Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Taken from the thread 'EBM and Sacketts Empricism' in the Biomechanics section:-
Mark Russell wrote
Quote:
In my view, most religions have developed in order to give us just that - an ordered way of life - a moral code of conduct in which to live. Which is fine, of course, except that it is supported by a superstitious unsubstantiated theory that this code is overseen by an unseen, all-knowing, all-powerful diety who will pass judgement on us at the end of our life. Transgress this code - according to your own religious subscription - and you're doomed; subscribe to it and you will be saved. A simple carrot and stick principle. It could be argued that the construction of such a superstitious theory has merit - perhaps the human race needs an invisible, judgemental guardian otherwise we might descend into chaos and disorder. But equally, we can still subscribe to a moral code of conduct without the need to believe in something supernatural. Good morals and ethics are not the sole preserve of the believers! Perhaps when we have all been implanted with identity chips and the heavens are patrolled by an array of all-seeing satellites operated by some unknown operator with the power to terminate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the current political views and beliefs, God might just be able to apply for early retirement. But would that be real progress?? Until then, I think I might just prefer enlightenment....based on current evidence, of course!
I replied
Quote:
I'd like to answer that in another thread entitled 'Morality:God Given or Human Invention' in the Break Room.
To answer this question Mark I first make the assumption, based on all your replies in the previous EBM thread, that you are a man who believes in the Big Bang - Time and Evolution theories and not in Creationism. Could be some mix of the two or perhaps you have your own explanation of life but this seems unlikely since this stance would take a huge leap of faith and an extraordinary belief in one's own infallibility. I'll stick with my first assumption for now.
To make the proposition that, Humans invented Moral codes, which could not be God given since God does not even exist, you first have to concede that morals did not just exist in some way waiting to be discovered. To get to the point where an intelligent life form can invent morals you first must show some way that the life form came into existence.
You, I guess, would say that life evolved from some primordial soup of inorganic chemicals, which after an appropriate amount of time burst into life and then refer to Darwin who said all the rest in terms of Evolution from then on.
There is a paradox right there, which I find hard to resolve. I think science knows pretty much what chemicals make up a simple organism and yet can they put them all in Petri dish in the right quantities and environment and make them live?
Is it just a case of time, you need a million years of the same chemical sitting in the dish in the same environment and in some way time makes chemicals live!!
The paradox is this: as we know time only allows decay, the flow of time is in one direction (as far as our human senses can determine anyway) i.e. complex stuff returns or breaks down into its elemental forms. So how is it that in this theory we can disregard this fact and allow time to build stuff from elements?
How is it that the minerals and chemical and metals found in the natural earth didn't, in the same way evolve or form into cars or computers or intelligent robots or even simpler stuff like a cup or a knife or compounds like chrome molybdenum steel? Surely the probability of life occurring purely by accident or random consequence is far higher than lifeless but complex machinery?
But let’s get past this stumbling block and move on, let’s assume that life did just happen by random consequence. How is it that higher life which evolved as separate entities with no physical connection between their nervous systems, live entities having no more meaning or relevance to the earth or space or each other than one rock does to another rock, no concern or obligation required to any other separate living entity, how is it that suddenly they develop concern and love and morals from a previously completely amoral existence. It’s like expecting your computer to cry when you bin its printer and get a new one, it won’t happen even if they live together for a million years. For a computer to be able to do this it would require a human to program it to feel and love and have morals.
Evolution proposes survival of the fittest or the most suitable for the prevailing environment. Variation in species turns up traits that allow adaption and the more suitable ones become more prolific while the less suitable ones become less prolific and the magic bit is that at some point they become new species.
Ok, let’s run with that, at what point did morals become significant to the evolution of man? Surely the man who cheats and steals and does whatever it takes to be the top dog in his society would be the most successful. This trait would become prolific while the nice guy trait would become attenuated to the point of extinction; man would become a species of super b’stards.
You could say that developing a social structure where the group is more important that the individual made man evolve in such a way that these traits became dominant. Even though that appears to go against the basic tenant of individual evolution (remember each entity is separate with no obligation of empathetic connection, just the inert, insensate tendency to advance and develop the most successful trait ). Why then would such a group develop morals that insist they allow or even nurture the weak amongst them e.g. the sick the old the unproductive? Why would love for others override the group’s need to be more successful?
