 |
|   | Subject: The Grocery Store.
Posted Aug 11, 2003 by Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71)
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3461
|
"so it would seem that even if he didn,t want to do it, he had to"
Depends on how he was predestined. Your point makes sence if we assume that he was being treated like a puyppet, doing things against his will.
Another interpretation, though, would be that he was predestinerd to want to. Somehow, he would be forced to want to, in which case he had to want to, and that's why he did it.
Ohhhh, Math, don,t tempt me.... I am weak  and I do love a little bit of wickedness!!!
Some Christians started a rumour about my pagan friend, they said that he and his wife had a wierd marriage ritual, they all danced naked up in the teide (our mountain here in tenerife, the highest point in spain), my friend, the pagan, told me of this rumour, which I had already heard from christian sources, but didn,t tell him so, I acted surprised, as if I didn,t know but as he pointed out, they are only pagans, not masochists, as it is pretty cold up in the teide in January!!!
Jane 
| | Subject: The Grocery Store.
Posted Aug 12, 2003 by MaW
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3463
|
Umm, Math... MaW is actually a big *boy*.
* coughs *
Hi MaW
You mean you're a PaW, and not a MaW? 
Oops! Apologies.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.
Hi MaW
I just knew you were a boy, Math had me momentarily confused there
Jane
| | Subject: New member!
Posted Aug 12, 2003 by Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71)
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3466
|
Name: Agnostic Primist
Chair title: Head of the Department of Prime Numbers
Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:
I don't believe I'll answer that one.
| | Subject: New member!
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Fathom
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3467
|
Welcome to the FFFF Agnostic Primist.
Have a 73 on me 
We'll tease your beliefs out of you shortly anyway.
F
| | Subject: New member!
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by MaW
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3468
|
I am neither 'a' PaW or 'a' MaW I am simply 'the' MaW.
So naaaaaaaaaa. The name causes confusion from time to time, but I've had it too long to change now!
"the" MaW,
It IS strange how a name can cause confusion, so that is another good reason why NOT to change it.
Loved your Future Prefect Saga, by the way, in your Space.
| | Subject: "I wanted to show how niceness evolves"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3470
|
Hi AG,
I have no religion, I'm agnostic. I quite like the concept of the "Brights" movement too, I think I got a link to the Brights from somewhere on this site.
Regards
| | Subject: "I wanted to show how niceness evolves"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3471
|
Oh, and welcome AG.
| | Subject: Foolish "commandments"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3472
|
Hello again Madent,
>Please don't give a knee-jerk, anti-christian reply.
As opposed to a knee-jerk christian reply eh? . I don't think I am capable of giving a knee-jerk response when it comes to religion. I was raised, gawd help me, a catholic  and it took me until my twenties to really start reading the bible and finding out about other religions. Every response I make about religion is based on careful study and a great deal of thought. It is impossible for me to have a knee-jerk response about religion, as it is based on what I have set out to learn, not what I was potty trained into believing.
>The article P-C posted seems to me to indicate that species that live in organised societies or groups will.......our group survival strategy is a fundamental aspect of religion.
I have already answered this in my response to FM (I think?) earlier.
>My point then was that fundamentally, Judaism is based on the ten commandments.
And my point, made rather clearly, was that these "commandments" are a joke (at best).
>who have done their utmost to step around the original fundamentals of the ten commandments.
Which seem to mostly be "don't piss me off because I say so".
>Now I'm not saying that the ten commandments were perfect
Or even in the same realm as perfect.
>but they weren't bad as a starting point.
In what way exactly? Details please.
>What is also missing is the implicit requirement that the tribe looks after it's own. Which should put paid to pretty much all of your criticism's Albaus.
I missed something obviously. How? Let's get this straight - some people reckon that a god of some description wrote these "commandments". I have already shown you, in some detail, how ridiculous they are. I can manage with a few moments thought a much more explicit set of rules which are a lot more "humane" than, apparently, a god could. Pretty poor kind of god then. Did you read my post? Feel free to contradict any of the points I made. If not, then it would save time if you could refrain from reiterating things which I have already shown to be groundless.
As an aside, it turns out that saying something is so doesn't make it so. You might like to give more details when you make this sort of comment.
>IMHO the two most important were 6 & 8, which basically come down to no violence or theft within the group.
It's always amusing to hear people talking in generalisations when they know the specifics would no hold water. If they are the commandments of a god then your opinion, humble or otherwise, would certainly hold no water as in fact the number one ranking commandment is all about feeding the big J's ego.
>Theft is fairly easy to define - taking something to which you have no right.
Doesn't this cover child abuse and rape,
No, it doesn't. Theft is theft, child abuse is child abuse, rape is rape. Fairly simple language, especially for a god one would have thought.
>or are you deliberately keeping the definition narrowed to that of nicking a loaf of bread?
