100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Redykeulous
|
Topic:
Happy Hannukah
|
|
This turned into a wonderful thread as it shares so many of the various religious views.
I was surprised it had been moved from the general religion forum, but then I never knew there was a "Well Wishes" forum. Still it's rather sad because I think this thread embodies all the reasons for having a general religion forum. Sharing the whys and hows of individuals religious celebrations should always be interesting to everyone who really wants to be part of a free society inclusive of diversity in belief and culture and opposed to bigotry and prejudice. Since that's what I believe - HAPPY EVERYTHING to EVERY ONE at this time of many celebrations. Thanks 5apphire for starting off the thread and to everyone who helped it along. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find some agreement with the two previous posters. There is financial cost in dealing with a dead body and a monetary death benefit is extended should the family want to take responsibility for the body of their loved one.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea that some part of our government revenues (our taxes) are used for that purpose. However, there are many who are not religious, many who prefer cremation, and many who simply don't care what happens to their body after they are dead. There is also a greater financial cost to our government (us), to maintain burial sites. So if responsibility for disposing of dead bodies is given to the government, then I'm in favor of disposing of those bodies with the most efficiant, inexpensive, and environmentally safe ways possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some might argue that the only wrong, in the scenario, was making a conscious decision not to honor his own words.
On the other hand, people are regularly faced with the unexpected dilemma of having to choose between two commitments. In that cases we could consider the level of commitment the person places on his own words, and the words of others, and whether the decision to negate his word was influenced by altruistic motives. Since no altruism seems to have influenced the decision of not praying, then we might conclude that the individual does not value his own words, or the words of others, which we consider unfriendly when no harm results - but we consider it unethical and even unlawful when harm is the result and/or the intention. So what do you think Wux? When it come to misrepresentation or blatent disregard of one's words, is it unethical or does it depend on the outcome? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fight or Flight.
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 12/11/11 08:13 PM
|
|
There were a series of experiments with pre-toddlers called the visual cliff experiments.
A large glass table top was made to look like the floor but near the center the fake flooring was removed and the result was a visual cliff. Crawling infants have no concept of glass but there was a hypothesis that such children would instinctively recognize the dager a cliff presented. The hypothesis was correct and children would avoid the cliff or turn away from it --- flight. Then the question was, could the trust a baby has in its mother be enough to coax that baby to venture beyond the cliff. Mother at one end, baby placed at the other, and between them the visual cliff. Before a certain age almost no children would venture accross, some stopped and cried, probably becuase it had no way of getting to its mother. But just several weeks beyond that age, most babies could be coaxed, at least to the point of carefully testing a hand, and then another until it no longer even noticed the cliff. That's flight (baby style)and I had given a previous example of a small child who was cognicent of spankings, being told in an angry voice to COME HERE, NOW and the child running in the other direction. As for fight, consider the behavior described as learned helplessness (Seligman). We tend to take flight from situations that by, instinct or cognitive skills,we determine we are not capable of overcoming. But what about situation in which the human has a real or perceived total lack of control? We can't flee and we can't fight, so we surrender. At this junction I would point in the direction of child abuse. Even infants stop crying and accept abuse, why? Could it be that they are incapable of taking either fight or flight action? We know that infants will flee, we know that the instinct can be overriden in a slightly older child through trust, even if it's only a guarded trust and we know one more thing - that a baby cries. You can ask the mother of any 1 or 2 month old infant and she will tell when that baby's cry is hunger, pain, or anger. Perhaps the only ability an infant has to fight is to cry. Does that help with the answer to the OP or does it only confuse the issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
flying spaghetti monster
|
|
Thanks for the assistance Conrad. It wasn't the parody I was questioning though it was the accompaniment of the word 'theory' that set off my question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
flying spaghetti monster
|
|
No science. Just people who were upset creationism was permitted to be taught in Kansas. So they made it up to mock it. Basically. Ah, but by calling it a 'theory' are they not also mocking science? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Women In The Bible
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 12/10/11 02:12 PM
|
|
