Ecclesiastes 1-4

[wolfpurplemoon]

Apparently generations coming and going, the sun rising and setting, the cycling patterns of air flow and the water cycle are all monotonous and not worth studying. Nothing ever changes on earth, and noone gets any benefit from effort expended on Earth, nothing is new and everything has been done before. Acquiring knowledge and wisdom and human accomplishment is all futile. This is such a misanthropic point of view, it goes totally against my humanist view of the world. It belittles human accomplishment & the pursuit of understanding our world, I don't understand why this sort of thing is at all comforting to anyone.

And it is pointless to party, to gain possessions, to gain wisdom if it doesn't bring you fame, and to work hard if you are apart from God. Because otherwise God gives all your wealth to someone who did please him, OK then.

There are particular times for every event in a human life (makes a nice song), times that God has made fit just so while keeping it all hidden so we can't find out the right times for ourselves.

Finally something that I can agree with, humans are just like animals, there is no way to know for certain than human and animal spirits have different fates upon death. And we don't know what the future holds so should enjoy the present.

If a people is oppressed then their dead are more fortunate than the living, and those that have not been born are the most fortunate.

There are several futile ways of working (when motivated by envy, greed or prestige) and one that is beneficial, working together with other people and sharing the rewards.

Oh and how do you pronounce Ecclesiastes?

Comments

[kjerlandsen.livejournal.com]

EE-clee-zee-ass-tease

[wolfpurplemoon]

Thanks, I have trouble with words I've only ever seen written down!

[kjerlandsen.livejournal.com]

No problem. I think I need to go read what you read to understand your pov. =)

[voodooskeleton.livejournal.com]

lolllllllll ass tease!!

[(Anonymous)]

True. Everything is vanity or pointless because this world is temporal. The only profile or gain is Jesus Christ and Eternity.

[(Anonymous)]

Jesus is the one who is about love and forgiveness he died so we can have peace joy love and abundant life here and in heaven he created all of us and this beautiful universe for us to share and enjoy recieve him and his love and all things become understood and clear

Actually.....

[(Anonymous)]

Actually....what Solomon was trying to say is that he had done it all. He was the most successful, richest king in Israel's history. The country was at peace...he had lots and lots of wives and concubines....he partied every day, had everything he ever wanted, did anything he ever wanted and purposefully made sure that he experienced every single 'pleasure' there was to experience....and then he said that if you get to the end of your life....and you have had the opportunity to have partied and experienced life like he did .....and you don't get raised in the end...then life is essentially pointless. Then you are like an animal (even though you've had the opportunity to party much better than that animal). Here is the BIGGEST problem for humans vs animals. We do not have ANY say on whether or not we are born onto this earth....like an animal...but, unlike an animal, once we are here....we don't have ANY ability to stop the fact that we are eternal beings and that we will exist forever. Think about it. You will exist forever....you can't just be like an animal and lay down and die and return to dust. That is the biggest dilemma for the human vs the animal...you will exist forever and you only have one shot at figuring out that fact and realizing that you have a choice on where you spend that existance. Glad you are reading the bible. I would suggest one thing, though. Just for the fun of it. Before you read, everyday, talk to God. Tell Him that at this point you don't believe that He exists...but ask Him to reveal Himself to you, if in fact He does exist. Hey...if He is God and if you are being drawn to Him for some reason....He will reveal Himself.

Re: Actually.....

[wolfpurplemoon]

I had some thoughts about this whole existing forever thing when reading Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice, because I agree that if we did in fact have an immortal soul then those who try to convince us to do what is necessary to live out eternity in nicer digs are doing their best. However, the fact is that there is no eternity for humanity, we are just animals with awareness of our own mortality and we will just lay down, die and return to dust, all that makes up our sense of self is produced by our brain and we can't outlive the death of that vital organ. So I figure that it doesn't matter if there is a God or a heaven, as no part of any human ever outlived their own demise (apart from donated organs of course!)

Proof of the soul

[cdkorns.livejournal.com]

Once again, I do love reading your point of view!

I couldn't help but be struck by your conclusion that humanity is no different from animals. And I was thinking of a good way to try to illustrate the difference and to offer some sort of evidence of the existence of the immortal soul within mankind.