No, apparently the god in question deliberately narrows the definition to that of stealing. The commandment reads Thou Shalt Not Steal. It doesn't say thou shalt not sexually abuse/molest. This is a god we're supposed to be talking about right? Yet he/she/it can't manage anything better than hoping that maybe some people might, if they are thinking about it and that way inclined, feel like including Thou Shalt not Rape under Thou Shalt Not Steal. Again it does seem, to say the least, odd that I can manage to be a lot clearer with so little thought than, apparently, Jehovah. Yet we are asked to believe this same godling managed to say quite clearly that we are not to worship other gods before it. So, that's important enough to mention specifically, but not rape.
As I said previously, Honour thy father and thy mother as they honoured you. A really simple caveat - and yet, somehow, this didn't occur to the big J  . Bet he's kicking himself now eh? 
>Your interpretation would seeks to maximise individual freedom at the expense of the group or another group member.
How? (see above, it turns out that.....).
Also, not to be pedantic, but it was not an interpretation, it was a refusal to acknowledge that such nonsensical and narrow rules have much merit.
>What is missing though is the explicit statement that this code does depend on the caveat, which is where Jesus came in.
You asked me to elaborate on the commandments. I did. Now, because you didn't like my answer and seem to have no solid response to my comments, you are attempting to drag in other parts of the bible to cover your argument. Here we go round the mulberry bush. I believe in the bible because I'm a....(insert religion of choice) and I am a.... (insert religion of choice) because the bible says I should be. Can anybody say "self fulfilling delusion?"
We should get one thing clear here, as far as I am concerned the bible is a story book and basing your argument on the bible means that your argument is worse than pointless to most of the rest of the world. I might as well argue that because Charlotte Bronte says it is so, it must be so. You might like to go to here (am I allowed to put this link in?) http://www.infidels.org/library/his...ert_ingersoll/bible_substitute.html
The essay on this page is entitled "What would you substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide?" by Robert Ingersoll and is well worth a read.
Oh and just as a btw: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love thy neighbour as thyself" was around before xianity existed in many religions. "Tzu-kung asked, 'Is there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one's life?' The Master said, 'It is perhaps the word "shu." Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Analects, 15.24. There are many more quotes of that nature if you choose to look for them, which have no origin in xianity.
I said this in a previous post. There are two rules which would work just fine for society - treat others as you wish to be treated (and we have already established this was not an idea born of xians) and Mind Your Own Business. Those two rules make the 10 "commandments" pointless - and I figured that out all by my mortal self.
>It is this constant trade off of individual welfare against group welfare that underpins religion and directly influences politics and economics.
It is the constant need for power and control coupled with fear of the unknown that underpins religion.
I have no problem answering your comments, but it would certainly be helpful if you could not simply ignore those points which you would rather not hear. It does get tiring repeating myself.
Regards
"I have no problem answering your comments, but it would certainly be helpful if you could not simply ignore those points which you would rather not hear. It does get tiring repeating myself."
This isn't a very excellent thing to say.
| | Subject: Foolish "commandments"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3474
|
Hi Blatherskite,
>This isn't a very excellent thing to say.
Maybe not, but it is justified. I have been forced to repeat things I said, and said in detail, because Madent just didn't appear to hear me, or chose not to. That's not very excellent either, I reckon.
It wasn't meant to be a dig (or at least not just a dig), it's a genuine complaint. It really is very tiring to have to repeat myself ad nauseum, and not because anything relevant has been added, simply because things which did not suit the reader have been totally ignored.
Believe me, I edited my post several times before I felt it passed muster....
Regards
 |  |
hi Blatherskite,
I agree with you about the last line in Albaus's posting, which was not only unnecessary but it also ended what was otherwise a very interesting and informative posting on a rather bad note. One of the things I admire so much about this thread is that people do take care to be excellent to each other - would that this were so on other threads I am on.
hi Albaus,
I have never got the feeling that either you or Matholwch are actually 'anti-christian' though I know that you have strong feelings against a lot of Christian teachings, specifically OT stuff.
I was brought up RC (yes, gawd help me!) and I honestly believe that this religion should have an R-rating at least - not to be shown to small children who cannot tell the difference between allegory and reality.
My own comparitive religion studies are not nearly as in-depth as yours obviously are, but I did a fair amount of reading on other religions and also myths, which I found quite fascinating. From that I developed my own god concept which is quite personal, it has nothing to do with religion, and seems to suit me just fine.
Anyhow, that's all. Just wanted to say hi as I have never spoken to you before, though I have read your postings with much interest. Now, *do* remember to mind your manners and 'do unto others . . .'
az
| | Subject: Foolish "commandments"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3476
|
Hi Azahar,
>I agree with you about the last line in Albaus's posting, which was not only unnecessary but it also ended what was otherwise a very interesting and informative posting on a rather bad note.
I refer you to my reply to Blatherskite. I think it was indeed necessary as it is rude to completely ignore salient points in a debate and to keep repeating points which have been dealt with previously. I think this is poor etiquette and shows an inability or refusal to think through the issues. As I said, it wasn't just a dig, it was a genuine complaint. Perhaps I could have been a little less biting - I do have a tendency to snap when irritated.
>I have never got the feeling that either you or Matholwch are actually 'anti-christian' though I know that you have strong feelings against a lot of Christian teachings, specifically OT stuff.
Can't speak for Matholwch but that sounds fair for me.