some people have the wrong message though,, because people are fallible and human How do you know that? What would make you better able to determine that another has the message wrong and that you, or any other humans, are the optimal source of correction? Morning song wrote a reply to my last post as well. Her message states (paraphrasing) that you must be born again in order to receive the message and then you will receive the exact same message as all other born again Christians. But how does she know they all have the same message? How does one know they must born again to receive this message in the first place? If you must be born again to be a receiver then we might assume that the only way to know that you have to be ‘born again’, and how to accomplish that task, is through word of mouth (humans). That means some a lot of people are being TAUGHT what to believe by other people before they can ever be born again in the first place. There are a lot of born again Christians who are no longer affiliated with that particular denomination because of difference in their messages. It would be interesting to do a study about that. We could choose 10,000 people who have no understanding of the concepts of born again Christians. Then we could ask them if they would like to be ‘born again’ and follow the religious teachings of Holy Spirit (aka – God) in how being born again is accomplished. Then we could follow some course of ritual that does not include training about the actual beliefs and see how many get instruction from the Holy Spirit. Then we could write down what those instructions were and compare them to each other for similarity. Then, we can question a large number of previous born again Christians with the questions we asked the newly born and compare for similarity. We could also include a questionnaire of the those who were born again and later rejected it. Finally we have a group of randomly selected Christians of all denominations and see how they answer the questionnaire. Do you think that would work? If it did work and the study showed a significant correlation between previous and newly born again Christians, and you’re not a born again Christian, would you be willing to stand correction of many of your beliefs and values and become a born again Christian? I will sound like a broken record, but I welcome and prefer correction when something is wrong or mislead or misguided, but it makes a world of difference whether the correction is made lovingly or antagonisticly, If it is the Holy Spirit that guides and the recipient is willingly submitting but still getting the message wrong, who do you think can best advise the recipient who mistranslated the message given to him? I think it would be a matter between the Holy Spirit and the individual and the least likely second best in no one at all, because no one can know if the message they hold on to is the right one. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it’s simply pointing out the problems I see in people’s views. ,,,its all in how we speak to each other, but it doesnt require us to be self absorbed in only how we feel or what we do or what affects us directly The way I see it, correcting others for mistakes in their religious belief is a self-absorbed act because, as I’ve said, how does anyone know that he/she alone has the correct message? Maybe it depends on whether you think all Christians are still seeking truth or if some have truth and some do not. OOPS back to that question again, how do you know who might have the truth, if anyone does? In that case shouldn’t ALL Christians be seeking truth and shouldn’t they all be consulting their God (AKA Holy Spirit) for that information instead of the humans you say are so prone to faults? I think religious beliefs would benefit from more consistency and less comparison. The consistency could stand to be increased in the area of personal relationship with one’s God. If the relationship is indeed personal than shouldn’t the message a person received be individualized? If people really believed that there would be no need to compare messages or make corrections to another’s message because we have no way of knowing or having insight into another person’s personal relationship and what gets exchanged in that relationship – do we? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
flying spaghetti monster
|
|
Question:
What science is behing this Flying Speghetti Monster Theory that is mentioned in the OP? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Women In The Bible
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 12/09/11 10:52 PM
|
|
I don't see Cowboy as "preaching" to anyone. What he is doing is defending what he believes to be biblical truth! Im surprised I haven't seen the title "dogmatic preaching" thrown at him as well. Is that word "dogmatic" getting old? Well I see most of YOU as dogmatic... but not of any specific persuasion axcept your radical unbelief. You all have banded like sharks to devour the Word as soon as it comes out of a believer's mouth. Cowboy, we (christians) are all being revealed the Glory of Almighty God. God backs the written Word. So we must use scripture to teach men about God, verbatim. No man can stand against the Word of God. They all fall down. Whether literally or figuritively... "EVERY man will someday confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father". --->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rom_14:11, For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Phi_2:11, And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--- My hope is that it will not be too late for some...as we shall ALL stand before the Judgment Seat. CeriseRose....Cowboy's beliefs do NOT line up with Christianity at all. But I have already left this all in God's hands now...and will not take it up again.....as I trust God is more than able to make His Truth known to Cowboy and to all....  