No, no, no. You don't get to say that. I just told you I look at my religion critically all the time. I mentioned 3 specific instances (without going into details) where I had to stop and reexamine my belief structure.
I don't remember preaching to you. This thing started off with me trying to explain why a benevolent God would allow His children to suffer the consequences of their own actions. Then it turned into a discussion of why a benevolent God would allow His children to suffer the consequences of others' actions. That's something I can't explain all the way. I understand some of it, but not all of it. If I was preaching at all, it was to encourage you to read about a subject in which you had expressed interest.
My inability to fully understand an extremely complex issue should not stop me from explaining what I DO understand, should it?
So we get back to it: I know that God lives, but I don't understand everything.
Well, if all you wanted to do is make me consider a remote possibility to rethink the world around me, you needn't have bothered. I did that 10 years ago. I also did it 4 years ago. I also did it 2 years ago. The world has a way of blindsiding us if we are not careful.
I can't explain that. I really, really wish I could. I can try, but I don't know how accurate I would be, so I won't try right now. If you really want to understand it, I recommend the book When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold Kushner. You are right. It doesn't stand even the most primitive questioning, so why be content with primitive questioning?
I know that God lives, and that he loves his children. Nevertheless, I do not know everything.
I imagine that your post was not intended to understand why it is God would allow such a terrible, terrible thing to happen, but rather to point me out as a dummy for believing that God could exist and be benevolent when such things clearly do happen. Well, I don't know, but like I said, don't waste time with primitive questioning. If you want the answer, look it up. I've never read the book, but I've heard it does a good job. If it doesn't help, send me a message. Maybe I can steer you in a better direction.
You should try Mexican hot cocoa. Try Ibarra. It should be in the foreign foods aisle at your grocery store. You know, by the Mexican soda pop and stuff.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time, but Congress has seen fit to extend the copyright limits indefinitely. So what's the limit? That's my take on it. But the courts seem to agree with Congress.
I think I heard about this. I think you have got it wrong. If I remember correctly from what they said on the radio, in order to get off, they have to have been following legal orders. If they were following orders any reasonable and sane person would know were illegal, they are still in trouble.
I should probably look it up, but I won't right now.
OK, so if the President, and Congress, and the courts all know about something, doesn't that kind of make it legal? I mean if they all okay it? Doesn't an Executive Order with the approval of Congress and the courts amount to legality?
Note: I don't like it either, but what does it take to make something legal? Also note that, as someone said earlier, legal != ethical.
It also just occured to me that congress and the president and the courts all looking the other way doesn't make it legal, either. Is this what happened here, or was there some sort of officialness about it?
A life without Christ a living hell? I didn't say that. I know a guy who doesn't believe in Christ (I think he acknowledges his existence as a man in Jerusalem, but nothing really special), and he is a great guy. His life is certainly not a living hell, at least, not as far as I can see.
Living a life in which our actions have no consequences would certainly be a living hell. Living a life in which we escape the negative consequences of our actions, right up until they all fall on us would be a living hell. I think you and I are talking about different things here.
I was not attempting to argue the existence of God, or why my religion was superior to the others, or anything like that. I was just saying that for a loving, benevolent God to let us experience the consequences of our actions would be quite reasonable and, well, benevolent.
As for the other questions you asked, they are really good questions. I personally think that most people, deep down, don't want to know the answer, because they would not be willing to do what it takes to know, or to follow the Truth once they find it. It really is more comfortable to stay where we are.
As for fairness, I don't pretend to know God's plan for the Iranians and others who don't believe in Christ, and who will probably never get the chance. But, who says they will never get the chance? But I don't know if I would have found Christ in the middle of Indonesia.
As for how I know and all that stuff, I don't think we'd get anywhere with that.
The mural proves that these stories of creation and kings--and the elaborate writing and art to tell them--were well-established more than 2,000 years ago, centuries earlier than previously believed.
That's the best I could come up with. It makes it sound like there's writing to back up the art. Still, as I reread your posts, it makes me wonder the same thing: How do they really know?
