28 Feb 04
Originally posted by pcaspianHuh? What has something Mel Gibson's father said got to do with my views on christianity? I thought it was pertinent to the conversation. 😕
Sometimes its truely difficult to be a Christian. HEHEHE. I think we share a common interest in the redwings rwingett , but your Christian hating is almost worst than your Avalanche hating. 😀
Even though the Redwings are the greatest hockey team, it's still only hockey. Baseball will be my sport even if the Tigers lose 162 games. 😵
28 Feb 04
6 edits
Originally posted by pradtfYou seem to agree with bbarr when he's stating. "Ivanhoe, again you fail to understand the most simple things .... " 😀
sure.
but, since i thought he had already done so on many occasions, i have taken the liberty of putting together a few of the things he written.
however, if this does not satisfy you, then of course you will need to ask him again.
...[text shortened]... capacity to suffer, and this occurs before they are full persons.
Well, let me try this way. If you replace the term "persons" through "human beings" you get a totally different picture. Bbarr would certainly not agree with the statements that are a result of this. We've discussed this at length
Therefore bbarr will NOT agree with the following statement:
.... it is morally wrong to kill mentally ill human beings (Christ, I can't believe I have to write this again; what is this, like the 10th time I've had to specify that according to my view killing a mentally ill human being is morally wrong?)
He will NOT agree !
----------------------------
Bbarr is confusing the issue. I understand his reasoning perfectly well.
All persons are human beings.
Not all human beings are persons according to bbarr.
"All human beings are created equal but some human beings are created more equal then other human beings."
Indeed he is stating it is morally wrong to kill persons, therefore it is morally wrong to kill handicapped persons. But that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about killing human beings. I do NOT make two classes of human beings: One class with Human rights and one without Human rights. This division in classes of course isn't a very beautiful thing to do. Again the lender of last resort is at hand. They change the (naming of )definitions. They change the term "Human Rights" to "Person Rights". Problem solved. Bbarr & friends assume that you can change reality by changing definitions.
If bbarr were to say for instance that the human person starts with conception then we would not have any problems whatsoever about abortion. It would be morally wrong to perform abortion in any stage of the pregnancy since it would entail killing a person. Bbarr does not agree with that because he chooses to establish the point that a human being becomes a person in a later stage or point in pregnancy. There are philosophers who claim that personhood, and as a consequense of that the right to life, starts with conception. This concept is not acceptable to the corporations in the bio-industrial complex. They would not be able to perform resarch on those human beings because they would be labelled as persons with rights. You cannot perform the same research on human beings holding rights as you can on human beings without rights.
Now it would be a case of word gymnastics to call the act of abortion during the period in pregnancy before a human being becomes a person a la bbarr something other than an abortion and after doing so(in fact changing a few definitions) claiming that the person in question (bbarr in this case) is NOT an advocate of abortion. I would be surprised if bbarr would try to do just that. The problem of vagueness of words and terms used in this discussion is such an annoying problem that we do not have to add our own vagueness to the existing confusion.
BBarr: "Freethought, as an ideology, isn't committed to any particular stance on euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc. As an ideology, all Freethought is committed to is the rejection of dogmatism and religious authority. There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker arguing that euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment are morally wrong."
Again, this is a theoretical approach. When I told him that I had never met a person who claimed to be a Freethinker and at the same time claimed to oppose abortion and euthanasia, he answered by giving me a site that belonged to a secular conservative opposing abortion and advised me to check how many people were on the memberlist. Of course I know that there are secular people who oppose abortion and euthanasia. You do not have to be religious to oppose the Culture of Death. What I was saying that I've never heard that these secular people were claiming to be Freethinkers and maybe, just maybe we can find some politically irrelevant group of people that present themselves as such, but then again what's the meaning of this ? Of course in that case bbarr will claim that my claim about Freethought being an existing ideology advocating abortion and euthanasia is false. Bbarr is often reasoning within the framework of theoretical definitions while I'm usually reasoning within the results of exploring reality, in particular political reality. He and pyrrho keep repeating the theoretical definition of Freethought . I understand what bbarr and Pyrrho are trying to say, and I hope that my opponents and all who read our posts also know what I'm trying to say. If you google on Freethought you stumble over a great number of sites. I never ran into one who is stating "We Freethinkers oppose abortion and euthanasia ". And again maybe you will find a site stating just that. But what is the meaning of that besides a theoretical one ?