If one KNOWS the truth or just THINKS they know the truth, why would anything else be made clearer? If a mind is not open to possiblities how will anything new be possible? What if Cowboy is the one who has the truth? You have judged his message but you have no way of knowing how he came about the message he passes on. Obviously it doesn't match your message and neither of your messages matches very well with Peter Pan's message yet all three of you (and the many more who have a message)seem to think that judging a message is not judging the person who carries the message -- then are you judging from whence the message came???? How do assess the risk - according to your message. (well that's just what I thought, everyone is right). The only wrong may be in putting the message that is only meant for you in the face of others to be following without recognizing that to do so means to pass judgement on your fellow man, or on the messenger. It might be better to Flip a coin, roll a die, pick a card and your message will be revealed to you.... look in the crystal ball, drink the potion, read from an ancient script and find the message of best fit, that is your message and yours alone. Wouldn't it be so much less stessful to know that you have the one and only true message given just for you and that you never had to compare it with any other message because all the messages imparted are right only for the one person who received it? OMG - then how would we all act? What would that do to the moral code or to a person's sense purpose.... AHHH - imagine that, only having to worry about and live up to your very own personalized moral code from your very own personal message. I think that would be a much better world to live in becasue each person would truely be responsible for the actions which stem from thier beliefs, instead of trying live in accord with the beliefs of others when you have no idea what THEIR message really was in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Tied up in a string
|
|
It was interesting on several levels however,
The only two comments I feel even remotely informed enough to make are: First, I wanted to cheer when Lawrence wrote: … “the context in which I referred to ID was actually to make a point that I am beginning to think is actually relevant… namely that when physicists refer to ‘string theory’ it is in the context of ‘field theory’… namely as a technical replacement of one physical and mathematical framework for dealing with relativistic quantum mechanics with another.. but unfortunately in the context in which we complain about IDers saying Evolution is ‘just a theory’, the popular use of the term string theory is unfortunate.. because ‘string theory’ is not a theory in the context in which we claim evolution or general relativity is… i.e. something that has been tested time and again against experiment and observation.. calling it the string hypothesis would not be inappropriate in this sense..” I graduated from High School in 1973 – when students were ‘tracked’. Those who were not motivated to rise to the challenge of taking honors classes that led college prep courses were not encouraged, and sometimes were not even offered, science classes. The classes we were required to take delved no deeper into scientific concepts beyond basic astrology or Darwinian theory. The vast majority of us had no understanding of Science beyond the fact that mathematics played a major role and that alone was enough to inform most of us that we were not science material. Of course, back then, we still believed in the myth of meritocracy. Upon that believe we went into the grown-up world of work thinking that ingenuity and great effort would be just as rewarding without a basic college degree. I’m an avid reader and have always tried to stay on top of scientific advances so I developed a better grasp of what the defining characteristics of science, verses any other field of study, were. Unfortunately, like so many others I could not grasp what made some ideas a theory (scientifically) while other things were not (beliefs). I began to study science in college in 2007, (ok I’m a late bloomer), and now I do understand. Like Lawrence, I bear some animosity to those professionals in the scientific fields who apply or continue to use the word theory in conjunction with ideas that would seem to have no evidence beyond belief. I likewise bear greater animosity toward the public education system that still allows an inferior educational program to continue because there is no reason why every student who is granted a high school diploma should not understand basic scientific principles. There is no reason why every high school graduate should not be able to discern between science and pseudo-science, it’s not that difficult and even the mathematically challenged (like me) should grasp it with ease. Ok so I ranted a little there.  Secondly but still in the same vein, it’s the use of the term theory that still causes the greatest conflict between theistic ideals & phenominal beliefs, and the scientific community. Still, there are probably many thousands of people, like me, who have a great interest in science and even without a higher education they may have something, however minor, to add when a scientist comes to an impasse. Ingenuity and innovative thought are not dependent on education, and conversation between people caught at an impasse is still a great way to brainstorm. That makes me believe that transparency and openness between the scientific community and the general public is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 12/09/11 06:11 PM
