This is a story that was on MSN today.
http://
It brings up the issue of how flexible employers need to be in this day and age. I am all for allowing a person to fulfill thier religious obligations. The employers could have decided not to hire muslims to avoid this problem but they didnt. Workers going on strikes causing production problems will only lead to more discrimination towards certain religious groups. All this does is drive home the notion that any company that employes a large number of muslims is obviously putting thier business at risk. This time its evening pray, next time its something else.
When someone accepts a job are they not suppose to abide by the rules of the work place? I think the job positions should be filled with people that are willing to do the jobs. If they want special treatment because of thier personel religious preferences they should find a job that allows them this flexibility. Not take a job and than strike when they dont get their way.
OMAHA, Nebraska - Dozens of Somali meatpacking workers who quit their jobs because they were not given enough time off for Muslim prayers have returned to work, but the issue could resurface as sundown inches later through the summer, a union official said Friday.
About 70 of 120 Somali workers are back on the job at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant after abruptly quitting last week. The workers complained that existing break time rules did not let them leave lines to pray at sundown.
Similar requests for workplace accommodations of Muslim religious obligations have become common around the country, says Muslim advocates. (Follow the link for the full story.)
http://
It brings up the issue of how flexible employers need to be in this day and age. I am all for allowing a person to fulfill thier religious obligations. The employers could have decided not to hire muslims to avoid this problem but they didnt. Workers going on strikes causing production problems will only lead to more discrimination towards certain religious groups. All this does is drive home the notion that any company that employes a large number of muslims is obviously putting thier business at risk. This time its evening pray, next time its something else.
When someone accepts a job are they not suppose to abide by the rules of the work place? I think the job positions should be filled with people that are willing to do the jobs. If they want special treatment because of thier personel religious preferences they should find a job that allows them this flexibility. Not take a job and than strike when they dont get their way.
OMAHA, Nebraska - Dozens of Somali meatpacking workers who quit their jobs because they were not given enough time off for Muslim prayers have returned to work, but the issue could resurface as sundown inches later through the summer, a union official said Friday.
About 70 of 120 Somali workers are back on the job at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant after abruptly quitting last week. The workers complained that existing break time rules did not let them leave lines to pray at sundown.
Similar requests for workplace accommodations of Muslim religious obligations have become common around the country, says Muslim advocates. (Follow the link for the full story.)
|
|
|
|
コメント(40)
Well, its an american law that you MUST allow time for employee's religious holidays. And, if they can prove that you are discriminating against their religious activites, well, then that company is screwed.
But it is too far to bend over backwards like that? Maybe, but we allow things much like this all the time. So... i dont know... ^^
But it is too far to bend over backwards like that? Maybe, but we allow things much like this all the time. So... i dont know... ^^
Yeah... I don`t know either... just seems like it`s a time bomb waiting to go off. No body made the employers hire that many Muslims and no one forced the Muslims to apply for jobs at those companies. Seem like common sense would dictate that the employers would have the rules written out and agreed to by all the employees. When religious activities interfere with your other obligations it`s time to decide which is more important to you. Not force the people around you to adjust. What a person does in the privacy of their own home is totally their business. The work place is a different situation. Even the Muslim representative said that they do have clauses in their system that allow a person to miss certain activities if they interfere with other necessary obligations. In this case they choose not to exercise this clause and to go on strike. The employers have to give in to everything but they (staff) are not willing to make any sacrifices. That just seemed a little pushy to me.
It is a very fine line to walk on, if you ask me. You can say that they should not hire those who will not accept the company rules and policies. OTOH, if the policy specifically prohibits the religious activity of a particular religion, like in this case, the policy itself can be considered discriminatory against that religion.
I suppose the only realistic solution would be that the employer be flexible enough to negotiate with the employees and unions when a new problem arises and be willing to accommodate the employees' needs in good faith.
I suppose the only realistic solution would be that the employer be flexible enough to negotiate with the employees and unions when a new problem arises and be willing to accommodate the employees' needs in good faith.
Let's get straight to the point...
When it comes to recognizing the religious rights / practices of other religions here in the US, there's a long history of discrimination against any religious practices other than Protestant Christianity. At very points during American history, there has been a huge amount of discrimination against Catholics, Jews, Native American practices, etc.
If the case was against a group of white Baptists asking for Sundays off, I think most Americans would be pretty supportive of them having Sunday off because it's a belief that's already ingrained in American culture (not having to work on Sunday, which is ironic considering that most Jews celebrate the Sabbath on SATURDAY). But because the case concerns (black) Somali immigrants who are MUSLIM, many Americans are automatically not receptive (or even respectful) of their desire to practice their religion.
When it comes to recognizing the religious rights / practices of other religions here in the US, there's a long history of discrimination against any religious practices other than Protestant Christianity. At very points during American history, there has been a huge amount of discrimination against Catholics, Jews, Native American practices, etc.
If the case was against a group of white Baptists asking for Sundays off, I think most Americans would be pretty supportive of them having Sunday off because it's a belief that's already ingrained in American culture (not having to work on Sunday, which is ironic considering that most Jews celebrate the Sabbath on SATURDAY). But because the case concerns (black) Somali immigrants who are MUSLIM, many Americans are automatically not receptive (or even respectful) of their desire to practice their religion.
6.
Well. Do me the favor, then, of defining 'religion' then. I suspect that you will not be able to distinguish this bare idea of religion from what is considered 'non-religious' in praxis and dogma. That is, things such as naturalism will fulfill the requirements of religion, if you can even talk about such a thing with any clarity. And recourse to the actual study of this matter conducted in the academy would hammer that nail into your skull--so feel free to do some actual reading on the topic.
also, i have to say that your comment--and the viewpoint it evinces--equally contribute to being 'ridiculous and disabling' to society, and proper governance--for you are deluded as to what sort of beliefs are really out there, what pitfalls your own may have, not to mention the complexity of the history of the matter. Further on that last point, it really would do you well to study how these modern forms of governance (that you likely like) came to be, and why. This might allow you to make truly thoughtful comments on the matter, rather than the drivel you emit. And what kind of governance, or social interaction is conducted by those with puffed ignorance? Certainly not anything 'good', unless you totally denude the term to be something like 'good for me'.
So do us all a favor and keep your uniformed viewpoints to yourself. Your tone shows no real familiarity with the topic, and no honest questioning of the issue: others here do. But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues. Were you really honestly dealing with the questions, and issues--rather that pontificating from ignorance--I wouldn't be so hard on you, but I hate dishonest pretension, and thus have no problem calling you for what you are--at least on this topic.
And I should say explicitly: This comment is not directed to the other interlocutors here, just ...
Well. Do me the favor, then, of defining 'religion' then. I suspect that you will not be able to distinguish this bare idea of religion from what is considered 'non-religious' in praxis and dogma. That is, things such as naturalism will fulfill the requirements of religion, if you can even talk about such a thing with any clarity. And recourse to the actual study of this matter conducted in the academy would hammer that nail into your skull--so feel free to do some actual reading on the topic.
also, i have to say that your comment--and the viewpoint it evinces--equally contribute to being 'ridiculous and disabling' to society, and proper governance--for you are deluded as to what sort of beliefs are really out there, what pitfalls your own may have, not to mention the complexity of the history of the matter. Further on that last point, it really would do you well to study how these modern forms of governance (that you likely like) came to be, and why. This might allow you to make truly thoughtful comments on the matter, rather than the drivel you emit. And what kind of governance, or social interaction is conducted by those with puffed ignorance? Certainly not anything 'good', unless you totally denude the term to be something like 'good for me'.
So do us all a favor and keep your uniformed viewpoints to yourself. Your tone shows no real familiarity with the topic, and no honest questioning of the issue: others here do. But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues. Were you really honestly dealing with the questions, and issues--rather that pontificating from ignorance--I wouldn't be so hard on you, but I hate dishonest pretension, and thus have no problem calling you for what you are--at least on this topic.
And I should say explicitly: This comment is not directed to the other interlocutors here, just ...
correction:
I elided part of a sentence:
what said: "But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues."
should read:
But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues--the violence you are doing to history, not to mention the complexities of the issues involved screams for a response.
I elided part of a sentence:
what said: "But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues."
should read:
But as one who studies theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, and particularly early modern forms of governance--all of which particularly bear on these issues--the violence you are doing to history, not to mention the complexities of the issues involved screams for a response.
Also... There are many people that work on Sundays. Just imagine if you could not go shopping, to the movies, to the hospital, to the amusement parks, the gyms, hotels, restaurants, Airports and the list goes on. So it seems that the ingrained American culture has adapted its religious preferences for the sake of running the society as well as economic reasons. We all know that not everyone can be off at the same time. That is just not being realistic. That is the difference between a rational believer and a Fanatic. It`s ok to be fanatical, but it`s not ok to expect main stream society to embrace that interpretation. I am sure that all "believers" will agree that God can hear you no matter where you are or how you pray. So why make waves ?
I am not normally that impressed with preaching of any form and I am not campaigning for any sect here... but these two clips from this guy on youtube ..... See for yourself ... give them a chance to get started before passing judgment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMF_24cQqT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byqRyMtxfCs&mode=related&search=
I am not normally that impressed with preaching of any form and I am not campaigning for any sect here... but these two clips from this guy on youtube ..... See for yourself ... give them a chance to get started before passing judgment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMF_24cQqT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byqRyMtxfCs&mode=related&search=
TokyoOG,
I'm not sure the first point you make about 'many people working on sunday' really cuts against Sabbatarian arguments (those who argue for the Sabbath, in whatever sense). This so because Sabbatarians argue that all work must stop *other than essential functions*. Some of the things you mention would be seen as not happening that day, at all, the others part of essential function. Also, they would recognize that this point only has weight in societies who are also or are largely sabbitarian. In a pluralist context, they typically just choose not to participate, and the ones who are deriding others about participating, are just those who aren't very thoughtful and end up being boors--and that is who it seems your comment is mostly about.
As to the main point with the practice of the Sabbath--emanating from Jewish roots, is in fact an economic one, and that in a number of ways: 1)As a matter of 'dependence', that the person and or group would *ultimately* depend on God, not their particular efforts. It should be said that the particular efforts are seen to be important and necessary, but not sufficient, and possibly (though not necessarily) dangerous as a self-idol. 2)A valuing of human particularity--the person, the people known by that person, and life outside of typical labor. That is essentially what 'Rest' was about (not recreation in the modern sense) and is opposed to making life all about profit and economy, to the detriment of people, the land, etc.
Sabbatarians have been quite wacky at times, but that has historically being the main drive of Sabbatarian thought--if and when they reflect on it, and not all have.
"So it seems that the ingrained American culture has adapted its religious preferences for the sake of running the society as well as economic reasons."
That it has. But to my mind that is just confirmation of the view that when it comes right down to it, the ultimate 'cultural value' in American is money and capitalism (and the rampant individualism that goes with it).
"That is just not being realistic. That is the difference between a rational believer and a Fanatic."
Yeah, those who try to make waves about it are usually a bit loony, and boorish. And that is partly because they are just not very reflective about the issues involved, or what sabbath may actually mean. But I do think that those who are aware of the two points i mentioned above (and the cultural critique built in it), have a point.In that case the issues seems to be *how* they go about making that social critique in the practice--and there are both good and bad examples of that.
peace
--ryan
I'm not sure the first point you make about 'many people working on sunday' really cuts against Sabbatarian arguments (those who argue for the Sabbath, in whatever sense). This so because Sabbatarians argue that all work must stop *other than essential functions*. Some of the things you mention would be seen as not happening that day, at all, the others part of essential function. Also, they would recognize that this point only has weight in societies who are also or are largely sabbitarian. In a pluralist context, they typically just choose not to participate, and the ones who are deriding others about participating, are just those who aren't very thoughtful and end up being boors--and that is who it seems your comment is mostly about.
As to the main point with the practice of the Sabbath--emanating from Jewish roots, is in fact an economic one, and that in a number of ways: 1)As a matter of 'dependence', that the person and or group would *ultimately* depend on God, not their particular efforts. It should be said that the particular efforts are seen to be important and necessary, but not sufficient, and possibly (though not necessarily) dangerous as a self-idol. 2)A valuing of human particularity--the person, the people known by that person, and life outside of typical labor. That is essentially what 'Rest' was about (not recreation in the modern sense) and is opposed to making life all about profit and economy, to the detriment of people, the land, etc.
Sabbatarians have been quite wacky at times, but that has historically being the main drive of Sabbatarian thought--if and when they reflect on it, and not all have.