Let’s say that humans developed morals when they became Homo Sapien. Ok! Do you suppose that you / we, 200,000 years later, have better or greater morals than Homo sapiens? Do you /we have a greater or better moral code than apes? Do we have better morals than the Egyptians 5,000 years ago. How come we haven’t evolved and developed our morals to become some super community of social benevolency where no one would hurt or cause distress to another human being for whatever reason, absolute love reigns? WHY?
I’ll tell you why, because God gave us life and he instilled morals in us. It is an innate truth within us. He gave us perfect and we chose imperfection and we keep doing it. We are not perfect for all the reasons explained by God through the bible. We posses Gods character but it is flawed by our own fault. We chose sin and imperfection but God so loves us that he gives us the ability to recognise him and want to return to him, and seek love.
We need his love more than we need this life. He gives us a way to return to him even though we are imperfect and even though we will never be perfect in this life. God’s amazing love is shown through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and this is the way God chose for you to return to him. All you need to do is make that choice, it is as simple as that.
God made us and after we chose imperfection he gave us a moral code, which we could never keep to, and he knew that because we were then slaves to sin, unholiness and ultimately, without the grace of God and the guidance of Jesus and the energy of the Holy Spirit, we are the property of evil.
So we live this life in constant flux and contention between sin and love but we can choose love and aspire to it for our salvation. The catch is that if you choose not to accept Jesus it’s not as if you can just choose to die and that just be an end to you life, just nothingness, gone , finitto.
No you will see God at the end of your earthly life and when you do and you did not choose New Life through Jesus, then you will burn with anguish and regret for ever. Since you will see God in all his glory and splendour and you will feel his abundant and unimaginable love and He will not recognise you and you will be cast out and separated from that love forever and you will know it. Can you take such a risk?
Ah ha! Back to probability and risk, in earthy terms the probability of that scenario happening for someone of no faith is very low but the risk is huge (even though you may not accept it as a risk, it still exists). But when you do have faith, when you have felt the real presence of God, seen his work and know just an inkling of his great love, then the probability is very high and the risk of not accepting it is infinitely huge.
All the very best to you Dave Smith
God is holding his hand out for you, just take hold, He loves YOU. It's a gift with no strings.
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Ah ha! Back to probability and risk, in earthy terms the probability of that scenario happening for someone of no faith is very low but the risk is huge (even though you may not accept it as a risk, it still exists). But when you do have faith, when you have felt the real presence of God, seen his work and know just an inkling of his great love, then the probability is very high and the risk of not accepting it is infinitely huge.
It's funny how the most moral and non hypocritical people I meat are A-Theists. They have no problems following THE Moral code such as suggested by mono theistic religions.
Pity the Catholic Priests and other church officials that abused children in their care, and Sunday worshipers who are un-accommodating of others race or creed couldn't be so Moral!
Just an honest A-Theist view.
__________________
Graham Curryer
None of us know what we are doing, but some of us know more about what we are not doing than others!::
It's funny how the most moral and non hypocritical people I meat are A-Theists. They have no problems following THE Moral code such as suggested by mono theistic religions.
Pity the Catholic Priests and other church officials that abused children in their care, and Sunday worshipers who are un-accommodating of others race or creed couldn't be so Moral!
Just an honest A-Theist view.
Sadly the people who like religion are not always the people religion likes.
My 0.02$
Morality cannot exist in a vacuum. We in the western world, regardless of religous belief have been moulded by the judeo Christian origins of our society. For good or Ill, religion moulds society and society moulds all of us. So none of us can Honestly claim our morality is entirely unaffected by religion.
So for me, the question is flawed because from within the paradigm of religosity morality is divinely inspired even if it is a human invention. From outside the paradigm it cannot be divinely inspired by definition.
To judge by followers of either belief set is also flawed. In some cases religion can lead to the greatest amoralities, since people can claim that their own amoral desires have divine sanction. However by the same token some of the greatest and most self sacrificial people in society are thus because of what they perceive as an externally generated docterine.
To judge by followers of either belief set is also flawed. In some cases religion can lead to the greatest amoralities, since people can claim that their own amoral desires have divine sanction. However by the same token some of the greatest and most self sacrificial people in society are thus because of what they perceive as an externally generated docterine.