|
|
Thank you Dancer and Metal... I will check out the article. However, I have already taken some material out and want to try and refine this to bare bones and not leave so much open for debate/debunk. I am really leaning towards frustration and anger are emotional states and natural; violence is one possible physical outcome but is not a natural tendency. I do have to address the fight or flight response (biological) because I am sure it will be brought up but haven't drawn a conclusion as to how I will do so. I am looking up case studies and other literature to better define this. -I am assuming there must be some outside influence to cause a fight or flight response. -Do human infants fight or flight or does it take experience to have the potential of fight or flight? Do we have to learn a certain number of things to make the natural ability of fight or flight a reality? -How much does our total 'programming' apply to the actual reaction (or possible outcomes) whether we consciously decide to or not? Using very young children to make some kind of determination about instinctual (natural) behavior might seem like a good idea BUT that's still problematic if we consider, among other things, Self and Other awareness. What comes to mind is how aware is a child of their limitations? If a child does something wrong, even when not aware of what was wrong, the body language and tone of an adult saying "COME HERE, RIGHT NOW" tends to make the child run in the other direction? Do they run because they instinctively know that they do not have power and control over the situation (a spanking perhaps)? I met a 21 month old beautiful little boy today in a waiting room (car repair place). That child loved everybody he saw. I said to the mother "That's a child who has met a stranger." Do you suppose that personality might play a part in that, because the mother commented on how different her two children behaved in that regard. Her first child did not trust anyone and refused to smile at anyone until he had known that person for a long time. It may be that the assessment a situation during the fight or flight scenario includes a quick account of one's power and ability/capability to control the situation. Throughout history warriors/soldiers have been put to death for running from a battle - why do so few actually run from a such a great risk in which they have so little power and control? What I'm getting to is do we have the power of will to override or misconstrue what would otherwise be considered 'natural' or instinctual behavior. The answer is a resounding YES, and that's yet another problem with determining if premeditated will to harm is natural or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would not try to prove we cannot be violent, but that the actions that result from natural tendencies toward anger are not themselves necessary extensions of that emotional tendency. ie, while anger is a natural emotional state, violence is not necessitated from that emotional state. ie violence is not a natural tendency even tho anger is. So I would spend the first period of time arguing in FAVOR of anger as a natural tendency and then highlight the differences between anger and violence, one is an emotional state, the other a physical outcome. Humans do not have instincts in the way most other animals have instincts and that in a mentally functioning human a decision toward violence has to be made, ie it is not a natural: automatic response for violence even when the mental state of anger is such a instinctual reaction. Basically we have a will, and that will dictates choices, not the emotional context of the reaction. The response was: According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, frustration stimulates a drive that leads to aggression. However, frustration is not the only variable that causes aggression. The response to frustration may differ depending on the kind of responses a person has learned to use in coping with frustrating situations. If a person has learn (through imitation or social learning) that aggression can elicit a desired result, then they would respond to frustration with aggressive behavior. For example, people in poorer communities become frustrated when their physiological needs cannot be met and some are motivated to acquire these needs through crime. This is where social learning plays a role. When a person becomes frustrated they are motivated to react in a way that they learn would produce results. People can learn that crime pays. Therefore, while frustration and aggression seem to be closely linked, the mere presence of frustration does not seem to suggest aggression, social learning is also an instigating factor. The Little Albert experiments (Watson and Raynor)indicate that fear is learned and that it can be generalized meaning that once a fear has developed, the same mental state can occur when the fear is transferred due to some similiarity between the feared thing and something that is recognized as familiar. Learning to be afraid of a WHITE rat can become a fear of a person in a WHITE lab coat. But our first responce to fear is to evaluate the situation (usually instinctually)and whatever reasoning occurs stimulates either the fight or flight behavior. Fighting in such a case may not be a proclivity as much as it is instict to protect life or lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 12/09/11 06:05 PM
|
|
I'm jumping the gun a little because I'm responding before reading the entire thread. So I may be rehashing something that's already been considered (sorry).
