Debates
02 Jul 04
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by fjordWell, victimization of others would, and conversion of others might, present a problem (conversion may subjectively benefit some new converts). My modest point is that, if one is an articulate skeptic, and has the potential to successfully challenge another person's false but firmly held ideology, then one may need to weigh up the badness, to that person, of depriving them of their ideology, against the badness, to others, of letting them preserve their ideology.
So what do you suggest as a solution? To accept deception?
I think that would be alright as long as the deception does not effect others. But what if it does? Especially where it is often part of the deceptive doctrine that others should be victimized or should be converted to the deception?
fjord
Aiden
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole"Is truth a sovereign value?"
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Suppose that the truth about reality is, at least for some people, incorrigibly bleak, but that endorsing a particular system of beliefs makes their existence meaningful or bearable. (No marks for guessing I have religion in mind.) Would someone who knows better--perhaps a dis ...[text shortened]... ient knowing the real truth.
Could religion be the ultimately psychological placebo?
Aiden
Absolutely, even fiction merely demonstrates it's power further.
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Possibly never, but then again, maybe always.
However I dont understand why this thread has a completely different question in the initial post than in it's subject line.
MÅ¥HÅRM
05 Jul 04
One could probably make some strong legal arguments when the belief system in question is one that advocates for only prayer to be administered, no medical procedures. I personally grew up knowing a family in which the adult son was retarded. As a child, he had an extreme fever, and his parents prayed over him, but did not take him to the hospital. The brain damage he suffered was unfortunately permanent.
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by shavixmir
I can think of one very good reason for trying to pop the religious bubble.
Religious people believe in an after life. This entails that they are willing to accept their life, however miserable it is, because they have a promise of a better time when they're dead.
Now. To bring about social change on a grander scale, you need to motivate people now. ...[text shortened]... t because people will accept a lot more abuse on a religious ticket. Dragging me down with them.
Shavix: "Religious people believe in an after life. This entails that they are willing to accept their life, however miserable it is, because they have a promise of a better time when they're dead."
Where do we start a discussion if you, shavix, believe such rubbish ?
It is an image non-religious people have to bash religious people. Please investigate your own prejudices.
Shavix: " The more people passated by religion, the less people driving for social change now."
Same old rubbish. You are equating conservative people with religious people and social progressive people with secular people. Get over it !
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: "If it's OK with you I like the exchange of ideas."
Oiy vey! Frankly I think I gave an interpretation of the passage that is rarely if ever heard. If it's OK with you I like the exchange of ideas. If that's "the Gospel of Kirk" , so be it. In terms of making the tent bigger, I am simply doing exactly that in the spirit of Jesus' life and teachings, if that is OK. If not, so be it.
I have no fa ...[text shortened]... did.
So, to answer your question as to what I am doing, that is exactly what I am doing.
In case of the Rich young ruler you gave the interpretation that Jesus was "fed up" with people who want to be perfect. I wanted to discuss this issue and I gave you my thoughts on your stance based on the text and the context of the story ....... you simply chose to disappear for a while hoping "it" would pass .....
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by fjord
So what do you suggest as a solution? To accept deception?
I think that would be alright as long as the deception does not effect others. But what if it does? Especially where it is often part of the deceptive doctrine that others should be victimized or should be converted to the deception?
fjord
You are constantly assuming in your writings that the other has the deceptions and you in YOUR thinking don't have any. That, Fjord, is Deception Numero Uno on your part. Let's take a look:
In our days a lot of people (in Europe ?) from left to right, from high to low have converted to liberalism after the political and economical
defeat of Socialism/Communism, the fall of the Sowjet Empire, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall. How many people should be converted to that victorious doctrine, liberalism, and how many victims do you think the ruling interpretation of this doctrine has brought and will bring to the world, especially the victims of hunger and economic, ideological and military war in the third world ? There is a lot of resistance towards this ideology and its accompanying and supporting sub-ideologies, the bio-ethics for instance we have been discussing. Many people however fail to identify this resistance as a resistance against the ruling interpretation of liberalism.
