DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 21, 2010, 10:54:20 AM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/7a9f694f.jpg)
Governor Brewer Issues Executive Order
For Christmas and Hanukkah Celebrations
By From Paul Senseman
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Declaring Christmas and Hanukkah Celebration
WHEREAS, Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion,
and has been celebrated annually for more than two millennia as a significant historical, cultural,
and religious event; and
WHEREAS, Hanukkah also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday
commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the
Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BC; and
WHEREAS, Christmas and Hanukkah bring joy, love and good will to the hearts of the people
of the State of Arizona and hundreds of millions of people across the world; and
WHEREAS, the spirit of good will which has been found each December has been at the heart
of our ability to live as one people despite differing faiths and backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution does not permit the government to tolerate or engage in
hostility toward religion, and the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the
public celebration of religious holidays, and the acknowledgment of religious origins,
does not offend the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, state and local officials in Arizona (and elsewhere) in the past have attempted
to strip both Christmas and Hanukkah of their meaning, including establishment of policies
forbidding state employees from placing religious items of celebration at their desks,
re-naming of Christmas trees as "holiday" trees, and renaming of Menorahs as "candlesticks;"
and
NOW THEREFORE, I, Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, by virtue of the
authority vested by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Arizona, do hereby order
and direct as follows:
1. No executive agency of the State of Arizona shall require that any state employee refrain
from personally celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah, including the placement of items
traditionally associated with a particular holiday.
2. No executive agency of the State of Arizona shall prohibit any state employee from referring
to the Christmas and Hanukkah holidays by their accurate names and wishing others a
"Merry Christmas" or a "Happy Hanukkah."
4. No executive agency of the State of Arizona shall participate in any censorship of the
lawful celebration and acknowledgment of Christmas, Hanukkah or any other recognized
religious holiday.
5. All executive agencies of the State of Arizona, and any political subdivision thereof,
are authorized and directed to cooperate with the implementation of the provisions of this Order.
6. This Order is effective upon signature and shall continue in effect until amended, modified,
terminated, or rescinded by the Governor, or terminated by operation of law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand officially and caused to be affixed the Great Seal
of Arizona, at the Capitol, in the City of Phoenix, on this 16th day of December, 2009.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have to set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the
State of Arizona
http://www.prescottenews.com/news/current-news/governor-brewer-issues-executive-order-for-christmas-and-hanukkah-celebrations (http://www.prescottenews.com/news/current-news/governor-brewer-issues-executive-order-for-christmas-and-hanukkah-celebrations)
-
A Christmas Letter From Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
December 2010
Dear Friends,
An Executive Order that I issued last year encourages the celebration of Christmas and Hanukkah
and prohibits any censorship of these religious holidays.
As you may know, in the past, state and local officials in Arizona (and elsewhere) have attempted
to strip both Christmas and Hanukkah of their meaning, including establishment of policies forbidding
state employees from placing religious items of celebration at their desks, re-naming of Christmas
trees as "holiday" trees, and renaming of Menorahs as "candlesticks."
Under my administration, I will call things what they are a Christmas Tree and a Menorah
and will gladly allow both Christmas and Hanukkah to be celebrated at the State Capitol.
I encourage my colleagues and fellow elected officials to do the same.
Finally, during this Christmas season, make a difference in our community by volunteering your
time or making a donation to a worthy cause. An organization that I support, Hope & A Future,
is making a difference this Christmas by providing gifts and clothing to foster children.
I encourage you to learn more about Hope & A Future and make a difference in our community
through this charity or another charity of your choice.
Merry Christmas! May God bless you, your home, and all of Arizona.
Sincerely,
Jan Brewer
Governor
-
WHEREAS, Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religion,
and has been celebrated annually for more than two millennia as a significant historical, cultural,
and religious event;
Well, that's not true. It was not recorded as having been celebrated before the 2nd or 3rd century, and even then, it was not celebrated around the time of the winter solstice. So, 1,700 years give or take. And even then, most of the "traditions" around the celebration were taken from other religions.
-
No one is trying to "strip Christmas of its meaning". People are free to do anything they wish on their own property in their own homes. If you need the Muzak in the Mall or angels dangling from the public lampposts to practice your religion, you have a pretty feeble grasp of your beliefs.
-
I think it was a urban myth that went too far that people are upset to see x-mas trees.
-
Every single year this silly debate about how the government is ruining Christmas.
They need to be told this: "Listen closely: Christmas is a religious holiday. The government does not do religion."
People should do their own religion, in their own time, however they wish.
-
Every single year this silly debate about how the government is ruining Christmas.
They need to be told this: "Listen closely: Christmas is a religious holiday. The government does not do religion."
People should do their own religion, in their own time, however they wish.
listen closely, you moron, Christmas is a national holiday. We, as a nation, do Christmas. And further I see no federal worker coming forward complaining about the holiday pay they receive.
-
And further I see no federal worker coming forward complaining about the holiday pay they receive.
VERY GOOD point. Why would Government workers get any special pay or day off, if it's "no biggie"? Just some personal religious event. Government doesn't do religion, right?
-
Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Christmas as U.S. holiday
CINCINNATI (Associated Press -- April 18, 2001) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Richard Ganulin (AKA THE GRINCH --ed.), a Cincinnati lawyer's argument that the federal government's observance of Christmas as a legal public holiday violates the Constitution.
The Court on Monday declined to hear Ganulin's lawsuit. Two other federal courts previously had ruled against him. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case lets stand a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting Ganulin's argument.
Ganulin filed suit in 1998 arguing that Congress violated the separation of church and state by embracing the Christian holiday more than a century ago.
Lawyers for the government and a private organization, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, responded that the Christmas federal holiday is constitutional because celebrating it is not mandatory. The private organization represented three federal employees who intervened in the case to keep Christmas as a holiday.
Government lawyers defending the holiday said courts repeatedly have recognized secular aspects of Christmas, including holly, ivy, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, snowmen, jingling bells and presents on Christmas morning.
Congress in 1870 established Christmas, New Year's Day and a day of thanksgiving as holidays in the District of Columbia, government lawyers said in written arguments filed in court.
http://kraftmstr.com/christmas/christmas.html (http://kraftmstr.com/christmas/christmas.html)
-
Once again XO has to wipe the egg off his ugly mug.
-
I have nothing against making Christmas an official holiday, or New Year's Day, either.
But the annual bitching about how somehow not seeing a manger scene on the courthouse lawn ruins Christmas is a waste of time and effort, and I am sick of hearing it.
-
hey!!
it just happened
I said that it might be a over reaction and in this forum xo saids he got no problem with x-mas and still he gets the anti-x-mas tag.
I read several article that athiest are constantly accused of killing x-mas. but those group never once did anything against it x-mas.
we just witnessed it here.
-
I read several article that athiest are constantly accused of killing x-mas. but those group never once did anything against it x-mas.
Could be the numerous lawsuits that people have filed to prevent Christmas displays in various public places.
-
but how many (if any) of those people are athiest?
-
I have nothing against making Christmas an official holiday, or New Year's Day, either.