"So it seems that the ingrained American culture has adapted its religious preferences for the sake of running the society as well as economic reasons."
That it has. But to my mind that is just confirmation of the view that when it comes right down to it, the ultimate 'cultural value' in American is money and capitalism (and the rampant individualism that goes with it).
"That is just not being realistic. That is the difference between a rational believer and a Fanatic."
Yeah, those who try to make waves about it are usually a bit loony, and boorish. And that is partly because they are just not very reflective about the issues involved, or what sabbath may actually mean. But I do think that those who are aware of the two points i mentioned above (and the cultural critique built in it), have a point.In that case the issues seems to be *how* they go about making that social critique in the practice--and there are both good and bad examples of that.
peace
--ryan
8> Mmm. Ok.
pt.1
"Well. Do me the favor, then, of defining 'religion' then"
Religion, as I'm terming it, is the practice of a belief in God. I comment on both orthopraxy or orthodoxy surrounding that belief.
I have no problem with people believing in God, no problem at all. No problem with devotional painting/poetry/architecture...any of that.
I know that this is truly real for people. My family to name one group of which I'm closely aware...
But I have a very serious problem with Religion forcing itself on the individual, and societal institutions - like the Government and workplace for motherfucking example.
I have a big problem with people telling me, and the rest of society, I *must too* believe...or telling Children that they are going to hell if they don't believe in God. I have a problem with the very thinly veiled fascism of Religion telling me what I may eat, who I may or not sleep with, and that an all knowing creator is watching me 24/7. I have a problem with any Church's claim that they are the sole and correct path to morality...
And I have a problem with Governments making me pay a tax to support a state church. As we do in the UK, in Germany, in France, in almost any Country....except...the US.
And I think Thomas "the wall" Jefferson is with me on that one.
"And recourse to the actual study of this matter conducted in the academy would hammer that nail into your skull--so feel free to do some actual reading on the topic"
For fuck's sake. How much reading do you have to do to know that the Pope saying AIDS is bad but condoms are worse is not ridiculous and disabling.
Since the Pope, as any Religious figure, claims to be a proxy of God, the closest in this case, would you mind explaining to us uniformed and unread heathens how *whilst unable to prove the existence of God* the Pope can know his mind?
Please inform us. Thanks.
And please continue to inform us then how that utter and obvious lie isn't laughable and how it has been enabling to soceity...
Thanks×2
I don't propose the Catholic Church (for instance) has been helping mankind along all these Centuries...
Are you saying that if society had arranged itself on the findings of Epicurus, Democritus, we wouldn't be anywhere near the level of sophistication we are at now? We'd be less advanced? Just the same?
If so I disagree with you and anyone with the same viewpoint as you.
I think Religion has had it's day, at best it's a cloudy form of humanism, but totally un-needed in any major role of public life today - and is infact disabling to our progress and is demonstrably ridiculuous in it's claims (that it knows the will of God)
pt.1
"Well. Do me the favor, then, of defining 'religion' then"
Religion, as I'm terming it, is the practice of a belief in God. I comment on both orthopraxy or orthodoxy surrounding that belief.
I have no problem with people believing in God, no problem at all. No problem with devotional painting/poetry/architecture...any of that.
I know that this is truly real for people. My family to name one group of which I'm closely aware...
But I have a very serious problem with Religion forcing itself on the individual, and societal institutions - like the Government and workplace for motherfucking example.
I have a big problem with people telling me, and the rest of society, I *must too* believe...or telling Children that they are going to hell if they don't believe in God. I have a problem with the very thinly veiled fascism of Religion telling me what I may eat, who I may or not sleep with, and that an all knowing creator is watching me 24/7. I have a problem with any Church's claim that they are the sole and correct path to morality...
And I have a problem with Governments making me pay a tax to support a state church. As we do in the UK, in Germany, in France, in almost any Country....except...the US.
And I think Thomas "the wall" Jefferson is with me on that one.
"And recourse to the actual study of this matter conducted in the academy would hammer that nail into your skull--so feel free to do some actual reading on the topic"
For fuck's sake. How much reading do you have to do to know that the Pope saying AIDS is bad but condoms are worse is not ridiculous and disabling.
Since the Pope, as any Religious figure, claims to be a proxy of God, the closest in this case, would you mind explaining to us uniformed and unread heathens how *whilst unable to prove the existence of God* the Pope can know his mind?
Please inform us. Thanks.
And please continue to inform us then how that utter and obvious lie isn't laughable and how it has been enabling to soceity...
Thanks×2
I don't propose the Catholic Church (for instance) has been helping mankind along all these Centuries...
Are you saying that if society had arranged itself on the findings of Epicurus, Democritus, we wouldn't be anywhere near the level of sophistication we are at now? We'd be less advanced? Just the same?
If so I disagree with you and anyone with the same viewpoint as you.
I think Religion has had it's day, at best it's a cloudy form of humanism, but totally un-needed in any major role of public life today - and is infact disabling to our progress and is demonstrably ridiculuous in it's claims (that it knows the will of God)
pt.2
Proceeding...
You said ;
"it really would do you well to study how these modern forms of governance (that you likely like) came to be"
Sorry I work fulltime, as a lot of us do here, so there's not much time for that.
Does that count me out of the debate? I guess the other "uniformed" creatures and I should just sit out elections etc as we are too stupid to be allowed to cast an opinion...
Although there is some innuendo in your post there about what my Political leanings may or may not be...don't you think it simple of you that it should be important?
If you are saying that any opinion from me is worthless as the politicial views you think that maybe I might just perhaps be into are more complicated that you think that I know or have read about maybe or maybe not who knows but anyway the point is if you don't study 'theology, philosophy, jurisprudence' the your opinion is worth zero...
Then...for example
Do you demand that if any voter, chosen at random say, didn't know the history or circumstances of the party he or she just voted for their vote be counted null?
Regardless your viewpoint is nothing more than intellecutal Aryanism.
I'll resist the Hitler Youth parody for the way you expressed it....
I might take your advice on the books as ;
"This might allow you to make truly thoughtful comments on the matter"
However
"rather than the drivel you emit"
Ooooh. That hurt. That really hurt.
Especially after you were with me on the Iran thing - which by the way - you were a little drively on.
Re : Iranian poltical map "It's more complicated than that" was the crunching insight you shot down from the heavens onto ENGLISH ONLY like a shard of bright lightning, illuminating and shocking us all into a new state of awareness.
Reading your entire post there, I think the whole of ENGLISH ONLY (whoever attempted to read it) and myself are left rather unsatisfied as to ; what it is you actually want to say, how Religion has enabled society and is not ridiculous, and further what the fuck does "jurisprudence" mean?
These are the simple things we'd like to know.
If you say I talk drivel, it really is fine.
I think you might want to do a little introspection too.
moving on...
"Your tone shows no real familiarity with the topic"
Being a student of "jurisprudence" and other interesting things we would have expected a lot of facts, figures, quotes, real World examples and so on from you. But unfortunately we just get a load of words we don't understand and suspect is just clumsy sollopsism.
Your demanding on definitions for everything, then banging on with a glut of language only you know the "correct" definition for is an example...
So
I'll give you an example of how ;
"ridiculous and disabling Religion (any religion) is to society and the running of it"
Besides the lead thread content itself...
There's the painfully obvious example of AFGHANISTAN UNDER THE TALIBAN.
I rest my case.
That's what happens when you try to run your country out of a book...
But I'm going to go further, and do a preemptive strike on anyone who, mistakenly, wants to illustrate Stalin or someone as the counter example...
Proceeding...
You said ;
"it really would do you well to study how these modern forms of governance (that you likely like) came to be"
Sorry I work fulltime, as a lot of us do here, so there's not much time for that.
Does that count me out of the debate? I guess the other "uniformed" creatures and I should just sit out elections etc as we are too stupid to be allowed to cast an opinion...
Although there is some innuendo in your post there about what my Political leanings may or may not be...don't you think it simple of you that it should be important?
If you are saying that any opinion from me is worthless as the politicial views you think that maybe I might just perhaps be into are more complicated that you think that I know or have read about maybe or maybe not who knows but anyway the point is if you don't study 'theology, philosophy, jurisprudence' the your opinion is worth zero...
Then...for example
Do you demand that if any voter, chosen at random say, didn't know the history or circumstances of the party he or she just voted for their vote be counted null?
Regardless your viewpoint is nothing more than intellecutal Aryanism.
I'll resist the Hitler Youth parody for the way you expressed it....
I might take your advice on the books as ;
"This might allow you to make truly thoughtful comments on the matter"
However
"rather than the drivel you emit"
Ooooh. That hurt. That really hurt.
Especially after you were with me on the Iran thing - which by the way - you were a little drively on.
Re : Iranian poltical map "It's more complicated than that" was the crunching insight you shot down from the heavens onto ENGLISH ONLY like a shard of bright lightning, illuminating and shocking us all into a new state of awareness.
Reading your entire post there, I think the whole of ENGLISH ONLY (whoever attempted to read it) and myself are left rather unsatisfied as to ; what it is you actually want to say, how Religion has enabled society and is not ridiculous, and further what the fuck does "jurisprudence" mean?
These are the simple things we'd like to know.
If you say I talk drivel, it really is fine.
I think you might want to do a little introspection too.
moving on...
"Your tone shows no real familiarity with the topic"
Being a student of "jurisprudence" and other interesting things we would have expected a lot of facts, figures, quotes, real World examples and so on from you. But unfortunately we just get a load of words we don't understand and suspect is just clumsy sollopsism.
Your demanding on definitions for everything, then banging on with a glut of language only you know the "correct" definition for is an example...
So
I'll give you an example of how ;
"ridiculous and disabling Religion (any religion) is to society and the running of it"
Besides the lead thread content itself...
There's the painfully obvious example of AFGHANISTAN UNDER THE TALIBAN.
I rest my case.
That's what happens when you try to run your country out of a book...
But I'm going to go further, and do a preemptive strike on anyone who, mistakenly, wants to illustrate Stalin or someone as the counter example...
pt.3
Russia 1917.
Up until this point Russia had been under the grip of the Czars, who were both head of State and Church, and regarded as something a little more than just human - thanks to the Religious bit. Russian people themselves were his property *through divine rights*...
The Czars had the country in crushing servitude, just how the church likes it, as I hope you know. Now ;
Do you think the claim that Nicholas II was more than a mere man wasn't ridiculous? And that his Chruch wasn't disabling for the Russain people?
Anyway...we move on ;
The Revolution happens...
The Christians in particular love to site aetheists like Stalin, Mao etc as adverts for what wanting to have Religion away from politics and public life is all about...
It's a kind of "we slaughtered countless millions throughout history but at least we're not Hitler" kind of thing.
Is that the best they can say for themselves?
Anyway...
Lets take Stalin *who was trained in the Seminaries* (that means Religious school for everyone else)
He inherited a huge Country full of people who for centuries had been psychologically ravaged and conditioned by the Czars and their Church...
Do you seriously think he wasn't going to capitalize on that?
And give them the new form of "worship"...
Tell them what to wear...
Where to go...
What to eat...
Where to work etc?
In other words do *exactly the same thing as Religion*
Was Stalin's approach to Government not ridiculous to you 雷男 ?
Was communism not disabling to the Russia - the physical landscape as well the as the people?
If you want to argue that the thoughts of Epicurus, Democritis, Jefferson, Spinoza, Einstein are useless in regards running a Country or Soceity...
And that the Religion is actualy better than these as a governing force in our institutions.
That Religion doesn't infact disable us, and make ridicule of every rational progress we've made...
Then I would like to say that I would be happy to challenge you...
But...
I can't really understand what you write..
&
I can't be bothered...
so there
Russia 1917.
Up until this point Russia had been under the grip of the Czars, who were both head of State and Church, and regarded as something a little more than just human - thanks to the Religious bit. Russian people themselves were his property *through divine rights*...
The Czars had the country in crushing servitude, just how the church likes it, as I hope you know. Now ;
Do you think the claim that Nicholas II was more than a mere man wasn't ridiculous? And that his Chruch wasn't disabling for the Russain people?
Anyway...we move on ;
The Revolution happens...
The Christians in particular love to site aetheists like Stalin, Mao etc as adverts for what wanting to have Religion away from politics and public life is all about...
It's a kind of "we slaughtered countless millions throughout history but at least we're not Hitler" kind of thing.
Is that the best they can say for themselves?
Anyway...
Lets take Stalin *who was trained in the Seminaries* (that means Religious school for everyone else)
He inherited a huge Country full of people who for centuries had been psychologically ravaged and conditioned by the Czars and their Church...
