say, which is that if one insane asylum inmate sees the psychiatrists as demons, he's crazy, but if two of the inmates see the same demons, then everyone else is crazy. And I agree with your entire point. You know. I concede that. And I said as much at the beginning of this. I said, I think the real ones, if there are such, probably have a good handle on who is faking. But it's personal knowledge.

Now, I can have personal knowledge as an atheist too. Let's say I have a conversation with an animal. A legit conversation. But I don't record it. This might have happened to me. This might be absolutely true. But it's personal knowledge in that I can never prove this to anybody else, ever. So far it's perfectly analogous but here comes the difference. There's a chance that the knowledge of animal language can come into the body of proven knowledge, because it can come through things that can be verified. But your faith remains only in your head and there's absolutely no way that those of us who don't have a direct line to God, will ever know this knowledge. That's the difference. The collective body of knowledge can never, even theoretically, be updated to include which Christians are right and which ones are faking. This is a matter of the heart and soul. Even a blind man can tie up two sighted people, show them the same thing which he has not allowed them to touch, and when he gets the same answer from both, he can understand that sight is real. I can't do that with religious people because whoever is right, half of you are faking and I won't get the same answer 99% of the time like the blind man will.

We already have a downloaded morality in our heads. All humans agree murder is wrong. All humans agree stealing is wrong. All humans agree rape is wrong. You’re assuming KNOWING some act is wrong means we DON’T do it. That’s where you make an error.

No we don't assume that. And maybe you're right on rape but murder and theft are highly conditional. You see this fellow? He is a hero! I would wager more than half of the people who look at him say, truthfully, to their own selves, that he does nothing wrong and if it's really steal or starve, he's not morally obligated to starve. Even I say that, though I come to it by logic and not morality. (I believe that our moral structures must make EVERYONE better off, and if they fail for some people, who would work if they could but cannot find work, they do not have the obligation to uphold a moral structure that has been imposed on them and would kill them if followed. Insofar as not unilaterally killing people is the FIRST THING, we must not impose moral structures that kill people. If we do they're invalid. You see how I come to that by logic?)

Where do people legitimately disagree on the wrongness of murder, rape, theft, torture and a few others. What are the points of disagreement?

People do disagree on killing and theft. But I find the main point of genuine disagreement to be if we may harm others sometimes, or if we may never (almost everyone is in the first camp) and if so, under what circumstances, and what types of harm, are permissible. It draws a pretty solid line down left and right. Leftists for example believing very strongly that we may never hurt anyone even emotionally, except those who believe hurting is permissible and it's open season on them. Those on the Right tend to instead believe that it's open season on emotional harm, but physical harm is a huge no-no, as in, it's immoral.

I legitimately do not know who is correct. I lean toward the Left being ideally correct but making the world much worse for everyone by making whether you may be harmed with moral impunity about the kind of person you are, rather than what you do. It seems to me that the Left is perfect, but also very much the enemy of the good. But perhaps this is just my preference for a fair world over a moral one.

No monkeys have been observed to evolve one iota. But it’s an interesting development in those who faithfully believe they are doing so despite no evidence. That’s a strong faith.

I don't have faith in evolution at all. I reserve judgment about whether anything evolved. I think evolution is a good explanation and a great working model especially for an animal breeder, but that doesn't mean I believe in it. I've said as much in other threads. I don't even believe Abraham Lincoln existed, though I'm forced to pretend so in casual conversation or be thought a fool and conspiracy theorist. I'm a genuine skeptic, which means if you hand me $100 and a TARDIS, and give me the opportunity to bet on Abraham Lincoln's existence and double my money, I simply pocket the $100 and don't bet. I want to see anyway but I'm not risking the $100 on that, because I don't think it's a sure thing.

What I pointed out in what you quoted was that if morality evolved, and someone shows me how I evolved to not murder, but someone else evolved to murder, I might have to let him kill me. So I was making a point against biologically-generated morality because it can end up being unfavourable to one party and favouring another. I think we need more than biology, if we want to avoid this.

[Mae von H]

A christian is a person who is following Christ. That’s relationship. When I wrote I’d be careful about what a fake christian says, it’s because I know they aren’t receiving understanding from Jesus. They’ve no relationship to do so. I suspect an atheist hasn’t a clue as to how one knows this and it’s difficult to find a good example. If several people were on a project to write a book about a man, and two of them had actually been close friends with him and another just pretended he was, the real deals would know the faker was faking. How? By what he said. That’s the closest example I can think of.

That's close to something I often say, which is that if one insane asylum inmate sees the psychiatrists as demons, he's crazy, but if two of the inmates see the same demons, then everyone else is crazy. And I agree with your entire point. You know. I concede that. And I said as much at the beginning of this. I said, I think the real ones, if there are such, probably have a good handle on who is faking. But it's personal knowledge.

