It's not innate with all or even most species. It's just observed with plenty of others. It's not just bonobos, there are cooperative bird species too. Orcas display very complex social behaviors as well.

I'm also saying that no species apply expectation that their version of fair play or morality will be followed by other species. Who cares if grizzlies do things we humans would find abhorrent if done by other humans.

I don't see any reason that human morality is evidence of God because we see similar behaviors across other species. Humans are much more advanced than other animals, but not unique in displaying "morality".

Woody2006 said:

---

It's not innate with all or even most species. It's just observed with plenty of others. It's not just bonobos, there are cooperative bird species too. Orcas display very complex social behaviors as well.

I'm also saying that no species apply expectation that their version of fair play or morality will be followed by other species. Who cares if grizzlies do things we humans would find abhorrent if done by other humans.

I don't see any reason that human morality is evidence of God because we see similar behaviors across other species. Humans are much more advanced than other animals, but not unique in displaying "morality".

---

If I understand your logic, you are basically arguing that to use "a system of laws and justice" is not evidence enough of higher reasoning (by this species of animals), which some would argue is attributed to a Natural Law instilled in us by a Creator (in this case God) - is that basically it?

+Pablo

Woody2006 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

I didn't say people don't do bad things. Of course they do.

The difference is when people do bad things to me, they do them to me. The concept of sin suggests they really did a bad thing to an ethereal being somewhere else, when actually it's me they did something to.

---

You actually need God to justify your position. People do 'bad' things according to which absolute standard? You are assuming there is such a thing as good and bad and acting as if it's absolute and not relative and that we should all understand what 'bad' is.

---

We don't need God to follow the golden rule. It's actually pretty simple to know if you are doing something wrong to someone else, because you know if you would like it or dislike it if it happened to you.

No need to act as if God is necessary for empathy to occur.

---

Ah.. Natural Law. If you go down that route, you will end up with the whole God question. I agree we are "hard wired" - just attribute this to my soul (image of God) and not so much my animal.

---

We observe other animals forming cooperative social systems. Our brains are much more developed, so you'd expect less complexity and less impulse control out of other animals, but it isn't just humans that know what is "right" or "wrong".

Saying God hardwired "right" and "wrong" into you ignores the multitude of other animal species that have a cooperative social structure in which freeloading or theft is punished and hard work or sharing are rewarded.

---

Indeed - I am saying that we, collectively as a species, have evolved in a greater dynamic, and exponentially incredible way - that it points directly to the infusion of a "soul" given to us by God. Was once described as a "phenomenological leap" in evolution by a theologian.

A point about animals - I am of the belief that they are also created by this God - but lack this "soul" - an image if you will of the Divine Nature. Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul. Only humans can be reconciled with the Creator (God the Father). Not that he doesn't care about the animals; its that they were created to serve the needs of man. They would only have a "spirit".

Natural Law is for me, a wonderful example that most people, from a variety of religious backgrounds (i.e., Protestant, Catholic, Muslim. Judaism, etc.) - have as a basis for understanding the will of God. It would make sense that God would instill in man, this receiver of sorts, so that he can communicate with us. I don't think God holds a grizzly bear or a shark to the same standard because they simply lack this aspect (a soul).

Good stuff!

+Pablo

Quote:

---

If you want, I'd like to know what the "problem" is?

Being Catholic, we actually think in terms of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. This other reality, sometimes referred to in the Bible as Sheol, is a state of purification as a consequence of God;s Mercy and Justice. What is really interesting for me to have come to understand is that we choose Hell. Why? Probably because once we see our true soul laid bare before God, we feel like we do not deserve God's mercy. If you remember anything from me, it's that God's mercy is always there for you - you just need to choose it. Satan, a title for what is essentially, the prosecutor, will argue why you do not deserve Heaven - I pray that I remember the thief on the cross and ask for the same mercy offered, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom."

What an awesome response given by our Lord when he replied, "This day, you will be with me in Paradise."

+Pablo

---

The problem is eternal punishment for a short life. I'm fully aware of all the different faiths and their take on hell. None really seem to make real sense except Mormons, but that's about the only thing with Mormonism that makes sense.

Quote:

---

It would make sense that God would instill in man, this receiver of sorts, so that he can communicate with us.

---

It would make more sense that if human tribes that were more cooperative and empathetic towards others in their tribe were more successful at surviving than those that weren't that all humans today would have an inherent sense of that ingrained in their culture.

Quote:

---

No offense, but using scripture as a response is not a persuasive argument.

---

Your claim "I'm assuming God gave us a conscious"
My claim, "It's not an assumption if God revealed this"
Your claim "Using scripture is not persuasive"

The persuasiveness of a scripture has nothing to do with the validity of scripture.