But the annual bitching about how somehow not seeing a manger scene on the courthouse lawn ruins Christmas is a waste of time and effort, and I am sick of hearing it.
Well I'm sick and tired of Liberal religion too!
-
I have nothing against making Christmas an official holiday.
Why not? Government doesn't do religion, right?
-
I personally have nothing against it.
It has come to be a cultural holiday, anyway.
-
I personally have nothing against it. It has come to be a cultural holiday, anyway.
So Government can and DOES do religion. I wish you'd make up your mind
-
but how many (if any) of those people are athiest?
Many. Wasn't hard to find one, right off the bat:
"Somerset has been the center of a dispute for several years over a Christian nativity scene erected during the Christmas season in front of the Town Hall. The creche had been a tradition for six decades, but in 1997, American Atheists State Director Gil Lawrence Amancio, represented by the ACLU, filed suit against the display, and argued that it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion."
http://www.atheists.org/MA_Church_Dismayed_over_Display (http://www.atheists.org/MA_Church_Dismayed_over_Display)
-
SIRS this appears in my front yard every year as a reminder
of what Christmas really is about. The Left will continue
to try and "take Christmas out of Christmas", but those
that of us that do not approve of that should each do
our part and put out CHRISTMAS yard symbols, make sure your
cards say CHRISTMAS, greet people with MERRY CHRISTMAS..ect.
If you believe...lets not let them "take Christmas out of Christmas"!
My yard every year: (and yes vandals have hit it before...but they like the liberals wont win!)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Preston%20Fairways/Parties2008006-1-1-1-1.jpg)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Preston%20Fairways/783e5c2d.jpg)
-
Way cool, C 8)
-
The government does not have the power to "take the Christ out of Christmas".
If you like illuminated mangers, put one on your lawn.
-
The government does not have the power to "take the Christ out of Christmas".
Sure are alot of folks & organizations trying to get the Courts to do just that. apparently its crime, is that it offends those folks
-
I`ll chaulk it up to a leaning experience. the 1st to attack x-mas was jewish folks and now they backed -off to avoid (killing x-mas) title. the extreme athiest will learn this too.
I believe we lost 2 years of quality x-mass from this lesson so far.
who knew holiday became a dirty word nowadays
-
who knew holiday became a dirty word nowadays
holiday = holy day
-
The government does not have the power to "take the Christ out of Christmas".
If you like illuminated mangers, put one on your lawn.
on my street, 20% have manger scenes, 80% have visible decorations.
-
on my street, 20% have manger scenes, 80% have visible decorations.
Thats good BT....I think you live in the deep South [><] so I guess thats no surprise.
I plan and put on our annual company CHRISTmas party and we have Santa
for the children. I decorate our rented restaurant private hall every year and
this year i was SHOCKED at how almost nothing as far as decorations you buy
in stores say Merry Christmas.....I've been buying the same stuff every year
since 1999....this year someone got to the corporate buyers and they put a
stop to Merry Christmas or Manger Scene decorations....plenty of Happy Holidays.
Personally I think it is an agenda....because why not have BOTH? If you are
so worried that Merry Christmas on Christmas offends someone, then have
Happy Holidays AND Merry Christmas. And it cant be about what the customer
wants because an overwhelming percent of the customers celebrate Christmas.
This is part of an agenda to take Christmas out of Christmas.
-
What are all those Muslims doing on your lawn, CU4?
-
Praying to the Christ baby, Jesus, it would seem
-
BSB...hopefully not planting bombs!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Holidays/dd932164.jpg)
-
SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL
December 22, 2010
It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force.
Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?
Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's
side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer
money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite
Scripture for his purpose."
What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give,
not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7)
Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to
"the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.
The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that
involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study,
they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent
more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals,
secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.
His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!
Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most
to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.
Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is
surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's
elite private schools.
Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, "are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way."
Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that
if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.
They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.
On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away
100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and
strongly believes in the redistribution of income.
Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of
the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads,"
as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives,
who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.
Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans
and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average
to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)
Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced
redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)
We'll review specific liberals next week.
Needless to say, "religious liberals" made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population
(for more on this, see my book, "Godless").
Interestingly, religious liberals were also "most confused" of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians,
religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians
brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.
Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals "genuinely cared more about
others than conservatives did" -- probably because liberals are always telling us that.
So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. "In the end," he says,
"I had no option but to change my views."
Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even
greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals
gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.
The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states
were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.
In his book "Intellectuals," Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy.
"I'm afraid you've got it wrong," Picasso explains, "we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!
-
Iraqi Christians Cancel Christmas Amid Threats
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=40791595 (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=40791595)
Sure am glad we invaded Iraq, spreading tolerance and religious freedom around the world.
bsb
-
wow at first I thought that headline was from here in the US!
http://www.yorknewstimes.com/articles/2010/12/23/news/doc4d12aed1e4597044921364.txt (http://www.yorknewstimes.com/articles/2010/12/23/news/doc4d12aed1e4597044921364.txt)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/26244924/detail.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/26244924/detail.html)
http://www.kvoa.com/news/sahuarita-vandals-hit-christmas-decorations/ (http://www.kvoa.com/news/sahuarita-vandals-hit-christmas-decorations/)
-
Don't pretend that no one is hostile.
(http://www.martinspribble.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/GoodWithoutGod.jpg)
(http://harvardhumanist.org/images/blank.png)
Join the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard for a very special Humanist holiday celebration at Tommy Doyle's in Harvard Square (96 Winthrop Street), this Thursday, December 2, from 8-10 pm!
Join us for free food and drinks, and we'll be raffling HCH T-shirts, copies of Good Without God, and lots of other goodies in time for the holidays!
Please bring a box of whole grain dry breakfast cereal to our Humanist Holiday Party. The whole grain cereal we collect will go to the Pine Street Inn, New England's leading resource for homeless women and men. The Pine Street Inn currently has a shortage of whole grain cereal, which is one of the most important food items for them to have in stock. Please help us ensure that the their clients don't go without it this season. A box of cereal gets your name into the raffles!
And if you haven't heard it yet, be sure to check out this NPR story about our first annual Holiday party back in 2007-- the clip was one of the most forwarded NPR stories in the nation on Christmas week of that year, and several of the then-freshmen students quoted are now senior officers of our Harvard Secular Society...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17558400 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17558400)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Kl8d%2BU2YL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Darrel Ray has made a marvelous contribution to our understanding of ourselves. The description of religion as a cultural virus is not new, Darrel is the first to put the virus on a slide and pull out the microscope. The God Virus goes beyond analogy, offering a fascinating and detailed look at the wiggling, maddening virus itself how it moves, how it survives, and how and why it continues to thrive. --Dale McGowan, Author/editor, Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers, Harvard Humanist of the Year (2008)
For those hungering for more after reading the books written by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Dr. Darrel Ray's The God Virus is a logical and thought-provoking follow-up.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pJhgWFI-L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Victor Stenger (one of the New Atheists himself) eloquently reminds us that although the persuasive arguments against religious belief have existed for millennia, they are now strengthened and confirmed with the insights of modern physics and philosophy to such a degree that we are brought to a tipping point. We have surpassed the critical mass of evidence and reasoning where the time has come for atheists to step forward - and they are indeed stepping forward confidently - to occupy the intellectual and moral high ground that is their rightful place. What is truly 'new' about atheism is that the world, after too many centuries of giving religion a free rein, is now prepared to see and embrace the positive wisdom of doubt.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SXuKmeoiL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51K-SBI1NpL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
-
There are atheists and then there are anti-theists.