it is stated that most psychologists view human behavior as directed by physiological needs and psychological wants. I think the first statement from the OP (quoted above) could stand to be broadened. William James version of Functionalism in which he considers 3 components to human behavior – instincts, emotions, and thought is broader. James’ theory, briefly put, was that environment affected behavior such that behavior served as survival functions tends to indicate that our interaction with our environment must also be considered. However, even that does not include conditioning (Pavlov) or some form of imprinting (Lorenz) but then again we’re not sure if humans undergo imprinting simply because some studies suggest that facial expressions are understood by babies and that the greatest majority of facial expressions mean the same between countries and cultures. Without even getting to the hypothesis in the OP topic, you can see how complicated something that sounds so simple can be. If the discussion is broad enough it would be likely that more than just psychological and physiological aspects would be considered. The stated hypothesis: you will see that-Violence is extremely low on the scale of what psychological needs we as humans resort to as a whole. First of all, the term VIOLENCE has not been defined. Each culture has constructed their own concepts of what violence is. Even in America a husband was allowed to rape his wife and it was not considered a violent offence. Spanking a child in one culture might be considered violence while in another filing the teeth of children into a mini-dagger appearance is not considered violence (talk about pain!!!). Now if defending one’s resources, security, or family, requires forceful behavior is that considered violence? Would we consider driving while intoxicated a form of premeditated violence since it’s widely known that such behavior puts yourself and others at risk of physical harm or death? What is violence? Don't you have to be programmed to be civilized, how can we naturally be civilized? If we consider humans from the perspective of the animal kingdom, we are really quite ill-equipped for dealing with our environment UNLESS we have some kind of social structure. It’s our diversity and our ability to think abstractly and conceptually that is our strength. It may well be that our ability to think, as we do, provided us with the means to populate the Earth. Consider it from a Darwinian perspective – we evolved as a social creature because living within a social group was our greatest protection from the environment. If we got along with others and our social unit grew, we had a better chance of passing our genes. We continue to reinforce that idea through the innovativeness that occurs as a natural off-set of living in ‘civilized’ social units. Through the diversity that exists in having lived in different environments and having developed various methods (tools, technology, and medicine) we have been able to continue to advance as species. In that case, perhaps the programming might be better aligned with Darwinism. If that’s the case, then we are AND we are not naturally violent. But again, as I questioned before, the answer depends on how you define violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 12/06/11 06:14 PM
|
|
I don't know - when I read it I saw undertones of a whiney voice asking for campaign contribution. I've reprinted it below - it's a hell of a lot of jargon when he can't do a damn thing to disconnet the Republican funding that goes to support DOMA in his own damn country. Do you really think the rest of what he wrote holds any more power??? And I have to say I'm sorry it doesn't because I agree with Ms. Clinton's stand on human rights and if this government really felt the same way, then maybe it could make an impact.
December 06, 2011 Presidential Memorandum — International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights. I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation. That is why I declared before heads of state gathered at the United Nations, “no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.” Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere. Our deep commitment to advancing the human rights of all people is strengthened when we as the United States bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal. By this memorandum I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons. Specifically, I direct the following actions, consistent with applicable law: Section 1. Combating Criminalization of LGBT Status or Conduct Abroad. Agencies engaged abroad are directed to strengthen existing efforts to effectively combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct. Sec. 2. Protecting Vulnerable LGBT Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Those LGBT persons who seek refuge from violence and persecution face daunting challenges. In order to improve protection for LGBT refugees and asylum seekers at all stages of displacement, the Departments of State and Homeland Security shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure that LGBT refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum. In addition, the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security shall ensure appropriate training is in place so that relevant Federal Government personnel and key partners can effectively address the protection of LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, including by providing to them adequate assistance and ensuring that the Federal Government has the ability to identify and expedite resettlement of highly vulnerable persons with urgent protection needs. Sec. 3. Foreign Assistance to Protect Human Rights and Advance Nondiscrimination. Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons. Sec. 4. Swift and Meaningful U.S. Responses to Human Rights Abuses of LGBT Persons Abroad. The Department of State shall lead a standing group, with appropriate interagency representation, to help ensure the Federal Government’s swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT persons abroad. Sec. 5. Engaging International Organizations in the Fight Against LGBT Discrimination. Multilateral fora and international organizations are key vehicles to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT persons and to bring global attention to LGBT issues. Building on the State Department’s leadership in this area, agencies engaged abroad should strengthen the work they have begun and initiate additional efforts in these multilateral fora and organizations to: counter discrimination on the basis of LGBT status; broaden the number of countries willing to support and defend LGBT issues in the multilateral arena; strengthen the role of civil society advocates on behalf of LGBT issues within and through multilateral fora; and strengthen the policies and programming of multilateral institutions on LGBT issues. Sec. 6. Reporting on Progress. All agencies engaged abroad shall prepare a report within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, and annually thereafter, on their progress toward advancing these initiatives. All such agencies shall submit their reports to the Department of State, which will compile a report on the Federal Government’s progress in advancing these initiatives for transmittal to the President. Sec. 7. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies engaged abroad include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate. (b) For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. BARACK OBAMA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Long skeptic in the room
|
|
That was a very nice break - thanks. Back to the books now - skeptics choice of course (variables, validity, reliability...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate that you shared that article. thanks Ruth. I thought it was very interesting, expecially as it tends to server as my own confirmation bias.