Very nice!
__________________
Graham Curryer
None of us know what we are doing, but some of us know more about what we are not doing than others!::
Ian, Yes - although I had never heard of this before it is pretty much what I am saying. For others interested find the explanation of Pascal's wager at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager.
I suppose once you know God and you take time to read the bible then this conclusion is inevitable. I have found this with many other pieces I have written, notes I've made and conclusions I've come to. They appear original to me but then I find many have found the same and often many famous philosophers or theologians have written the same in past times.
God guides us through our own understanding to come to basic statements of truth. I find it pretty amazing that this happens. An atheist, I suspect,would have a logical explanation why this would happen. I know I would have once but that is because they don't choose to see God, they have a veil over there eyes and they prefer to be blind.
What is it that turns a person like me who was a devout atheist and at the most successful time of his life, when I was mentally, emotionally, academically and financially sound with a firm and well tested belief system, to suddenly change and acknowledge God, become Christian and change my life so that it was not so cosy and easy and go through all sorts of turmoil to come to terms with this new faith, give up some of the things I dearly loved and were part of me, That I would never give up for anything or anyone before and yet still know it was the right way.
I was lucky God came and made Himself plainly obvious to me, some have to get there by other ways but we all must make a choice. As a human being it makes no difference to me what you do but as a Christian I only want to share a treasure with you. A Gift that is the single most valuable and important Gift you could ever choose to receive. I get no reward, gain no advantage from telling you, I want and need nothing in return. I just know that this is a gift for sharing and not hoarding. A free gift with no strings just more of the same forever, were else can you get that sort of deal?
Quote:
It's funny how the most moral and non hypocritical people I meat are A-Theists. They have no problems following THE Moral code such as suggested by mono theistic religions.
Pity the Catholic Priests and other church officials that abused children in their care, and Sunday worshipers who are un-accommodating of others race or creed couldn't be so Moral
What you don't grasp as most atheist do not and cannot, is that it's not directly about morals, I said earlier that God knew and shows us that man cannot be perfect and sinless and perfectly Holy. God gave us morals or laws to live life by only in order to highlight our sin, to give us a point of reference that we never had before.
It is about accepting Christ as your saviour and so breaking the chains of sin, you are a person no longer a slave of sin. This does not mean you cannot do anything bad it is that you are changing. This is why James (a writer of a book of the bible - or epistle) said that 'faith without works is dead'. That is, you may claim to be Christian but if it does not show in the way you live your life then your faith is useless and Jesus will not recognise you as a man reborn. But by the same token you cannot just do good works you must also accept Christ because when you do that is when you start to change. This is a difficult concept and one that can probably only be fully understood through faith. Christian's can do bad things but God knows that.
Regards Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
What you don't grasp as most atheist do not and cannot, is that it's not directly about morals, I said earlier that God knew and shows us that man cannot be perfect and sinless and perfectly Holy. God gave us morals or laws to live life by only in order to highlight our sin, to give us a point of reference that we never had before.
I understand your position based on a "belief" and a "faith" structure. However, looking at the attrocities, wars, and indignitries perpetuated in the name of GOD, it is apparent that religians use morals as a cover and forgivemess as an inherant fact for their actions.
Western religions are intollerant and hypocritical. Fundamentalism has been driven by this intollerance, pushing mainstream reasonable religeous people to the sides of an ever increaseing battle of the fundamentalists. A-Theists on the other hand are generraly tollerant and non judgmental.
As one great Irish comedian would say:
"May your God go with you"
Regards
__________________
Graham Curryer
None of us know what we are doing, but some of us know more about what we are not doing than others!::
A much missed genius. I remember sitting and watching his show with my late father: fag in one hand, glass of whiskey in the other; both Dave Allen and my father, not me.
"And we love to wear a badge, a uniform,
And we love to fly a flag.
But I won't..." Like a Song- U2
I've read several books that form the basis of several religions from around the world (if you've only ever read one book, you'll only ever have one point of view- right?), but I still come back to Thomas Huxley: "Do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable". Wise words. If you must pretend that a conclusion which is not demonstrated or demonstrable is in fact a truth, then carry the words of John Lennon with you: "all you need is love", rather than fighting your corner to support your non-demonstrated nor demonstrable conclusion against another's non-demonstrated, nor-demonstrable conclusion. That way the rest of us may have a more peaceful world in which to live. Just a thought, and a prayer.