Do you seriously think he wasn't going to capitalize on that?
And give them the new form of "worship"...
Tell them what to wear...
Where to go...
What to eat...
Where to work etc?
In other words do *exactly the same thing as Religion*
Was Stalin's approach to Government not ridiculous to you 雷男 ?
Was communism not disabling to the Russia - the physical landscape as well the as the people?
If you want to argue that the thoughts of Epicurus, Democritis, Jefferson, Spinoza, Einstein are useless in regards running a Country or Soceity...
And that the Religion is actualy better than these as a governing force in our institutions.
That Religion doesn't infact disable us, and make ridicule of every rational progress we've made...
Then I would like to say that I would be happy to challenge you...
But...
I can't really understand what you write..
&
I can't be bothered...
so there
and by the way to all the other interlocutors on here ;
Those three comments were aimed at anyone who feels like reading them, and wants to try and prove me wrong that "Religion is ridiculous and disabling to Society"...
But I reserve the right to not be bothered
(furthering my reasons more)
Those three comments were aimed at anyone who feels like reading them, and wants to try and prove me wrong that "Religion is ridiculous and disabling to Society"...
But I reserve the right to not be bothered
(furthering my reasons more)
Those two clips I posted were intended to show how "Happy" people seem to be when they embrace ( in this case ) Christianity. But it`s this feeling of "Happiness" and the reassurance that Death and or whatever hardships you are experiencing now are not bad things because you will go to a better place. Many people really seem to want to believe that. (Because life really sucks sometimes) And religion gives that to them. Is it disabling to Society at times? Yes it is. But what would be the alternative? Did you see those godless jerks skinning that cat on the thread today? Humanity needs something. If it`s not religion than what ?
If you have the answer than spit it out.
If you have the answer than spit it out.
...
"Religion, as I'm terming it, is the practice of a belief in God. I comment on both orthopraxy or orthodoxy surrounding that belief."
Your definition of religion is known to fail, and a read of virtually any philosophy of religion or sociology of religion *introduction* would make that point clear to you. Not all religions would fall under your description as 'practice of a belief in God' precisely because religions disagree as to who or what God is--or rather, what is 'prime reality' (a number of religions would be hesitant to the way your framed the question, that is 'belief in God'). Your definition makes a number of what have been seen as 'religions' to be not that at all--buddhism included. And it also cannot handle the fact that even the theistic relgions disagree sharply as to who or what God is, such that the question is going to have to include metaphysical concerns. But at this point naturalism and and various so called 'non-religions' are at the same point--and this is exactly my point about dogma and praxis, which you miss, namely: the naturalist, or agnostic is answering the *very same* questions that a religious person is: 1)The metaphysical (both ontological (the nature of 'Being') and cosmological, and 2) How should would live, given what is believed to be true. Arguing that there is such a thing as the 'non-religious' that is formally different than those who believe in God, is at least special pleading, but may also be severe delusion.
the rest of what you say in post 13 is a just a catalogue of half-thought attempts to excuse your beliefs, and not even well developed criticisms. Sort of like being at a bit of a loss, and groping for whatever you can find. You inaccurately present some of the relevant issues with the allusions you make, and frame the questions only to make your point, and not in a way that seems interested in the actual issues, or history.
"Does that count me out of the debate? I guess the other "uniformed" creatures and I should just sit out elections etc as we are too stupid to be allowed to cast an opinion"
Is a message board or a public forum a a miniature State, such that it should be governed by a democracy or like? You seem to equate the two. The point I am making with you is: If you don't really know what you are talking about, shut up, and have a little intellectual honesty. You can believe however you will, but when you speak in a public forum, the situation changes to dialogue, and for true dialogue, intellectual honesty is required. In this case your opinion is discounted because a)you don't know what you are talking about, and b) you think you actually do, consequently leading to c) confident assertions about things that you are in fact ignorant of. So the point is, if you speak in a public form as you do, without an real familiarity with the issues, it is proper and well for you to have your ass handed to you.
"what it is you actually want to say, how Religion has enabled society and is not ridiculous, and further what the fuck does "jurisprudence" mean?
These are the simple things we'd like to know. "
Regarding Jurisprudence, just do a google search, it isn't that hard a thing. I am only claiming that the matter is more complicated that you think it: particular Religions have both enabled and disabled societies in various ways, and it is just not an either-or thing, and even the slimmest of familiarity with the discipline of 'cultural and intellectual' history would make that clear. But that you seem to lack.
"Religion, as I'm terming it, is the practice of a belief in God. I comment on both orthopraxy or orthodoxy surrounding that belief."
Your definition of religion is known to fail, and a read of virtually any philosophy of religion or sociology of religion *introduction* would make that point clear to you. Not all religions would fall under your description as 'practice of a belief in God' precisely because religions disagree as to who or what God is--or rather, what is 'prime reality' (a number of religions would be hesitant to the way your framed the question, that is 'belief in God'). Your definition makes a number of what have been seen as 'religions' to be not that at all--buddhism included. And it also cannot handle the fact that even the theistic relgions disagree sharply as to who or what God is, such that the question is going to have to include metaphysical concerns. But at this point naturalism and and various so called 'non-religions' are at the same point--and this is exactly my point about dogma and praxis, which you miss, namely: the naturalist, or agnostic is answering the *very same* questions that a religious person is: 1)The metaphysical (both ontological (the nature of 'Being') and cosmological, and 2) How should would live, given what is believed to be true. Arguing that there is such a thing as the 'non-religious' that is formally different than those who believe in God, is at least special pleading, but may also be severe delusion.
the rest of what you say in post 13 is a just a catalogue of half-thought attempts to excuse your beliefs, and not even well developed criticisms. Sort of like being at a bit of a loss, and groping for whatever you can find. You inaccurately present some of the relevant issues with the allusions you make, and frame the questions only to make your point, and not in a way that seems interested in the actual issues, or history.
"Does that count me out of the debate? I guess the other "uniformed" creatures and I should just sit out elections etc as we are too stupid to be allowed to cast an opinion"
Is a message board or a public forum a a miniature State, such that it should be governed by a democracy or like? You seem to equate the two. The point I am making with you is: If you don't really know what you are talking about, shut up, and have a little intellectual honesty. You can believe however you will, but when you speak in a public forum, the situation changes to dialogue, and for true dialogue, intellectual honesty is required. In this case your opinion is discounted because a)you don't know what you are talking about, and b) you think you actually do, consequently leading to c) confident assertions about things that you are in fact ignorant of. So the point is, if you speak in a public form as you do, without an real familiarity with the issues, it is proper and well for you to have your ass handed to you.
"what it is you actually want to say, how Religion has enabled society and is not ridiculous, and further what the fuck does "jurisprudence" mean?
These are the simple things we'd like to know. "
Regarding Jurisprudence, just do a google search, it isn't that hard a thing. I am only claiming that the matter is more complicated that you think it: particular Religions have both enabled and disabled societies in various ways, and it is just not an either-or thing, and even the slimmest of familiarity with the discipline of 'cultural and intellectual' history would make that clear. But that you seem to lack.
2.
your comment with the Taliban is hardly a case at all. You point to one historical occurrence as if it were all of them, and that simply a silly mistake of logic. Hey! i found a purple rock! therefore all rocks are purple!
Re: Russia; did you know that the Orthodox church had a fair amount of dissent to that view of Nicholas (as one would expect they would!). That would throw off your little historical caricature of "state and religion", though...And again, the rest of your bit about Russia is rather hilarious: have you even actually read a serious history book on the Russian Revolution? It seems not, and hell, you would know the situation is more complicated that you present it (and in fact *different* than you do) by a damn history channel mini-documentary. The whole 'He inherited a huge Country full of people who for centuries had been psychologically ravaged and conditioned by the Czars and their Church' is a rather hilarious example of all that. It is a serious overstating of some historical realities, not put in measure with the ways in which the political establishment, as well as church acted different that you assert, and all rhetorical put in a way to make you point. But it is a house built on sand: if you if for would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes.
your comment with the Taliban is hardly a case at all. You point to one historical occurrence as if it were all of them, and that simply a silly mistake of logic. Hey! i found a purple rock! therefore all rocks are purple!
Re: Russia; did you know that the Orthodox church had a fair amount of dissent to that view of Nicholas (as one would expect they would!). That would throw off your little historical caricature of "state and religion", though...And again, the rest of your bit about Russia is rather hilarious: have you even actually read a serious history book on the Russian Revolution? It seems not, and hell, you would know the situation is more complicated that you present it (and in fact *different* than you do) by a damn history channel mini-documentary. The whole 'He inherited a huge Country full of people who for centuries had been psychologically ravaged and conditioned by the Czars and their Church' is a rather hilarious example of all that. It is a serious overstating of some historical realities, not put in measure with the ways in which the political establishment, as well as church acted different that you assert, and all rhetorical put in a way to make you point. But it is a house built on sand: if you if for would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes.
3.
"If you want to argue that the thoughts of Epicurus, Democritis, Jefferson, Spinoza, Einstein are useless in regards running a Country or Soceity...
And that the Religion is actualy better than these as a governing force in our institutions.
That Religion doesn't infact disable us, and make ridicule of every rational progress we've made... "
I never said that their thought was useless in regards to running a country, and there is no grounds in anything i have written for you even to have thought I have. I would in fact argue the contrary, that what is true, whatever it's origin, is helpful and useful for governance.
But I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society, and were in fact CRUCIAL for the development of many values held dear today (political tolerance, human rights, and many such things).
And this really your problem when it comes down to it: you see the world in an either-or, MAPPING some sort of black or white vision onto a matter that is much more grey. Neither history, nor logic help you in this endeavor, and though you may be personally invested in seeing the world this way, you are invested in a myth that has tendencies to mimic the Ostrich: when you encounter things that subvert your black and white world, you bury you head in the sand.
"If you want to argue that the thoughts of Epicurus, Democritis, Jefferson, Spinoza, Einstein are useless in regards running a Country or Soceity...
And that the Religion is actualy better than these as a governing force in our institutions.
That Religion doesn't infact disable us, and make ridicule of every rational progress we've made... "
I never said that their thought was useless in regards to running a country, and there is no grounds in anything i have written for you even to have thought I have. I would in fact argue the contrary, that what is true, whatever it's origin, is helpful and useful for governance.
But I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society, and were in fact CRUCIAL for the development of many values held dear today (political tolerance, human rights, and many such things).
And this really your problem when it comes down to it: you see the world in an either-or, MAPPING some sort of black or white vision onto a matter that is much more grey. Neither history, nor logic help you in this endeavor, and though you may be personally invested in seeing the world this way, you are invested in a myth that has tendencies to mimic the Ostrich: when you encounter things that subvert your black and white world, you bury you head in the sand.
edit:
in post 19 i said:
"and all rhetorical put in a way to make you point. But ait is a house built on sand: if you if for would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes."
but it should read:
and all rhetorically put in a way to make your point. But it is a house built on sand: if you would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had been helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes.
in post 19 i said:
"and all rhetorical put in a way to make you point. But ait is a house built on sand: if you if for would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes."
but it should read:
and all rhetorically put in a way to make your point. But it is a house built on sand: if you would allow (as any historian would!) that various czar reforms had been helped at times, and that the Orthodox church had been *both* helpful and harmful to the people (like any other institution) than your little bit of psuedo-clarity with overly strong rhetoric crashes.
雷男> pt1.
Let me just recap a moment...
Your first post summed up;
"Every thing you say is wrong because I say so, and I read more than you"
Excellent argument, spoken like a true scholar.
You then dismiss all the points I made without any attempt at showing me why they are wrong - I'll take you at your word on Russia if you like, but would you like to offer anything on the assertion that both Fascism and Communism could be considered 'Religious' (orthodoxy & orthopraxy) and in fact as an inhabitant of those ideologies, it wouldn't feel like the same thing? Wear this, don't associate with them, worship me etc?...Were Fascism and Communism not ridiculous and disabling to society?
Well, anyway, for me the burden of proof that the statement "religion is ridiculous and disables society" isn't true, is squarely in your court. I'm quite happy to leave my points where they are as all you can muster is more "you are wrong because I say so"...
Please show me, as you know I'm not all that bright etc.
And I'm touched you just handed me my ass by the way.
Is that as hard as it comes when you reach the dizzy academic heights of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence"?
I'm still quite hazy on how you refute the fact that Religion claims to know the mind of God, and *that* isn't ridiculous and doesn't disable society - in a larger sense as well as a personal one....