In the case of accepting your opponents definitions there is a danger of being cought in the way your opponent sees reality. If you do so you almost automatically adapt your opponents views. Of course the problem arises that I don't want to be forced to use bbarr's definitions in my reasoning and he refuses to use mine. I do not object to his using his own definitions, but he keeps insisting that I use his. ( Again Ivanhoe, you fail to understand the most simple things ..... how many times do I have to explain ..... and other statements in the same category). As a philosopher he should know that making the definitions and concepts of the opponent your own you in fact surrender to his way of seeing things. In insisting ( maybe without really knowing) that it would be ok to do so, he is in fact forcing me to accept his ideas about reality. If I yield to this I will undoubtedly receive compliments. In fact it happened once or twice.
--------------------------------
It is morally wrong to kill handicapped persons (a la bbarr).
Yes that is what bbarr is saying.
But bbarr is NOT saying: " It is morally wrong to kill handicapped human beings who are not persons a la bbarr.
Bbarr is stating: "It is morally accepted to kill human beings who are not persons a la bbarr."
Now if you stop calling the killing of human beings who are not persons a la bbarr "euthanasia" (again changing a few definitions) but something else, then again it is a matter of word gymnastics if you call this person (in this case bbarr) an opponent of euthanasia. I doubt whether bbarr will choose to do just this .
BBarr: "Again, on my view it is MORALLY WRONG TO KILL MENTALLY ILL PERSONS."
You see. He uses the term "persons", NOT "human beings".
In his view it is NOT morally wrong to kill mentally ill or otherwise handicapped human beings who are no "persons" a la bbarr.
I hope I have presented bbarrs views in a factual way. I certainly tried.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoei acknowledge that you have tried and appreciate the effort.
I hope I have presented bbarrs views in a factual way. I certainly tried.
let's deal with things in sequence though. my purpose in quoting bbarr was
1) show that bbarr is only an advocate of abortion and euthanasia 'under certain conditions' - you have already accepted this
2) that bbarr "advocates for providing support and doing everything reasonable within our limited powers to preserve life" - and i asked you whether you could provide any evidence to show otherwise.
my intent was not to evaluate the correctness or incorrectness of bbarr's ideas. therefore, your substitution of 'human being' for 'person', though significant, does not really address the initial objective. i would be happy to look at the ramifications of this substitution with you, as soon as we finalize an agreement on point 2) - unless you have changed your mind about point 1) in which case we can go back to that again.
before we go on though, it is important we deal with my statement that bbarr does advocate for providing support and doing everything reasonable for the preservation of life.
btw, i am not agreeing or even thinking that you 'fail to understand the most simple things'. i know that this issue is of great importance to you (and, in fact to humanity) and i applaud your commitment to it. if you reflect for a moment, you will see that in a way bbarr also applauds the same - why else does he make the time to keep posting here? it really doesn't matter to him (or you) who gets in the final post. yet he repeatedly replies to you and with considerable thought and courtesy, i might add.
i think you fully do grasp what he has said. however, because the matter is so important, you do not accept the words at face value and keep looking for the agenda between the lines. though this is not always a bad idea, under present circumstances, let's deal with what is clearly visible.
so we need to establish a mutual acceptance of points 1) and 2) based on what has been provided on the forums. once that is done, we can proceed in whatever direction you wish.
in friendship,
prad
28 Feb 04
Ivanhoe,
I agree with Prad, that your courage in standing up for your convictions is admirable. For my part, it is true that I am hesitant to involve myself in forum debates, and I am sorry if that seems to you like a lack of support. But the truth is that I feel most debates in the forums go unpleasant and ad hominem way too quickly. Therefore I do my debating mostly in private, over games and with friends. Just like you, I am human and have trouble being nice some times in public debates. That's why I abstain from them.