Just as there are theists and anti-atheists.
-
(exactly BT)
Plane, Hostile?
I'm not sure that hostile is the right word. Sure, there are hostile atheists. We had one in here, can't remember his name, he still posts on occasion. But those people are nut jobs who don't believe in god but believe crap like Bush was behind 9/11 or the CIA killed John Kennedy or we're in Afghanistan to build a pipe line, etc., etc., on, and on.
I haven't read any of these books but they aren't necessarily hostile. They could be just making different points about religion, or beliefs, or the brain, or mankind. From a personal perspective I don't think belief in a creator god will last much longer. That doesn't make me hostile.
bsb
-
There seems to be a spectrum.
If I speak of hostility , be asured that I am referring only to the hostile ones.
-
if you think about it athiesm has a better chance to have more decentralized ideals than religion. It`s not like they got a athiest pope to make sure everybody is on the same page or a Athiest bible to make eveybody have a single reference point.
Unless I`m wrong and there is a athiest pope.
-
Atheists are not a unified group any more than anarchists are. Each one has his own reasons and opinions.
If you put Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein and Kurt Vonnegut in a room, they would not agree on anything other than atheism.
There will always be religious people, and there will always be atheists. The difference is that religious people, notably Sand People religions (ie Abrahamic faiths) tend to want to impose their religions on everyone. Atheists are less likely to do this.
-
Atheists are not a unified group any more than anarchists are. Each one has his own reasons and opinions.
Very few religions are unified. For example, look at how many Christian sects there are, and even within each of those sects are constant squabbles as everyone tries to get their own viewpoint heard / followed.
-
Most Christian sects are at least unified enough to meet at the same time and place in a building they have built of at least rented. Atheists are even less unified than that. I do not recall the Methodist church I attended as a child ever had more disputes than over building new facilities. I do not recall any disputes over beliefs or dogma.
-
If you ask an athiest "What is good ?" or" Who is good?"
Do you get any standard answers ? Or does each one come up with his own?
-
How useful is the Bible at indicating what is good and what is not?
Three of the Ten Commandments refer to God and the Sabbath. The other seven are pretty much features of every government, regardless of religion.
I do not believe that atheists are any more or less accurate at determining good and evil than Christians, Muslims or Jews.
-
How useful is the Bible at indicating what is good and what is not?
Three of the Ten Commandments refer to God and the Sabbath. The other seven are pretty much features of every government, regardless of religion.
I do not believe that atheists are any more or less accurate at determining good and evil than Christians, Muslims or Jews.
Of course , that is cause you can't tell what is good at all.
No yardsticks.
-
actually the real question about the bible is should it be totally be oral or written. which is better to manipulate. often people keep saying" the bible says" . but if thier was no bible, could those people use qoutes from memory to thier advantage to same way as using the bible?
-
You'd have to have been kicked in the head by a horse to think you need religion in order to know right from wrong.
-
Being kicked by a donkey or mule or any equine or even bovine could produce the same result.
There are, I believe 613 mizvot, or commandments to perform good acts or to refrain from performing bad ones in the Hebrew Torah
There are 613 pieces of fringe on the prayer shawl worn by the ultra-orthodox. There are also said to be related to the number of bones in the human body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot)
-
actually the real question about the bible is should it be totally be oral or written. which is better to manipulate. often people keep saying" the bible says" . but if thier was no bible, could those people use qoutes from memory to thier advantage to same way as using the bible?
Jesus several times said "it is written" the standard set by God isn't changing but our understanding of it can always be improved. You need an origional sorce.
-
You'd have to have been kicked in the head by a horse to think you need religion in order to know right from wrong.
It isn't the religion, it is the God.
There are times that I don't know the diffrence , God doesn't have that problem.
-
You'd have to have been kicked in the head by a horse to think you need religion in order to know right from wrong.
It isn't the religion, it is the God.
There are times that I don't know the diffrence , God doesn't have that problem.
God didn't create the religion, man did.
-
You'd have to have been kicked in the head by a horse to think you need religion in order to know right from wrong.
It isn't the religion, it is the God.
There are times that I don't know the diffrence , God doesn't have that problem.
God didn't create the religion, man did.
Yes
It is totally possible to practice and participate in a lot of religion without ary thought given to God.
The important part is haveing a relationship with God yourself, if religion helps good, if not, try it solo, anything is better than avoiding God religion or not.
-
"It isn't the religion, it is the God."
By religion I meant a belief in god. A belief in god, or walking around with the notion that you have a relationship with a god, doesn't give you an edge when it comes to knowing right from wrong. It's a ridiculous idea that's so arrogant it's almost sociopathic.
bsb
-
"It isn't the religion, it is the God."
By religion I meant a belief in god. A belief in god, or walking around with the notion that you have a relationship with a god, doesn't give you an edge when it comes to knowing right from wrong. It's a ridiculous idea that's so arrogant it's almost sociopathic.
bsb
Ok that is bad.
But how would you even know it is?
-
Believing in God means a variety of things. To most people it tends to mean just one thing: that one accepts Christianity and a myriad of Christian beliefs and traditions.
It can be a belief that God as a creator, made the world. It is not necessary that a creator God be eternal. After all, men often create things that live long after them.
There are all those attributes of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (meaning that whatever God dictates is just and true simply because God has defined it as such. A God would have to be very wise to create a universe, but that would not mean that he would necessarily know everything. Seeing into the future goes beyond omniscience, in my mind.
The usual Christian reaction to a statement that I do not consider the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God tends to cause people to say "well, then you don't believe in anything". Which is quite inaccurate. One can believe in God and not be a Christian, one can believe in God and not believe in any afterlife, one can believe in God and believe in reincarnation, after all.
-
I talked here about how logical dietary laws are in religion. I meant it as a compliment and some people here did not like that idea . Folk prefered a divinity aspect than a proctical health point of veiw.
What i`m getting at is i very much doubt talking about right & wrong in secular & religious terms will end in agreement to both parties involve.
-
Some Jewish dietary laws make hygienic sense, others do not.
-
well
I didn`t say it`s perfect, but not eating pork makes sense in those times. It`s the same reason we`re taught only to eat porkchops well done to avoid parasites. despite modern farming should make them fairly safe to eat medium
-
There are all those attributes of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (meaning that whatever God dictates is just and true simply because God has defined it as such. A God would have to be very wise to create a universe, but that would not mean that he would necessarily know everything. Seeing into the future goes beyond omniscience, in my mind.
No Christian sect I know of beleives in "omnibenevolence", I never heard this term before Brassmask brought it up.
-
"But how would you even know it is?"
Now, could you decode that for me? I haven't received the latest version of Plane's Almanac with the codes in the back. I will say this though. As a general rule, the only way to know is by not knowing. So I try to make sure I go through life not knowing a thing and I've been quite successful at it. You could say I'm a natural.
bsb
-
"But how would you even know it is?"