The only answer you could conjur for me regarding the main theme was ;
"I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society"
(I'll get onto the "CRUCIAL for the development" part later)
Wow. I mean if your posts were a film I'd be 'blown through the back of the theatre' with awesome arguments like that. Are you refuting me, agreeing with me, or what...there's no room for deciding anything without the English words "yes" or "no".
Have you actually decided anything?
Is that the fruit born from intensive study of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence"?
Are you saying "well it's a bit of both isn't it"...
or "hard to say really...."
perhaps what you really mean is "it's too difficult for me to answer, but I'm quite happy to have a go at anyone who does"
Well I've come to a conclusion on it, and it quite obviously (to me) doesn't require the narcissistic and anal rigor you love so much (and yet can't make a conclusion from).
Let me just recap a moment...
Your first post summed up;
"Every thing you say is wrong because I say so, and I read more than you"
Excellent argument, spoken like a true scholar.
You then dismiss all the points I made without any attempt at showing me why they are wrong - I'll take you at your word on Russia if you like, but would you like to offer anything on the assertion that both Fascism and Communism could be considered 'Religious' (orthodoxy & orthopraxy) and in fact as an inhabitant of those ideologies, it wouldn't feel like the same thing? Wear this, don't associate with them, worship me etc?...Were Fascism and Communism not ridiculous and disabling to society?
Well, anyway, for me the burden of proof that the statement "religion is ridiculous and disables society" isn't true, is squarely in your court. I'm quite happy to leave my points where they are as all you can muster is more "you are wrong because I say so"...
Please show me, as you know I'm not all that bright etc.
And I'm touched you just handed me my ass by the way.
Is that as hard as it comes when you reach the dizzy academic heights of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence"?
I'm still quite hazy on how you refute the fact that Religion claims to know the mind of God, and *that* isn't ridiculous and doesn't disable society - in a larger sense as well as a personal one....
The only answer you could conjur for me regarding the main theme was ;
"I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society"
(I'll get onto the "CRUCIAL for the development" part later)
Wow. I mean if your posts were a film I'd be 'blown through the back of the theatre' with awesome arguments like that. Are you refuting me, agreeing with me, or what...there's no room for deciding anything without the English words "yes" or "no".
Have you actually decided anything?
Is that the fruit born from intensive study of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence"?
Are you saying "well it's a bit of both isn't it"...
or "hard to say really...."
perhaps what you really mean is "it's too difficult for me to answer, but I'm quite happy to have a go at anyone who does"
Well I've come to a conclusion on it, and it quite obviously (to me) doesn't require the narcissistic and anal rigor you love so much (and yet can't make a conclusion from).
雷男> pt2.
I really don't get the nit-picking about definitions, you seem more comfortable with reducing the real World problem of a pathetic mammal calling himself "Pope" and spouting credulity like "yeah AIDS is bad, but you just don't know how God hates condoms" to a debate about semantics.
So, I'm shocked to learn that the belief in God and practice of it can't be called Religion...
Why don't you approach it, as I do, from the other direction and consider "what do people label as 'Religion'?" and then proceed from that point?
Regardless, my argument is that *whatever* it is people worship, I think it's their right to have their outdated supernatural toys and play with them - just don't be demanding that *we all* have to play them, and that their toys are better than ours and their toys are the ones on which Society shall administer itself...
Especially when we can demonstrate that their toys aren't credible...
You keep coming back to Naturalism. Which I'll leave where it is as you know I can't talk with any clarity on the subject - can anyone here? That includes you by the way. But it does bring me to a subject I'm sure the all-knowing investigation into "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence" has given you divine authority on - falsifiability.
As any conspiracy theory, Religion is unfalsifiable no?
You also know that just because an assertion is unfalsifiable we can't discount it, but we can evaluate it less important than those that are falsifiable...
I ask you, what is better as a tool of Government, falsifiable beliefs as in "the minimum wage is beneficial for everyone" or unfalsifiable beliefs like "God says condoms are bad, so using a condom is illegal"?
Seriously?
"well it's hard to say"???
I'll let you totally ignore the question, and moving on...
I really don't get the nit-picking about definitions, you seem more comfortable with reducing the real World problem of a pathetic mammal calling himself "Pope" and spouting credulity like "yeah AIDS is bad, but you just don't know how God hates condoms" to a debate about semantics.
So, I'm shocked to learn that the belief in God and practice of it can't be called Religion...
Why don't you approach it, as I do, from the other direction and consider "what do people label as 'Religion'?" and then proceed from that point?
Regardless, my argument is that *whatever* it is people worship, I think it's their right to have their outdated supernatural toys and play with them - just don't be demanding that *we all* have to play them, and that their toys are better than ours and their toys are the ones on which Society shall administer itself...
Especially when we can demonstrate that their toys aren't credible...
You keep coming back to Naturalism. Which I'll leave where it is as you know I can't talk with any clarity on the subject - can anyone here? That includes you by the way. But it does bring me to a subject I'm sure the all-knowing investigation into "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence" has given you divine authority on - falsifiability.
As any conspiracy theory, Religion is unfalsifiable no?
You also know that just because an assertion is unfalsifiable we can't discount it, but we can evaluate it less important than those that are falsifiable...
I ask you, what is better as a tool of Government, falsifiable beliefs as in "the minimum wage is beneficial for everyone" or unfalsifiable beliefs like "God says condoms are bad, so using a condom is illegal"?
Seriously?
"well it's hard to say"???
I'll let you totally ignore the question, and moving on...
雷男> pt3.
"your comment with the Taliban is hardly a case at all. You point to one historical occurrence as if it were all of them, and that simply a silly mistake of logic. Hey! i found a purple rock! therefore all rocks are purple!"
No I think you'll find that if you read your own posts, you have made that exact "silly mistake of logic" regarding me.
"..." made a mistake (in my opinion) on this point, therefore everything he says is mistaken! etc
I don't like your idea that we can't evaluate Religion's track-record regarding enabling or disabling a Society (or Country if you like) without knowing all possible examples and occurrences. What if there is an as yet unknown example (or examples) somewhere that would either support or negate Religion's "job performance" in terms of enabling society? It would render that idea useless as it didn't consider *all* instances...According to your train of thought then, we have to find every fucking rock first before deciding what color a rock is?
Don't you think the issue is a little pressing than that?
The people of the World and I can't be bothered waiting for the answer on that one. All this nit-picking about definitions and ways to frame a question is redundant and only relevant to you since it seems you only think in scholarly terms and probably consider this whole thing just a philosophical investigation...
The smart, quick, and easy way to make a decision rather than just fumble out "I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society" is take a look at Religion's claims, and see how that has to play out if they are allowed to pervade everyday (public) life. For one and all, non-believers and believers alike.
And my evaluation is that Religion has done and can do nothing but be disabling to Society, most importantly, when it's allowed to inform law making etc - because Religion claims to be getting the orders from God, and it is demonstrable that they aren't! (since no-one can prove his existence)
The Taliban is an excellent example. It's an excellent example because it's a recent one we all know about, that demonstrates what happens when Religion is given total and free reign to control a Country's inhabitants, institutions, as it sees fit - or as "God" sees fit I should say.
What, are you saying the Taliban was a bad egg...but if given the chance the Catholic Church wouldn't do/hasn't done that? Judaism wouldn't/hasn't? The Mormon's wouldn't?
Tell me the historic instances when given such power Religion hasn't abused it, and (contrasting with say how Jefferson thought a Country should be run) it was actually better (for Society).
The forced payment of tax to a State Church, the proposed teaching of psuedo-science to children, prohibition, banning of music, banning of contraception, banning of free-speech / a free-press, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, these are all things Religion has hotly endorsed, citing it as the direct word or commandment of God.
Should these be the people, or should I say should this be the criteria for deciding what you or I are allowed to do in public life?
It's not a new idea....Epicurus and all that said it over 2 motherfucking thousand years ago!!
"your comment with the Taliban is hardly a case at all. You point to one historical occurrence as if it were all of them, and that simply a silly mistake of logic. Hey! i found a purple rock! therefore all rocks are purple!"
No I think you'll find that if you read your own posts, you have made that exact "silly mistake of logic" regarding me.
"..." made a mistake (in my opinion) on this point, therefore everything he says is mistaken! etc
I don't like your idea that we can't evaluate Religion's track-record regarding enabling or disabling a Society (or Country if you like) without knowing all possible examples and occurrences. What if there is an as yet unknown example (or examples) somewhere that would either support or negate Religion's "job performance" in terms of enabling society? It would render that idea useless as it didn't consider *all* instances...According to your train of thought then, we have to find every fucking rock first before deciding what color a rock is?
Don't you think the issue is a little pressing than that?
The people of the World and I can't be bothered waiting for the answer on that one. All this nit-picking about definitions and ways to frame a question is redundant and only relevant to you since it seems you only think in scholarly terms and probably consider this whole thing just a philosophical investigation...
The smart, quick, and easy way to make a decision rather than just fumble out "I would argue that particular religions have both harmed, helped society" is take a look at Religion's claims, and see how that has to play out if they are allowed to pervade everyday (public) life. For one and all, non-believers and believers alike.
And my evaluation is that Religion has done and can do nothing but be disabling to Society, most importantly, when it's allowed to inform law making etc - because Religion claims to be getting the orders from God, and it is demonstrable that they aren't! (since no-one can prove his existence)
The Taliban is an excellent example. It's an excellent example because it's a recent one we all know about, that demonstrates what happens when Religion is given total and free reign to control a Country's inhabitants, institutions, as it sees fit - or as "God" sees fit I should say.
What, are you saying the Taliban was a bad egg...but if given the chance the Catholic Church wouldn't do/hasn't done that? Judaism wouldn't/hasn't? The Mormon's wouldn't?
Tell me the historic instances when given such power Religion hasn't abused it, and (contrasting with say how Jefferson thought a Country should be run) it was actually better (for Society).
The forced payment of tax to a State Church, the proposed teaching of psuedo-science to children, prohibition, banning of music, banning of contraception, banning of free-speech / a free-press, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, these are all things Religion has hotly endorsed, citing it as the direct word or commandment of God.
Should these be the people, or should I say should this be the criteria for deciding what you or I are allowed to do in public life?
It's not a new idea....Epicurus and all that said it over 2 motherfucking thousand years ago!!
雷男> pt4.
I'll drivel on a little bit more if you don't mind ;
"that what is true, whatever it's origin, is helpful and useful for governance"
Great stuff. First up what does "true" mean?
Are you expecting the lowly citizens of ENGLISH ONLY and uneducated people like me to be up on Cognitivism or something?
Here's a crazy idea ; Lets take Christianity as an example since most people able to read all this are going to be most familiar with it and it's role in Western Governance.
Although Christianity loves to credit itself with spreading precepts like "love thy neighbour" I can't see any evidence that these ideas derive from Christianity...look at a couple of examples from each testament ;
The good Samaritan wasn't, couldn't have been a Christian...
It's ridiculous to me, or anyone I hope, that the Jews on the road to Sinai didn't know murder, lying, stealing etc was wrong until Moses came down from the Mountain to tell them "God says murder, stealing, theft etc are wrong!"...
The "Golden Rule", more ancient than any monotheism, comes from Confucius....and had to be born of some elementary human solidarity (which allows for self-interest)
What I'm saying is Christianity can't lay any claim to some kind of monopoly on improving people's morals, or having been the derivative of those morals in the first place...
Most of our (basic) laws may well have come from Christian teaching, but were the Christians actually teaching us anything we didn't know!?
And temper that with all the disabling teachings they threw in along the way - Moses says "let my people go!" and proceeds to slaughter/enslave any tribe that gets in the way out of Eygpt...the Pope says "sorry but your baby wasn't baptized before passing away and now it is in eternal limbo never to reach heaven, and you will never meet them in heaven either" (the Church rescinded that one, but is ready all over again to be infallible on everything else)
This is real to people as we all know, and hideous, dishonest, teaching like that should be called out on the spot...
But for my purposes here *at least lets have that fuckery away from Government*
"particular religions have both harmed, helped society, and were in fact CRUCIAL for the development of many values held dear today"
Really. Well I have no wish to get dragged into a meaningless debate about morals, but I think, besides the points on where morality may really come from above, the ability to do good or evil is inate in us...(as a result of being animals)
I have no need for God, so the ability of man to do evil isn't a problem for my sensibilities. But a huge problem for the people whose Creator has made them that way, and have to equate the Coexistence of their God with evil. Needless complexity.
(I won't cite Occam's Razor since you'll probably wimper I'm not allowed to use it due to my lack of finesse in the esteemed field of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence")
"many values held dear today".