The only way I can think of to approach such an issue is with the use of logic. If Darwin is correct and the Bible is incorrect, from where did mankind's knowledge of good and evil come? As viewed from a purely evolutionary standpoint, the notions of "good" and "evil" seem to be nothing more than high-minded pulpit prattle. Who defined "good"? Who defined "evil"? Why does anyone care?

Little kids seem to instinctively know right from wrong. How often do you hear children whine, "That's not fair!"? How did those kids learn what "fair" is? Did their parents teach them? Who taught their parents? The notion of fairness certainly didn't come about through evolution where the concept of behaving fairly would see your species' extinction before breakfast. Logically then, mankind has something inherent within us which separates us from the rest of creation (or accidental existence - each to his/her own point of view).

When someone is in danger and they cry out for help, we honor those who risk their lives to aid a stranger - yet ridicule those who run away and leave the victim to suffer their fate alone. Why? Not one civilization in recorded history has honored cowards over the bold. Why? Under evolutionary theory, the dominant of the species would be those who avoid putting themselves at risk - or those who flee from danger. Logically, we must have something within us that informs our conscience as to the "right" thing to do in any given situation.

I suppose one could argue that mankind accidentally stumbled onto the notions of good and evil, right and wrong, bravery and cowardice ... But that just doesn't work logically. We're either defined by our impulses or we're defined by our ability to rise above our impulses. Animals generally don't rise above their impulses. Mankind generally does. That's too large of a distinction to simply overlook.

To me, there is no greater evidence of what separates mankind from animals than the simple illustrations given above. Sure mankind may behave like beasts much of the time ... But the difference is we KNOW we're behaving like beasts - animals don't.

I wouldn't recognize a line as being crooked unless I had seen a straight line before. There is something within humanity which whispers to us what this world SHOULD be like. Even though we have never seen a perfect world, somehow we know what it's supposed to look like. The only answer I have as to how we hear that whisper is the presence of an immortal soul. And the only answer I have as to who is doing the whispering is a Divine Creator...

Re: Proof of the soul

[wolfpurplemoon]

There is plenty of evolutionary evidence for why we know 'good' from 'evil' and help others in trouble, just look up altruism, it's a behaviour found in many animals and a strong foundation for early human society.

Our only difference from animals is our awareness of the effects of our actions and that we see consequences, which is why we rise above our impulses.

You talk about using logic, but logically the simpler explanation for why we know what we do about the world is the best one (look up Occam's Razor). Adding in an immortal soul raises far more questions than it solves, as I said above, our personalities, character, and sense of self is tied up tightly in our brain and can't survive the death of the brain, or even just a bad injury or degradation. Just look at Alzheimer's sufferers and people who lose their memories through injury, if the part that made us up was in a soul then surely we could never loose our memories or sense of self.

[cdkorns.livejournal.com]

I think my primary question was simply from where does altruism originate? Selflessness and generosity are not "survival of the fittest" notions. And I DO agree with you! In part. Altruism or selflessness WAS the foundation for early human society. But why? It is difficult to ignore the divergence between these two theories. On the one hand, there was life by accident. On the other, life by design. I find it difficult to believe that the survival of the fittest model would have perpetuated the idea of sacrificing for others - while at the same time, it's easier for me to believe that we are the way we are because we were made that way.

Again, I agree with you on your statement of our difference between animals. That we can see the consequences of our actions. But why can we see those consequences? And how did we gain that knowledge? Which Darwinian principle or avenue would allow for the instincts of self preservation and personal security to be over-ridden by an impulse to risk one's own death to save a stranger?

I guess I am of the opinion that that IS Occam's Razor. iPhones were designed, developed and manufactured after decades of trial and error by knowledgeable people. Human beings are millions of times more complex than an iPhone. It just seems much more logical to me that human beings were intelligently designed for a purpose as opposed to accidentally appearing by chance for no reason whatsoever.

I do have to disagree with you about where our personality, character and sense of self are housed. To say that the destruction of the body will destroy what makes us who we are is, in my opinion, akin to saying the destruction of a radio will destroy Ke$ha's music (one could only hope...:). The music still exists. It was simply the music's conduit to our ear that was destroyed.

Please understand that I am not trying to be offensive. I am simply stating my humble view of things as opposed to your own. I am nowhere near arrogant enough to think I can change your way of thinking to match my own. I'm just offering an alternate view of things - just as you are to me.