I only want to share a treasure with you. A Gift that is the single most valuable and important Gift you could ever choose to receive. I get no reward, gain no advantage from telling you, I want and need nothing in return.
Regards Dave
As noble as that is, I have been given gifts before that people have given with the best of intentions. They clearly think it is something of great worth and usefulness - and it probably is... to them. I hated those ear muffs!
Excuse my flippancy. The point I make is this - and I do not know if this particularly applies to your faith David - religions always seem as if they are touting for members. In my opinion, they always go about it in the wrong way. Instead of encouraging discussion and insight, they "preach" and try to impart pearls of wisdom upon us poor non believers.
I want gifts, I just don't want the same gifts you want
Regards,
Robin
__________________
I see you girls checkin' out my trunks
I see you girls checkin' out the front of my trunks
I see you girls lookin' at my junk, then checkin' out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps
Western religions are intollerant and hypocritical. Fundamentalism has been driven by this intollerance, pushing mainstream reasonable religeous people to the sides of an ever increaseing battle of the fundamentalists. A-Theists on the other hand are generraly tollerant and non judgmental.
Ooo what fun
The trouble with taking an atheist position based on provable fact is that to be consistent within your argument you must stick within provable fact. Theists must, almost by definition, base theirs on something other.
To tar the entirety of western religion with the brush of intolerance and hypocrisy is, perhaps, something of a generalisation? Likewise to say that atheists are tolerant and non judgemental is to make some pretty big assumptions! As someone arguing from a position of rational logic can you do that?
The thing is that with atheists, theists and podiatric fringes alike, the ones who make the most noise, and get the most attention, are not necessarily representative of the whole. It is logical for the intolerant Theists to be more noticeable by the very nature of their intolerance isn't it? Dodgy sample group for the whole. Be like saying runners generally have injuries because all the ones who limp into your office do.
I've run into one or two pretty judgemental atheists. . But I would not dream of suggesting that they were representative of the group as a whole.
One thing I would agree with you on is that the religious / political right seems to have hijacked the evangelical movement in the church. Which one (baptist) minister likened to the mixing of dung and ice-cream. Did the dung no harm but ruined the ice cream!
Quote:
If you must pretend that a conclusion which is not demonstrated or demonstrable is in fact a truth, then carry the words of John Lennon with you: "all you need is love".
There are worse creeds! I still think John Lennon ripped that out of the bible. Basically Matthew 22 36-40 combined with Matt 25:40 sums the bible up in its entirety as basically "be excellent to each other" (Bill and Ted).
__________________
I see you girls checkin' out my trunks
I see you girls checkin' out the front of my trunks
I see you girls lookin' at my junk, then checkin' out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps
I still think John Lennon ripped that out of the bible. Basically Matthew 22 36-40 combined with Matt 25:40 sums the bible up in its entirety as basically "be excellent to each other" (Bill and Ted).
Like I said, if you only read one book, you'll only have one point of view. Seems to be a trend running through them all from my reading.
To start with your assumption of what I believe our origins to be; the simple answer is I do not have absolute belief in anything! Scientific enquiry in recent years suggests a Big Bang theory and there may be some merit in that, however, the truth of the matter is that I,we, all of us, simply do not know for certain where and how or when we came into being. We can examine the recent past – by that I mean the last few million years – and we can make some fairly accurate assumptions that our ancestors evolved from the great apes through the various stages of the genus homo to how we are today. Beyond that, we simply do not know for certain. Maybe we came from soup or perhaps kindly alien happened to drop us on this planet from another far away. But the concept that man was created by a god and placed on this planet as Adam and Eve around 4004BC seems as fanciful to me as the Egyptian sun god Ra or Robert’s Easter Bunnies. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution demonstrates just how living organisms adapt and change - sometimes over a relatively short period of time – by natural selection (with genetic drift and some other factors perhaps assisting), and are ethical creatures, it follows ab esse ad posse – whatever is, is possible – that ethics and morals can be derived from evolution by natural selection. Humans didn’t invent morals one bright sunny day six thousand years ago in the garden of Eden nor were they instilled by some supernatural deity, they have developed over a far greater time as our brains have developed from our ancient ancestors and our ability to think and reason and rationalise and process our thoughts has increased accordingly.