Especially when you consider that there is so much we don't know, how certain can they be?
P.S.: If you want the Chicago article, I still have page 1 open in my browser and can copy it to you, but I don't imagine either of us really cares enough to take the trouble.
Here's one way to look at it: Did my parents send me to hell? No, they didn't. For one thing, they don't have that authority. But there were other consequences, like having to pay speeding tickets, which IS hell for a boy with precious little money.
Here is another way: If I speed my whole life, my life will BECOME a living hell, because no one will want to drive with me, my car insurance will go up and up, and I will spend way too much money on gasoline, as well as repair or replacement when I get into high speed accidents. Then there's the loss of life or privilege associated with continued bad driving. I of course choose my life. Would my parents really be very benevolent if they enabled my stupid behavior indefinitely?
How unreasonable is it to assume that a benevolent, loving parent would allow us to taste the consequences of our choices. My parents honored my decisions, even when I had to live with their consequences.
This is probably useless. I won't think you're some kind of wuss or something if you don't respond. It may have been a mistake for me to write this much.
"After the post office, schools are the most unionized activity in America. [Teachers unions] collect a lot of money in dues, they are often the largest lobby in the state, they are very, very powerful."
It is interesting that teachers' union dues are far higher than post office union dues. This is according to a teacher I know who was once a postal worker.
I also once ran the numbers and realized that teacher pay is not "crap" but also not cushy. I didn't, however, run the numbers as extensively as you. One question, though. You put down 280 x 7. Why? Do people really get payed for a 1-hour lunch break? I really don't know the answer to that question. The only time I ever got an hour for lunch, I was working construction (unpaid lunch) or sacking groceries (unpaid lunch).
I get sick days and don't have to pay the substitute. I get one personal leave day on which I don't pay the sub. I even get a free sub if my son is sick and I have to stay home with him.
However, in the district where I teach, homes cost so much that you can teach 8 years before you can even get close to buying a home. All of the teachers I know who are sole breadwinners are either a) a principal, b)administrative personnel on a full-year contract, or c) living in subsidized housing (either subsidized by their parents or by the government).
It seems that many of Jesus' disciples or would-be disciples expected him to overthrow Roman rule and all sorts of things like that. But he made it clear that his kingdom was "not of this world." I have wondered about that, and I think that must be it. I think if He had spent time making political waves, the Romans would have made it very hard to get work done.
There are at least a dozen arguements to explain this away without violating two ideas - 1) God is omnibenevolent and 2) evil exists. Each of those arguements violate some principle of logical reasoning.
As a schoolteacher, I like to think of myself as benevolent. I teach my students to behave themselves, yet I want them to behave themselves on their own. I feel that their good behavior is not worth very much when I have their good behavior only while I am looming over them. Someday, they will be on their own, and their next teacher might not loom. They need to exercise their free will from time to time.
Likewise, my parents (good people, I think) taught me to be a good driver, yet they didn't follow me everywhere. Thus, I got speeding tickets. Does my speeding mean my parents failed to teach me, or better yet that they were not benevolent?
I am not a logic expert, so I might be missing something. I guess I just don't understand why the example you gave means what you seem to think it means. I just reread your post, and think I might misunderstand you.
There have been about 3,700 terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 perpetrated by Muslims.
I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think they are evil, but it IS an interesting statistic. I am not blind, either, to wrongs committed by Christians or atheists.
I think he may have a good point. Let's say that children are born with a blank slate, and parents are the ones responsible for filling their heads with nonsense. There is some merit to that idea, though I don't think it's completely true.
Look at his signature. He believes that there is some objective morality. Something so universal that someone who violates it is not worthy of any esteem whatsoever.
If we are born atheists, why are we not born amoral as well? Perhaps the parents (and society) drum into our heads from birth that if we don't behave "morally" we are flawed somehow, or maybe sick.
So if it's okay for someone to believe that there is no God, why is it not okay for someone to believe that mass murder is good and love is bad?