[wolfpurplemoon]

I'm not here to give a lecture on evolution and you've brought up so many fallacies and tired old arguments that I don't even know where to begin.

I'm sure most of them are on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html but I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to look right now. If you scroll down that list you'll probably find every argument for design you could come with, and the scientifically verified responses.

Also you misunderstand Occam's Razor, bringing in a designer to explain the universe means that you need to explain who made the designer, but as I said, I'm sure it's all on that website.

[wolfpurplemoon]

OK I found the most pertinent point for the discussion about souls and morality

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

[cdkorns.livejournal.com]

Ah ... But that's the unfair advantage of introducing a supernatural element into a natural debate. Who's to say the supernatural element exists within the confines of our imagined structure. As infuriating as this will sound to you, I don't have to answer the question of who made the designer simply because the designer, being supernatural, is without beginning or end and is therefore outside the natural order of things and beyond the spectrum of my ability to fathom.

But I know exactly where you're coming from. There are many times where an individual who is unschooled on another's point of view will dump out a can of worms so large that you have not the time nor the energy to try to pick them all up... :) I apologize for being inadequately versed in the apologetics of evolutionary theory.

I will check out your links though. Perusing alternative ideas and theories to my own are what challenges me to think more clearly.

Take care!

Re: Actually.....

[dann thompson (from livejournal.com)]

While I can appreciate your pov, I am at a loss for the logic of an atheist (for which being an athirst is solely based). The atheist says that evolution (without a designer) is only logical. Well then, riddle me this, if we are the only beings on earth with the ability to be "logical" then why haven't we yet evolved as human beings. Were there paramecium more powerful than us, to evolve themselves to a more complex organism. Or how about the monkey, which monkey said, "I want to be something more?" the "law" of natural selection and survival of the fittest can only take you so far. Where was the need for animals to evolve. Was it to the demise of animals to evolve to humans as we are their ultimate predator? I am "logical" guy, but this baffles me. Furthermore, I would love for an atheist to explain to me the reason that evolution spun out of control in a short period of time to create the giants of our past (dinosaurs) only to scale it back and develop smaller reptiles, birds, and ultimately mammals. Who made this decision? Was it the lone apatosaurus that said, I am too big, let me evolve into a Komodo dragon. The logic of atheism works if you take part of our history and stay within the confounds of questions of "how", but start to delve into the realms of "why" and ultimately you end up asking "who". This is after all the "logical" way of seeking understanding.

Re: Actually.....

[wolfpurplemoon]

You're mixing up atheism and science from what I can tell.
Atheism = The lack of belief in God, this doesn't have to be a position that is reached logically, all children are atheists until taught their parents religion.
Science = the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation

Evolution isn't driven by what animals want to be, that would be ridiculous, you're arguing against a misunderstanding of scientific fact and that just makes you look silly. Of course science only deals with how because why really doesn't matter, and who is an utterly pointless question.

Re: Actually.....

[dann thompson (from livejournal.com)]

Well we can sit and mince words or actually debate perspective, because that is all that really differs here. However, taking you at your word that Athiesm is based on nothing other than a feeling that there is no God, then believers are basing their belief on the feeling their is a God. This is completely subjective and completely ends the Atheism vs. God debate. However, if what you say is true about children being atheists from birth until they are tainted with their parent's religion, then (in the absence of God) how did any religion or spiritual belief come to be? If all children are born atheist wouldn't all people be born atheist, save for some type of "divine" intervention?

As for your stating that evolution is a "scientifically fact", I wonder why it is still considered a theory amongst the scientific community. I will tell you why because it has yet to be proven or disproven. And here I am not debating the validity of evolution, but rather the why and origin of evolution. If you ask me, well if God exists then who created God and I respond by saying "God is beyond nature and has no beginning or end, and to put God in the context of needing a creator is ridiculous and is misunderstanding the supernatural and God, making you look silly". What would you say? Probably "that's a cop out".

That is what I am saying here, that to say that I am misunderstanding the theory of evolution, as to pose the question of who, or what ,decides the point of being where we (as animals) need to evolve, is a cop out.