Now, could you decode that for me? I haven't received the latest version of Plane's Almanac with the codes in the back. I will say this though. As a general rule, the only way to know is by not knowing. So I try to make sure I go through life not knowing a thing and I've been quite successful at it. You could say I'm a natural.
bsb
It is a question Mr B.
Are you answering by saying that you don't know good from bad?
-
"Are you answering by saying you don't now good from bad?"
Not at all. However I now know what you meant by the question though. I think anyway. You're asking me that if I don't buy the god and bible thing how do I know right from wrong? Is that it? Therefore are you saying by asking that question that the only way to know right from wrong is to buy into the bible and god? I want to make absolutely sure that's what you're asking and therefore saying before I reply.
bsb
-
It`s the same reason we`re taught only to eat porkchops well done to avoid parasites. despite modern farming should make them fairly safe to eat medium
You were taught incorrectly. Pork only needs to be brought to 140 degrees briefly (1 minute) to kill trichinosis - and when cooked that way, it is still pink in the middle. Also, freezing pork for 5 days or so before cooking will kill the parasite, regardless of the cooking temperature. I frequently ate rare (or raw) pork when growing up.
-
"Are you answering by saying you don't now good from bad?"
Not at all. However I now know what you meant by the question though. I think anyway. You're asking me that if I don't buy the god and bible thing how do I know right from wrong? Is that it? Therefore are you saying by asking that question that the only way to know right from wrong is to buy into the bible and god? I want to make absolutely sure that's what you're asking and therefore saying before I reply.
bsb
Oh, you are so cautious with me!
I do not know what the Godless method for recognising wrong is or what it is like.You might tell me something I am unfamilliar with ,I hope so.
Of course, if I am able, I plan to debate whatever you state even if I do understand it quite well, If you want to avoid that, say so and I will just read for information.
-
Well, why don't we open this debate by you telling what the method of knowing right from wrong is for people like you. Is it just the bible? Does god send you this is right, this is wrong, messages? Does your preacher help you? What exactly goes on?
bsb
-
I love eating pork chop rare.
But I spent 30+ years of my life eating dry tough porkchops. I still see people eating it that way. I only discovered it because I have a bother in-law who cooks everything rare,he will never say it`s underooked.
I`m so happy alton brown said it`s ok to eat.Alton even qouted the exppression about cooking it well done.
-
Primary is the attempt to understand the will of God .Study of scripture , prayer and discussion in comunity are tools in this effort. Being sensitive to Gods voice is the ideal.
Since I am not equal to God, perfection is not expected , improvement is the aspiration, forgiveness is the grace of God.
The story of Adam and Eve , I understand to be allegorical and an explanation of mans nature , that we have both an impulse to sin and an instinct to understand that sin is wrong.These are inborn qualities that develop into the nature of a person as they grow , does a person allow his sin nature to rule or does he hearken to his sense of right and wrong ? Does a person nourish his sinfullness or seek wisdom to build his righteousness? None of us escapes this struggle even though for each of us the manner of the struggle is diffrent , for some the struggle is very painfull , for some surrender to error brings on pain, the natural aversion to suffering is often a pothole in the path , just as often an instructive goad onto the right path.
As children we are taught to be sensitive to our own conscince and to understand the basic instructions of Gods word, as life becomes more complex this process should always continue so that increasing maturity is marked by decreasing confusion. That confusing circumstances continue to occur I understand to be part of the testing and instructional nature of our existence on Earth.
The basic difference between a right thing and a wrong thing is understanding the thing in the way that God does . God understands completely , God loves Justice and also loves Mercy.
Only God will perform this discernment with perfection.
A Christian is encouraged to understand deeply, to value Justice and Mercy , the default position for discernment of the difficult is study of scripture , Prayer and discussion in community.
-
Plane
It won't let me post what I wrote, cut, and pasted. It keeps telling me "The message body was left empty". I get that problem in here off and on. I'll try again latter. I'm looking forward to the back and forth, it's a good topic.
bsb
-
>>The basic difference between a right thing and a wrong thing is understanding the thing in the way that God does.<<
Ok, so this for you is why you can't understand how a non-believer, a non-christian, a non-person of god, can get his/her grounding? You feel that if a person isn't trying to understand right from wrong through the eyes of god he, or she, has nothing else to fall back on? Is that it? God, for you, is the right from wrong decider?
Now, you mentioned that I was being very cautious with you. What I'm doing is trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from. If I start jumping to conclusions it isn't fair to either one of us, or to the debate. I'd just be wasting my time and yours.
So, is my 1st paragraph correct?
bsb
-
Ok, got it posted.
-
In my observation the all groups do not strictly follower thier own rules of whats right or wrong.
ex.Allowing a child to hold a ratllesnake is considered wrong but some christians allow it.
-
In my observation the all groups do not strictly follower thier own rules of whats right or wrong.
ex.Allowing a child to hold a ratllesnake is considered wrong but some christians allow it.
The ones that allow that consider it right.
I am not one of these, I think that this is an abuse of promised protection. That these services have survivors is testiment either to the liberal grace of God or to an amazeing tolerance by rattlesnakes.
-
>>The basic difference between a right thing and a wrong thing is understanding the thing in the way that God does.<<
Ok, so this for you is why you can't understand how a non-believer, a non-christian, a non-person of god, can get his/her grounding? You feel that if a person isn't trying to understand right from wrong through the eyes of god he, or she, has nothing else to fall back on? Is that it? God, for you, is the right from wrong decider?
Now, you mentioned that I was being very cautious with you. What I'm doing is trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from. If I start jumping to conclusions it isn't fair to either one of us, or to the debate. I'd just be wasting my time and yours.
So, is my 1st paragraph correct?
bsb
I don't even know what mechanism or signpost or yardstick for the measurement of Evil , ungood or whatever you have got.
Yes I do plan to pick at it , but where can I start?
-
Well for me god never entered into it. I mean I went to Sunday school, I knew of the 10 commandments and all, but I never used those, or the bible, or the thought of god as a barometer for knowing the difference between good and bad. For me it was all about the other people in my life. You didn't harm them physically because you just didn't do it. If you did you were estranged either by your own mental instability, or by members of the group. The same thing would apply to steeling. Steeling upsets the apple cart. Where would we be if everyone went around taking things from each other? It's just obvious.
Now, as we grow up and our relationships become more complex, and others depend more on us, and we on them, you need to acquire wisdom. You need to be able to look down the road. You need to be able to understand the ramifications of your discissions. It's not easy. We all make mistakes. But we learn from them and get better and better as we go along and gain experience.
Frankly I'm baffled by the thought of not just having a moral compass on tap without even having to look for it. For me its always been there, I've just had to refine it.
-
I love eating pork chop rare.
But I spent 30+ years of my life eating dry tough porkchops. I still see people eating it that way. I only discovered it because I have a bother in-law who cooks everything rare,he will never say it`s underooked.