Quote:

---

Are their acts of cooperation intentional or conscious, or are they instinctive?

---

Other animal species are limited by their lack of brain complexity. It requires a well-developed pre-frontal cortex for certain things like impulse control. This is why we see people with damaged or underdeveloped brains struggle with controlling their impulses. We don't judge them as "immoral" when we see it because we recognize their limitations, just as we don't judge apes for being "immoral" when they engage in cannibalism.

I don't know why you think it is a compelling argument that no other animal species have nearly as complex a social and moral understanding when they so clearly don't have the same higher-level reasoning skills humans have.

That doesn't mean that animal hunting techniques and cooperation is always innate... animals learn all sorts of techniques and pass them on to their offspring. We see this in very disparate animals too -- orcas and chimps both display these behaviors. Chimps aren't born knowing how to use sticks and rocks as tools to aid in their eating, but they learn by watching their parents and other chimps. They also have to learn things like sharing and cooperating just like human kids do.

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

It's not innate with all or even most species. It's just observed with plenty of others. It's not just bonobos, there are cooperative bird species too. Orcas display very complex social behaviors as well.

I'm also saying that no species apply expectation that their version of fair play or morality will be followed by other species. Who cares if grizzlies do things we humans would find abhorrent if done by other humans.

I don't see any reason that human morality is evidence of God because we see similar behaviors across other species. Humans are much more advanced than other animals, but not unique in displaying "morality".

---

If I understand your logic, you are basically arguing that to use "a system of laws and justice" is not evidence enough of higher reasoning (by this species of animals), which some would argue is attributed to a Natural Law instilled in us by a Creator (in this case God) - is that basically it?

+Pablo

---

No, I'm arguing that the fact that humans innately understand "right" from "wrong" is not necessarily evidence God placed that knowledge there.

Quote:

---

Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul

---

This is an interesting thought. Do the animal spirits live on past their time on earth, or does only a soul remain for eternity?

Sean Carroll recently had a podcast on Morality and the brain. Pretty interesting

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/06/10/episode-50-patricia-churchland-on-conscience-morality-and-the-brain/

Quote:

---

When you were a child and didn't something wrong, didn't you immediately have a sense of having done something wrong?

---

Only because of what our parents and culture instilled in us. Children of tribes that kill and eat their enemies feel no such sense of "wrong".

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want, I'd like to know what the "problem" is?

Being Catholic, we actually think in terms of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. This other reality, sometimes referred to in the Bible as Sheol, is a state of purification as a consequence of God;s Mercy and Justice. What is really interesting for me to have come to understand is that we choose Hell. Why? Probably because once we see our true soul laid bare before God, we feel like we do not deserve God's mercy. If you remember anything from me, it's that God's mercy is always there for you - you just need to choose it. Satan, a title for what is essentially, the prosecutor, will argue why you do not deserve Heaven - I pray that I remember the thief on the cross and ask for the same mercy offered, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom."

What an awesome response given by our Lord when he replied, "This day, you will be with me in Paradise."

+Pablo

---

The problem is eternal punishment for a short life. I'm fully aware of all the different faiths and their take on hell. None really seem to make real sense except Mormons, but that's about the only thing with Mormonism that makes sense.

---

We completely agree on this point.. that hell is punitive to an unknowing soul. When I, along with other Catholics notably the current Pope, see hell as a state of separation from God. As I mentioned earlier, it is a chosen path, because God offers mercy even at the moment of personal judgement.

Knowledge is key when defining sin.

+Pablo

about that image of God - so, I asked a bunch of teenagers the same questions, how would you depict God? Gave them each a sheet a paper, crayons, markers, pencils, etc... More often, they drew and old guy that resembled Zues with a tiny world at his (old man) feet. So, I drew a light, a candle light, and we started our discussion there. Because to me, that old man with a lighting bolt ready to strike you down for making a mistake is not the God of love and mercy, I have come to know late in my life.

+Pablo

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

When you were a child and didn't something wrong, didn't you immediately have a sense of having done something wrong?

---

Only because of what our parents and culture instilled in us. Children of tribes that kill and eat their enemies feel no such sense of "wrong".

---

I think we are talking about murder and stealing kind of wrong.. lol

Woody2006 said:

---

Quote:

---

Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul

---

This is an interesting thought. Do the animal spirits live on past their time on earth, or does only a soul remain for eternity?

---

You mean Dog Heaven right?

So, I'm on record for telling my kids, that the God I have come to know and love, loves the same things I love, because God is love right? I loved my cat Fluffy (still do).. died when I was 12 years old. I believe, this animal will be there in Heaven (if and when) I get there.. that just makes sense. They just don't need to be "saved" like we do.