Also to say that science only deals with "how", is a utterly false statement. Most all the fundamentals of science begin with why. Just take medicine for example, they take the "why" to help diagnose the problem, then they dig into the "how" of it.

Now why appreciate that this is the bedrock of your faith, and that to accept any of these perspectives would be to akin to shaking your mind a bit, but what is an atheist but a seeker without the answers. When I begged the question of the "who" of evolution I truly was hoping for an answer. I seek perspective to better understand the perception of the atheist. And while I don't expect you to actually try to understand my perspective, it would make for a great conversation to at least ponder the question.

Re: Actually.....

[wolfpurplemoon]

Regarding whether all people would be atheists as children are born without religious knowledge please look up the theory of memes.

The meaning of theory in science is not the same as the meaning in popular use of 'just a theory', to explain the way science uses the term, consider the fact that we still refer to the Theory of Gravity.

There is no 'need to evolve', no higher power deciding that an animal should make a particular change (no who involved), the living beings that are best adapted to survive at any particular time are the ones that have more offspring so their adaptations are passed on and so on for millions of years.

Seriously, look this stuff up without your preconceived God notion blocking your thinking and perhaps you'll get it, because like many things in science it is so elegant and amazing. I'm not here to give biology lessons to people who desperately want there to be a meaning to everything, because there is no meaning and we are here after millions of years of evolution that could have gone any way at any point and humans may not have evolved or a small change in the near past could have meant that either one of us two may not have even been conceived, that blows my mind yet doesn't make me want to cling to a fairytale that tells me there's a divine creator who cares about every thought and action I do and wants me to worship him.

Re: Actually.....

[dann thompson (from livejournal.com)]

I am well familiar with the scientific method, as well as the use of "theory" and "law". A theory is generally accepted by the scientific community as a whole, and has evidence (which is falsifiable) which supports the theory. Though a law is broadly accepted by the scientific community, and is supported by empirical evidence showing the validity of the theory. The small distinction between the two is typically that a law has less gaps (guesses) in it than a theory, though either can be refuted as new evidence comes into play. Such as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is now superseded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (which I assume that is what you referring to when you mentioned the Theory of Gravity).

As for my faith blocking my ability to seek the truth clearly, it is a bold assumption on your part. See my faith came to be while I was searching. Not to long ago I was a guy who would argue from mountaintops (or tabletops rather) the ridiculousness of an all seeing, all knowing, Creator. I, however, couldn't make sense of the Creation by chance argument either. Now I am not one to hurt my brain with the mathematical calculations for the probability of life (any life) being created by chance, but what I do know is that on a conservative level, you have better odds of winning the lottery 10 times in a row than creation by chance. That is to say that you are taking the number one on the giant roulette wheel and I will take the rest, from 2- 10^125. I like my odds. Do you?

You can always argue that there are an infinite number of universes created, so then you have an infinite number of spins on your cosmic roulette wheel, but then what is the simpler explanation a creator without a creator, or an infinite number of universes without creation? I think if you are to stretch your mind a bit, even physics allows for the supernatural (which is to say, things that operate outside our natural order.)

As for evolution happening by accident millions of times until ultimately creating humans with a consciousness that seeks a (purpose), that seems improbable even with an infinite number of universes. What problem I am having is that atheists want it both ways, no creator, but no evolver. At some point there has to be a call to evolve, or a purpose to evolve that exists outside the consciousness of the animal (or organism) that evolves. If not, why would this world not be filled with just micro-organisms? Or if by chance why then people? It doesn't make any sense, and it is flawed logic. Otherwise, start worshipping monkeys, because at some point a monkey wanted to be more and created the first human.

Re: Actually.....

[wolfpurplemoon]

This blog is for my thoughts about what I read in the bible, so if you have something to add to what I've said in any of my posts then feel free. I'm not going to be drawn into yet another circular debate with someone who likes to believe there is a great and lofty meaning to everything just because they don't want to accept there is no meaning.

The scientific facts are there whether you accept them or not, and to be honest I don't care if you accept them or not, it's just a great shame that even 250 years after Darwin first published his elegant theory there are still people doubting the facts of Natural Selection just because it doesn't quite fit in with their feelings of specialness.

So, give me your take on whatever verse of the bible you wish on any of my posts but go bug someone else with your wish for there to be some reason why things happen.