I`m so happy alton brown said it`s ok to eat.Alton even qouted the exppression about cooking it well done.
http://www.amazon.com/2-Cents-Plain-Harry-Golden/dp/B000OCO8YS/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293500111&sr=1-3 (http://www.amazon.com/2-Cents-Plain-Harry-Golden/dp/B000OCO8YS/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293500111&sr=1-3)
I read this book years ago and its companion volume (Only in America) I thouroughly loved these books , even though I have precious little in common with the author. There is a timeless and universal quality to the observation of life as people live it , even if they are miles , years and culturally remote from the life I live , it is easy reading and also thought provoking what a combination this is.If you find a copy ,read it , you won't be sorry.
In one of the chapters the author tells his Rabbi that the Mosaic dietary laws must have saved the Jews from a lot of Tricnicosis and other disease over the years.
His Rabbi replied " That is not it!"
I can't remember the beautifull simplicity of Harry Golden's language , so I reccomend looking this up later in the sorce I read it in .
Obeying the laws of Moses in your diet is part of being a Kosher Jew. Kosher is a concept of propriety and the key to the concept is obedience.
If the point of avoiding pork and shellfish is avoiding Helmith infestation then the application of heat is a good substitute for avoidance of the forbidden dish , but this is not Kosher at all. Kosher requires obedience .
-
Actually there is a school of thought that parasites are good for you. The theory is that worms have a beneficial effect on the immune system. Some things apparently, such as asthma, don't occur in populations that are still infected with parasites.
-
Well for me god never entered into it. I mean I went to Sunday school, I knew of the 10 commandments and all, but I never used those, or the bible, or the thought of god as a barometer for knowing the difference between good and bad. For me it was all about the other people in my life. You didn't harm them physically because you just didn't do it. If you did you were estranged either by your own mental instability, or by members of the group. The same thing would apply to steeling. Steeling upsets the apple cart. Where would we be if everyone went around taking things from each other? It's just obvious.
Now, as we grow up and our relationships become more complex, and others depend more on us, and we on them, you need to acquire wisdom. You need to be able to look down the road. You need to be able to understand the ramifications of your discissions. It's not easy. We all make mistakes. But we learn from them and get better and better as we go along and gain experience.
Frankly I'm baffled by the thought of not just having a moral compass on tap without even having to look for it. For me its always been there, I've just had to refine it.
There is such a thing as good instinct, but do we all have it?
There is also the natural tendancy of children to pick up the good habits of good example, your foundation might be beneith your knowing and still be the Bible that your family was following.
WE also have an instinct for vengence and it shows up early in life , stays with us till late , the natural instinct is not to get even , it is to overwhelm. Moses (or Hammerubi if you rather) was pioneering in suggesting limit on vengence ONLY an eye for the lost eye ONLY a tooth for the lost tooth , nature suggests makeing a meal of your offender if you can.
The inborn instinct for justice is very universal in humankind , but is so plastic that it can get used to anything. Philosophy and religion both advance on the bare knoledge of the diffrence between good and bad the accumulation of human experience and thoughts refine over time the use of the concepts.
But where do we come away with an instinctive knoledge of good and evil in the first place? Tigers are innocent of it , they don't seem to feel the lack.
Genesis seems to state that God created man a creature with no knoledge of a diffrence between good and evil and God was a friend of this creature. We have learned that diffrence and no longer share the Tigers innocence.
Scientific American recently printed an article about the shrinking Human brain. Apparently Cro Magnion man was anitomicly very simular to modern man but had a more massive brain by about the volume of a tennis ball.
Perhaps being a wild man requires a lot of alertness , being domesticated we need less our alert senses and more a reliance on each other and each to the other being reliable.
What happened to turn the wolf into the dog is happening to us and we are the agent of the change in both instances, was this Gods will or is God being tolerant of our rebellion?
-
Actually there is a school of thought that parasites are good for you. The theory is that worms have a beneficial effect on the immune system. Some things apparently, such as asthma, don't occur in populations that are still infected with parasites.
Do tell?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/people-i-would-like-to-introduce-to-each-other/ (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/people-i-would-like-to-introduce-to-each-other/)
Tricnicosis has such a large potential for harm that the potential for benefit is minor by comparison.
I notice that Mosaic law would make Jews less likely to contract tapeworm or tricnicosis , but also less likely to be infested with hookworm. Not perfectly so , do you suppose that they got infested enough but not too much by limiting their exposure?
There were no microscopes , how would they have known (eschewing the possibility of divine revilation)that eating raw swine and bear was not as safe as eating drained, salted and baked chicken?
-
plane samething about the hindu religion.
It was brought up the reason people don`t eat cows is because a living cow would produce more food plowing the field than a dead cow.
this actually upset some folks.
-
What happened to turn the wolf into the dog is happening to us and we are the agent of the change in both instances, was this Gods will or is God being tolerant of our rebellion?
=======================================
Is it possible that God would get really pissed by humans breeding his noble wolves into yappy Chihuahuas and Peekapoos and ugly pugs?
-
>>But where do we come away with an instinctive knowledge of good and evil in the first place?<<
Think about where we'd be without it and you'll have the answer. We aren't Tigers. We don't have the predatory physical capacities they have. We can't run a deer down, kill it with our jaws, and eat it. We had to learn to cooperate with one another. We had to develop team work. A team isn't going to hold together for very long if its members are more interested in steeling, or seeking total revenge, from one another. Because of this a bias for compassion, understanding the other, was developed. Those that understood the members of a group, tribe, better became leaders. Their genes were passed on. The women who understood the group best were able to protect their children better then the women who didn't and their genes were passed on.
I highly doubt a god had anything to do with it.
bsb
-
There were no microscopes , how would they have known (eschewing the possibility of divine revilation)that eating raw swine and bear was not as safe as eating drained, salted and baked chicken?
Observation over time.
Or are you of the camp that believes that males would not have been able to figure out how pregnancy happens if women didn't tell them?
-
There were no microscopes , how would they have known (eschewing the possibility of divine revelation)that eating raw swine and bear was not as safe as eating drained, salted and baked chicken?
Observation over time.
Or are you of the camp that believes that males would not have been able to figure out how pregnancy happens if women didn't tell them?
Observation over time ? To know the life cycle of the tapeworm? Too much time required.Too many extraneous variables This was not only before the invention of Microscopes it is before the development of the scientific method.
We will never know if Men would haved figured out what was causeing pregnancy, obviously one of the women blabbed.
-
more like noticing the group who eat the pig welldone and didn`t get sick is a more likely factor.
-
more like noticing the group who eat the pig welldone and didn`t get sick is a more likely factor.
Think about that, how many diffrent things do you eat in a week?
How would you connect something you ate a month ago to an infestation you just noticed?
How did the people of China never pick up this connection with an even longer written history?
-
>>But where do we come away with an instinctive knowledge of good and evil in the first place?<<
Think about where we'd be without it and you'll have the answer. We aren't Tigers. We don't have the predatory physical capacities they have. We can't run a deer down, kill it with our jaws, and eat it. We had to learn to cooperate with one another. We had to develop team work. A team isn't going to hold together for very long if its members are more interested in steeling, or seeking total revenge, from one another. Because of this a bias for compassion, understanding the other, was developed. Those that understood the members of a group, tribe, better became leaders. Their genes were passed on. The women who understood the group best were able to protect their children better then the women who didn't and their genes were passed on.