I disagree with that...
How are values held dear today, different than those from millenia ago?
The insistence that we can only be "morally correct" through the vehicle of Religion degrades the millions of people throughout history who have done the right thing without the need or crutch of any supernatural authority...
----
If people want their ill-grounded spiritual toys I'm more than happy for them to have them. I'm not happy for them to be the basis for Governance...and it's really beyond my comprehension that anyone could argue that in fact "God wants you to do this/that". And how that should be enabling to Society and isn't ridiculous.
(I think) It was Heine who commented that in absolute darkness a blind-man is a more useful guide than a seeing one, or none at all...but when the light comes, as a guide the blind-man is...well, useless.
Just like the hour I've wasted writing to you.
(I'm not interested in touching your ass)
I'll drivel on a little bit more if you don't mind ;
"that what is true, whatever it's origin, is helpful and useful for governance"
Great stuff. First up what does "true" mean?
Are you expecting the lowly citizens of ENGLISH ONLY and uneducated people like me to be up on Cognitivism or something?
Here's a crazy idea ; Lets take Christianity as an example since most people able to read all this are going to be most familiar with it and it's role in Western Governance.
Although Christianity loves to credit itself with spreading precepts like "love thy neighbour" I can't see any evidence that these ideas derive from Christianity...look at a couple of examples from each testament ;
The good Samaritan wasn't, couldn't have been a Christian...
It's ridiculous to me, or anyone I hope, that the Jews on the road to Sinai didn't know murder, lying, stealing etc was wrong until Moses came down from the Mountain to tell them "God says murder, stealing, theft etc are wrong!"...
The "Golden Rule", more ancient than any monotheism, comes from Confucius....and had to be born of some elementary human solidarity (which allows for self-interest)
What I'm saying is Christianity can't lay any claim to some kind of monopoly on improving people's morals, or having been the derivative of those morals in the first place...
Most of our (basic) laws may well have come from Christian teaching, but were the Christians actually teaching us anything we didn't know!?
And temper that with all the disabling teachings they threw in along the way - Moses says "let my people go!" and proceeds to slaughter/enslave any tribe that gets in the way out of Eygpt...the Pope says "sorry but your baby wasn't baptized before passing away and now it is in eternal limbo never to reach heaven, and you will never meet them in heaven either" (the Church rescinded that one, but is ready all over again to be infallible on everything else)
This is real to people as we all know, and hideous, dishonest, teaching like that should be called out on the spot...
But for my purposes here *at least lets have that fuckery away from Government*
"particular religions have both harmed, helped society, and were in fact CRUCIAL for the development of many values held dear today"
Really. Well I have no wish to get dragged into a meaningless debate about morals, but I think, besides the points on where morality may really come from above, the ability to do good or evil is inate in us...(as a result of being animals)
I have no need for God, so the ability of man to do evil isn't a problem for my sensibilities. But a huge problem for the people whose Creator has made them that way, and have to equate the Coexistence of their God with evil. Needless complexity.
(I won't cite Occam's Razor since you'll probably wimper I'm not allowed to use it due to my lack of finesse in the esteemed field of "theology, philosophy, jurisprudence")
"many values held dear today".
I disagree with that...
How are values held dear today, different than those from millenia ago?
The insistence that we can only be "morally correct" through the vehicle of Religion degrades the millions of people throughout history who have done the right thing without the need or crutch of any supernatural authority...
----
If people want their ill-grounded spiritual toys I'm more than happy for them to have them. I'm not happy for them to be the basis for Governance...and it's really beyond my comprehension that anyone could argue that in fact "God wants you to do this/that". And how that should be enabling to Society and isn't ridiculous.
(I think) It was Heine who commented that in absolute darkness a blind-man is a more useful guide than a seeing one, or none at all...but when the light comes, as a guide the blind-man is...well, useless.
Just like the hour I've wasted writing to you.
(I'm not interested in touching your ass)
TokyoOG:
ah, yes you are right. I didn't think about that, relying instead on blogging habits. Mea Culpa.
...
Nein!
you state:
'Your first post summed up;
"Every thing you say is wrong because I say so, and I read more than you"
That is no summary; just an assertion masked as one. Should you really wish to present a summary, you would present the flow of arguments, etc. But that would actually require reading someone and thinking about what they have said, and so far, you show little ability of that.
let's see here:
"You then dismiss all the points I made without any attempt at showing me why they are wrong '
Really? Did you really even read my post? I didn't deal with all points you made (which were largely incoherent, and unspecific), but rather addressed the more important ones--that is, determinant for the larger issue. My claims in these were rather clear, and I either referred to commonly accepted evidence contrary to your portrayal, or presented questions/criticims which are problems with the views you put forth.
you say:
"but (I) would you like to offer anything on the assertion that both Fascism and Communism could be considered 'Religious' (orthodoxy & orthopraxy) and in fact as an inhabitant of those ideologies, it wouldn't feel like the same thing?"
Well, for one, I didn't claim that. Read again, or read with more care. But sure, I'll defend my claim that various so called non-religious viewpoints are in fact inescapably religious, and as far as first principles go, ask the very same formal questions, and see praxis to follow from such questions, albeit with the content very different. So we have to set our terms first, since we don't use them in the same way. In that light I ask you to interact my paragraph countering your definition of religion, and answer the implied questions embedded in it.
you also state:
"i'm still quite hazy on how you refute the fact that Religion claims to know the mind of God, and *that* isn't ridiculous and doesn't disable society - in a larger sense as well as a personal one.... "
Religions differ in this matter actually. None of the main theistic religions actually to claim to know the 'immanent mind of God'. They claim revelation exists, but that is hardly the same thing as knowing the mind of God. And even when they attribute states and characteristics to God, they so in a complicated, and hesitant sense . This is a topic that has had rivers of ink spilled over it, and you only demonstrate, by your crass formation, you have no familiarity with it.
My main point, that you really miss, is that these things are far more complicated than the way your present them, and in your vulgar presentations are thus deeply false. It would be overly kind to say that your presentation of the views of others is a caricature. Sometimes those are helpful, but you aren't even within a mile of that, erecting straw men, only to blow them down. The point about your world being black and white is still at issue: you worldview (or more proper, weltenshuang), such as your display it, cannot handle grey. I am undercutting your silly either or, that you confidently assert about a topic you haven't the slightest idea about.
ah, yes you are right. I didn't think about that, relying instead on blogging habits. Mea Culpa.
...
Nein!
you state:
'Your first post summed up;
"Every thing you say is wrong because I say so, and I read more than you"
That is no summary; just an assertion masked as one. Should you really wish to present a summary, you would present the flow of arguments, etc. But that would actually require reading someone and thinking about what they have said, and so far, you show little ability of that.
let's see here:
"You then dismiss all the points I made without any attempt at showing me why they are wrong '
Really? Did you really even read my post? I didn't deal with all points you made (which were largely incoherent, and unspecific), but rather addressed the more important ones--that is, determinant for the larger issue. My claims in these were rather clear, and I either referred to commonly accepted evidence contrary to your portrayal, or presented questions/criticims which are problems with the views you put forth.
you say:
"but (I) would you like to offer anything on the assertion that both Fascism and Communism could be considered 'Religious' (orthodoxy & orthopraxy) and in fact as an inhabitant of those ideologies, it wouldn't feel like the same thing?"
Well, for one, I didn't claim that. Read again, or read with more care. But sure, I'll defend my claim that various so called non-religious viewpoints are in fact inescapably religious, and as far as first principles go, ask the very same formal questions, and see praxis to follow from such questions, albeit with the content very different. So we have to set our terms first, since we don't use them in the same way. In that light I ask you to interact my paragraph countering your definition of religion, and answer the implied questions embedded in it.
you also state:
"i'm still quite hazy on how you refute the fact that Religion claims to know the mind of God, and *that* isn't ridiculous and doesn't disable society - in a larger sense as well as a personal one.... "
Religions differ in this matter actually. None of the main theistic religions actually to claim to know the 'immanent mind of God'. They claim revelation exists, but that is hardly the same thing as knowing the mind of God. And even when they attribute states and characteristics to God, they so in a complicated, and hesitant sense . This is a topic that has had rivers of ink spilled over it, and you only demonstrate, by your crass formation, you have no familiarity with it.
My main point, that you really miss, is that these things are far more complicated than the way your present them, and in your vulgar presentations are thus deeply false. It would be overly kind to say that your presentation of the views of others is a caricature. Sometimes those are helpful, but you aren't even within a mile of that, erecting straw men, only to blow them down. The point about your world being black and white is still at issue: you worldview (or more proper, weltenshuang), such as your display it, cannot handle grey. I am undercutting your silly either or, that you confidently assert about a topic you haven't the slightest idea about.
now seeing posts 2-4
The nitpicking with terms is in fact necessary to dialogue. But hell, you learn that in first semester freshman philosophy classes; if you took any, were you asleep? And not only dialogue is at stake: we are linguistic beings, and much of our analytical tools/faculties are language based. But if you have no idea (or clarity) of what you are thinking about, the rest is vain.
"Religion is unfalsifiable no? "
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Some say think not, some think so, and some within even the same Religion disagree. But take most theistic religions: they would say it their religions are falsifiable. But it should be said that the 'conditions of falsifiability' are actually a very complicated topic, much more so than the pseudo-scientific view you put forth on you commentary here.
Condom question. Nice little red-herring. I assume by this you mean the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception?
Well, I don't agree with them on that score, but it should be said, that *they do not think that God said any such thing*!!
Rather, they argue it is contrary to Natural Order and Law, and that is really a far different thing. You hilariously misrepresent others!
The nitpicking with terms is in fact necessary to dialogue. But hell, you learn that in first semester freshman philosophy classes; if you took any, were you asleep? And not only dialogue is at stake: we are linguistic beings, and much of our analytical tools/faculties are language based. But if you have no idea (or clarity) of what you are thinking about, the rest is vain.
"Religion is unfalsifiable no? "
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Some say think not, some think so, and some within even the same Religion disagree. But take most theistic religions: they would say it their religions are falsifiable. But it should be said that the 'conditions of falsifiability' are actually a very complicated topic, much more so than the pseudo-scientific view you put forth on you commentary here.
Condom question. Nice little red-herring. I assume by this you mean the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception?
Well, I don't agree with them on that score, but it should be said, that *they do not think that God said any such thing*!!
Rather, they argue it is contrary to Natural Order and Law, and that is really a far different thing. You hilariously misrepresent others!
again you write:
No I think you'll find that if you read your own posts, you have made that exact "silly mistake of logic" regarding me.
"..." made a mistake (in my opinion) on this point, therefore everything he says is mistaken! etc "
Nice attempted trick. But please develop it more: How have I done such a thing...give me some textual evidence, not just some phantom from you ego. To answer you own questions: just do a little reading on the differenced between inductive and deductive logic.
okay: so for you litany of the 'EVILLLLLLLLLLS' of religion (and make sure you are scowling as you say the word)...wow guess what? some religious folks have argued for them, and others directly against that! wow, imagine that, something not simple enough to put in your binary categories.
our binary bound human computer write:"What, are you saying the Taliban was a bad egg...but if given the chance the Catholic Church wouldn't do/hasn't done that? Judaism wouldn't/hasn't? The Mormon's wouldn't?
Tell me the historic instances when given such power Religion hasn't abused it, and (contrasting with say how Jefferson thought a Country should be run) it was actually better (for Society). "
How about this: tell me when any institution hasn't abused power. ANY!
and, do what? act like the taliban? well, that's damn easy, but i press you more: act like the taliban in what way?
I suspect that you really do have a devil in your world, but that it goes by the name 'precision'.
No I think you'll find that if you read your own posts, you have made that exact "silly mistake of logic" regarding me.
"..." made a mistake (in my opinion) on this point, therefore everything he says is mistaken! etc "
Nice attempted trick. But please develop it more: How have I done such a thing...give me some textual evidence, not just some phantom from you ego. To answer you own questions: just do a little reading on the differenced between inductive and deductive logic.
okay: so for you litany of the 'EVILLLLLLLLLLS' of religion (and make sure you are scowling as you say the word)...wow guess what? some religious folks have argued for them, and others directly against that! wow, imagine that, something not simple enough to put in your binary categories.
our binary bound human computer write:"What, are you saying the Taliban was a bad egg...but if given the chance the Catholic Church wouldn't do/hasn't done that? Judaism wouldn't/hasn't? The Mormon's wouldn't?