+Pablo

I followed the God of love and mercy for 25 years. God was love. Love was God. His mercy endurith forever. If that were true then no one would be in hell. I knew that for many years but I fought against it. I used CS Lewis' The Great Divorce as a tool to keep in the faith, seeing hell as locked from the inside, chosen by those that are there.

But even that illusion breaks apart if you truly look at it objectively and with mercy.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

It would make sense that God would instill in man, this receiver of sorts, so that he can communicate with us.

---

It would make more sense that if human tribes that were more cooperative and empathetic towards others in their tribe were more successful at surviving than those that weren't that all humans today would have an inherent sense of that ingrained in their culture.

---

Not following you here.. Are you arguing the Darwinian, "survival of the fittest" angle?

+Pablo

PabloSerna said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

When you were a child and didn't something wrong, didn't you immediately have a sense of having done something wrong?

---

Only because of what our parents and culture instilled in us. Children of tribes that kill and eat their enemies feel no such sense of "wrong".

---

I think we are talking about murder and stealing kind of wrong.. lol

---

"murder" only applies to those in our tribe. Italian crime families didn't see what they did as murder. Kids that grew up in that didn't either.

Once one defines their tribe, this morality comes into play. It is a morality pushed by the tribe and the parents to establish this.

In a way, yes. Evolution can apply to our genes, but also to our cultures. The most successful traits will prevail.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I followed the God of love and mercy for 25 years. God was love. Love was God. His mercy endurith forever. If that were true then no one would be in hell. I knew that for many years but I fought against it. I used CS Lewis' The Great Divorce as a tool to keep in the faith, seeing hell as locked from the inside, chosen by those that are there.

But even that illusion breaks apart if you truly look at it objectively and with mercy.

---

So try looking at it as father of a very large family.. some are on board with chores, keeping their rooms clean, etc. Others, not so much. Freewill is guaranteed by the father. What to do about the kids that refuse to live by the rules? Some would argue - punish them! Take away their privileges and send them to their rooms until they "learn" how to behave. I have come to understand that God does not choose this - rather he gives us our share of the inheritance and watches us go on our way- praying that we will one day come back home so he can celebrate with us a new life.

Hell is being away from God. It only, I emphasize "only" makes sense that is is chosen by our free will and guaranteed by God.

Billy Joel was only half right when he sung about the sinners having more fun - the fun it seems is short lived.

+Pablo

Texaggie7nine said:

---

In a way, yes. Evolution can apply to our genes, but also to our cultures. The most successful traits will prevail.

---

Thankfully we are not 100% controlled by our "animal nature" or we surely would have destroyed each other long ago. I happen to believe that both natures can co-exist and that is what elevates us above the highest animal.

+Pablo

2 part question.

Do you think that those in hell can get to heaven eventually?

Do you think any will?


A father's mercy is never ending right?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

2 part question.

Do you think that those in hell can get to heaven eventually?

Do you think any will?


A father's mercy is never ending right?

---

So I think if you come to know and love God with all your heart, you could never choose hell over God. Again, you are assuming hell is punitive and not a choice. It a choice that Lucifer made and makes for all eternity.

It's been asked before, so I will just copy a better explanation - I hope it helps someone:

>>
The most extensive papal explanation of hell came in response to a 2015 question from a female scout who asked, "If God forgives everyone, why does hell exist?" Francis acknowledged that this was a "good and difficult question."
The pope spoke of a very proud angel who was envious of God, reports Catholic News Service.
"He wanted God's place," said Francis. "And God wanted to forgive him, but he said, 'I don't need your forgiveness. I am good enough!'"
"This is hell," explained the pope. "It is telling God, 'You take care of yourself because I'll take care of myself.' They don't send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there. Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God's love. This is hell."
Most contemporary theologians would agree with the pope. Hell is not about fire and brimstone; it is about our freedom to say no to God, our freedom to reject love and choose loneliness. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe in hell.
When we close our hearts and tell the world to go to hell, we are in fact choosing hell for ourselves. Hell is the absence of love, companionship, communion. We are not sent there; we choose it.
God did not create hell; we did. On the other hand, some theologians think that hell is empty because once we meet God, we will choose him.
<<

EDIT 1: The last sentence didn't come over the first time and it is quite important.

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Quote:

---

Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul

---

This is an interesting thought. Do the animal spirits live on past their time on earth, or does only a soul remain for eternity?

---

You mean Dog Heaven right?

