Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Blame the devil, cop out or real?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The child's father is not responsible for the child's behavior. We are all born with the knowledge of good and evil, of "god" and "satan." WE CHOOSE. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.

EDIT: Repeat after me. "I choose. I am responsible. Nobody is to blame for my actions except myself, for I have created all of the actions I have done in my life."
edit on 4-1-2013 by SpiritofEnoch because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




If the child will not adhere to policy, you isolate it from the world. Has this been done? No.


From the standpoint of above, this has been done. Man and others still say he is here, but this is not true. The closest he can come here is common ground.

Now, is this entity real as in you and I, or is he just a projection of a collective? That is for another thread.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch
 




Satan? He is the left hand. Michael and the arcs, they are the right. God is the brain controlling ALL of the fingers.


Yes, man needs that balance. You may ask why there is the need, did it come from above, or did it come from man on his own?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch
 



The child's father is not responsible for the child's behavior. We are all born with the knowledge of good and evil, of "god" and "satan." WE CHOOSE. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE.


I don't think so. There's a reason aides are posted in playgrounds. Children are taught how to behave. If they were born with such knowledge, why would this be necessary? Were you never taught not to steal the cookie or taught not to lie when you were younger? You just automatically knew?

Maybe if you go to church as a very young child, you have less tendencies, but only because they seized the very first opportunity to pound such lessons into your head.


EDIT: Repeat after me. "I choose. I am responsible. Nobody is to blame for my actions except myself, for I have created all of the actions I have done in my life."


Any psychologist can tell you what I just told you above. I hope you never have kids if you never plan on teaching them morals because you believe they are BORN with them.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



All god did was create the world. There's nothing bad about it because God is a perfect creator.


And there we go. Tossing around the word "perfect" like you actually understand what perfection is. You are human, you are inherently IMPERFECT, you don't know what perfect is because your perspective, your biology, your education, your background, and your world are NOT PERFECT.

What, to you, is perfection? What could you possibly know of perfection?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Everyone is taught these things. Nobody who doesn't know them is held accountable. You wouldn't prosecute a toddler for accidentally taking something from a store without anyone noticing until the cashier saw it, would you? I wouldn't, personally. I would probably say "Excuse me, sweetie, I'm going to have to take that. You can't have it unless you pay for it." ...But that's just me.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by akushla99
 


Sorry, I'm a nerd for precision. We don't live in a 3D reality.


What you knoe, and what you can faithfully make understandable...are divided by steps along the way...

A99



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by jhill76
 




Yes, many here will say all kinds of things against, and judge, but if the highest of above doesn't do it, what gives the ones here the right?


I am speaking, as this is a good example, if Michael doesn't slander anyone, not even what others perceive as the worst of the worst, why does man do it?


Again, slander is saying something about someone that is untrue or a lie. If you say something true, then it's not slander...period.

And how do you know what Michael does? You said you don't follow any religion or any books in their totality. So how would you know what Michael says about anyone? For all you know Michael might tell the truth about satan in many ways. Unless you can prove to me you have conversations with Michael, all youre doing is speculating.

I see so many people on here always giving their opinions as facts. Then they have nothing...nada...to back up these so-called "facts" with. Discussion and opinions are great, I think thats what we are all here for, but to state opinions as facts, that is borderline ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch
 



Everyone is taught these things. Nobody who doesn't know them is held accountable. You wouldn't prosecute a toddler for accidentally taking something from a store without anyone noticing until the cashier saw it, would you? I wouldn't, personally. I would probably say "Excuse me, sweetie, I'm going to have to take that. You can't have it unless you pay for it." ...But that's just me.


Such a situation would never arise if "we are all born with the knowledge of good and evil". Children don't see in terms of good and evil, because they are not emotionally developed. "Good" and "evil" are emotional labels designed to define how we feel about ideas, more than the ideas themselves. Children aren't as reflective as adults, so they don't see things that way. They react to sheer positive and sheer negative, that's about it. You know, the obvious stuff. Everything else is simply them acting according to nature. No good or evil involved.

As a result, it would be logical for "God" to control his little pet, but apparently he can't be bothered to do so. Since he is the creator, and he is the master of all, he should be held accountable for the actions of his creations. If he had never existed, if he had never decided to create "Satan", none of these things blamed on the devil would ever have happened, right? Therefore, he is at fault. If the gun kills an innocent person, you look to the soldier controlling it. The gun is merely a tool, functioning as it was designed to function. The soldier make the decision, or made the mistake, and should be held accountable. This is inarguable.

As such, "blame the devil" is a cop out. It's much easier to imagine a mysterious purpose than to think we are at the mercy of chaos. Our perception is far too limited to see how chaos is shaped by order, so we invent an order that drives the seeming chaos. We have created our own order because we believe there is no other order. And meanwhile, the true order remains ignored by a species too clumsy to seduce it into revealing its secrets.