28 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by huntingbearI can understand your reasons for keeping your discussions private and I respect them.The reason for me "to go public" has to do with my intention to communicate with other people the necessity of becoming more aware of the developments in a relative new branche of science called "bio-ethics" and the developments within what is called the" "Bio-Industrial Complex", which is growing very rapidly. These two entities could be called with a German word "Wahlverwandschaften", which means they have "chosen" each other just like two atoms of hydrogen have "chosen" one atom of oxygen to constitute the new substance "water".
Ivanhoe,
I agree with Prad, that your courage in standing up for your convictions is admirable. For my part, it is true that I am hesitant to involve myself in forum debates, and I am sorry if that seems to you like a lack of support ...[text shortened]... ice some times in public debates. That's why I abstain from them.
The outcome of these developments will affect us all in a way that is still underestimated by large parts of the public.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by pcaspianHmmm, sadly your 'christian mind' seems to be stopping you from understanding a joke. I have plenty of friends who are christian, and i 'tested' this joke on them. Some laughed, some didn't, none were offended. NONE WERE OFFENDED. Perhaps people should stick to knock knock jokes for evermore now? That would be entertaining.
Sadly you don't understand a Christian mind. When your boss comes to check up on you and you haven't been working, you might get a funny look or a call to his office. When Christ comes back, those that have not been saved will go to Hell.
Do you think its a comforting thought that close friends or family might suffer this fate ? Something to poke fun ...[text shortened]... chooses to further berate those that find him offensive, a 'polite' rebuke seems in order.
It's not a comforting thing to think that family and friends might suffer this fate, but then again, I don't believe anyone suffers this fate. I firmly believe that death is the end.
I point again to the lack of christian ideal in your own 'polite' rebuke to bbar. I found that offensive.
28 Feb 04
1 edit
Ivanhoe,
I certainly respect you desire to raise awareness and to stand up for Christ, and I have no problem with public debate itself. Because I am more comfortable and better behaved in one-on-one discussion, that's what I do, but I don't ask or expect you (or anyone else) to do the same. My only concern is that, when representing Christ (whether in public or private) we should do so with humility and gentleness (as per His instructions). Ironically, I now think I should have sent you a private message about this matter instead of posting in the forums. So I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to you: I'm sorry.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by huntingbear
Ivanhoe,
I certainly respect you desire to raise awareness and to stand up for Christ, and I have no problem with public debate itself. Because I am more comfortable and better behaved in one-on-one discussion, that's what I do, but I don't ask or expect you (or anyone else) to do the same. My only concern is that, when representing Christ (whether in ...[text shortened]... of posting in the forums. So I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to you: I'm sorry.
That's all right, Huntingbear. I do not object to you posting your advice and comment in public. I certainly do not want to present myself as an angel. I do have my faults and sometimes I get fed up with certain things that I have to deal with ("If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" thingy). Maybe it is a good thing to show people that I'm not morally superior to others because I am a Christian. I do make mistakes. The "only" difference between me and a secular person is that I repent and ask the Lord to forgive me. As a matter of fact I sometimes don't even feel like doing just that. Yes, I can be stubborn too ! In my view there is no such thing as moral superiority for a Christian in any way. Of course we Christians have to try and behave like one, of course. If some people want to see me as a role model for Christian behaviour, they've chosen the wrong one, I can assure you. The one and only rolemodel is and should be Jezus Christ Himself.
I've read Peter as you suggested and the advice he is giving is very valuable and worth while practising. Thanks Huntingbear.
.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery well put! I'm a much better man than I was four years ago, but that doesn't make me better than the next guy.
The "only" difference between me and a secular person is that I repent and ask the Lord to forgive me. As a matter of fact I sometimes don't even feel like doing just that. Yes, I can be stubborn too ! In my view there is no such thing as moral superiority for a Christian in any way. Of course we Christians have to try and behave like one, of course. If ...[text shortened]... e wrong one, I can assure you. The one and only rolemodel is and should be Jezus Christ Himself.