I am not suggesting that mass murder is good, nor that love is bad.
Gang interviews, huh? That sounds interesting, and I wonder how that would go in my field (education). I've heard of the opposite (one applicant and 150 interviewers). Here's a question, though: How do you make sure that you don't pick the guy who's the most outgoing? Maybe the one you really need is the quiet guy in the back who is just slower in raising his hand.
I was referring to the upsurge in food sanitation over the last several hundred years. However, the significant progress that has been made in the last like 75 years or so has also been during 75 years of unprecedented technological advances that make food sanitization much easier and within the reach of more and more of our population. Also let's take in to account that people in this country have become more and more wealthy and desirous of having sanitary food. Also, our standards of sanitization have steadily increased along with our demand for cleaner food. You will never convince me that a greater demand for clean food has not driven a market for clean food. Shoot, the formation of the law to which you referred is a sign of our demand for clean food.
All that said, I would definitely support some sort of regulation that would require corporations to be honest about their labeling. Oh, wait. There have always been laws to punish fraud.
You keep presenting the illusions that we would have no choice, and that regulations are preventing people from eating food that maybe they shouldn't. This is nonsense. I have eaten cat. I have been served stew with cat meat in it. The family that fed me this stew (bless their hearts, they were very generous, and it was very tasty) gave it to me because they thought I would enjoy it. They had eaten it before, and thought it was worthy to feed to guests. This family owned a TV and a car. I am here to tell you that for the price of a TV, car, electricity, and gasoline, you can purchase a whole lot of top-quality beef. They chose otherwise. These people were poor. They did what they felt they had to do. Perhaps $1.59/lb. for a pot roast on sale at Von's was too much for them. They are alive, and so am I. Anyway, more to the point, if all the stores in town served bad meat, I would stop eating it until someone figured out that they could sell me meat that was clean.
As for computers, consider this: My parents and my wife's parents own Dells and a Gateway. Why? because that's all they need. They have other options open to them, like taking my castoff, or one from my wife's brother. We would hook them up for very cheap. They are both in a position where they could purchase kickin' Alienware laptops. They made a choice. So basically, they get what they want. They have more than they need as it is.
I agree that corporations have the bottom line as their only mandate. But consider this: In my hometown, there are only 5 places to gas up your car. Yes, 5. These stations used to get together and fix their prices, until one guy looked at it and said, "That's dishonest!" and he lowered his price to what was fair. Guess who got the most business? Also, consider Enron. They were short-sighted and stupid. Had they been honest, they would still be making money now, wouldn't they? While this small-town example may not happen everywhere, it is a far cry from "absolutely no reason" like you were saying. Customer loyalty is a hot commodity, as many companies are discovering.
Finally, I think what really bothers me about this whole "no choice" thing is the idea that people are that lacking in creativity. People find a way out of their problems, at least they do in countries like the U.S. of A. where they are free to try out solutions. Some people eat cat or save their money to buy food they approve of. Some people make do with less computer than they might like, while others buy Dell or Compaq, while still others build their own and use free alternatives to Windows or the Mac OS.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. But I have a lot more fun misspelling in Spanish. I don't know why, but I think that says something bad about me.
Biba México!
I don't remember preaching to you. This thing started off with me trying to explain why a benevolent God would allow His children to suffer the consequences of their own actions. Then it turned into a discussion of why a benevolent God would allow His children to suffer the consequences of others' actions. That's something I can't explain all the way. I understand some of it, but not all of it. If I was preaching at all, it was to encourage you to read about a subject in which you had expressed interest.
My inability to fully understand an extremely complex issue should not stop me from explaining what I DO understand, should it?
So we get back to it: I know that God lives, but I don't understand everything.
Thank you.
Well, if all you wanted to do is make me consider a remote possibility to rethink the world around me, you needn't have bothered. I did that 10 years ago. I also did it 4 years ago. I also did it 2 years ago. The world has a way of blindsiding us if we are not careful.