Tell me the historic instances when given such power Religion hasn't abused it, and (contrasting with say how Jefferson thought a Country should be run) it was actually better (for Society). "
How about this: tell me when any institution hasn't abused power. ANY!
and, do what? act like the taliban? well, that's damn easy, but i press you more: act like the taliban in what way?
I suspect that you really do have a devil in your world, but that it goes by the name 'precision'.
'true'
contested issue, but here: that which conforms or coheres to world--including the subject, and the object *in so far as known*. So in this case, truth is never equated with 'noumenal knowledge', but sees truth--from human perspective--as at best penultimate.
ill have to break this little string of comedy up:
Here's a crazy idea ; Lets take Christianity as an example since most people able to read all this are going to be most familiar with it and it's role in Western Governance.
Although Christianity loves to credit itself with spreading precepts like "love thy neighbour" I can't see any evidence that these ideas derive from Christianity...look at a couple of examples from each testament ;
Its there, and not just in a few passages (though those are there) but is in fact a presumption of a lot of biblical ethics: note the conditions for Israel staying in the land, and not being dispersed in the OT: you'll find that little bastard idea there smiling at you 'whispering 'you don't really know this shit'.
The good Samaritan wasn't, couldn't have been a Christian...
and no one ever says he was! nobody! maybe some nutjob on a farm, but really, nobody makes this claim!
It's ridiculous to me, or anyone I hope, that the Jews on the road to Sinai didn't know murder, lying, stealing etc was wrong until Moses came down from the Mountain to tell them "God says murder, stealing, theft etc are wrong!"...
and again, that's not what Christianity is claiming. The 10 commandments were not meant to enact, but solidify (albeit in a post-lapsarian way) naturally (i.e. organic to the created human) held beliefs that had been clouded by the fall.
It is not clear that the golden rule *originates* from confucius, but yes, it is held by many different relgions. and so what?
why don't you take a little trip to the library or even the hallowed realm of wikipedia to do a little research on the development of both positive and natural law in the western tradition, and their interaction. You might find it interesting, but you certainly would see that a lot of what has lead to such things as 'tolerance, human rights, various protections of the person vs state--(and the ones that are now dominant in the west) were actually enunciated in THEOLOGICAL terms, grounds and starting points. These things were picked up by many and transplanted into various different, 'secular' (in the modern, decidedly not ancient use of the word) fields. But they took root in a Chrisitan one, and crucial formation there. The overwhelming majority of even 'secular' historians of the early modern period wouldn't argue as you do: you view necessitates seeing the link between the views you likely hold dear, as being only linked to an explicitly christian context by chance. That may make you feel good, but it will only make a historian laugh.
contested issue, but here: that which conforms or coheres to world--including the subject, and the object *in so far as known*. So in this case, truth is never equated with 'noumenal knowledge', but sees truth--from human perspective--as at best penultimate.
ill have to break this little string of comedy up:
Here's a crazy idea ; Lets take Christianity as an example since most people able to read all this are going to be most familiar with it and it's role in Western Governance.
Although Christianity loves to credit itself with spreading precepts like "love thy neighbour" I can't see any evidence that these ideas derive from Christianity...look at a couple of examples from each testament ;
Its there, and not just in a few passages (though those are there) but is in fact a presumption of a lot of biblical ethics: note the conditions for Israel staying in the land, and not being dispersed in the OT: you'll find that little bastard idea there smiling at you 'whispering 'you don't really know this shit'.
The good Samaritan wasn't, couldn't have been a Christian...
and no one ever says he was! nobody! maybe some nutjob on a farm, but really, nobody makes this claim!
It's ridiculous to me, or anyone I hope, that the Jews on the road to Sinai didn't know murder, lying, stealing etc was wrong until Moses came down from the Mountain to tell them "God says murder, stealing, theft etc are wrong!"...
and again, that's not what Christianity is claiming. The 10 commandments were not meant to enact, but solidify (albeit in a post-lapsarian way) naturally (i.e. organic to the created human) held beliefs that had been clouded by the fall.
It is not clear that the golden rule *originates* from confucius, but yes, it is held by many different relgions. and so what?
why don't you take a little trip to the library or even the hallowed realm of wikipedia to do a little research on the development of both positive and natural law in the western tradition, and their interaction. You might find it interesting, but you certainly would see that a lot of what has lead to such things as 'tolerance, human rights, various protections of the person vs state--(and the ones that are now dominant in the west) were actually enunciated in THEOLOGICAL terms, grounds and starting points. These things were picked up by many and transplanted into various different, 'secular' (in the modern, decidedly not ancient use of the word) fields. But they took root in a Chrisitan one, and crucial formation there. The overwhelming majority of even 'secular' historians of the early modern period wouldn't argue as you do: you view necessitates seeing the link between the views you likely hold dear, as being only linked to an explicitly christian context by chance. That may make you feel good, but it will only make a historian laugh.
You again:
"Really. Well I have no wish to get dragged into a meaningless debate about morals, but I think, besides the points on where morality may really come from above, the ability to do good or evil is inate in us...(as a result of being animals)
I have no need for God, so the ability of man to do evil isn't a problem for my sensibilities. But a huge problem for the people whose Creator has made them that way, and have to equate the Coexistence of their God with evil. Needless complexity. "
Here is a little problem for you..oh that damned complexity thing again! i guess you're view isn't so simple after all--even if you are!
this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive?
yes, evil is a problem for theists, but you have your own. And just what sort of problem is actually a real issue? Does it make a certain theology incoherent, or is it merely a problem? The incoherent view, at least formulated *deductively* is generally considered to fail now, consult one of those evil books for that.
On Occam's Razor: your view has its own assumptions that make it complicated, and by the way, who says the competing views are equal (which is the only time the rule is valid). Also it is typically used, at least in philosophy, regarding causation, but that isn't really what is at stake in this debate. And even more: it is an advisement only, not a logical rule.
"Really. Well I have no wish to get dragged into a meaningless debate about morals, but I think, besides the points on where morality may really come from above, the ability to do good or evil is inate in us...(as a result of being animals)
I have no need for God, so the ability of man to do evil isn't a problem for my sensibilities. But a huge problem for the people whose Creator has made them that way, and have to equate the Coexistence of their God with evil. Needless complexity. "
Here is a little problem for you..oh that damned complexity thing again! i guess you're view isn't so simple after all--even if you are!
this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive?
yes, evil is a problem for theists, but you have your own. And just what sort of problem is actually a real issue? Does it make a certain theology incoherent, or is it merely a problem? The incoherent view, at least formulated *deductively* is generally considered to fail now, consult one of those evil books for that.
On Occam's Razor: your view has its own assumptions that make it complicated, and by the way, who says the competing views are equal (which is the only time the rule is valid). Also it is typically used, at least in philosophy, regarding causation, but that isn't really what is at stake in this debate. And even more: it is an advisement only, not a logical rule.
雷男> I'd like to dribble out some more of my borrowed thoughts and unworthiness (an idea has to be your own to like it!?).
Let the salivation begin!
Yes, I read your posts the first time thanks. I know what you are saying to me, which is essentially;
"that little bastard idea there smiling at you 'whispering 'you don't really know this shit'"
In other words, "I knooow morree thaann yuuuu-u!"...
Very fair and adult of you.
But 雷男 haven't you realized yet ;
(whispering)
"We don't give a shit about this (your) shit"
Did NWA know the 'cultural and intellectual' history of the Police?...
So does that make "Fuck the Police" too black & white for you (ha-ha-)
Would you like to condescend to Ice Cube that since he's never been to Civics class, or University, he should keep his opinions to himself...
Does it just wreck the song for you....
Would "Fuck particular Police sometimes, but at other times the Police may actually have been CRUCIAL" have been a more catchy and informing title. Would it really have expressed how Ice Cube, Dre, Ren, Yellowboy, and Eazy E were feeling...
Would Mack Dre doing a cover version of "Fuck the Police" be wrong, even he loved the song?
etc...
I know you've been having great fun pointing a finger and jogging on the spot squealing "you only think in yes or no!!"....
Well 雷男 I might be a little more sophisticated than you think, but why should painting this problem of Religion in Government not be a black and white issue? Why can you only see a problem such as this having to be "grey" - perhaps you insist it has to be that way because if not it would undermine all the self engraciating study of history and stuff that NWA and me know nothing about....
I think it's really rather more clear to any citizen of a Country wether Religion being the basis for Government is OK or not. And they'll probably tell you "yes" or "no" if being honest.
While you find those people not worthy, and dishonest of all things!, have you stopped to consider that people who've come to conclusion find ambiguity on the subject a more likely indicator of "not having really thought about it"...
Whatever their intellectual level.
So I hope you see that wether the initial question has been formed correctly enough to satisfy your very adult and refined academic sensibilities or not, is redundant (to us)...
You can also then forgive me in not having any appetite for doing things your way...
The point I make, and you either ignore or can't get it into your head because you don't like NWA and me is...
We have an idea, semantically correct or not, of what Religion is - and we have a real experience of what Religion says, or should I say advertises...(as opposed to what academic investigation says it says, although the two aren't necessarily always different)....
The advertisement they make is also the grounds -they tell us- for demanding to be the cornerstone in how Society is administered...
Setting aside Utilitarian and Liberal ideas for a moment....
You need a "hey this works!" argument for what you advertise to be of value (to Society), I'd hope you can agree.
It doesn't take a lot of work to show the advertising they make is no "hey this works!" argument.
You even concede as much ; c.f the first bit of #20
Although you grey it up, by saying Religion isn't all that useless because truth can come from Religion - but you can't tell us what truth is...
Why can't you leave it behind.
Religion spoke it's last intelligible words on moral and ethical issues for the average Joe centuries ago at best....
NWA and me are over it.
Fuck that shit because we aren't the one (sic)
You (Religion) are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge...
Or B.Russell, T.Jefferson, A.Einstein etc
Whatever...
Let the salivation begin!
Yes, I read your posts the first time thanks. I know what you are saying to me, which is essentially;
"that little bastard idea there smiling at you 'whispering 'you don't really know this shit'"
In other words, "I knooow morree thaann yuuuu-u!"...
Very fair and adult of you.
But 雷男 haven't you realized yet ;
(whispering)
"We don't give a shit about this (your) shit"
Did NWA know the 'cultural and intellectual' history of the Police?...
So does that make "Fuck the Police" too black & white for you (ha-ha-)
Would you like to condescend to Ice Cube that since he's never been to Civics class, or University, he should keep his opinions to himself...
Does it just wreck the song for you....
Would "Fuck particular Police sometimes, but at other times the Police may actually have been CRUCIAL" have been a more catchy and informing title. Would it really have expressed how Ice Cube, Dre, Ren, Yellowboy, and Eazy E were feeling...
Would Mack Dre doing a cover version of "Fuck the Police" be wrong, even he loved the song?
etc...
I know you've been having great fun pointing a finger and jogging on the spot squealing "you only think in yes or no!!"....
Well 雷男 I might be a little more sophisticated than you think, but why should painting this problem of Religion in Government not be a black and white issue? Why can you only see a problem such as this having to be "grey" - perhaps you insist it has to be that way because if not it would undermine all the self engraciating study of history and stuff that NWA and me know nothing about....
I think it's really rather more clear to any citizen of a Country wether Religion being the basis for Government is OK or not. And they'll probably tell you "yes" or "no" if being honest.
While you find those people not worthy, and dishonest of all things!, have you stopped to consider that people who've come to conclusion find ambiguity on the subject a more likely indicator of "not having really thought about it"...
Whatever their intellectual level.
So I hope you see that wether the initial question has been formed correctly enough to satisfy your very adult and refined academic sensibilities or not, is redundant (to us)...
You can also then forgive me in not having any appetite for doing things your way...
The point I make, and you either ignore or can't get it into your head because you don't like NWA and me is...
We have an idea, semantically correct or not, of what Religion is - and we have a real experience of what Religion says, or should I say advertises...(as opposed to what academic investigation says it says, although the two aren't necessarily always different)....
The advertisement they make is also the grounds -they tell us- for demanding to be the cornerstone in how Society is administered...
Setting aside Utilitarian and Liberal ideas for a moment....
You need a "hey this works!" argument for what you advertise to be of value (to Society), I'd hope you can agree.
It doesn't take a lot of work to show the advertising they make is no "hey this works!" argument.
You even concede as much ; c.f the first bit of #20
Although you grey it up, by saying Religion isn't all that useless because truth can come from Religion - but you can't tell us what truth is...
Why can't you leave it behind.
Religion spoke it's last intelligible words on moral and ethical issues for the average Joe centuries ago at best....
NWA and me are over it.