You ask if we have better ethics and moral codes than apes – of course we have. The idea might be that whereas other social animals have evolved behaviours that subserve the interests of their sociality – dominance orderings, co-operation in hunting and in keeping a look out of danger or predators – this does not amount to ethics or morals, the idea of which at least premises an awareness of the demands and responsibilities ethics involves, and the possibility of their non-observance, not least deliberately. Among other animals the evolved social behaviours are largely invariant and automatic; a putative ‘ethics’ that is choicelessly a result of hard-wiring could not be described in any way as a moral code.
Just because we may not know – yet – the entire process of our evolution, does not indicate the presence of a supernatural deity that created humans in its image – for me that’s a ridiculous assertion; we don’t fully understand, therefore there must be a god. I don’t know if there’s a primordial soup, nor do I know what’s beyond the multiverse. I don’t really know what’s under the earth’s mantle or if the core of our planet is made of iron or even marshmallow – and nor do I know why sometimes prefabricated orthoses work better than custom devices, but in time, way beyond our life, we may have these answers too. Assuming we haven’t been made extinct by a planetary disaster of some kind or another. Meteorites and asteroids and super-volcanic eruptions would be terribly unfortunate – a human inspired religious apocalypse would be beyond lunacy – but, of course, a very real possibility. Just because we don’t know all the answers doesn’t mean that there is a creator who does!
Of course, you might then ask – why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? You might think this question is genuinely puzzling on the basis that nothingness is vastly simpler than somethingness and might rationally be supposed the more natural state in view of the presumably infinite effort required for anything to emerge from nothing. And yet there is something: so there is a desire for humans to know why.
You could ask why there is something rather than nothing, because you expect, or at least desire, an answer incorporating the claim that our universe exists for a purpose, which the answer accordingly identifies.
The vacuous hypothesis that there is something because it was created by a supernatural deity can be dismissed immediately and easily. The hypothesis in effect says that the reason why there is anything at all is because something else made it, which is either question-begging or invites an explanatory null regress. It is one of our most persistent lingering fatuities that the universe’s origins (or indeed our own or anything else) can be explained by arbitrarily invoking an entity called god, equally arbitrarily defined as fully equipped to be the explanation of what is to be explained!
As far as religion is concerned, I would agree with Graham and Simon that it has lost any respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name and because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie and because of its efforts to impose its views on others. These atrocities, committed by fanatics and zealots, whose views are not very different to the majority of others in most faiths, are profoundly dangerous. Whether it be the Islamic suicide bomber or Christian Fundamentalist in charge of Foreign Policy– Osama Bin Laden or Tony Blair or George Bush – they pose a far greater threat to everyone of us than anything else we presently face. And it’s a threat that, unfortunately, doesn’t look as if it will end soon.
The paradox is this: as we know time only allows decay, the flow of time is in one direction (as far as our human senses can determine anyway) i.e. complex stuff returns or breaks down into its elemental forms. So how is it that in this theory we can disregard this fact and allow time to build stuff from elements?
I'm not sure I agree with this. I seem to remember from chemistry lessons mixing two or more chemicals together, allowing some time for the reaction to occur and ending up with a more complex product after the reaction had taken place. Viz. something was built from elements over time.
Played 3 times now - How much hairspray. Great stuff.
In my 1st 6 months a practice I had a Rabbi- as a patient. We got on very well and he came as a patient quite often till we sorted out his pain. He had been a Rabbi for 30-40 years. One day he asked Michael can I ask you a question ? Do you beleive in a God- I said I don´t think so and gave my reasons.
He said those reasons not to beleive in God have been caused by mankind who claim to represent God, but probably do not.
He said that if you are a good person and there is a God you will go to heaven if you go to Church or not. So I asked why did you become a Rabbi then. He said it was expected of him by his family and he feel in love with the History of religion not just his.
No you will see God at the end of your earthly life and when you do and you did not choose New Life through Jesus, then you will burn with anguish and regret for ever. Since you will see God in all his glory and splendour and you will feel his abundant and unimaginable love and He will not recognise you and you will be cast out and separated from that love forever and you will know it. Can you take such a risk?