I know that God lives, and that he loves his children. Nevertheless, I do not know everything.
I imagine that your post was not intended to understand why it is God would allow such a terrible, terrible thing to happen, but rather to point me out as a dummy for believing that God could exist and be benevolent when such things clearly do happen. Well, I don't know, but like I said, don't waste time with primitive questioning. If you want the answer, look it up. I've never read the book, but I've heard it does a good job. If it doesn't help, send me a message. Maybe I can steer you in a better direction.
You should try Mexican hot cocoa. Try Ibarra. It should be in the foreign foods aisle at your grocery store. You know, by the Mexican soda pop and stuff.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time, but Congress has seen fit to extend the copyright limits indefinitely. So what's the limit? That's my take on it. But the courts seem to agree with Congress.
I should probably look it up, but I won't right now.
That doesn't really stop us. Look at copyright law and gun control laws. Clearly unconstitutional, yet still legal.
Note: I don't like it either, but what does it take to make something legal? Also note that, as someone said earlier, legal != ethical.
It also just occured to me that congress and the president and the courts all looking the other way doesn't make it legal, either. Is this what happened here, or was there some sort of officialness about it?
Living a life in which our actions have no consequences would certainly be a living hell. Living a life in which we escape the negative consequences of our actions, right up until they all fall on us would be a living hell. I think you and I are talking about different things here.
I was not attempting to argue the existence of God, or why my religion was superior to the others, or anything like that. I was just saying that for a loving, benevolent God to let us experience the consequences of our actions would be quite reasonable and, well, benevolent.
As for the other questions you asked, they are really good questions. I personally think that most people, deep down, don't want to know the answer, because they would not be willing to do what it takes to know, or to follow the Truth once they find it. It really is more comfortable to stay where we are.
As for fairness, I don't pretend to know God's plan for the Iranians and others who don't believe in Christ, and who will probably never get the chance. But, who says they will never get the chance? But I don't know if I would have found Christ in the middle of Indonesia.
As for how I know and all that stuff, I don't think we'd get anywhere with that.
The mural proves that these stories of creation and kings--and the elaborate writing and art to tell them--were well-established more than 2,000 years ago, centuries earlier than previously believed.
That's the best I could come up with. It makes it sound like there's writing to back up the art. Still, as I reread your posts, it makes me wonder the same thing: How do they really know?
Especially when you consider that there is so much we don't know, how certain can they be?
P.S.: If you want the Chicago article, I still have page 1 open in my browser and can copy it to you, but I don't imagine either of us really cares enough to take the trouble.
It says that there are words there, some of which the scholars can read.
Welcome to Bad Bros. Bait & Switch store! What can I do for you?
Here is another way: If I speed my whole life, my life will BECOME a living hell, because no one will want to drive with me, my car insurance will go up and up, and I will spend way too much money on gasoline, as well as repair or replacement when I get into high speed accidents. Then there's the loss of life or privilege associated with continued bad driving. I of course choose my life. Would my parents really be very benevolent if they enabled my stupid behavior indefinitely?
How unreasonable is it to assume that a benevolent, loving parent would allow us to taste the consequences of our choices. My parents honored my decisions, even when I had to live with their consequences.
This is probably useless. I won't think you're some kind of wuss or something if you don't respond. It may have been a mistake for me to write this much.
"After the post office, schools are the most unionized activity in America. [Teachers unions] collect a lot of money in dues, they are often the largest lobby in the state, they are very, very powerful."
It is interesting that teachers' union dues are far higher than post office union dues. This is according to a teacher I know who was once a postal worker.
I get sick days and don't have to pay the substitute. I get one personal leave day on which I don't pay the sub. I even get a free sub if my son is sick and I have to stay home with him.
However, in the district where I teach, homes cost so much that you can teach 8 years before you can even get close to buying a home. All of the teachers I know who are sole breadwinners are either a) a principal, b)administrative personnel on a full-year contract, or c) living in subsidized housing (either subsidized by their parents or by the government).