What happened to that late night thread? It's 3:30 AM here and the only reason I'm up is because my very first clan match is close to completion and I'm hoping we can wrap it up before I ... go ... to ... sleep ... 😴
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by huntingbear
Very well put! I'm a much better man than I was four years ago, but that doesn't make me better than the next guy.
What happened to that late night thread? It's 3:30 AM here and the only reason I'm up is because my very first clan match is close to completion and I'm hoping we can wrap it up before I ... go ... to ... sleep ... 😴
Good night Huntingbear, I wish you lots of honey, and not only in your dreams ....... 🙂
28 Feb 04
As to the movie... It was mis-titled, that's for sure. Can you imagine the money to be made had they just used a little imagination?
"Mel Gibson Presents --- Lethal Weapon Zero --- The original weapon and the original death. Now in surround sound and smell-o-vision!"
I promised awhile back in the forums not to comment on religion. Instead I just offer a philosophical observation. There is a mighty fine line between FAITH and LACK OF IMAGINATION.
The deeper issue put forth by kirksey is worth much consideration. I do not feel comfortable discussing why Jews tend to be hated and persecuted. That is mostly because I don't totally understand why they are so treated. The parts I THINK I have figured out are as follows:
1 - Their entire role in the opening of africa and asia to europe was that of the "middle man". They traded virtually anything for anything. This inevitably brought wealth. We even named a region of our globe after these "middle" men. The "Middle East" is not named that because of it's location. It was named for it's function. The main point is that when you are in the "Middle" and drive a hard bargain... those selling to you and purchasing from you have only one person to blame when hard times arrive. Who do you blame when starvation sets in from the natural cycle of economy? The guy you dealt with. The "Middle Man". The Jew.
2 - This one can be short and sweet. Jews are smarter than the rest of us. They pay the price for this. Not fair, but nobody likes the smart kid.
3 - Like all successful "tribes"... theirs being "Semites"... they hang together. There is a reason why we form tribes. For mutual protection and exclusivly advancing our children against the children of other tribes. We can no more deny this basic nature than we can learn to fly by flapping our arms. The difference is that we can gain an INTELLECTUAL understanding of our inate animal behavior and thereby learn not to give into it. The "disadvantage" that Jews have is that their tribe is extremely private. They are the "chosen" people. People who are left out of that... even if they don't believe it, will use it as a reason for hatred, given the opportunity.
Which brings us back to the Uproar over the "Passion Of The Christ".
I think it is a big stink over nothing. Let those who believe, enjoy the movie. Let all the rest of us just understand why it incites anger and hatred on the part of both parties and not participate in that sublimnal war.
28 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by garyminfordHehe, my Christian mind in no way hinders my ability to understand humour. Indeed my humour if anything hinders my Christian mind. I tend to make fun of just about everything, myself probably more than anything. Christ however I pay the respect He deserves.
Hmmm, sadly your 'christian mind' seems to be stopping you from understanding a joke. I have plenty of friends who are christian, and i 'tested' this joke on them. Some laughed, some didn't, none were offended. NONE WERE OFFENDED. ...[text shortened]... eal in your own 'polite' rebuke to bbar. I found that offensive.
I agree that you would not find anything offensive about making any form of joke about Christ or God, your lack of believe I suppose justifies it. The difference is that any jokes about Christ or God would clearly be seen by Christians. They're the one's you could offend. In much the same way I tend to refrain from making jokes about Mohammed when I think Muslems would read it. Keep in mind there are a vast array of people considering themselves christians. Some are sensitive about the topic , others less, and some really couldn't care less. Just because you dont offend one person, might not mean you won't affect someone else. I once made the mistake about making a generalised joke about someones mother. While some found it funny, a guy who's mother had actually fallen didn't. In my defense I probably was only 13, but learned that words can cause harm.