I highly doubt a god had anything to do with it.
bsb
Do the tamest and most domesticated of us become our leadership?
-
how about noting what group never gets sick and check thier eating habits over time.
remember quite alot people do not eat pork today(not just hebrews) so the disease maybe alot noticeable then we think.
the fact we used to overcook it is a clue.
-
>>Do the tamest and most domesticated of us become our leadership?<<
That's what you got from my post? It's not worth replying to.
bsb
-
Think about that, how many diffrent things do you eat in a week?
We also don't live in a time period when agriculture was new and trade with people further away than you can see was rare. Diets at the time were bland and fairly consistent - nearly everyone in a given region ate the same things, day in and day out. This was the reason for poor nutrition and many deficiency diseases.
It didn't take someone with a microscope and knowledge of proper nutrition to figure out the cure for scurvy was eating citrus fruits or other fruits with high vitamin C content - that just took observation over time. The guys with the microscopes and knowledge of biochemistry figured out that it was citric acid, but much later than when it became general knowledge among people that if you eat citrus fruits periodically, you will not suffer from scurvy.
-
Think about that, how many diffrent things do you eat in a week?
We also don't live in a time period when agriculture was new and trade with people further away than you can see was rare. Diets at the time were bland and fairly consistent - nearly everyone in a given region ate the same things, day in and day out. This was the reason for poor nutrition and many deficiency diseases.
It didn't take someone with a microscope and knowledge of proper nutrition to figure out the cure for scurvy was eating citrus fruits or other fruits with high vitamin C content - that just took observation over time. The guys with the microscopes and knowledge of biochemistry figured out that it was citric acid, but much later than when it became general knowledge among people that if you eat citrus fruits periodically, you will not suffer from scurvy.
Late in the 18th century.
-
What happened to turn the wolf into the dog is happening to us and we are the agent of the change in both instances, was this Gods will or is God being tolerant of our rebellion?
=======================================
Is it possible that God would get really pissed by humans breeding his noble wolves into yappy Chihuahuas and Peekapoos and ugly pugs?
I think it is possible.
And now that our science has developed gene spliceing we can create cherama or pathogens more horrible than legend , do we need to develop a godlike discernment ?
-
>>Do the tamest and most domesticated of us become our leadership?<<
That's what you got from my post? It's not worth replying to.
bsb
Don't just skim it because it is short.
Isn't it true that the dishonest and ferocious human being can acheive reproductive success?
-
Isn't it true that the dishonest and ferocious human being can acheive reproductive success?
I don`t think bobby brown is very ferocious.
-
>>Isn't true that the most dishonest and ferocious human being can achieve reproductive success?<<
You're not thinking. Go back to the beginning.
bsb
-
Groups can act in what we might called an immoral fashion, that doesn't mean they haven't learned to work together. It doesn't mean either that the leadership of the group isn't acting in a compassionate way towards the members of his group.
I was once coming in from 3 months in the bush. That's 3 months of humping up in the mountains with only a couple of hot showers, and a few hot meals. We had humped it back in to a point where we could be picked up by trucks, no need for choppers. I was the first one to the trucks. As I walked by the leed truck the driver said to me, "what's the matter you can't hump it the rest of the way"? My first instinct was to kill him. Not a , gee I'd like to kill that SOB, but the real deal. Kill him. As I walked past his truck towards the last truck in line I thought he better not say that to anyone else because they WILL kill him. As a went a few more feet I heard a commotion behind me. I turned around and a good friend of mine was up on the running board of that first truck with the barrel of his weapon against the head of the driver and his finger on the trigger. I turned around, went back, and talked my friend down off the running board.
I was the leader of the first group to the trucks. It was my job to understand my men and anticipate problems. It was my job to be compassionate towards my men. That included caring for them to the point to where they didn't do something that could get them in trouble, like killing another American, no matter how much I wanted to kill the driver myself.
This is how leadership works. One foot on the pedal, the other near the brake. Aggression mixed with compassion.
Some slob can reproduce, sure. A Tiger that has a genetic predisposition to go blind later in life can reproduce also, but his line won't last long. Neither will the line of a slob, who beats his wife, and ignores his children.
Why would I care about trying to figure what a god that I don't believe in thinks is right when life itself offers so many lessons?
bsb
-
Does God beleive in you?
I don't know if Ahab believed in Herman Melville , wouldn't matter Herman would have put the Captain through his paces with or without Ahab approval.
Your belief, or lack there of doesn't change Gods role as main author in your story.
I think the tale of rage and exaustion overcoming normal judgement is working against your thesis that the inborn knoledge of good and evil is sufficient by itself. Some of us have more patience than others but there should not be a sliding scale of what is right and wrong.
I am aware that there is an instinct even in the very young twards knoledge of what is right and wrong , but it is not in itself strong or reliable , training , educateing and practice , observeing the example of our elders and higher ranks develops the basic instinct into a moral sense appropriate to an adult (or fails to , often enough).
Do you think we don't need a standardised set of mores , rules and guidences?
Who is going to set the standards , or has any right to?
-
>>Your belief, or lack there of doesn't change Gods role as main author in your story.<<
Your belief in a god doesn't alter the fact that there isn't one. Your belief in a god and your search for his opinion of what is good and what is evil doesn't alter the fact that you're only searching your own and other humans minds. Any point of view deemed to have derived from a god is only the projected point of view of a human. So if you're finding the ultimate source for divining what's good and what isn't you're only proving my point, that humans have the capability within them as a matter of beneficial evolution.
As for the story of "rage and exhaustion" proving a point other then mine? Not so. "Good" prevailed. I didn't kill the driver and neither did the soldier behind me. And the soldier behind me by pushing it a lot further then I did actually saved that drivers life. He, the driver, stopped making stupid comments after my friend stepped down off the running board.
bsb
-
>>Your belief, or lack there of doesn't change Gods role as main author in your story.<<
Your belief in a god doesn't alter the fact that there isn't one.
And your opinion that its a "fact" is duly noted
-
>>Your belief, or lack there of doesn't change Gods role as main author in your story.<<
Your belief in a god doesn't alter the fact that there isn't one. Your belief in a god and your search for his opinion of what is good and what is evil doesn't alter the fact that you're only searching your own and other humans minds. .......................bsb
So nothing is objective about good? If it is all subjective , does evereything potentially become evil because someone won't like it?
I can't Make God anymore than you can unmake him,when we are talking about him I understand that to you we are talking about a concept and you can understand that I am speaking of the ultimate person.
Does a conceptual God reflect the wishes of Human beings? A God that predates us all doesn't have to , but as we are his creation we are a part of his will so from our perspective this might seem alike. God is as we see him because he made us to need him as he is.
-
>>So nothing is objective about good? ... it is all subjective...?
I didn't post anything remotely like that. In fact I posted just the opposite.