This is something I'm still working on.
Actually, all of the Kindergarten teachers I have met are very kind and don't insult people. They are the perfect example of politeness.
As a schoolteacher, I like to think of myself as benevolent. I teach my students to behave themselves, yet I want them to behave themselves on their own. I feel that their good behavior is not worth very much when I have their good behavior only while I am looming over them. Someday, they will be on their own, and their next teacher might not loom. They need to exercise their free will from time to time.
Likewise, my parents (good people, I think) taught me to be a good driver, yet they didn't follow me everywhere. Thus, I got speeding tickets. Does my speeding mean my parents failed to teach me, or better yet that they were not benevolent?
I am not a logic expert, so I might be missing something. I guess I just don't understand why the example you gave means what you seem to think it means. I just reread your post, and think I might misunderstand you.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
There have been about 3,700 terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 perpetrated by Muslims.
I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think they are evil, but it IS an interesting statistic. I am not blind, either, to wrongs committed by Christians or atheists.
Look at his signature. He believes that there is some objective morality. Something so universal that someone who violates it is not worthy of any esteem whatsoever.
If we are born atheists, why are we not born amoral as well? Perhaps the parents (and society) drum into our heads from birth that if we don't behave "morally" we are flawed somehow, or maybe sick.
So if it's okay for someone to believe that there is no God, why is it not okay for someone to believe that mass murder is good and love is bad?
I am not suggesting that mass murder is good, nor that love is bad.
Gang interviews, huh? That sounds interesting, and I wonder how that would go in my field (education). I've heard of the opposite (one applicant and 150 interviewers). Here's a question, though: How do you make sure that you don't pick the guy who's the most outgoing? Maybe the one you really need is the quiet guy in the back who is just slower in raising his hand.
All that said, I would definitely support some sort of regulation that would require corporations to be honest about their labeling. Oh, wait. There have always been laws to punish fraud.
You keep presenting the illusions that we would have no choice, and that regulations are preventing people from eating food that maybe they shouldn't. This is nonsense. I have eaten cat. I have been served stew with cat meat in it. The family that fed me this stew (bless their hearts, they were very generous, and it was very tasty) gave it to me because they thought I would enjoy it. They had eaten it before, and thought it was worthy to feed to guests. This family owned a TV and a car. I am here to tell you that for the price of a TV, car, electricity, and gasoline, you can purchase a whole lot of top-quality beef. They chose otherwise. These people were poor. They did what they felt they had to do. Perhaps $1.59/lb. for a pot roast on sale at Von's was too much for them. They are alive, and so am I. Anyway, more to the point, if all the stores in town served bad meat, I would stop eating it until someone figured out that they could sell me meat that was clean.
As for computers, consider this: My parents and my wife's parents own Dells and a Gateway. Why? because that's all they need. They have other options open to them, like taking my castoff, or one from my wife's brother. We would hook them up for very cheap. They are both in a position where they could purchase kickin' Alienware laptops. They made a choice. So basically, they get what they want. They have more than they need as it is.
I agree that corporations have the bottom line as their only mandate. But consider this: In my hometown, there are only 5 places to gas up your car. Yes, 5. These stations used to get together and fix their prices, until one guy looked at it and said, "That's dishonest!" and he lowered his price to what was fair. Guess who got the most business? Also, consider Enron. They were short-sighted and stupid. Had they been honest, they would still be making money now, wouldn't they? While this small-town example may not happen everywhere, it is a far cry from "absolutely no reason" like you were saying. Customer loyalty is a hot commodity, as many companies are discovering.
Finally, I think what really bothers me about this whole "no choice" thing is the idea that people are that lacking in creativity. People find a way out of their problems, at least they do in countries like the U.S. of A. where they are free to try out solutions. Some people eat cat or save their money to buy food they approve of. Some people make do with less computer than they might like, while others buy Dell or Compaq, while still others build their own and use free alternatives to Windows or the Mac OS.