This is evidence that God is good, and wants us to be the same.
Or that we evolved one, along with the brain that creates it, as a useful tool for increasing reproduction of the species.
Personally, I think that if God was designing and giving our conscience it would be more in line with His own morals. I don't hate gays, for instance, and won't persecute them. I won't claim black skin is a sign of inferiority, and I won't try and force others to to accept my unsupported beliefs as true. All part of the conscience.
Personally, I think that if God was designing and giving our conscience it would be more in line with His own morals
what do you mean, "more in line with his own morals"
The morals of the Christian god, as evidenced by his actions and instructions in the old testament, are abysmal. The are the morals of the uncivilized barbarians that inhabited our planet at the time - morals that mankind outgrew long ago.
So if He is providing the central control of our morals - our conscience - I would expect it to be more along the lines of what existed thousands of years ago.
I don't believe in the Christian God, and the Christian God is not whom I have referred to in this thread.
What god are you referring to, to make it clear for everyone.
Not the God of any religion.
The God I have experienced and know to be the true God. He is the one who can activate our chakras, so we can begin spiritual growth. He is the one who holds up our faults as a mirror so we know what to change about ourselves.
A new age god religion is what you are referring to then. Do you have a name for this god?
If you mean "new age" to be the Precession of the Equinoxes, and the fact that we are leaving Pisces and entering Aquarius soon. Yes, this is very important. Aquarius in one of the four cardinal points, and the midpoint in the Precession. Expect Earth changes, in climate and weather. Most likely an ice age.
I thought we had already began the trajectory into the age of Aquarius. I am an Aquarius. At any rate, I agree that we are most likely moving into an ice age, and the Global Warming / Climate Change people will have to unlearn everything they have swallowed, that enabled deceivers to gain massive wealth. Well, for that matter because of the increase and flood of knowledge coming we all should be prepared to unlearn many things, and be wise to seek to acquire and gain knowledge. Exciting times we are living in.
Added: I can hear myself going, 'OMG, how could I have believed THAT!'
So do you believe morals are subjective? Are there any that are not?
Probably not, although the Golden Rule comes very, very close. All others that I can think of have been used by some cultures at some times, but not all and certainly not all individuals. They are thus subjective; designed and created by the people of the culture they live in.
Evolution has played a part, but in the main any morals it has produced boils down to the Golden Rule and a few examples (that I wouldn't call a "moral") that aid in the survival of the species. Protect pregnant women, for instance.
"Protect pregnant women, for instance." Interesting. I have never heard of animals doing this, only humans. Have you? I might have to look into that.
I haven't either, but I never intended to imply that animals do that. Wouldn't surprise me though, particularly in the apes and cetaceans, and certainly many animals protect each other, including if not limited to pregnant females.
I'm certain that many of the animals do protect their mothers to be, most likely not all of them do, but at least those that mate for life. That is interesting.
Protecting a mate is different than the morality (and survival advantage) of protecting a pregnant female. I don't see protection of a mate as a moral - it's more along the lines of doing it for yourself, so as not to lose that mate.
That's true, not something I have ever thought about before. It would seem to be more of an instinct for animals.
Protection of mates? Perhaps, or perhaps it is self interest - protecting what we value (I firmly believe animals can feel affection, and likely love, of both humans and other animals). Humans, of course, add the selfless actions such as that from their love, but I doubt animals have that capability. Could be wrong as mothers will absolutely put themselves at risk to protect their child.
Reminds me of an article I read this morning about a dog that escaped a shelter and was rescued by some people that she led two mile through the woods to collect her ten pups.
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ppies.html
Yes, sorry I just got off topic because it was interesting.
Conscience is not the engaging of the Moral Dilemma (knowledge of right-wrong, dark-light, good-evil). Conscience is the understanding that one is alive, or rather has life. So assuming [Creator] is good because one knows they exist is subjective.
The primary use of the term conscience, from traditional human perspective points exclusively to the MD -specifically, and nearly in every instance, only through something called the Law. Abiding by a single or collective set of rules/laws, one is defined as having a good conscience, else by believing one is abiding by said laws to the best of their human ability is absolved of judgement and therefore a good person, having a clear conscience. Again, subjective.
Conscience is not yin-yang, right-wrong, good-evil, give-take, yes-no, cause-effect. It is superior to them because it is without necessity. Necessity are those things (processes) within the conscience that are interfered with to form the Moral Dilemma.
