Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[SB_UK]

-> Arthur

For some reason your reference to 'Roman Catholicism and the ten commandments' leads me to believe that you're referencing a crucial role for these two systems in setting up the various national legal systems which we're forced to endure.

The idea of proper lawful has no association with legal -

are you trying to suggest that the rule of law (which destroys good society) gained prominence post combination of ten commandments alongside the Roman Catholic Institution?

If so -
- maybe so -

... ... however ... ...

- my original point (from this thread)
..........that it's of no real benefit in pointing the finger of blame at Roman Catholicism (for the current global political, economic and legal crisis)
....................(other than
..............................(at most)
....................in passing)
rests -

- we need to work up a solution and not dwell on who's to blame?

The solution

one world government
one simple legal system for the world
one one~world currency

with all people are guaranteed the same wage from birth to death.

~*~

It might be interesting to consider how the law became so powerful
- from a historical perspective -
--- --- however --- ---
it's essential that we correct society for the flaws which parochial political, economic and legal systems wreak on what is now a one~world global system.

[austintorn@aol.com]

**Acerbity and sarcasm overt rudeness and gratuitous dismissiveness is not really my thing,

Anyone can see that an entire consensus of active ToeQuestors responding here have identified and questioned your consistent sarcasm. Just read back through the posts to see what is 'your thing' that pervaded the thread over the weeks. Compare to other, normal, threads on TQ. No need to ask others or question; they already saturated the thread with such comments, as I noted.

Nice try to dance all around it.

For me, so long to this thread once again, in which members are dressed down and raked over the coals. It is but a dust cloud.

Yes, and the award is yours; I meant it.

[SB_UK]

for balance -
it should be stated that the legal systems* served a very important purpose in our development.

served*

The Tree of Knowledge
... ... of good and evil*

~*~

legal systems*
served*
evil*

give me all your money!

[SB_UK]

Have just read your last post -

I think I've made a mistake -
(but am not sure)

I think you're suggesting that realising morality has been the greatest driving force on mankind and that the tenets of Christianity and the ten commandments have been the greatest contributors towards this end.

If this is the case, then
'yes'
and
'maybe' -
- though, once again -
there isn't anything to gain from adopting this standpoint -

Christianity was a particularly ubiquitous moral code -
which when practised properly -
as with other moral codes -

helped us to become better.

Why not simply shift the focus onto morality ?
and then move on.

No good (no matter how true) can come from singling out specific religions -
Why?
because there's something {special,peculiar,different} about religion
(more specifically
- the nature of faith) -

something {special,peculiar,different}

- which makes it very difficult *indeed* to mention any religion in any context which may be understood to denigrate others

(others who do not share one's particular hue of faith).

[of course the same principle applies to the others too]

My question'd be -
if your football team has just won a match -
would it be appropriate to only pay the guy who happened upon the winning goal?

Team work -
where all of the various moral codes which have been born to man 'd be the best and most magnanimous approach here

- most magnanimous approach to be expected - especially and particularly so from the goal-scoring striker -

particularly so from the goal-scoring striker
- in view of the likelihood
(which all realise)

- in view of the overwhelming likelihood of the striker's name being the one (of the eleven equal contributors)

- being the one which most likely shall

- being the one which most likely will

- being the one which history remembers.

[SB_UK]

ref:
those who knock God in poor faith.

~paraphrase~

http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-3.htm
2 Peter 3:3

First of all you must understand this: In the last days mockers will come and, following their own desires, will ridicule us.

http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-13.htm
2 Peter 3:13

But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

I'm not too sure that one need worry about those who knock God for fair reasons or foul -

fairly sure that {?} has it all under control.

~*~

fairly sure

~actually~ know

~*~

... ... ... and datsa' ToE.

[SB_UK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
'... that when the 'baddies' who pose as kings begin devouring men who appear righteous
and
feed[ing] on human beings, Kalki [will appear] ... ... '

2 Peter 3:13
But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

Action : Reaction
Evil : Good

Destruction breeds Creation -
where apathy is the real killer.

~*~

Richard Dawkins (and other dissenters) are to be thanked for helping to crystallize a unification in beliefs -
one God (or ...?... as ...?... likes to be known) of multiple valid metaphors.

~*~

Religion, science, philosophy, math -
need be corrected for man

where

[arthur]

Have just read your last post -

I think I've made a mistake -
(but am not sure)

I think you're suggesting that realising morality has been the greatest driving force on mankind and that the tenets of Christianity and the ten commandments have been the greatest contributors towards this end.

If this is the case, then
'yes'
and
'maybe' -
- though, once again -
there isn't anything to gain from adopting this standpoint -

Christianity was a particularly ubiquitous moral code -
which when practised properly -
as with other moral codes -

helped us to become better.

Why not simply shift the focus onto morality ?
and then move on.

No good (no matter how true) can come from singling out specific religions -
Why?
because there's something {special,peculiar,different} about religion
(more specifically
- the nature of faith) -
- which makes it very difficult *indeed* to mention any religion in any context which may be understood to denigrate others

(others who do not share one's particular hue of faith).

[of course the same principle applies to the others too]

My question'd be -
if your football team has just won a match -
would it be appropriate to only pay the guy who happened upon the winning goal?