>I was brought up RC (yes, gawd help me!) and I honestly believe that this religion should have an R-rating at least - not to be shown to small children who cannot tell the difference between allegory and reality.
Couldn't agree more. I can remember one specific hymn I was taught at about the age of 5 which included lines like "By my sins I have deserved death and endless misery. Hell with all its pain and torments and for all eternity". Charming concepts to teach a little child. All christian religions eventually get there (unless there is one which I don't know of which refutes the appalling and sadistic notion of hell), but by far catholicism wears the biggest guilt badge of them all - in particular for deliberately terrorising little children.
>My own comparitive religion studies are not nearly as in-depth as yours obviously are
Maybe they are even more so, I'm no expert, I just like to read  .
>but I did a fair amount of reading on other religions and also myths, which I found quite fascinating. From that I developed my own god concept which is quite personal, it has nothing to do with religion, and seems to suit me just fine.
Well, good. I wander through life quite happily unencumbered by religion, looking, learning and enjoying. Our philosophies don't sound too far apart.
Regards
By the same token, I'm not sure what Madent "deserved" about my previous post to him, or how it was "knee-jerk, anti-Christian." It was based on fact.
But you'll notice it usually takes two to argue.
Still, I didn't get the impression Madent was ignoring you, just taking the conversation in a different direction. I also notice there were parts of Madent's posting that you chose not to address... does that mean you were ignoring those?
Methinks that if you take the emotion out of your current conversation, things will progress better. I believe your current disagreement is over something neither of you have been able to express directly so far.
| | Subject: Foolish "commandments"
Posted Aug 13, 2003 by Albaus
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3478
|
Hi Blatherskite
>But you'll notice it usually takes two to argue.
Well, this is how I debate. I didn't actually feel like I was arguing. Maybe it comes across that way, that's something I have to think about.
>Still, I didn't get the impression Madent was ignoring you
I had given a reality check on each individual "commandment", as requested. Nowhere did Madent address that. After my post which made it clear how ludicrous I felt these so-called rules were, he went on to say: "My point then was that fundamentally, Judaism is based on the ten commandments.......who have done their utmost to step around the original fundamentals of the ten commandments......Now I'm not saying that the ten commandments were perfect, but they weren't bad as a starting point.......
Yes, Madent was definitely ignoring what he/she did not wish to hear.
>I also notice there were parts of Madent's posting that you chose not to address...
Which points? I will be glad to address them if you point them out. I thought I had replied to everything salient.
>Methinks that if you take the emotion out of your current conversation, things will progress better.
It is difficult to be unemotional about something which strikes you as ridiculous - nor would I want to be. That does not, however, affect my reasoning or debating skills.
>I believe your current disagreement is over something neither of you have been able to express directly so far.
Which would be what? I believe I have expressed myself concisely, rationally and coherently. My current disagreement with Madent is his notion that the bible is a moral guide. Did you look at the link in my previous post to the Robert Ingersoll piece? It says it all, and much more eloquently than I could.
Regards
hi again Albaus,
>>I think it was indeed necessary as it is rude to completely ignore salient points in a debate and to keep repeating points which have been dealt with previously. I think this is poor etiquette and shows an inability or refusal to think through the issues.>>
Sorry, I disagree. It is never necessary to be rude. You might imagine someone else being rude to you by not replying in a way you had hoped for - but that is also not rude, just you feeling disappointed. Poor etiquette? Inability or refusal to think through issues? Okay, I am sure you would have some complaints to make about that if you felt them to be worthy of complaining about. But:
>>Perhaps I could have been a little less biting - I do have a tendency to snap when irritated.>>
That sounds like a good start. To at least realize that you do this. Good. So then, since you seem an intelligent person and someone endowed with a good sense of humour, you might also see that everything discussed on every single thread here on hootoo matters not at all in any real way.
We only make it as important as we want it to be.
But I still hold out for basic good manners and treating people with respect. Bit of a bugbear of mine, I'm afraid.
Don't worry - am not singling you out or saying you are specifially rude - not at all - it was just this one instance. And I also do this on the other threads I am on - I try to get people to treat each other 'excellently' - though more often than not I end up with loads of people telling me to go to h*ll and mind my own business.
Oh well!
Anyhow, none of us are 'right' about anything. We just have our opinions. Which we are sharing here.
az
"Well, this is how I debate. I didn't actually feel like I was arguing. Maybe it comes across that way, that's something I have to think about." - There are some pretty good guidelines to debating here: A1052146. I think a good general rule is when you start talking about the person, rather than the topic, it has become an argument.
I think Madent took on board your criticisms, and he took the argument in a different direction. My overly simplistic interpretation of this conversation, as it has developed so far, goes like this:
Madent: The 10 commandments were a pretty good basis for a moral code.
Albaus: They're a terrible basis for a moral code, and here are a bunch of reasons why.
Madent: Ok, maybe they're not so great for now, but for the time and culture in which they were introduced, they were a good start.
Albaus: They still suck.
A more appropriate response may have been to discuss the 10 commandments in the historical background in which they were introduced. Or a discussion of how we have evolved beyond them.
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