The following quote, in general, encapsulates my own feelings about how the Bible would be better viewed by everyone. Further, I'd argue that when faced with a compilation as diverse and complex as the Bible, all interpreters -- whether professional scholars, Sunday preachers, or everyday readers, and from the most conservative viewpoint to the most liberal -- are guided by what they believe to be the central and most important passages of their sacred texts. We all, that is, pick and choose to a certain extent from the variety of moral instruction in the Bible in relation to what we think is at the heart of the biblical witness. The only way to be accountable in this kind of practice is to admit that we are engaging in it in the first place in order that we can make a case for choosing one passage as primary over another and be willing to enter into conversation about, and perhaps reconsider, those choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 11/20/11 06:45 AM
|
|
Just want to throw out the topic here. I would like to focus upon what the necessary preconditions are in order for us to form and maintain behavioral expectations of ourselves and others, in addition to inanimate objects as well. as to behave is a verb and requires action it would not apply to inantimate objects, although inantimate objects can have constructs or characteristics like "chairness" - we know the characteristics oo some thing that make it a chair (for example) behavioral expectations are learned. The only precondition is obcervation Just wanted to add a bit of information that is often forgotten about. There is nothing we know of that is not in a state of action. Decay or erosion may not be apparent to our eyes or even in the span of one's life, but everything we know of is changing and change required a process of action and reaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we were strictly driven to act by instinct, then our behaviors could be quite predictable. Without intending any hurtfulness, Redykouluous, I think you commit the fallacy of equivocation. "predictable" is a word which means two things: either that (sense 1) something can be predicted, and we can, yes, predict it very well, or that (sense 2) it is possible to predict something, but we, particularly, are incapable of predicting it, no matter how hard or how much we try. Like you said, humans are predictable; but I fear that you did not differentiate whether they are predictable to other humans in sense 1 or in sense 2. I state that in sense 1 humans are not predictable by other humans. There is tons of empirical evidence to support this. (ie. nobody can predict suicides, criminal acts, jokes to come out of the mouth of babes, etc.) The theoretical support may state that on one hand it is just simply impossible to observe the huge amount of deviant motivatiors that are present in any situation, and on the other hand, even if we could keep track of them and measure their impact, we still can't universally apply a function, because each human's thinking mode is different, at least at present time. So I accept that humans are predictable only in the second sense; and therefore, I am sorry to say, I reject your theoretical findings. Thanks Wux for the explanation. I think I understand the points you’ve made and I’d like try to add some clarity to my position. I thought the OP topic question was overly broad but I wasn’t sure how it could be reduced. what does it take to form behavioral expectations I read the posts that followed and saw one which addressed universal behavior expectations and another that addressed man-made civil codes. Universal behavior expectations is different from incorporating morals/ethics into a civil code of ethics. Obviously the latter will be contingent on the morals or ethics to which the majority of any particular group determine to be agreeable. Using morals/ethics for civil code as an example of forming behavioral expectations is different from how universal behavior expectations are formed. Using the two examples just stated, it was my intension to reduce the topic by dividing it into expected behaviors which are universal, which I based on Darwinian theory, and expected behaviors which form as a result of the interactions between individual perception and environment. I was trying to present the two ideas by using examples that I thought would show a clear division. Universal behavioral expectations are those whose motivating force is innate, such as expecting a thirsty person to drink, a hungry person to eat and taking it further, individuals will recognize their continued need for food and water and thus undertake the behaviors by which to acquire those needs. The need to procreate (sex-drive) and the need to protect babies and members of the group, which as whole form greater protection than an individual can expect as a loner, are also innately motivated. (Localized)behavioral expectations are those whose motivation is externally derived. I used the example of civil codes of law however, ethnicity and culture, geographic and