Fuck that shit because we aren't the one (sic)
You (Religion) are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge...
Or B.Russell, T.Jefferson, A.Einstein etc
Whatever...
Rivers of ink have been spilled over the "(immanent) mind of God"....wow.
What *we* (people who don't smug it up with studies of jurisprudence and all that) know about are the puddles of ink we were asked to read in Sunday School etc, and the spits of blindingly obvious morals clerics told us...they certainly didn't have any reservation about leaving doubt on the matter where all this was coming from. i.e God.
They love to say smug things too. For instance ;
"Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world "
Which is just flatly unknowable. How can they *know* that?
And if it's still a work in progress (and they've already had a near 2 thousand year headstart) why should what they opine be the view that's trusting?
Especially when we already have a better way to regulate things (publicly) in the meantime?
(while they hack away at needless mysticism)
What is of pertinance in this thread, is how (much) these Supernatural golf-clubs affect the public, in public life.
Have they gone too far? Are they already too far?
You know what I think.
We're yet to hear what you think on the "too far?" question...
Although it's not unknowable...
Now I'll do you the favour of answering your questions...
What *we* (people who don't smug it up with studies of jurisprudence and all that) know about are the puddles of ink we were asked to read in Sunday School etc, and the spits of blindingly obvious morals clerics told us...they certainly didn't have any reservation about leaving doubt on the matter where all this was coming from. i.e God.
They love to say smug things too. For instance ;
"Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world "
Which is just flatly unknowable. How can they *know* that?
And if it's still a work in progress (and they've already had a near 2 thousand year headstart) why should what they opine be the view that's trusting?
Especially when we already have a better way to regulate things (publicly) in the meantime?
(while they hack away at needless mysticism)
What is of pertinance in this thread, is how (much) these Supernatural golf-clubs affect the public, in public life.
Have they gone too far? Are they already too far?
You know what I think.
We're yet to hear what you think on the "too far?" question...
Although it's not unknowable...
Now I'll do you the favour of answering your questions...
lets see then ;
"How about this: tell me when any institution hasn't abused power"
That's an economics question I think, and what you are really asking is "when hasn't a human ever acted without an incentive (perceived or whatever)?"
In which case I think the answer is "never".
The difference is economics doesn't involve any supernatural fall-backs, so an abusive policy can just get nulled for being abusive (if enough people agree through say falsifiable terms - which by the way were good enough for the Supreme Court, but not me?), whereas if Religion is in the mix, they can claim an action is correct because God mandates it.
"act like the taliban in what way?"
See above. "whereas..."
Re : Good Samaritan
"no one ever says he was! nobody!"
I think you know it was Jesus who used it as an anecdote, but that's not what I meant - where do most people who've heard the Good Samaritan story learn it from? What does that lead them to label it as in terms of a " <......> teaching"?
But you also missed the fact that the Samaritan not being Christian implies to us that pious people are no more likely to act with love and compassion than anyone else. That feels strangely correct to me and NWA...
Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me.
Yes when time permits I'll look at more lectures on positive and natural whatnot and Western etc it was you demand I read on Wikipedia (which by the way says Religion is unfalsifiable, so I'm taking their word over yours)
"How about this: tell me when any institution hasn't abused power"
That's an economics question I think, and what you are really asking is "when hasn't a human ever acted without an incentive (perceived or whatever)?"
In which case I think the answer is "never".
The difference is economics doesn't involve any supernatural fall-backs, so an abusive policy can just get nulled for being abusive (if enough people agree through say falsifiable terms - which by the way were good enough for the Supreme Court, but not me?), whereas if Religion is in the mix, they can claim an action is correct because God mandates it.
"act like the taliban in what way?"
See above. "whereas..."
Re : Good Samaritan
"no one ever says he was! nobody!"
I think you know it was Jesus who used it as an anecdote, but that's not what I meant - where do most people who've heard the Good Samaritan story learn it from? What does that lead them to label it as in terms of a " <......> teaching"?
But you also missed the fact that the Samaritan not being Christian implies to us that pious people are no more likely to act with love and compassion than anyone else. That feels strangely correct to me and NWA...
Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me.
Yes when time permits I'll look at more lectures on positive and natural whatnot and Western etc it was you demand I read on Wikipedia (which by the way says Religion is unfalsifiable, so I'm taking their word over yours)
It gets hard for me now....the dribble is practically gushing from my lips ;
"this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive?"
Well that ties in with TokyoOG's little prod about 'Humanity needs something!' which I never got around to, and is important...
I've already given you a hint that in my view morals are as a result of our inate ability, being animals, to do good and wicked things. A human solidarity existed long before anyone evolved enough to write about things like the "golden rule" - although, I think, Confucius was the first to verbalize it you couldn't infer I think he invented it. This solidarity easily predates books of fiction exporting our best features onto an father figure....
We are only half a chromosone away from Chimps remember. Not that that's a criticism of animals or us. Darwin says ;
"Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man."
Observation confirms that. Are the Religious now going to claim the animals are being guided by God?
We differ from the animals in that we are way better of thinking up ways to fight and kill each other - but we all fight, kill, and consume each other. Which contradicts with those altruistic instincts I speak about...it isn't a mark against God for me, because I don't believe he exists...
But as I said before, it's got to pain the Religious.
The idea that Religion should be our saviour from all this "bad" behaviour, or without it we are abandoned to wickedness....
Is ridiculous and disabling.
As I said in a previous post it belittles millions of people throughout history who didn't need a smug supernatural platform to do the right thing, and didn't need the fuzzy present of a Heaven either.
But the real point is if without Religion we are incapable of doing the right thing, then how did we (all) get this far?
Human and animal history didn't start X thousand (where 'x' is the arbitrary date any Religion chooses to say God mounted an intervention) years ago, so by my very simple and straw-man like reasoning why didn't we kill ourselves off before that?
In fact I point to opposite, and remind you that to get us to do what we know is wrong requires Religion...
Do you think suicide bombers don't require a lot of "egging-on" from some ingrate Mullah in order to go and bomb a school?
Unless born of a certain predisposition, you probably wouldn't think hacking off a new-born's foreskin was something you should really do...
You'd need a preacher vomiting up Religion to convince you of these things.
"this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive?"
Well that ties in with TokyoOG's little prod about 'Humanity needs something!' which I never got around to, and is important...
I've already given you a hint that in my view morals are as a result of our inate ability, being animals, to do good and wicked things. A human solidarity existed long before anyone evolved enough to write about things like the "golden rule" - although, I think, Confucius was the first to verbalize it you couldn't infer I think he invented it. This solidarity easily predates books of fiction exporting our best features onto an father figure....
We are only half a chromosone away from Chimps remember. Not that that's a criticism of animals or us. Darwin says ;
"Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man."
Observation confirms that. Are the Religious now going to claim the animals are being guided by God?
We differ from the animals in that we are way better of thinking up ways to fight and kill each other - but we all fight, kill, and consume each other. Which contradicts with those altruistic instincts I speak about...it isn't a mark against God for me, because I don't believe he exists...
But as I said before, it's got to pain the Religious.
The idea that Religion should be our saviour from all this "bad" behaviour, or without it we are abandoned to wickedness....
Is ridiculous and disabling.
As I said in a previous post it belittles millions of people throughout history who didn't need a smug supernatural platform to do the right thing, and didn't need the fuzzy present of a Heaven either.
But the real point is if without Religion we are incapable of doing the right thing, then how did we (all) get this far?
Human and animal history didn't start X thousand (where 'x' is the arbitrary date any Religion chooses to say God mounted an intervention) years ago, so by my very simple and straw-man like reasoning why didn't we kill ourselves off before that?
In fact I point to opposite, and remind you that to get us to do what we know is wrong requires Religion...
Do you think suicide bombers don't require a lot of "egging-on" from some ingrate Mullah in order to go and bomb a school?
Unless born of a certain predisposition, you probably wouldn't think hacking off a new-born's foreskin was something you should really do...
You'd need a preacher vomiting up Religion to convince you of these things.
1.
NWA and you? Now that is a funny one! Man, I wish you actually knew some of them, so they could now bitchslap you for the insult of linking yourself to them. Maybe you did know one of 'em. Did Easy sell you any crack?
You know, you rather remind me of another virus to this community: You are rather like ViolentAJ with your self-heroic whining.
you cite me as saying:
"Rivers of ink have been spilled over the "(immanent) mind of God"....wow. "
But I did not say that. Apparently you really cannot read with any care. To aid your misreading ease, I will reproduce it here:
". None of the main theistic religions actually to claim to know the 'immanent mind of God'. They claim revelation exists, but that is hardly the same thing as knowing the mind of God. And even when they attribute states and characteristics to God, they so in a complicated, and hesitant sense . This is a topic that has had rivers of ink spilled over it..."
'This topic' refers to all above, and cannot be reduced to the manner you to replicate it in. The proximate context of the 'this topic' refers to revelation, and if and how one might attribute state and characteristics to God'.
read what people are actually saying, NOT WHAT YOU WISH THEY WERE (probably for your purposes of setting up straw-men).
clerics? are you confusing your religions here? So at best you confuse some lay people folks who likely have no education in these matters as representative of the religion, and its thought? That is simply dishonest. You know you really are what all those (also often intellectually dishonest) Christian apologists hope for, since they can paint all of your stripe as *they were you*. And if they can do that, they'll win just by laugh factor. But to their chagrin, you are no more than an embarrassment to your own position. Please, for the sake of your sort, and the position you represent, bite your tongue, or sit on your hands.
you opine:
"Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world "
Which is just flatly unknowable. How can they *know* that?
Well, the believe it. What sort of knowing are you trying to get here? are you some lost, spurned logical positivist crying out for the love your sort has been spurned since the grand ol '20's and '30's? So, seriously, what is knowledge, what counts as knowledge, how may it be arrived at, and what are the conditions of falsification, etc? You want to bring in epistemology, but i doubt you can answer those questions with any sophistication.
again you write:
"That's an economics question I think, and what you are really asking is "when hasn't a human ever acted without an incentive (perceived or whatever)?""
No, not an economic question. If you mean to talk about a religion, you have to talk about it 'as an institution' to make your point. You can't just talk about 'religious believers and their beliefs' since that would allow for the discussion of how beliefs lead people to do things, which is something that can be applied to the non-religions (in your sense) as well--and I don't think you want to allow for that. And no, not just incentive. When has any socially significant institution been free of failures in justice, and coherence to their own said principles and other such things? And this is not just when they do good (since many do--gasp!--even religggggions), but as a whole.
NWA and you? Now that is a funny one! Man, I wish you actually knew some of them, so they could now bitchslap you for the insult of linking yourself to them. Maybe you did know one of 'em. Did Easy sell you any crack?
You know, you rather remind me of another virus to this community: You are rather like ViolentAJ with your self-heroic whining.
you cite me as saying:
"Rivers of ink have been spilled over the "(immanent) mind of God"....wow. "
But I did not say that. Apparently you really cannot read with any care. To aid your misreading ease, I will reproduce it here:
". None of the main theistic religions actually to claim to know the 'immanent mind of God'. They claim revelation exists, but that is hardly the same thing as knowing the mind of God. And even when they attribute states and characteristics to God, they so in a complicated, and hesitant sense . This is a topic that has had rivers of ink spilled over it..."
'This topic' refers to all above, and cannot be reduced to the manner you to replicate it in. The proximate context of the 'this topic' refers to revelation, and if and how one might attribute state and characteristics to God'.
read what people are actually saying, NOT WHAT YOU WISH THEY WERE (probably for your purposes of setting up straw-men).
clerics? are you confusing your religions here? So at best you confuse some lay people folks who likely have no education in these matters as representative of the religion, and its thought? That is simply dishonest. You know you really are what all those (also often intellectually dishonest) Christian apologists hope for, since they can paint all of your stripe as *they were you*. And if they can do that, they'll win just by laugh factor. But to their chagrin, you are no more than an embarrassment to your own position. Please, for the sake of your sort, and the position you represent, bite your tongue, or sit on your hands.
you opine:
"Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world "
Which is just flatly unknowable. How can they *know* that?
Well, the believe it. What sort of knowing are you trying to get here? are you some lost, spurned logical positivist crying out for the love your sort has been spurned since the grand ol '20's and '30's? So, seriously, what is knowledge, what counts as knowledge, how may it be arrived at, and what are the conditions of falsification, etc? You want to bring in epistemology, but i doubt you can answer those questions with any sophistication.
again you write:
"That's an economics question I think, and what you are really asking is "when hasn't a human ever acted without an incentive (perceived or whatever)?""