I am one. And after a time, a long time, I can tell the fakers from the real and the immature ones from the fakers. But it takes a lot of listening to their words and watching what they do. Sounds more judgemental than it is because mercy is generously applied.

Now, I can have personal knowledge as an atheist too. Let's say I have a conversation with an animal. A legit conversation. But I don't record it. This might have happened to me. This might be absolutely true. But it's personal knowledge in that I can never prove this to anybody else, ever. So far it's perfectly analogous but here comes the difference. There's a chance that the knowledge of animal language can come into the body of proven knowledge, because it can come through things that can be verified. But your faith remains only in your head and there's absolutely no way that those of us who don't have a direct line to God, will ever know this knowledge. That's the difference.

There are three elements you’re forgetting. A book written by many authors over millennia in three languages describe their personal experiences and understanding and these match. That means it’s not a singular experience like you talking to an animal once. Second, people have taken that teaching in that book and built just and free societies where no such justice or freedom for all ever existed in human history. This goes beyond personal experience. (You’ll find the degradation in western culture is a result of abandoning those teachings. It’s going to get worse where freedoms will be lost as the reason (the Bible) is no longer respected.) Third, when others tell me what God says to them, I know if it’s God. You don’t have that from animal exchanges. The external evidence establishes the validity of the divine exchange.

The collective body of knowledge can never, even theoretically, be updated to include which Christians are right and which ones are faking. This is a matter of the heart and soul. Even a blind man can tie up two sighted people, show them the same thing which he has not allowed them to touch, and when he gets the same answer from both, he can understand that sight is real. I can't do that with religious people because whoever is right, half of you are faking and I won't get the same answer 99% of the time like the blind man will.

I agree. But the body of knowledge never replaced discernment. Peter knew a couple was lied to him. No book would have told him this.

From the outside and for most believers it’s difficult. Americans and Canadians in particular don’t judge and therefore cannot discern. They don’t admit, by and large, that there are fakers or they use the “agree with me on theology or you’re not a christian” approach. That’s cut and dried.

We already have a downloaded morality in our heads. All humans agree murder is wrong. All humans agree stealing is wrong. All humans agree rape is wrong. You’re assuming KNOWING some act is wrong means we DON’T do it. That’s where you make an error.

No we don't assume that. And maybe you're right on rape but murder and theft are highly conditional. You see this fellow? He is a hero! I would wager more than half of the people who look at him say, truthfully, to their own selves, that he does nothing wrong and if it's really steal or starve, he's not morally obligated to starve. Even I say that, though I come to it by logic and not morality. (I believe that our moral structures must make EVERYONE better off, and if they fail for some people, who would work if they could but cannot find work, they do not have the obligation to uphold a moral structure that has been imposed on them and would kill them if followed. Insofar as not unilaterally killing people is the FIRST THING, we must not impose moral structures that kill people. If we do they're invalid. You see how I come to that by logic?)

What if he steals from a family who then starve? How about begging? It’s very rare a man steals so he doesn’t starve…pretty much non-extant. In western countries there is no death by starvation. There is free food for the starving. If you look at a fair number of the poor, they’re overweight, not starving. Those starving don’t do what Aladin did in agility. They are skinny, weak, and not well dressed. I give to beggars from time to time but never ever fat ones. They have more than enough.

And you can CHOOSE to believe our moral structures are obeyed because they make all of us better, but you don’t live like that. You can’t really live like is true. You lock your doors, guard your passwords, secure your accounts, use a firewall or virus scanner. This shows you don’t believe your view matches reality. It’s much easier to have one’s view match reality.

Where do people legitimately disagree on the wrongness of murder, rape, theft, torture and a few others.

What are the points of disagreement?

People do disagree on killing and theft. But I find the main point of genuine disagreement to be if we may harm others sometimes, or if we may never (almost everyone is in the first camp) and if so, under what circumstances, and what types of harm, are permissible. It draws a pretty solid line down left and right. Leftists for example believing very strongly that we may never hurt anyone even emotionally, except those who believe hurting is permissible and it's open season on them. Those on the Right tend to instead believe that it's open season on emotional harm, but physical harm is a huge no-no, as in, it's immoral.

Actually lefties think harming those who disagree with them is just fine. And everyone agrees that if they or those they love are murdered it’s wrong. Everyone agrees that if they or those they love are robbed, it’s wrong. We mustn’t think that because people EXCUSE their own immoral behavior that we don’t agree on morals. They all agree when they’re the victim. Perpetrators, of course, don’t agree but surly it’s obvious why.

The definition of “harm” is fluid. To use certain pronouns YOU want might harm me. Does the left care?

I legitimately do not know who is correct. I lean toward the Left being ideally correct but making the world much worse for everyone by making whether you may be harmed with moral impunity about the kind of person you are, rather than what you do. It seems to me that the Left is perfect, but also very much the enemy of the good. But perhaps this is just my preference for a fair world over a moral one.

.