So, I'm on record for telling my kids, that the God I have come to know and love, loves the same things I love, because God is love right? I loved my cat Fluffy (still do).. died when I was 12 years old. I believe, this animal will be there in Heaven (if and when) I get there.. that just makes sense. They just don't need to be "saved" like we do.

+Pablo

---

Are you booboo? You don't quite write like him, but you kind of remind me of him.

Woody2006 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Quote:

---

Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul

---

This is an interesting thought. Do the animal spirits live on past their time on earth, or does only a soul remain for eternity?

---

You mean Dog Heaven right?

So, I'm on record for telling my kids, that the God I have come to know and love, loves the same things I love, because God is love right? I loved my cat Fluffy (still do).. died when I was 12 years old. I believe, this animal will be there in Heaven (if and when) I get there.. that just makes sense. They just don't need to be "saved" like we do.

+Pablo

---

Are you booboo? You don't quite write like him, but you kind of remind me of him.

---

Lol.. booboo... nope!

Tell about this "booboo" character?

Yes and that is very similar to The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. I held onto that for quite awhile, but here's the problem with it...

If God is omniscient then He created this universe knowing that the majority of his "beloved" creation (humans) would end up in eternal misery, in a state of being incomplete and separate from Him whom He (if he created us as we are) created us to be dependent upon for happiness.

If I had the ability to create a new creature down to the very molecule that I wanted to love me, but also to be free to choose to love me or not, I would not make a scenario where they would be miserable without me. That is rigging the game. That is not true free will. "Love me or be miserable" is the choice you are claiming God gave us.

Do you think someone that rejects God can live eternally in hell in happiness? If not, then you are supporting the ideal of a selfish god who truly does not love every human, but only those that do as he wants and in contrast HATES and despises those humans that do not love him.

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Quote:

---

Animals have a spirit. Humans have a soul

---

This is an interesting thought. Do the animal spirits live on past their time on earth, or does only a soul remain for eternity?

---

You mean Dog Heaven right?

So, I'm on record for telling my kids, that the God I have come to know and love, loves the same things I love, because God is love right? I loved my cat Fluffy (still do).. died when I was 12 years old. I believe, this animal will be there in Heaven (if and when) I get there.. that just makes sense. They just don't need to be "saved" like we do.

+Pablo

---

Are you booboo? You don't quite write like him, but you kind of remind me of him.

---

Lol.. booboo... nope!

Tell about this "booboo" character?

---

Here's a good sampling:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2922538/replies/50898124

Quote:

---

Only because of what our parents and culture instilled in us. Children of tribes that kill and eat their enemies feel no such sense of "wrong".

---

I would like to recommend a book to you called, "Peace Child" It tells the story of a missionary living in the midst of over 3 worn town cannibalistic tribes. If they had no sense of conviction of wrong they wouldn't have a peace ceremony which involved giving up their own children to their enemies as a peace offering and they wouldn't have embraced God's peace child.

If there was nothing wrong then there would be no need or desire for revenge and these cultures live in perpetual fear of revenge, death, and war.

Quote:

---

If they had no sense of conviction of wrong they wouldn't have a peace ceremony which involved giving up their own children to their enemies as a peace offering and they wouldn't have embraced God's peace child.

---

That's silly. They are humans, therefore they are capable of logic and reason. Any human living in a community that is constantly under threat of violence from neighboring communities would want to find a way to alleviate that threat. It wouldn't be because they initially felt it was "morally" wrong to kill their enemies, it would be through eventually making peace with their enemies and from that comes starting to view their enemies as fellow tribe members. Growing your tribe and having more allies is naturally more beneficial if competing for resources isn't necessary. Once you start to see your enemy as part of your own tribe (metaphorically) then you would naturally start seeing killing them as wrong, just as you see killing people in your actual tribe.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Yes and that is very similar to The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. I held onto that for quite awhile, but here's the problem with it...

If God is omniscient then He created this universe knowing that the majority of his "beloved" creation (humans) would end up in eternal misery, in a state of being incomplete and separate from Him whom He (if he created us as we are) created us to be dependent upon for happiness.

If I had the ability to create a new creature down to the very molecule that I wanted to love me, but also to be free to choose to love me or not, I would not make a scenario where they would be miserable without me. That is rigging the game. That is not true free will. "Love me or be miserable" is the choice you are claiming God gave us.

Do you think someone that rejects God can live eternally in hell in happiness? If not, then you are supporting the ideal of a selfish god who truly does not love every human, but only those that do as he wants and in contrast HATES and despises those humans that do not love him.

---

All very good counter points to the idea (for me a reality) of a God that so loved the world he sent his only son... I'm sure you are very familiar with the many examples of this God I have come to know and love - as merciful.