No, not an economic question. If you mean to talk about a religion, you have to talk about it 'as an institution' to make your point. You can't just talk about 'religious believers and their beliefs' since that would allow for the discussion of how beliefs lead people to do things, which is something that can be applied to the non-religions (in your sense) as well--and I don't think you want to allow for that. And no, not just incentive. When has any socially significant institution been free of failures in justice, and coherence to their own said principles and other such things? And this is not just when they do good (since many do--gasp!--even religggggions), but as a whole.
2.
you again:
"I think you know it was Jesus who used it as an anecdote, but that's not what I meant - where do most people who've heard the Good Samaritan story learn it from? What does that lead them to label it as in terms of a " <......> teaching"?" you also missed the fact that the Samaritan not being Christian implies to us that pious people are no more likely to act with love and compassion than anyone else"
Yes, as a biblical story most people encounter it in something related to Christianity. But only the frighteningly unimaginative, who cannot but hear what *they want to hear* and already assume, do something like you did with it. Haha and the 'good samaritan' not being christian? its a damn parable, and the label of christian is way anachronistic at that point! foolish fellow! It is a critique of false piety, that 'strains out a gnat and swallows a camel'--that is, that is more about performance than justice. But that cuts anywhere false piety is found--even in 'the pious atheist circles' you cling to, except justice is a bit of a problem for them anyway. You speak confidently about a topic you nothing--nothing about. You seem to be even less familiar with Christianity than Dawkins, though equally prone to mispresentation--and that is a rare, if extremely dubious distinction.
more of your silliness:
"Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me."
Yet again, you completely misrepresent Christianity, and show no familiarity. That isn't what the 10 Commandments are thought to mean! Some make a very truncated distinction between 'law and gospel' and law in the accusatory sense, but they are crazy minority. The Law has been seen to have multiple functions, some accusatory--and this in a post-fall situation, but only because they are said to be reflective of the created order, showing that humanity has departed from the true structure of things. But the Law has also been seen to a 'positive' (in the legal theory sense) enunciation of the created order.
and the wikipedia remark i made was somewhat in jest of wikipedia, and it's known failures when it comes to being accurate. It is helpful, but only to a point. Haha so they say that eh? Tell 'em to talk to Aquinas, Anselm, Ibn Sina (and other Muslims), Occam, Scotus, Calvin, any number of textual scholars, etc. etc. (and one could enlist people from many different religious traditions on this point, btw)
And they may only mean 'falsifiable' as regard the 'scientific method', but religions are generally held to be falsifiable in explanatory power, coherence, and if tied to historical events, then those events (Christianity being one that purports to be tied to historical events'--but the question of historiography is actually quite complicated, so I won't get into that.)
you again:
"I think you know it was Jesus who used it as an anecdote, but that's not what I meant - where do most people who've heard the Good Samaritan story learn it from? What does that lead them to label it as in terms of a " <......> teaching"?" you also missed the fact that the Samaritan not being Christian implies to us that pious people are no more likely to act with love and compassion than anyone else"
Yes, as a biblical story most people encounter it in something related to Christianity. But only the frighteningly unimaginative, who cannot but hear what *they want to hear* and already assume, do something like you did with it. Haha and the 'good samaritan' not being christian? its a damn parable, and the label of christian is way anachronistic at that point! foolish fellow! It is a critique of false piety, that 'strains out a gnat and swallows a camel'--that is, that is more about performance than justice. But that cuts anywhere false piety is found--even in 'the pious atheist circles' you cling to, except justice is a bit of a problem for them anyway. You speak confidently about a topic you nothing--nothing about. You seem to be even less familiar with Christianity than Dawkins, though equally prone to mispresentation--and that is a rare, if extremely dubious distinction.
more of your silliness:
"Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me."
Yet again, you completely misrepresent Christianity, and show no familiarity. That isn't what the 10 Commandments are thought to mean! Some make a very truncated distinction between 'law and gospel' and law in the accusatory sense, but they are crazy minority. The Law has been seen to have multiple functions, some accusatory--and this in a post-fall situation, but only because they are said to be reflective of the created order, showing that humanity has departed from the true structure of things. But the Law has also been seen to a 'positive' (in the legal theory sense) enunciation of the created order.
and the wikipedia remark i made was somewhat in jest of wikipedia, and it's known failures when it comes to being accurate. It is helpful, but only to a point. Haha so they say that eh? Tell 'em to talk to Aquinas, Anselm, Ibn Sina (and other Muslims), Occam, Scotus, Calvin, any number of textual scholars, etc. etc. (and one could enlist people from many different religious traditions on this point, btw)
And they may only mean 'falsifiable' as regard the 'scientific method', but religions are generally held to be falsifiable in explanatory power, coherence, and if tied to historical events, then those events (Christianity being one that purports to be tied to historical events'--but the question of historiography is actually quite complicated, so I won't get into that.)
3.
You really didn't address my question regarding "this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive? "
You cite Darwin as saying:
"Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man."
Observation confirms that.'
Yes, observation confirms that people have a moral sense, but CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW IT HAS COME TO BE. That is a hypothesis to explain a phenomena, but the phenomena itself is not evidence of hypothesis. Come on now.
again: what does it mean to be good, or evil, in your view? What is someone doing when they make that pronouncement? Stop prattling and answer the question.
you also say:
"But the real point is if without Religion we are incapable of doing the right thing, then how did we (all) get this far?"
Well, for one im not sure anyone is without religion, and here we go back to the definitions you refuse to address. And here you are mistaking what religions are claiming. They are claiming to give grounds for our moral senses (and critique some of these senses too). None are saying that we are incapable of doing good outside of religion--rather than good and evil, as terms, collapse or are illusive without a religious (or metaphysical in the philosophical sense) ground. Another straw man fallacy on your part!!
You show no evidence of dialogue, rather you are just preaching your view, and trying to defend it, or at least defend your falsely gained pride and pretense. You continually fail to show any familiarity with your opponents, and present straw man fallacy after straw man fallacy, with no nuance, or even awareness that you are doing so. Just some angry sycophant, making up excuses you point then point to as support. A shame to your own position, do it, and all us a favor by playing the disgraced yakuza with more than a few fingers--at least figuratively. I'll let you dig yourself a deeper hole if you want, as i find this all rather darkly funny, but I do hope one day you stop the bullshit, and are at least intellectually honest.
You really didn't address my question regarding "this good and evil...on your view, what is it to make that judgment--what does it mean to be good or evil? And from what does such a thing derive? "
You cite Darwin as saying:
"Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or nearly as well-developed, as in man."
Observation confirms that.'
Yes, observation confirms that people have a moral sense, but CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW IT HAS COME TO BE. That is a hypothesis to explain a phenomena, but the phenomena itself is not evidence of hypothesis. Come on now.
again: what does it mean to be good, or evil, in your view? What is someone doing when they make that pronouncement? Stop prattling and answer the question.
you also say:
"But the real point is if without Religion we are incapable of doing the right thing, then how did we (all) get this far?"
Well, for one im not sure anyone is without religion, and here we go back to the definitions you refuse to address. And here you are mistaking what religions are claiming. They are claiming to give grounds for our moral senses (and critique some of these senses too). None are saying that we are incapable of doing good outside of religion--rather than good and evil, as terms, collapse or are illusive without a religious (or metaphysical in the philosophical sense) ground. Another straw man fallacy on your part!!
You show no evidence of dialogue, rather you are just preaching your view, and trying to defend it, or at least defend your falsely gained pride and pretense. You continually fail to show any familiarity with your opponents, and present straw man fallacy after straw man fallacy, with no nuance, or even awareness that you are doing so. Just some angry sycophant, making up excuses you point then point to as support. A shame to your own position, do it, and all us a favor by playing the disgraced yakuza with more than a few fingers--at least figuratively. I'll let you dig yourself a deeper hole if you want, as i find this all rather darkly funny, but I do hope one day you stop the bullshit, and are at least intellectually honest.
"NWA and you? Now that is a funny one!"
Thought you'd enjoy it.
"Did Easy sell you any crack?"
Ahh, HIV and gay jokes?
The sophistication afforded you by all this study has *really* turned me on to reading more, and wanting to be like you 雷男...
『you cite me as saying:
"Rivers of ink have been spilled over the "(immanent) mind of God"....wow. "
But I did not say that』
Umm. No I didn't cite you, only the bit in inverted commas that is a quote - which if you even read your own cut and paste is obvious.
It's you that needs to read more carefully perhaps?
"you opine"
Glad to see you suddenly like the word "opine"...
Here's my last stab at it, and then I promise I'll bite my lip from now on ;
『more of your silliness:
"Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me."
Yet again, you completely misrepresent Christianity』
Well it was you that told me the 10 commandments were only meant to be a reminder to us....c.f
"The 10 commandments were not meant to enact, but solidify (albeit in a post-lapsarian way) naturally (i.e. organic to the created human) held beliefs that had been clouded by the fall"
Which reads to me like a 'look at me!' way to say "they were a reminder"
Here's the one you really like ;
"again: what does it mean to be good, or evil, in your view?"
Well before I answer that, where is the need to have a Religious grounding for "right" and "wrong" when I think it's already innate? It's surplus to requirements.
You're asking me about where my grounds for being judgemental can come from if I don't have Religion.
My answer as I thought was clear, is "as a human"
Which you are going to jump on and say "well that's no grounding at all!"..."how can you condemn anyone with a straight face on those grounds!?" etc
I'd trust an atheist as much as a 'good' Christian, say, to make "judgement" on something "wrong" - just that I don't require the smugness of Religion to do it.
So no it doesn't mean that "good" and "evil" are going to end up meaningful for me only...
I think they are inate!
I can get a sense of satisfaction in handing back someone's wallet that I found in the backseat of a taxi, by the action in and of itself...as I hope anyone would...
We don't need Religion to get that satsifaction, or remind us...
As I said, human solidarity.
---
I am now going to concentrate all my efforts on being "at least intellectually honest"...
But the only thing darkly funny here...
is you calling 'posters' "interlocuters"
Thought you'd enjoy it.
"Did Easy sell you any crack?"
Ahh, HIV and gay jokes?
The sophistication afforded you by all this study has *really* turned me on to reading more, and wanting to be like you 雷男...
『you cite me as saying:
"Rivers of ink have been spilled over the "(immanent) mind of God"....wow. "
But I did not say that』
Umm. No I didn't cite you, only the bit in inverted commas that is a quote - which if you even read your own cut and paste is obvious.
It's you that needs to read more carefully perhaps?
"you opine"
Glad to see you suddenly like the word "opine"...
Here's my last stab at it, and then I promise I'll bite my lip from now on ;
『more of your silliness:
"Which leads me toward the point, including the 10 Commandments, that Christianity loves to make ; they are only reminding us of what evil, ugly, sinners we are and we can only do better with their version of the flying spaghetti monster - the irony of which is on them and their Creator, and not me."
Yet again, you completely misrepresent Christianity』
Well it was you that told me the 10 commandments were only meant to be a reminder to us....c.f
"The 10 commandments were not meant to enact, but solidify (albeit in a post-lapsarian way) naturally (i.e. organic to the created human) held beliefs that had been clouded by the fall"
Which reads to me like a 'look at me!' way to say "they were a reminder"
Here's the one you really like ;
"again: what does it mean to be good, or evil, in your view?"
Well before I answer that, where is the need to have a Religious grounding for "right" and "wrong" when I think it's already innate? It's surplus to requirements.
You're asking me about where my grounds for being judgemental can come from if I don't have Religion.
My answer as I thought was clear, is "as a human"
Which you are going to jump on and say "well that's no grounding at all!"..."how can you condemn anyone with a straight face on those grounds!?" etc
I'd trust an atheist as much as a 'good' Christian, say, to make "judgement" on something "wrong" - just that I don't require the smugness of Religion to do it.
So no it doesn't mean that "good" and "evil" are going to end up meaningful for me only...
I think they are inate!
I can get a sense of satisfaction in handing back someone's wallet that I found in the backseat of a taxi, by the action in and of itself...as I hope anyone would...
We don't need Religion to get that satsifaction, or remind us...
As I said, human solidarity.
---
I am now going to concentrate all my efforts on being "at least intellectually honest"...
But the only thing darkly funny here...
is you calling 'posters' "interlocuters"
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆のメンバーはこんなコミュニティにも参加しています
人気コミュニティランキング
- 1位
- 愛知発！35歳〜カラオケ♪
- 935人
- 2位
- 音楽が無いと生きていけない
- 196655人
- 3位
- 30代〜40代から友達作り【友活】
- 35811人