Look, the difference between you and me, in this case anyway, is that I recognize that in terms of understanding who and what we are all we have is this planet, and the tiny bit of the universe we can grasp, to go by. You, on the other hand, recognize a super natural realm that holds the keys to our reality. The problem with your approach, from where I stand, is that you can make anything up you want. God said this, or god wants that, or god did this, etc. None of it is verifiable though. My truth is the present moment. My truth is what I and other fellow humans can and have observed while living in the present. I learn from my experiences, and the shared experiences of others. How can I learn from a super natural being whose very existence is unverifiable? Further, I've found my way to be extremely rewarding.
bsb
-
There is a need to decide difficult moral questions, and ignoring God seems like a mistake to me. I am not old enough to have already experienced for myself every moral delimma that I might yet experience. If God has published a guide what is the benefit of ignoring it?
I can't make up anything about God , he is or he isn't , I can be wrong or I can discover him.
-
The most often used meditation, among 100s in the Dzochen tradition, to attain the wisdom, tranquility, and equanimity, naturally found in the luminescence of rigpa is "guru yoga". When you search for the mind of god, you are doing guru yoga whether you know it or not. The difference is that the Buddhists know that the mind of the Buddha isn't out there somewhere it is inside your own mind. Your mind is the mind of the Buddha. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have never come to that realization. The instructions in the bible come from your mind, my mind, and every other humans mind. The real author of the bible isn't out there somewhere, it is inside us, in fact it is us.
I'm not sure which question to ask myself. How did the Buddha come to that realization so naturally, or why is it the monotheistic religions didn't/haven't?
bsb
-
It is the resemblance of reciprocals , when a scheme was worked out for the earth centered universe it kinda worked , it was successfully used for predicting planetary positions and eclipses even though it was nearly exactly the opposite of the truth.
Although it seems quaint to us now , the earth centered universe model was worked on for centuries and became very sophisticated.
Does it seem silly to imagine that the center of all things was us? That is always how it looks to us.
-
>>Does it seem silly to imagine that the center of all things was us? That is always how it looks to us.<<
Extremely silly. Earth as the center of the universe is the kind of thinking that brought about man's creation of god. Man thought he was so important that he must have a god that looks out for him more then any other species. After all, god is most of all interested in man. Gee, what a coincidence. God even created man in his own image (translation: man created god his own image). It is man's creation of god that places man at the center of all things. When you realize there is no god everything changes. The truth is man is no more important then a squirrel or an ant. We, the most highly evolved great ape, have only been here for a flash compared to how long the earth has been around, and of course not even remotely close to a flash compared to the age of the universe. Most likely in a hundred thousand years, 500 thousand years, a million years, whatever, man will just be another fossil among all the other fossils. He will have never had an afterlife anymore then a bug you step on on your way to lunch.
bsb
-
And yet all the answers are internal to the person?
How is an internal search for answers more enlightened than an external search for answers?
How is it supposed to be that in all the universe I am the evaluator?
How am I qualified to declare all the universe an idiot?
Why can't there be a designer of the universe which is the universe itself and of which I am a part?
-
>>But where do we come away with an instinctive knowledge of good and evil in the first place?<<
Think about where we'd be without it and you'll have the answer. We aren't Tigers. We don't have the predatory physical capacities they have. We can't run a deer down, kill it with our jaws, and eat it. We had to learn to cooperate with one another. We had to develop team work. A team isn't going to hold together for very long if its members are more interested in steeling, or seeking total revenge, from one another. Because of this a bias for compassion, understanding the other, was developed. Those that understood the members of a group, tribe, better became leaders. Their genes were passed on. The women who understood the group best were able to protect their children better then the women who didn't and their genes were passed on.
I highly doubt a god had anything to do with it.
bsb
A knoledge of good and evil doesn't really garuntee reproductive success nor even group success, a group that cheats another group is doing wrong isn't it?
A tribe that steals all the Sabine women is doing wrong isn't it?
Even within the tribe doing wrong is not what evolution would discourage , only getting caught at it and bearing the wrath of the group would be discouraged in evolutionary terms.
I can see a sensitivity to good and evil is present in most of us , I don't see evolution as a complete explanation for its being there.
-
I can think of little that has benefited us more then the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of another.
bsb
-
>>How is it supposed to be that in all the universe I am the evaluator?
How am I qualified to declare all the universe an idiot?
Why can't there be a designer of the universe which is the universe itself and of which I am a part?<<
Where did I say anything about man being the evaluator in the universe, or that men declare the universe to be an idiot? And why can't there just be a universe of which man is a part without some predetermined design involved? If I go up into the Allagash wilderness of northern Maine, am I looking at something that was designed, or something that evolved that way over 1000s of years? Are we designed, or did we evolve to become what we are?
I don't see the work of a designer. I see the results of an evolving process with the pieces being buffeted about by each other, finding solutions at times and leading to the destruction of some of the pieces at other times.
The continent of India was once moving freely until it crashed into the Asian continent and produced the Himalayas. The run off from the Himalayas formed the Mekong River delta of southern Vietnam, and the Red River delta of northern Vietnam. This wasn't designed, it just happened due to the physical laws of the universe, our planet, our neighbouring planets, our sun, and our orbiter the moon. Man took advantage of those deltas to grow food. That's how it works from point of view. And my job is to live it during the spec of time I have within it.
bsb
-
....... I see the results of an evolving process with the pieces being buffeted about by each other, finding solutions at times and leading to the destruction of some of the pieces at other times........
bsb
Ok, you see the thoughts of God.
Or what are the thoughts of God supposed to look like?
-
I can think of little that has benefited us more then the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of another.
bsb
That is a good quote.
-
That's how it works from point of view. And my job is to live it during the spec of time I have within it.
bsb
I can't deny you a point of view of your own, you have right to it .
From my POV the smallest part of it and all of it together is such a confluence of extremely unlikely co-incidences that your POV being that it is entirely accidental boggles the mind , ow ow ow...
-
The original view, taught by St Thomas Aquinas and others, was that the Universe was created by a Perfect Being, eg, God, and therefore it was perfect in every way, because God, being perfect could not or would not create an imperfect universe. The entire universe was created, according to this view, by God as a home for Mankind, who was supposed to live in peace and harmony for all his days. Until the very first couple screwed up. All the imperfections on Earth were the sole result of Adam and Eve making an extremely unwise culinary decision by eating a fruit at the behest of a talking reptile. Really, that is what it says: it is in the book. It may be somewhat less weird than L Ron Hubbard's tale of Lord Xenu, but it is still pretty darn wacky. and it seems to contradict the most logical scientific theories about how the Earth and humans came to exist.
Now we know that the universe is anything BUT perfect: the Sun has spots, the planets are not perfect spheres, their orbits are not perfect circles, and at least one is retrograde, the Earth is not at the center of all creation, and entire galaxies and we must assume, some planets with life on them are being destroyed on a regular basis.
The Universe is not perfect. It is as imperfect as it has to be to continue to exist. If it were any more chaotic, it would self-destruct.
We are free to draw any conclusions we wish about the Creator of the Universe, but the ancient view that he created a perfect universe and we screwed it up on our own planet alone and that they rest of Creation is still perfect, well, that is ever so obviously untrue.
-
What is imperfect about sunspots?
Do you know why the sun needs spots?