I am sorry you dont quite agree/see the concept of rebuking, even when used very moderately. Think of it being similar to me calling you an idiot. No big deal right ? However should I call your father an idiot , you'll probably won't find it too funny . No ?
I'm sure BBarr can handle being called a dumbarse. Especially since it was a play on the 'pig' headed comment . 😵 Phew, I Kill me.
29 Feb 04
6 edits
Originally posted by pradtfPradtf: " 1) show that bbarr is only an advocate of abortion and euthanasia 'under certain conditions' - you have already accepted this"
i acknowledge that you have tried and appreciate the effort.
let's deal with things in sequence though. my purpose in quoting bbarr was .......... proceed in whatever direction you wish.
in friendship,
prad
Of course I've accepted this. I've never assumed otherwise. If I state "bbarr advocates killing", everybody who even vaguely followed the discussions knows, I hope, that this means under certain conditions. The human beings in question have to be human beings without being persons a la bbar. If the human beings are persons a la bbarr they cannot be killed. Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm adding the words "a la bbarr" not for reasons of trying to be sarcastic or something, no I add these words because there are other views in philosophy who use other definitions of "personhood". I've asked bbarr whose ideas he was presenting here on RHP and his answer was: it's a mixture. So, that's why I refer to the definition bbarr is using as "person a la bbarr".
Pradtf: " 2) that bbarr "advocates for providing support and doing everything reasonable within our limited powers to preserve life" - and i asked you whether you could provide any evidence to show otherwise.
I'm surprised that you bring up this issue. I never claimed otherwise. Therefore I do not have to provide evidence for that claim.
Pradtf: " ... my statement that bbarr does advocate for providing support and doing everything reasonable for the preservation of life."
It is good to know that it is YOUR statement. Just to avoid any misunderstanding if I feel like confronting bbarr with that claim. It could cause a lot of unnecessary problems.
Pradtf: " .... yet he repeatedly replies to you and with considerable thought and courtesy, i might add."
Most of the time yes. What I'm objecting to is the attitude he sometimes is practicing in the debate. I've said it before. It causes me to protest against it. If I would let him continue to treat me as some stupid pupil who fails to understand it would not be in the interest of the debate and certainly not in my interest. I don't have to take this and I have a right to confront him with that and I have done so a couple of times. This is very difficult because it has nothing to do with the issues we are talking about. It has to do with him as a person. I can assure you that I'm being very patient with him too ! His formulations are sometimes such that they border on humiliation. If you look for those I'm sure you can find them. I've told him more than once that I'm not his pupil and that I want a debate between equals. Most of the time everything is all right, but all of a sudden his attitude is changing. I'm trying to find out when exactly this is happening, so I can handle it better. As I've stated before I'm not only interested in the subject of the debate but also in my opponent. My opponents have to realise that I'm not the only one who's making mistakes ....... I admit to making mistakes in dealing with the human aspect of debating. I have to learn how to handle my emotions and my attitudes. This goes for me and for my opponent. You should study bbarr's remarks in the case I confront him with criticism in that field. I object to the picture that bbarr is always very patient and I am the one who doesn't understand what he is saying. It is a picture bbarr likes to draw in almost every debate he is in, especially when his opponent is not agreeing with him. He often interpretes this as childish unwillingness on the side of his opponent or sheer stupidity.
I take bbarr and his ideas seriously. His ideas are inbedded in a certain way of thinking that is developing in the field of Bioethics and the Bio-Industrial Complex. These ideas are very important for our future.
Again a long post, pffft .....
.
29 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis conversation was good until it became a metadebate, and now it's no more than public gossip.
Pradtf: " 1) show that bbarr is only an advocate of abortion and euthanasia 'under certain conditions' - you have already accepted this"
Of course I've accepted this. I've never assumed otherwise. If I state "bbarr advocates killing", everybody who even vaguely followed the discussions knows, I hope, that this means under certain conditions. The h ...[text shortened]... ial Complex. These ideas are very important for our future.
Again a long post, pffft .....
.