biographical concepts are also external motivators. Another consideration would be to contrast to what degree the two ways in which behavioral expectations are formed affect each other. If we can determine or agree upon what a normal range of universal behavior might be, then we would, at least, have the basis of predictable human behavior. In many ways that is exactly why social science attempts to do. Social science takes it a little further and subdivides the various environmental factors for further study. The value of those studies is to found when outcomes become more predictable. With a better understanding of those factors and a base line of universal human behavior, prediction of future human behavior becomes more accurate. Thus we know that [what it takes to form behavioral expectations], at the very least, involves innate internal and changing external environmental factors and that each can affect the other. All that being said, I found a lot to agree with in your first post referring to Wittgenstein. Personally, I think we attempt to override many of our innate behaviors because of the external pressure of our environments. I also agree with Creative, that behavioral expectations (and I add - ) that are formed externally require belief and belief systems and absolutely such behavioral expectations do not require knowing self, nor do they even require self-reflection or self or other-formed values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen sister. I also apologise, for jumping on your words. If there is one thing I can not, and will not, tolerate, its people lumping me in with the masses, and not looking at me as an individual, as I do everyone else. Take a group of 10 Christian people. I dont see them as 10 Christians, who absolutely must be one way or another, because they are Christians. I see a group of individual people, who just so happen to belong to the same "religious title'. I say "religious title", because I think there are more people than myself, who are Christian, and think alittle outside of the box. Christians are not suppose to support gay, or lesbian people, yet our pastor preaches to a group of gay men. AND HE, IN NO WAY, IS HE TRYING TO CONVERT THEM! He does this, because they dont feel comfortable, in regular church services, given they are not accepted in the bible.(thats sad, but thats a whole different topic, for a different day). I call myself a Christian, but I believe it is much more important that 2 people find REAL LOVE in this crazy world, than what gender they both are. I know that doesnt follow the bible, and you can call my a hypocrite, but it wont change my mind. If I have to make a choice between the 2, I will not call myself Christian, and still have my love, faith, and belief in my father, and will continue to worship, and love him everyday. I want whats best for myself and my relationship with Jesus, and my heavenly father, and I personally dont care how other people view it. Ill do whats right for me and you do whats right for you. All I do want is that no matter where we both stand, that we love one another. Thats whats most important. God Bless Well said and good points made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 11/18/11 07:47 PM
|
|
RAPTURE:THE COMING OF CHRIST IS VERY NEAR,jesus may come at any time from now.on that day christ ,and the angels shall sound with a trumpent and the saint in christ shall be taken away,those that dont believe in jesus christ who came to die for our sin,will find themself in hell fire,so shall their end come.brother,sister,do you want to be with christ when the trumpet sound,do u want to be free from hell and destruction,just give your life to jesus he is the only one that can save you.REPENT THE END IS AT HAND. You really believe this Roberta? Do you know how many times over the years people have predicted the rapture or the end? Were any of them ever right? We're still here aren't we? I would have thought you'd know better than to buy into that, no offense meant. I used to believe this stuff too, to the point of actually believing it was gonna happen in the fall of 2007 and waiting for it. Course now looking back it was rather stupid of me. Now I know better and see it for what is, a bunch of BS like the rest of religion. Just I believe, we have until sometime in 2012, and thats it. End of story. In fact, it might be more conscientious of you to say that YOU hold this belief rather than to go for the drama of the closed ended, unbendable statement that you've made. The way you've said it can be offensive to all the other baby Christians who don't believe as you do, and they think they are right too. It makes it sound like it's all about ego, doesn't it? I know it's not becasue those who have made such claims in the past tend to look very foolish after the date has come and gone rather uneventfully. That certainly doesn't do much for the ego - does it? your putting wayyyyyyyyy too much on this! Geez! In fact, it might be more conscientious of you to say that YOU hold this belief rather than to go for the drama of the closed