Dave
What of the follower of the Islamic faith who believes not in Jesus but Mohhamed and Allah instead of God and who's route to paradise may be accompanied by several dozen virgins providing they kill a few non believers or infidels en route? Are they misguided too or is it just another interpretation of the same thing?
As noble as that is, I have been given gifts before that people have given with the best of intentions. They clearly think it is something of great worth and usefulness - and it probably is... to them. I hated those ear muffs!
Excuse my flippancy. The point I make is this - and I do not know if this particularly applies to your faith David - religions always seem as if they are (1) touting for members. In my opinion, they always go about it in the wrong way. Instead of (2) encouraging discussion and insight, they "preach" and try to impart pearls of (3) wisdom upon us poor non believers.
(4) I want gifts, I just don't want the same gifts you want
Regards,
Robin
I like your candid reply Robin, 3 things occur to ask you here, - ah! 4 - four things occur to ask you here
1) We try to open your eyes to a choice that we see as eternally important, to keep this from you would be the worst thing I could do. Do you suggest I should treat you this badly and condemn you to death or should I offer you New Life, which is the very best thing I can do for you.
Would you leave your friends standing in the rain when you lived nearby and could invite them in to the warm and dry but did not offer for fear that you should offend their right to self determination even though they lack the evidence to make an informed choice through lack of knowledge of all the possibilities? This would seem to be a strange decision don’t you think? It’s a simple choice offered with no strings.
2) Apologetics, witnessing and evangelism are the three ways of giving you the message of the bible. Discussion can be a good way to put these into the public arena and I do believe I have engaged in discussion and logical argument, along with some apologetics, witnessing and evangelism. Discussion does tend to imply that I might change my belief. Discussion also tends to imply that I may think that you might have a valid argument, I cannot.
This may sound arrogant and in your terms it is, but how can I have a sincere faith but still be open to the fact that it might be wrong. This is not faith this is just a convenient point of view that suits my lifestyle at this present moment. Christian faith is not that at all. It must endure through all doubt and persecution, foolish argument, haranguing and dispute otherwise it becomes a fickle vanity.
All things in life except sincere Christian faith are fickle vanities because only the results of sincere faith are everlasting. Of course you cannot agree with this, and may even find it offensive, because, you will think that, everyone should be open to persuasive argument! And the argument I put, in terms of logic, is tautological since you have to accept the initial premise of a omniscient Holy God to confidently promulgate the theory.
My God, My faith, my system if you will, cannot be successfully argued using the definitions and statements of your system and vice versa. We start with two opposing axioms neither of which are beyond doubt or even reasonably logically proved, one of which proposes that its very existence depends on our human inability to fully understand or reason. I.E. if we as humans were able to fully understand God then we would be equal to God and have no need of Him. This is insupportable and since there is only one God this is not possible (another circular or tautological argument, it’s unavoidable.)
3) Do you not like wisdom, is this one of the gifts you don't want?
4) What Gifts would you really like? I mean if you really sat down and thought
about it.
Great to talk, all the best Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Played 3 times now - How much hairspray. Great stuff.
In my 1st 6 months a practice I had a Rabbi- as a patient. We got on very well and he came as a patient quite often till we sorted out his pain. He had been a Rabbi for 30-40 years. One day he asked Michael can I ask you a question ? Do you beleive in a God- I said I don´t think so and gave my reasons.
He said those reasons not to beleive in God have been caused by mankind who claim to represent God, but probably do not.
He said that if you are a good person and there is a God you will go to heaven if you go to Church or not. So I asked why did you become a Rabbi then. He said it was expected of him by his family and he feel in love with the History of religion not just his.
Jews are not Christians unless they are Messianic whereby they accept Jesus as their saviour. Christians accept Jesus as their Lamb, Saviour and Shepered, we live by spirit not by law.
Jews, on the other hand, believe in God's Law, obey the law go to Heaven, simple as that, so when the Rabbi says 'be good and go to Heaven' it is correct since his definition of good is to obey the laws of God, in which case you must follow the life of a devout Jew. While this does not necessitate attendance of a church or Synagogue it will be very difficult to correctly progress through your life by the law with no guidance from elders of the church.
Cheers Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Morality:God Given or Human Invention?
:
. But I would not dream of suggesting that they were representative of the group as a whole. 
Linear Mode