You are too much focused on religious systems as being deceptive, understandable since september 11th, but not very advisable if you want to understand the deeper (philosophical ?) meanings of what is going on in the world.
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by Paul Dirac
One could probably make some strong legal arguments when the belief system in question is one that advocates for only prayer to be administered, no medical procedures. I personally grew up knowing a family in which the adult son was retarded. As a child, he had an extreme fever, and his parents prayed over him, but did not take him to the hospital. The brain damage he suffered was unfortunately permanent.
These instances to which you are referring are indeed very sad. In my view there are a lot of Christians who interprete the teachings of Christ in a way that is devestating, unbelievable, unacceptable and contrary to the Biblical Spirit, who is the Holy Spirit.
I have realised that such groups or sekts are very frequent, too frequent if you ask me, in the United States. I can understand the abomination towards their teachings and activities. The teachings of these sects, who call themselves churches, are in my view grotesque disfigurations of Christ's teachings.
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn another post today you have put words in my mouth I never wrote. You apologized and now you do it again
You are constantly assuming in your writings that the other has the deceptions and you in YOUR thinking don't have any. That, Fjord, is Deception Numero Uno on your part. Let's take a look:
In our days a lot of people (in Europe ?) from left to right, from high to low have converted to liberalism after the political and economical
defeat of Sociali ...[text shortened]... u want to understand the deeper (philosophical ?) meanings of what is going on in the world.
1. I didn't say that I cannot deceive myself. Of course, I hope I don't. But if so, I would like it if someone will wake me up. (but not by a fundamentalist please 😞 )
2. I didn't tell you that I am a liberal. That was you who labeled me so. Next time when you call me a marsian, you are telling me how bad marsians are?
3. I was talking about utopian systems in general. Nowhere I confined it to religious systems. Neither did Aiden, I guess.
fjord
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by Paul DiracReminds me of an aphorism by Thomas Szatz (misspelling?):
One could probably make some strong legal arguments when the belief system in question is one that advocates for only prayer to be administered, no medical procedures. I personally grew up knowing a family in which the adult son was retarded. As a child, he had an extreme fever, and his parents prayed over him, but did not take him to the hospital. The brain damage he suffered was unfortunately permanent.
"If you talk to God, you're religious; if He talks to you, you're schizophrenic!"
05 Jul 04
2 edits
Originally posted by fjordFjord: " I didn't say that I cannot deceive myself. Of course, I hope I don't."
In another post today you have put words in my mouth I never wrote. You apologized and now you do it again
1. I didn't say that I cannot deceive myself. Of course, I hope I don't. But if so, I would like it if someone will wake me up. (b ...[text shortened]... ined it to religious systems. Neither did Aiden, I guess.
fjord
--I wasn't referring to a purely psychological phenomenom, concerning your character, but an implicite assumption in your political and philosophical reasoning.
Fjord: "But if so, I would like it if someone will wake me up. (but not by a fundamentalist please 😞 ) "
--Are you assuming I am a fundamentalist ? I am not. You can read all of my posts and you can establish this for yourself. It is too easy to label your opponent as such without investigating whether your opponent advocates structural killing as a solution to human problems. Another criterion is whether your opponent bases his ideas and theories on a literal interpretation of his sources, whether they be religious or secular.
Fjord: " I didn't tell you that I am a liberal."
--You told me you used to vote social liberal (D'66) and occasionally the Dutch Green Party.
In case you are something different please tell me. It will take away a lot of unnecessary confusion.
Fjord: "3. I was talking about utopian systems in general. Nowhere I confined it to religious systems."
--If so, we are on the right track !
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo Ivanhoe, I am not a liberal and I don't vote D66. You guessed once that I would vote D66.I answered you that I had a weak spot for D66. But it is not my party.
Fjord: " I didn't say that I cannot deceive myself. Of course, I hope I don't."
--I wasn't referring to a purely psychological phenomenom, concerning your character, but an implicite assumption in your political and philosophical reasoning.