-
>>your POV being that it is entirely accidental boggles the mind , ow ow ow...<<
Well, it isn't accidental in that if you throw a football (I have the Patriots on my brain right now) it's only going to go so far before it hits the ground. That isn't an accident, that's gravity. Were the laws of the universe in place before there was a universe? God, or no god, in a way I think you could say they were. Would the laws effecting the explosion of 100,000 nuclear warheads going off simultaneously on planet earth be in place before the event? I would yes they are even though the event has never happened.
While the universe appears chaotic, in fact there is a finite number of causes to a finite number of effects. But, of course, those finite numbers are so large that it seems like the possibilities are endless.
Anyway, getting back to your aching head, I think it is because I don't think man is particularly special that I don't find the accident theory all that difficult to take. It doesn't hurt my head at all. I don't fell like I'm part of some grand design. I feel a lot more like a grand accidentally occurrence that has been worked on through the evolutionary process for thousands of years. I'm very happy with that idea. I have no plans for going anywhere after I die, and I'm fine with that also. If I do happen to however, my bags are packed. I'll enjoy that trip as much as I've enjoyed this one.
bsb
-
Were the laws of the universe in place before there was a universe? God, or no god, in a way I think you could say they were.
No; they are intricately tied with the universe and don't exist outside of the existence of the universe. The laws of the universe, and time itself, was created in the Big Bang.
-
>>No; they are intricately tied with the universe and don't exist outside of the existence of the universe. The laws of the universe, and time itself, was created in the Big Bang.<<
Just because gravity may have never existed prior to the big bang doesn't mean that the laws that apply to gravity in this particular universe weren't in theoretical existence. If fact they were, because we wouldn't have gravity if they weren't. Same with time. Just because there may have been no such thing as time at T minus 1, doesn't mean that time in the form of a possibility didn't exist. In fact it did because we wouldn't have time if it weren't possible.
Anything within this universe is not possible. There are only so many things that can happen.
bsb
-
What is imperfect about sunspots?
Do you know why the sun needs spots?
========================================
A perfect Sun would have heat spread evenly across its surface. It would not have spots.
Although I am sure there is a reason for sunspots (such one, some or all of the elements in the Sun causing them by their very nature), I cannot say why the Sun has spots, only (a) that it does and (b) their presence indicates that the Sun is not a perfect celestial body.
Of course, we know that it is doomed to burn itself out at some time in the future, and were it perfect, it would be eternal.
St Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker, but he was wrong about many things regarding the nature of the Universe. His construct was entirely logical, but it has proven to be false.
-
Just because gravity may have never existed prior to the big bang doesn't mean that the laws that apply to gravity in this particular universe weren't in theoretical existence. If fact they were, because we wouldn't have gravity if they weren't.
Gravity, and time as well, are a part of the universe. They are an effect of the curvature of space-time, which does not exist outside of the universe.
-
Just because gravity may have never existed prior to the big bang doesn't mean that the laws that apply to gravity in this particular universe weren't in theoretical existence. If fact they were, because we wouldn't have gravity if they weren't.
Gravity, and time as well, are a part of the universe. They are an effect of the curvature of space-time, which does not exist outside of the universe.
And if there was a seriously diffrent distribution of mass , lets say that it was all moving very rapidly compared to what there is now , the basic rules might be modified by the circumstance.
The flow of time is adjustable by the presence of great mass or by high accelleration , pretty much equally.
-
>>Gravity, and time as well, are a part of the universe. They are an effect of the curvature of space-time, which does not exist outside of the universe.<<
Your missing my point. It's my fault I didn't make it clear at the start. I don't mean that the laws existed literally and that things like gravity and time were floating around before the big bang. I mean they existed in theory.
Another example would be if this universe we are part of is the only one, and there was nothing before this universe, the possibility of something happening to create it was there before it actually happened.
bsb
-
Your missing my point. It's my fault I didn't make it clear at the start. I don't mean that the laws existed literally and that things like gravity and time were floating around before the big bang. I mean they existed in theory.
Going by this definition then, every possible combination of "physical laws" exist *in theory* and therefore your argument that "there is a finite number of causes to a finite number of effects" is wrong? You're either wrong on the one side, or the other.
Does not change the fact that nothing within this universe, including gravity and time, existed prior to the big bang; they are all part of this universe, inseparable. If anything exists outside of this universe, it is unknowable.
-
The laws that govern the universe do not exist separately from the matter or energy that they affect. They are an integral attributes.
-
>>Going by this definition then, every possible combination of "physical laws" exist *in theory* and therefore your argument that "there is a finite number of causes to a finite number of effects" is wrong? You're either wrong on the one side, or the other.<<
Not at all. There is a finite number of causes to a finite number of effects in this universe but in another universe things that are not possible here might be possible in that one. However, that universe would also have only a finite number of possibilities within it. Further, the laws that might exists in that universe would also be a theoretical possibility before the universe was created. Further still, that does not mean that an infinite number of universes, with differing laws with in them, is a possibility.
This maybe over your head Ami, but I appreciate the effort. It's the only way for you to learn. However, try opening up your mind a tad.
bsb
-
>>The laws that govern the universe do not exist separately from the matter or energy that they affect. They are an integral attributes.<<
Apparently you're not a math teacher. And again, you're missing the point. If these laws weren't a mathematical possibility before they appeared we would never see their appearance.
Problems regarding the universe are attempted to be understood using math all the time. Conclusions/theories are come to constantly regarding possibilities long before the thing they are searching for is found.
bsb
-
Actually, the laws that govern the universe are descriptions of the ways that matter and energy behave in the universe. It's not like someone wrote the laws and then custom-made matter and energy to fit the laws.
-
Apparently you're not a math teacher. And again, you're missing the point. If these laws weren't a mathematical possibility before they appeared we would never see their appearance.
The physical laws are descriptions of the interaction of the 4 basic forces (electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear weak, and nuclear strong) with the space-time of the universe. We use mathematics to *describe* them, but they are not reliant on mathematics. Mathematics is a tool we designed for our understanding, not a part of the universe.
Mathematics can be used to describe any combination of physical forces, not just those we observe in the universe around us. Like any good tool, it can be used for many things. And it can describe an infinite number of universes, so again, you're arguing against your point of a large but finite set of possibilities.
-
Look people, no one said anyone wrote the laws and then custom made the universe to fit them. No one said math was anything but a tool. And the laws of a universe being a mathematical possibility prior to the creation of a universe does not make said universe rift with an unlimited number of possibilities.
This isn't rocket surgery. (since I need to explain everything I said, that's a joke)
bsb
-
Well, so you agree with me.
If I say it, it seems to suggest to you that I am spouting the obvious, but apparently when you say it, it verifies your brilliance.
There is this belief that God, as architect of the Universe, must have required the math and the descriptions of these laws to construct the Universe. Hence my comment, as I find the theory that the Universe was created by an omnipotent entity to be implausable.
I believe we agree on this as well.
-
A) It's blue
B) It is not pink
A) I never said it was pink
B) So you agree with me then
-
???
I certainly would agree with you that it is not pink. It COULD be blue. I have not actually seen it.