Look carefully at the left agenda and see if it’s fair. Every country the left has taken over becomes poor and/or oppressive. And these laws are being enacted. In Scotland if someone FEELS offended by something you communicated in your own home, you can face 8 years of prison. But rape young girls and it’s only 6 years max. Free speech is a product of the Christian right. Lefties are intolerant of the right. They are abolishing the rights to any view but theirs. Is that fair?

No monkeys have been observed to evolve one iota. But it’s an interesting development in those who faithfully believe they are doing so despite no evidence. That’s a strong faith.

I don't have faith in evolution at all. I reserve judgment about whether anything evolved. I think evolution is a good explanation and a great working model especially for an animal breeder, but that doesn't mean I believe in it. I've said as much in other threads. I don't even believe Abraham Lincoln existed, though I'm forced to pretend so in casual conversation or be thought a fool and conspiracy theorist. I'm a genuine skeptic, which means if you hand me $100 and a TARDIS, and give me the opportunity to bet on Abraham Lincoln's existence and double my money, I simply pocket the $100 and don't bet. I want to see anyway but I'm not risking the $100 on that, because I don't think it's a sure thing.

What I pointed out in what you quoted was that if morality evolved, and someone shows me how I evolved to not murder, but someone else evolved to murder, I might have to let him kill me.

Why? Would you let pedophiles and rapists free to express themselves assuming they “evolved” to be such? Really? Do you see this doesn’t work in real life.

So I was making a point against biologically-generated morality because it can end up being unfavourable to one party and favouring another. I think we need more than biology, if we want to avoid this.

The law of the jungle is natural but not preferable. That’s the product of evolutionary morals.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H, Purple Knight

What is this stuff about?

PK - "So I was making a point against biologically-generated morality because it can end up being unfavourable to one party and favouring another. I think we need more than biology, if we want to avoid this."
MvH- "The law of the jungle is natural but not preferable. That’s the product of evolutionary morals".
-----
You two have walked each other up an objective morality cul-de-sac.

- Objective morality is not fair
- Evolutionary morals are subjective to the species.
- Objective morality is rain falling on earth

Matthew 5:45
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Thanks

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H, Purple Knight

What is this stuff about?

PK - "So I was making a point against biologically-generated morality because it can end up being unfavourable to one party and favouring another. I think we need more than biology, if we want to avoid this."
MvH- "The law of the jungle is natural but not preferable. That’s the product of evolutionary morals".
-----
You two have walked each other up an objective morality cul-de-sac.

- Objective morality is not fair
- Evolutionary morals are subjective to the species.
- Objective morality is rain falling on earth

Matthew 5:45
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Thanks

-Objective or God generated morals are the most fair
-only man is the species with morals. All other species just want to survive, which is the lowest moral standard possible in man
-I’m not sure how literal rain is moral, but point taken. I cannot disagree. Good point although that is God’s actions, not our moral choices.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "Objective or God generated morals are the most fair"

Yes they are, but not when observed from the human pleading contained in Purple Knight's quote.
God is fair ,objective morality is arbitrarily fair but it does not appear as logically fair to us. It is an unsettling mystery for most and it is subconsciously subverted in our human reasonings. When we say that it is all happening for us (much of the Bible), we loose our foothold on objective morality ,completely

You are incorrect, MvH that other creatures might not aspire to levels above mere existence. They might aspire to happiness and awareness and they might aspire to development and self-improvement. Most species display subjective moral codes that we could easily enlighten ourselves from, by respectful observation and concern.

Proverbs 30
24 There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise:
25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;
26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks;
27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;
28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.

Thanks

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "Objective or God generated morals are the most fair"

Yes they are, but not when observed from the human pleading contained in Purple Knight's quote.
God is fair ,objective morality is arbitrarily fair but it does not appear as logically fair to us. It is an unsettling mystery for most and it is subconsciously subverted in our human reasonings. When we say that it is all happening for us (much of the Bible), we loose our foothold on objective morality ,completely

But I don’t agree. I see God’s moral
law as the most fair. It’s not a mystery to me. Not at all. I can’t think of anything unfair in anything God did or His moral law. Not a single time or act. What do you mean “it’s all happening for us?”

You know, I might find that God’s moral law absolutely fair because I know and understand Him. It’s evidence of my claim.

You are incorrect, MvH that other creatures might not aspire to levels above mere existence. They might aspire to happiness and awareness and they might aspire to development and self-improvement.

Where and who? This sounds like anthropomorphic fantasy. And how is a creature who otherwise might not be surviving decide for happiness measured? He cannot take a survey.

Most species display subjective moral codes that we could easily enlighten ourselves from, by respectful observation and concern.

Except for man, the only observable code other creatures have is survival, their own, except for the short-lived maternal instinct. But I’m open to solid evidence of this.

Proverbs 30
24 There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise:
25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;
26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks;
27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;
28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.

Thanks

These aren’t moral choices these creatures instead of other choices. And all are to enable survival, not happiness.

-With all due respect!!