Fjord: "But if so, I would like it if someone will wake me up. (but not by a fundamentalist please 😞 ) " ...[text shortened]... general. Nowhere I confined it to religious systems."
--If so, we are on the right track !
This was what you posted, and also my answer.
May, 16th 2004
Ivanhoe
I've been thinking about which party you would be voting for in Dutch elections. Can I have a go ?
I was thinking of D'66 ..... or maybe ...... no I go for D'66 ...
Am I correct ? "
Fjord:
"Most of the time I vote Green-Left, but sometimes I find them too soft and stay home"
(I wrote it in dutch, because voting is secret 😀 )
But I understand your confusion. I like the word liberal; but not the liberals!
Now, I am wondering what you thought when you wrote "maybe......."
fjord
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by fjord
No Ivanhoe, I am not a liberal and I don't vote D66. You guessed once that I would vote D66.I answered you that I had a weak spot for D66. But it is not my party.
This was what you posted, and also my answer.
May, 16th 2004
Ivanhoe
[b]I've been thinking about which party you would be voting for in Dutch elections. Can I have a go ?
I was thinki ...[text shortened]... the liberals!
Now, I am wondering what you thought when you wrote "maybe......."
fjord
You also stated that you have a soft spot for Hans van Mierlo (D'66). You admired him.
But maybe you can clear up this mess and tell us what your convictions are ? secular and religious ...
So we can debate with open vizor.
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou also stated that you have a soft spot for Hans van Mierlo (D'66). You admired him.
You also stated that you have a soft spot for Hans van Mierlo (D'66). You admired him.
But maybe you can clear up this mess and tell us what your convictions are ? secular and religious ...
So we can debate with open vizor.
No, I did not admire him. I liked and respected him as a person when he started his own political party in 1966: D(emocrats)66. I was at that time involved in the PSP (Pacifistic Socialistic Party).
But maybe you can clear up this mess and tell us what your convictions are ? secular and religious ...
You give me a full job by removing all the mess you put in front of my door. Read my posts unbiased and the mess will hopefully evaporate.
So we can debate with open vizor.
Anytime, Ivanhoe. I have no secret agenda. But let us try to stick to the subjects of the threads. This is not a forum of us two.
fjord
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by fjord
[b]You also stated that you have a soft spot for Hans van Mierlo (D'66). You admired him.
No, I did not admire him. I liked and respected him as a person when he started his own political party in 1966: D(emocrats)66. I was at that time involved in the PSP (Pacifistic Socialistic Party).
But maybe you can clear up this mess and tell us what you ...[text shortened]... ut let us try to stick to the subjects of the threads. This is not a forum of us two.
fjord
All right, you refuse to tell us what religious and secular convictions you hold. I do not call that debating with an open vizor or open mind.
I myself used to vote for the Pacifist Socialist Party.
I still hold many of those ideas. They are rooted in Christ's teachings. What I didn't like (eventually) about the PSP was the fact they were always telling the ones in power to clean up the s**t. After they indeed had done so they criticised them telling them they smelled like s**t. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't ....... They, the PSP, were not prepared to take any political responsability for anything at all. That's a bit too easy isn't it. Anyway the whole party was blown up by Andrée van Es in order to establish the Dutch Greens ...
06 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn the eastern United States there is an ancient (even by geological standards) mountain range that runs northeast-southwest, known as the Appalachians. The region was settled by people who tended to cluster into small “hollows” in the hills (or “hollers“ as the locals would say), where they lived by farming, or later by coal mining. Up until fairly recent times they were quite isolated, and in many cases they were also quite poor. They did tend to take their Bible seriously. I once read a book--can’t remember the title--about a church in those parts back in the mid-1900s which practiced “snake handling” in their services. A man would stand at the front of the small church and take a poisonous snake out of a cage and hold it, showing the congregation that he did not fear it. They were inspired to do this by Mark 16:17, which says, “They shall take up serpents… and it shall not hurt them.”
I have realised that such groups or sekts are very frequent, too frequent if you ask me, in the United States.
I just found a website which says a bit about this particular practice: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html