Team work -
where all of the various moral codes which have been born to man 'd be the best and most magnanimous approach here

- most magnanimous approach to be expected - especially and particularly so from the goal-scoring striker -

particularly so from the goal-scoring striker
- in view of the likelihood
(which all realise)

- in view of the overwhelming likelihood of the striker's name being the one (of the eleven equal contributors)

- being the one which most likely shall

- being the one which most likely will

- being the one which history remembers.

hi SB
No, I don't think that I am suggesting the above. Although it has felt rather like what I can imagine the beating of a dead horse might feel like I think that if you or any one were able to read, without the bias of emotion, what I have written, my original proposition i.e. the stupidity or the sadness of those who give lip service to their concern for human life and yet who try to destroy that which they themselves are dependent upon, could not possibly not have been recognised.

Sadly only one person of the very few involved in this thread seems to have recognised the horrors that will result (and which are currently resulting and which are increasing in scale as global economic pressures increase and which will imminently adversely affect all concerned including you and I ) from, for example, Dawkins, his ilk and their acolytes succeeding in exacerbating the efforts of those who do not just give lip service like the majority but those who claim to be Christian who willingly for no personal gain actually get their hands dirty with the shit and grime of the poor and disadvantaged world wide - as opposed to, only for example, the medical researcher/scientist who enjoys the intellectual challenges of research and who receives a salary which could feed and keep alive thousands of innocent starving babies and mothers and who does just give lip service to his pharmaceutical company employers claim that his research into, e.g. gene splicing, is for the benefit of mankind. Or, that the amount of human and global degradation resulting from the desire of an infinitesimal number of mostly pompous egocentric intellectuals who title themselves as 'scientist' who manage to persuade power hungry politicians and military enterprises that it is important enough for mankind to use up immeasurable quantities of global resources' and to produce immeasurable amounts of global pollution to, for example, build a particle accelerator, space research, cloning, blah, blah, in fact the madcap race to learn how to control and manipulate absolutely every aspect of all of life with no regards to the consequences is all for the benefit of mankind.
In the above, if blame is required, one does not blame the meek, the mild, the immature, but if one wants to attribute culpability for virtually all the woes of the world it would have to be MEN per se.
(for I have heard it said, that left to their own devices they couldn’t organise a brew-up in a pissoir)
SB, I don’t know if you or if any one has understood what all of this really means, I don't know if any one has even gleaned an inkling from it that the whole world is truly on the brink of utter economic, political and societal chaos which even a world war will not resolve. Other than by an act of God Sophisticated Civilised Societies as you or I have ever known them have almost reached their demise and its not science fiction and it will not be reversed by that thing called science.


But anyway all of that stuff is much too emotive and not really suitable for discussion in this "science" forum. SB all of my contentions can be judged by pragmatic empirical observations of one's self by ones self, (but, and here is the rub, it will require integrity otherwise any judgement will be worthless) AND, not by spurious supposed "scientific" anthropological theories, the logic of which can only be supported by other spurious and usually not understood theories, or by snippets from the web which are assumed by many to actually be science, including by some members in this forum. So I suggest that unless one is able to view this whole concept with out emotion just keep your fingers crossed and hope.


arthur….

[Mikal]

Hi Arthur...I understand and am aware of all things you have noted here, yet you tossed me to the perimeter of ignoring, said you would not discuss with me and basically suggested I should take my interest elsewhere.

I live daily in the seriousness of what you have noted. Are you absolutely sure that you are aware of those other than yourself who are also aware? I question that....

Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

* * * * S T O P * * * *

Arthur, your premise is fully answered here:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/intell...html#post90415

[leskey]

Hi, All.

Arthur, this is in reply to your previous post...I haven't caught up with the thread, so my apologies in advance if this is out of sync...

I have tried to but am unable to understand your post. If the presumptions that you mention are mine you will have to let me know what they are before I can make any comment on them.

You wrote, "the manmade componet of all religions"….. I suggest to you leskey that the phenomenon of a religion actually existing and the recognition of its existence can be nothing more than 'man made' (if by 'made' one mean 'constructed')

My perception of the current state of the world is that things are NOT going so well .

Western society is based on the rule of law, courtesy of the ancient Roman Empire. As the sovereignty of Rome began to deteriorate, Constantine, of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, astutely observed the growing popularity of Christianity as the next big thing, and decisively incorporated politics and religion in a classic example of, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

A subsequent power struggle resulted in the break-away of church from state; yet, each had been infused with the mores of the other. The bureaucratic political structure of ancient Rome was carried forward into the restructured Christianity of the Holy Roman Empire and,as a result, all Christian demoninations that have existed to the current day share their roots in this politicised version of Christianity. Reciprocally, the Western political system is loosely based upon and reflects the mores of Christianity (ie, upholding individual freedom through duty and obligation motivated by compassion). The original concept of Christianity did not incorporate any church structure or oganization as previously exhibited by Judaism, rather it was based upon responsibility to one, sovereign God which in turn would ensure freedom by empowering the individual. Instead, the dual hypocracies of flawed governments and perverted religious ideologies have continued to maintain the power base of an elite few, while unsustainably creating a burgeoning and increasingly irresponsible/pleasure-seeking middle class:

… iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses. (Juvenal, Satire X.77–81)

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

These systems are once again repeating history...perhaps culminating in much the same outcome as ancient Rome.

I hope this is clearer .