In a third instance conscience is defined as an awareness of the energy of life, in which one strives to "elevate" the self to a state of "higher" awareness, through whichever mediums are preferred to achieve a state of existence or bliss. Liken it to plucking harp strings at certain frequencies to reach or tune into said energy. Yet again, subjective.
Conscience cannot be experienced by these methods because consciousness was a provision without human request or interference, just like the mind, genetically programmed with all required information and process necessary to experience said conscience (and its ness) without human interference (static, blur, fuzzy logic, doubt, uncertainty, etc).
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules).-Wikipedia
Are you confusing conscience with conscious? Because conscience has nothing to do with the knowledge of being alive and everything to do with right-wrong, good-bad and morality.
The OP alluded to the notion that simply because humans are aware of existence (conscious) the Creator is "good". What I attempted to show was that "good" denotes awareness of polarity (conscience), which is the cornerstone of the Human Condition- Moral Dilemma. In both terms awareness is the fundamental. And, that the current use of either is subjective, because of human intervention versus pure experience. Stating "God is good" comes exclusively from the perspective of conscience.
OK - I missed that from the OP. All is well.
Read the title and OP again. I never mentioned awareness, or consciousness. I specifically said conscience.
As such I would further note Creator did not give man a conscience (knowledge of polarity) with the intend for man to indulge it. And certainly not to be consumed by it, as is the current stasis. Specifically noting, from the Judeo-Christian text, the exact and most horrific events that unfolded by said indulgence. Knowing good-evil, right-wrong etc has been humanities albatross since the beginning. So again stating God is "good" in this current stasis of mind is solely from within said mind speaking outward. A clever way of justifying and managing the madness of the Human Condition-Moral Dilemma. It is in no way from a perspective of purity nor from the outward speaking in. Man says God is good or God is evil. Neither is true. And the light-speed ping pong ball continues to bounce from one filament to the next while the testimony of death sings on from his own lips.
Ok that was confusing, I understood almost none of that, especially the last half.
I did get the part where you claim God didn't give us a conscience. If not, where did it come from?
Correction: I stated Creator did not give man a conscience for him to indulge it. If fact that precise event of said indulgence was called sin.
"She was deceived but he did sin."
I believe the accepted term is called Reasoning. In expanded terms it is to dive into the plethora of the thoughts within.
So you're saying God doesn't want us to reason or think deeply? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Firstly, I will not ever speak on behalf of any god, nor Creator; he does not need humans and such to speak on his behalf. Secondly -and please forgive my rhetorical question: but why would Creator install (and I use that term purposely) the most beautiful thing, in his most wondrous creation (by his own admission), fill it to the brim with a billion-trillion threads of information; perfectly designed and perfectly aligned, yet require man to indulge it (splice, dice, rearrange and otherwise recreate) those threads; knowing full-well the sheer volume alone would overwhelm; knowing man would be entangled by them forever, as if trapped in an inescapable sticky web; plunging headlong into darkness and be cut off from Him - rather than those thoughts enabling man to exist without effort or lack of understanding; an existence of universal proportions void of necessity; a state of immortal experience?
by Elizabeth 5 years ago
How can the Bible be considered proofI would say that 8 out of ten times when discussing proof of god with a theist, they quote the Bible. In my perspective, the Bible is the collection of claims about the christian god, not the evidence for it - and all claims require...
by Kathryn L Hill 18 months ago
Are they Both Mere Figments of I M A G I N A T I O N ? ? ? As far as Christians / Jews having to defend and protect themselves from the vicious threats and attacks of the Radical Muslims / Terrorists,...
by jonnycomelately 5 years ago
In other words, does the existence of "God" depend upon the mind of Man to support that existence?
by topgunjager 10 years ago
If god showed himself to you and commanded you like he did Abraham to kill your son or daughter and have him/her be burned and sacrificed, wouild you do it? How would you feel about god giving you this command?
by paarsurrey 10 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/52164Hi friendsThere is no harm if America and other countries return to the Christian-God-the Father, as He is the real Creator-God Allah YHWH; Christian-god-jesus never existed and also Christian-god- the holy ghost also never existed. Jesus was neither a god...
by 4x4 10 years ago
Whether you believe in a God or you don't or whether you care for one or not.If you have one question for Him, what would it be?If you have more, then write down your list.
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|