In this way, we have proven ourselves unworthy. Not that we will always be unworthy, but worthiness is a difficult position to attain, and few consider it worthwhile. Unfortunately.
edit on 4-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Does it matter if it is born or learned? Knowing right from wrong doesn't make you who you are. It matters what you choose.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch
 



Does it matter if it is born or learned? Knowing right from wrong doesn't make you who you are. It matters what you choose.


Choices are based on what is learned, not what is born. Being born is a state, not an experience. Experiences dive our cognitive processes, leading to our choices in life. If you were born knowing good and evil, then you were born knowing nothing, for you were born with the tendency to judge. An axe is only as destructive as the hand that wields it. True strength comes from taking positive from negative instead of condemning the negative for revealing your weakness.

Perhaps that is the true purpose of "Satan" - to show us how to be stronger. To take us and force us to see how we might be vulnerable, and show us how to make the best of it until we have become better. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand at all. Typical human beings, terribly afraid of recognizing their own imperfections, never realizing the opportunities presented by such flaws.

A perfect diamond just sits and looks pretty, a symbol of the desire to indulge in the self. An iron axe splits wood to be used for the safety and comfort of a family of five, a symbol of hard work, character, and love. Which would you rather be?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Thank you for stating my point so eloquently, my love.

(I should probably note that this conversation wasn't entirely for you. The true point of this thread was "do we blame Satan for putting the thoughts in our head, or do we blame God for creating him?" And the correct answer is neither. It is up to each of us to act as we see as best, and wherever that leads is entirely up to us.)
edit on 4-1-2013 by SpiritofEnoch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch
 


"My love"? Haha. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If they were born with such knowledge, why would this be necessary? Were you never taught not to steal the cookie or taught not to lie when you were younger? You just automatically knew?


AfterInfinity,
actually, there are studies now confirming that babies DO know the difference...and that they show empathy.

In a neonatal ward, if one baby cries, others will cry.
With pre-toddlers and toddlers, a puppet show of one taking something from another elicits brainwaves that indicate "moral objection." Same with giving a reward to the "selfish" puppet - brainwaves show "unjust objection."

Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months

(PhysOrg.com) -- The currently prevailing theory on human development is that human beings start their lives with a "moral blank state," but new research contradicts this view. The researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.

Read more at: phys.org...

In one experiment babies between six and ten months old were repeatedly shown a puppet show featuring wooden shapes with eyes. A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square.

After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure. Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

In another experiment the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy.


Babies Show Sense of Fairness, Altruism as Early as 15 Months

Giving Makes Young Children Happy
edit on 4-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



AfterInfinity,
actually, there are studies now confirming that babies DO know the difference...and that they show empathy.

In a neonatal ward, if one baby cries, others will cry.
With pre-toddlers and toddlers, a puppet show of one taking something from another elicits brainwaves that indicate "moral objection." Same with giving a reward to the "selfish" puppet - brainwaves show "unjust objection."


Are you sure this has to do with "moral objection" or is it simply "emotional sensitivity"? Just because a baby cries, does not mean it is objecting to moral depravity. It is simply unhappy. At best, such studies indicate empathy. Empathy, while it is one of the roots of morale, is not A moral.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If you'll take the time to read the short articles (3 of them linked in my post), you'll see what the studies were like, and what the researchers discovered.

Babies know.
In my opinion (based on having studied brain development for several years), it is their early experiences that set the "trajectory." A baby born into a chaotic situation will learn whatever coping skills seem to "work" - shrieking, throwing things, hitting/biting....
or sharing, smiling, reciprocal facial gestures.....

The more secure a baby is, and the more their needs are met - and they are the FOCUS of the caregiver, who (one would hope) responds to their indicators, the more they will reflect that behavior.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I don't see how you are disproving me, honestly. I stated that children are taught morals. You say children train themselves to behave in such a way that their needs are met. This does not guarantee moral development. In fact, it leaves even more room for quite the opposite.
edit on 4-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


No. I'm saying that babies are BORN with a sense of justice and compassion, right and wrong.
It isn't just parenting.

BUT, parenting can DESTROY that inborn altruism; or support it.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



No. I'm saying that babies are BORN with a sense of justice and compassion, right and wrong.
It isn't just parenting.

BUT, parenting can DESTROY that inborn altruism; or support it.


I don't think so. Think "Lord of the Flies". Do you believe the story to be in inaccurate representation of children left to their own devices, or of mankind as a whole?

As the author himself said, the point of the novel was to illustrate that the men in charge rescued the children - but who will rescue the men in charge?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I've watched that show with the baby tests and all I got from it is men that have already been taught a moral code project that sense of justice onto the infants themselves.... The baby passes the ball to someone, so it is sharing, therefor it is a "good baby" Then the baby takes the ball and doesn't pass it on, so it's a "bad baby"....






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join