Genesis and Matthew

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:29:18 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/02/2014 01:41, Quadibloc wrote:

That grants meaning to life, and if we are being treated unfairly, it helps
us to motivate others to help us.

That is really funny given that most Americans prefer to step over the
poor dying on the street rather than have universal public healthcare.

This perhaps explains the source of my illusions, as I am a Canadian. Not only do we have universal public health care in Canada, we also don't have committees deciding who ought to be allocated a scarce kidney dialysis spot.

John Savard

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:41:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

We can choose to live as though there is no right or wrong; all that exists are the rules the strong can impose.

I don't know of any societies that have done that.

Or we can act as though the common naive concepts of justice and fairness have some real meaning - even if we don't understand exactly where it comes from or what it is.

How is that pragmatically different from rationally defining concepts
of justice and fairness, giving them meaning, and living by them?

That grants meaning to life, and if we are being treated unfairly, it helps us to motivate others to help us.

This is what most modern secular societies do.

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:29:18 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

The original 10 Commandments are not a bad starting point.

Seriously? I can think of little that is more opposed to good behavior
than the Ten Commandments! We built a form of government in the U.S.
to very specifically avoid the flaws of the Ten Commandments.

That is really funny given that most Americans prefer to step over the
poor dying on the street rather than have universal public healthcare.

Yeah, it's hilarious.

The uninspired don't have the necessary common sense to realize that so-called laws prior to Christ are not there to prevent people from going to hell so people can go to heaven but that in the development of humans in their journey through life they come to understand the Divine nature in themselves and creation.

" For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." Paul

The Commie element of the uninspired never could make the distinction between the failings of denominational Christianity and it benefits even though lately the Christian Churches are less moral dictators as they once were and have become more instructors of the living Christ. The dictatorship has now fallen to the empirical cult as can be seen in the lifeless responses to the original intent of the thread which is to draw attention to the great mathematical facets contained in the texts.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:57:33 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:47:47 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:



You seem to have no concept of right or wrong. Perhaps you should have gone to church?

You have obviously never studied any philosophy at all. You don't
understand the difference between matters of fact (which can be right
or wrong) and matters of philosophy (which can't).

You have no concept of right or wrong. (Hint: Justice vs injustice, not fact versus fiction, truth vs lie.)

World views and philosophical opinions cannot be right or wrong. You
can agree with them or you can disagree with them. You can argue why
you think they create a society you like better or worse. But if you
categorically label them true or false, you have failed
intellectually.

You have no concept of right or wrong. (Hint: Justice vs injustice, not fact versus fiction, truth vs lie.)

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:59:57 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:29:30 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:
w
Natural rights are the basis for a just and stable government.

No, they're not. Codified rights are the basis for a just government
by modern standards. And they're not remotely required for a stable
government.

I was talking about governments that are both just AND stable. Try to hold the two concepts, "just" and "stable," in your mind simultaneously. I know it will be difficult for you, but do give it a try.

The most stable governments throughout history have
defined much more limited rights for their citizens and subjects than
anything we see in today's world.

Again, I was writing about governments that are -both- just AND stable, rare though they may be.

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:42:23 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:29:18 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:

On 12/02/2014 01:41, Quadibloc wrote:

That grants meaning to life, and if we are being treated unfairly, it helps
us to motivate others to help us.

That is really funny given that most Americans prefer to step over the
poor dying on the street rather than have universal public healthcare.

Anyone found "dying on the street" will be taken to an emergency room and be treated there.

This perhaps explains the source of my illusions, as I am a Canadian. Not only do we have universal public health care in Canada,

Universal health care isn't "free" health care, if that's what you think it is.

we also don't have committees deciding who ought to be allocated a scarce kidney dialysis spot.

Perhaps Sarah was right??

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:01:59 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:41:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

wrote:

We can choose to live as though there is no right or wrong; all that exists are the rules the strong can impose.

I don't know of any societies that have done that.

The you have no knowledge of recent history?

Or we can act as though the common naive concepts of justice and fairness have some real meaning - even if we don't understand exactly where it comes from or what it is.

How is that pragmatically different from rationally defining concepts
of justice and fairness, giving them meaning, and living by them?

Because what might seem just or fair to some might not be just or fair to others.

That grants meaning to life, and if we are being treated unfairly, it helps us to motivate others to help us.

This is what most modern secular societies do.

Actually most secular (and non-secular) societies do neither.

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:04:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:29:18 +0000, Martin Brown

wrote:

The original 10 Commandments are not a bad starting point.

Seriously? I can think of little that is more opposed to good behavior
than the Ten Commandments! We built a form of government in the U.S.
to very specifically avoid the flaws of the Ten Commandments.

Shall not kill, shall not steal, shall not bear false witness, etc. ?

The Constitution does bar the establishment of an official religion, but does not interfere with exercise of religions (except where rights are violated.)

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:01:11 AM UTC-5, Lord Androcles wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:27:15 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Natural rights are the basis for a just and stable government.

Andorkles wrote:

"Natural"?

Nature kills indiscriminately, you have no rights against cancer,
tubercolosis or a thousand other killers. You have the right to die.

wsnell01 wrote:

Lions have no concept of natural rights and therefore have no natural rights. Individual humans can have such a concept (and usually do) and those that do and who respect those natural rights, have natural rights.

People like you, Peterson, Brown (and others, such as Nazi war criminals for example) who do not believe in natural rights are no better than animals, wrt natural rights. You do outwardly resemble normal humans, and so long as you respect the natural rights of others you will probably skate by.

wsnell01 wrote:

The Nazis took away the lives of innocent people, thereby violating their
natural rights to life and freedom.

Andorkles wrote:

In other words rights are granted by governments.

wsnell01 wrote:

The Nuremberg Trials should give you a clue as to why you are wrong about that.

Andorkles wrote:

Society may make a law to punish the murderer, but it doesn't prevent
murders.

wsnell01 wrote:

A law to punish a murderer does have a deterrent effect on those who might
contemplate murder and by removing murderers from society.

Andorkles wrote:

Still doesn't grant a right to life. Taking the murderer's life or freedom
away doesn't mean you can give it to his victim.

wsnell01 wrote:

Again, by removing a murderer from society, one does take a step toward protecting and respecting other humans' natural right to life. Killing a man-eating lion helps as well.