As I understand your logic, why would a god create a scenario in which his creation is incomplete without him, or as you have put it, "Love me or be miserable." Which I think is exactly the crux of what this whole tread is about. It started off discussing the consequence of "sin" and for me.. the nature of "sin" as a state of being apart from God. In some cases a deliberate choice, which I have argued is the nature of Hell.

Do I think someone who rejects God can live eternally in hell happily? I would think part of that depends on your definition of happiness. For me, it makes sense that God is the ultimate source of good and by moving my will towards this good, can I truly be happy.

God, by definition, is incapable of hate. I say that to clarify your last statement. If God is the ultimate source of good, then there cannot be any hate (the opposite) less he not be God.

++++

So I read a little of Aleister Crowley and came across what I think sums up what you are alluding to, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I believe your logic is aligned with this ethos.

In which case, "sin" has no consequence. I would argue that "sin" indeed leads us away from the true source of good and as a consequence (our free will) toward an emptiness. While it may offer some short lived pleasures, such as the case of adultery, such unlimited selfishness (which is what you are proposing) will ultimately lead us to a state of being that can be characterized as cold, lonely, and so far removed from love.

++++

Good stuff!

+Pablo

Quote:

---

So I read a little of Aleister Crowley and came across what I think sums up what you are alluding to, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I believe your logic is aligned with this ethos.

---

I don't follow that at all. I believe there is a higher wisdom or ethos out there. I believe there are general good and bad actions. I'm agnostic but I have no problem with believing in a god that loves and wants us to love one another.

The problem I had in Christianity was that I got to know many non Christians that were good and loving and spiritual. They found their peace without Jesus, in other beliefs and faiths. However, according to the Gospel, because they do not confess with their mouths and believe in their hearts that Jesus is the son of God, they will be sent to hell to suffer. It's not because they are prideful and envious of God. Not because they want to pursue carnal pleasures without some overseeing judge. Only because they grew up in a different faith and are content in it.

Quote:

---

That's silly. They are humans, therefore they are capable of logic and reason. Any human living in a community that is constantly under threat of violence from neighboring communities would want to find a way to alleviate that threat. It wouldn't be because they initially felt it was "morally" wrong to kill their enemies, it would be through eventually making peace with their enemies and from that comes starting to view their enemies as fellow tribe members. Growing your tribe and having more allies is naturally more beneficial if competing for resources isn't necessary. Once you start to see your enemy as part of your own tribe (metaphorically) then you would naturally start seeing killing them as wrong, just as you see killing people in your actual tribe.

---

What tribes are you pulling your assumptions from?

In many of the legends that the Sawi people tell to their children around the campfires, the heroes are men who formed friendships with the express purpose of later betraying the befriended on to be killed and eaten. p. 8
The key God gave us to the heart of the Sawi people was the principle of redemptive analogythe application to local custom of spiritual truth. p. 10

Her older offspring, two-year-old Miri, was playing contentedly beside her on a woven mat. His only toy was a human skull who sad eyeholes gaped vacuously at the smoke-blackened ceiling as it rolled about. p. 18
Both the Kayagar to the east and the Asmat to the west were beginning to jabber excitedly about something or someone called a Tuan. p. 42

More "pigs" must be "fattened for slaughter" to avenge the death of Huyaham before the Tuans appeared, just in case it...

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

So I read a little of Aleister Crowley and came across what I think sums up what you are alluding to, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I believe your logic is aligned with this ethos.

---

I don't follow that at all. I believe there is a higher wisdom or ethos out there. I believe there are general good and bad actions. I'm agnostic but I have no problem with believing in a god that loves and wants us to love one another.

The problem I had in Christianity was that I got to know many non Christians that were good and loving and spiritual. They found their peace without Jesus, in other beliefs and faiths. However, according to the Gospel, because they do not confess with their mouths and believe in their hearts that Jesus is the son of God, they will be sent to hell to suffer. It's not because they are prideful and envious of God. Not because they want to pursue carnal pleasures without some overseeing judge. Only because they grew up in a different faith and are content in it.

---

I am aware of this fundamentalist interpretation - I don't find it to be biblical to the extent that it is exclusive and it is not what the Catholic Church preaches.

Glad to hear that you have some limits on your view. It seems more aligned with the writings of Karl Rahner, from the little I know about his writings. He advocated what he termed the "anonymous Christian" - people who lived as if there were a God without ever having heard the message of Jesus.

I stumbled upon an article about the current Pope who has written and spoken about this very topic. I'm sure you can find as much. In a way, this thread has affirmed a few things I knew about Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory - but seeing it from your perspective has shed a new light on it. Thx!

+Pablo