ended, unbendable statement that you've made. I do believe that is exactly what I said, "I believe", not "everyone should believe"...."I"...hello, as in me only!And where do you get that it was unbendable. If its JMO its as bendable as heck. I always have an open mind, to hear anyone elses opinion. Im not a genius or God, so why would you think I claim to know all. The way you've said it can be offensive to all the other baby Christians who don't believe as you do, and they think they are right too. Oh, now im offensive to all other baby Christians. Your really reaching there sister. I dont care what anyone else believes. I have already said that I live and let live. I think everyone has the right to believe, who, what, when, where, why, whatever THEY choose to. And no one has the right to tell them they cant, or what to believe. Again, I said,"I believe", not "everyone better believe", or "mine is the only answer". Puuuuuuuuuuulease! It makes it sound like it's all about ego, doesn't it? I know it's not becasue those who have made such claims in the past tend to look very foolish after the date has come and gone rather uneventfully. That certainly doesn't do much for the ego - does it? How in the heck is that about my ego. I am a humble person,and I think its more about your ego, and thinking your so brilliant to assume that I meant that statement to be a warneing of a prediction of everyones future.I said "I" (singular) believe, and it had nothing to do with anyone elses beliefs. Or what I think they should or shouldnt believe. Where do you get off calling me an egotistical person, for having my own beliefs about things? I have the right, just like you and everyone has the right, to believe whatever I want to, and the statement was not made to the world, and saying that I "knew" anything about our destiny here for certain. It again was JMO. Where do you read in there, that I am assuming that "I" alone am correct, and know all. You dont, cause its not there. Now read this again..... "I" BELIEVE (SINGULAR) that we have until sometime in 2012. End of story.(meaning, I dont want to talk about why I believe that, but apparently you took the "end of story" as meaning, thats the only explanation, and opinion that matters. Dont you know what happens when you assume? "Redykeulous" is right. I love the way you took a general statement, that was JMO and blew it up into a dramatic cry of our future that only "I" know and can predict! Crazyyyyyyy! BTW: If your looking for someone to argue with, im not your girl. But I will explain the TOTALLY OBVIOUS in my statements if need be. I guess you need to quit putting the meaning of my words, where they doesnt belong, is my advice to you. God Bless! I was not looking for an argument, I was making observations. I was a little surprised at how strongly you protested what I had written. My surprise made me take into consideration what you were saying and so I took another look at the posts in this thread and I see that we have both committed the same error. One of the most common errors in the written format is to substitute, emotion, words, phrases and ideas whenever the original writing has not been made clear. You were clear in your writing, (I believe) clearly attributes a belief to you alone. I didn’t take it as you saying (my belief only) because we were discussing Christian beliefs about ‘end times’. I ( and it’s may fault) attributed what you were saying to Christian beliefs. I made the leap not understanding that you still hold beliefs aside from Christian beliefs. I apologize for the error and for getting you all worked up about it. I would like to point out that you have committed the same error in return but after reviewing our exchange I also understand why. I likewise failed to develop my points and I can see how you would have been offended. I wrote: The way you've said it can be offensive to all the other baby Christians who don't believe as you do, and they think they are right too. It makes it sound like it's all about ego, doesn't it? I know it's not becasue those who have made such claims in the past tend to look very foolish after the date has come and gone rather uneventfully. That certainly doesn't do much for the ego - does it? At that point I was under the impression that the ‘belief’ you were holding was a Christian belief, which is why I tried to make the point that not all Christians believe as you do. The next sentence was a reference to the fact that so many Christians hold such opposing views and yet each one lays claim to having sole accuracy. That is what I was referring to when I said it sounds like it’s all about ego – but I know it’s not because such belief sets individuals up to be placed in embarrassing situations. At any rate, we both made the same errors – it happens and the best thing is to own up to it, I do – do you? You wrote: I guess you need to quit putting the meaning of my words, where they doesnt belong, is my advice to you. I have headed your advise and I apologise for my errors – will you? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
