Alfa String

[alfa]

Humans are apes.

They are the four great ape genera (Homo (humans), Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), Gorilla, and Pongo (orangutans)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes

[alfa]

Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah.

Near the Abraham thumb is a synagogue and a mosque.

Why they do not take out Abraham body maybe is intact because he saw God and be checked with C14. IF HIS BODY IS NOT INTACT HE DID NOT SEE GOD.

For example Bernadette saw Virgin Mary and her body is intact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah.

Near the Abraham thumb is a synagogue and a mosque.

Why they do not take out Abraham body maybe is intact because he saw God and be checked with C14. IF HIS BODY IS NOT INTACT HE DID NOT SEE GOD.

For example Bernadette saw Virgin Mary and her body is intact:

http://en.wikipedia....dette_Soubirous

Just my 2 cents...

Faith.

Faith is belief in the unseen or unproven. Knowledge on the other hand comes from proof or eveidence.

I don't know how well the following analogy will go in places were dogs are bad but here goes anyway.

lets say i wanted a pet and I had to choose between a real dog with real short-comings and building a robot dog. The robot dog would alwys do the right thing because I programmed to do the right thing. Now in the case of the real dog, its actions are not neccesarily programmed (trained). A When it meets me at the door excited to see me, it means a lot more than if the robot did it.

So now cast yourself for the moment as God and ask yourself if you would prefer to watch eternity play out with robots that always did waht was expeted and real creatures that had the oppertunity to choose to do good of their own accord.

The story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrafice his ONLY son (in an age when a son represented social security) was a story of faith.

To use the remains of a person of faith to PROVE defats the end goal of faith.

Ben

[alfa]

People born in a village were moving to a big city to escape knowledge limitation, bondage, stupidity of the village. Today the internet is a very good help.

In Europe the Romans had a very important role to civilize countries; for example the druids were cannibals.

Today in EU the governments have to stop those sub-cultures, religious traditions of Jews and Muslims to circumcise boys and girls.

[alfa]

Because the Jews are the best organized thieves all the governments looking for stealing like them.For me MOSSAD is number one terrorist organization in the world=in stealing.They had stolen all my money in Toronto, Canada.MOSSAD want to catch a lot of terrorists around the world and the terrorists are the DOLLARS, the... EUROS…Former MP and Presidential candidate Nati Meir from MOSSAD has been sentenced to four years in prison for fraud using fake banknotes by a Bucharest Court.

http://romaniantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-03-03/6972/Nati_Meir_sentenced_to_four_years_in_prison

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100314/ts_afp/mideastdiplomacyusisraelaxelrod_20100314150723

[Cat]

I am REALLY tempted to abuse my temporary moderator privileges and kill this thread. Of course then I'd probably be accused of being a member of Mossad or a prostitute or an animal or a thief or a cannibal or just plain stupid.

There were a few interesting things talked about here a long time back. But not anymore (despite attempts from posters other than alfa). This will be the first thread I've ever felt like I had to stop watching, but it's my little form of protest over letting one person continue his political ranting on this forum.

BTW, just for the record, some of my best friends are animals.

[shoneill]

So now cast yourself for the moment as God and ask yourself if you would prefer to watch eternity play out with robots that always did waht was expeted and real creatures that had the oppertunity to choose to do good of their own accord.

Ben,

your analogy falls hard when taking into account that "God" is supposed to be all-knowing and did actually (according to scripture) create us.

As such it would be more analagous to the robot dog part than the "real" dog because the "real" dog would suggest that we contain unknowns and therefore could not have beenmade by "God", a theory I could wholeheartily support BTW.

Shane.

BTW, just for the record, some of my best friends are animals.

I've yet to befriend a plant or a mineral.

As such all my friends are animals.

Shane.

PS Except for the numerous electronic gadgets I can't live with but who sometimes unexpectedly don't return my calls.....

I am REALLY tempted to abuse my temporary moderator privileges and kill this thread.

No please don't.

It'd be like taking away Pete Doherty from us parents.

This post serves as a shining example of how NOT to engage in internet forums the same way that Pete Doherty serves as a shining example to our kids of what happens when you take copious amounts of drugs.

Shane.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Ben,

your analogy falls hard when taking into account that "God" is supposed to be all-knowing and did actually (according to scripture) create us.

As such it would be more analagous to the robot dog part than the "real" dog because the "real" dog would suggest that we contain unknowns and therefore could not have beenmade by "God", a theory I could wholeheartily support BTW.

Shane.

...

All anaolgies break down when stretched to far, which may be the case for every analogy applied to God since attempts by limited being to understand an unlimited simply can not work ( A set can not be prooved from within a set Goedl?). What I expressed was me attempting to exercise the phrase "we were created in God's image." by looking at our nauture to try an understand a little more about what is beyond our capability to understand. The understanding that I shared, is just what works for me when I am trying to understand "why" God would let be screw-up and what purpose it would serve in his plan.

I don't know the validity. I only know that where I am is not where I should be and its up to me to decide on the direction and stick with it.

Ben

[shoneill]

I don't know the validity. I only know that where I am is not where I should be and its up to me to decide on the direction and stick with it.

Ben

I'd agree with this completely with a pedantic difference that I'm not at all convinced there's anywhere we SHOULD be. We just are.

But our responsibility to decide is (even being pedantic) correct.

Shane.

All anaolgies break down when stretched to far, which may be the case for every analogy applied to God since attempts by limited being to understand an unlimited simply can not work ( A set can not be prooved from within a set Goedl?).

Without wanting to get into a nasty argument I would wager that the above statement for any other subject other than "God" would lead you to the idea that the idea at hand is flawed and most likely to be incorrect.

Shane.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I'd agree with this completely with a pedantic difference that I'm not at all convinced there's anywhere we SHOULD be. We just are.

But our responsibility to decide is (even being pedantic) correct.

Shane.

Without wanting to get into a nasty argument I would wager that the above statement for any other subject other than "God" would lead you to the idea that the idea at hand is flawed and most likely to be incorrect.

Shane.

If I thought I was correct, I'd fight to make the point. But since I don't know what I'm talking about, ....

Re: "anywhere we SHOULD be. We just are."

Well that highlights the fact I left out a lot of ideas! maybe this belongs in another thread but I'll share just to hear if anyone else can relate. When stuying The Republic, I read about virtue and the idea that virtue is an intermediate state between two extremes. Being vituous in a cetain aspect of ones nature was a way of saying they are balanced and not to far one way or the other. The discusion in The Republic talked about the balance being struck along many possible lines "spend-thrift vs waster" Coward vs berzerker .... This lead to my own idea of a "virtue space" which has as many dimensions as there are virtues. Anyone of us can be plotted into virtue space and each of use would have a unique postition in that space. When turing my attention to the nature of the person who plots at the origin. The next step in the Saturday morning while drinking my coffee adventure lead me to think that since we all are located at different locations and our goal MAY be teh same (the origin of virtue space) then it makes sense to me that no two of us have the same path to tread. So the direction that is appropriate for me is the wrong path for others.

So in the limited sense of my virtue-space there a place where I should move toward.

Just my thoughts,

Ben

[shoneill]

If I thought I was correct, I'd fight to make the point. But since I don't know what I'm talking about, ....

Re: "anywhere we SHOULD be. We just are."

Well that highlights the fact I left out a lot of ideas! maybe this belongs in another thread but I'll share just to hear if anyone else can relate. When stuying The Republic, I read about virtue and the idea that virtue is an intermediate state between two extremes. Being vituous in a cetain aspect of ones nature was a way of saying they are balanced and not to far one way or the other. The discusion in The Republic talked about the balance being struck along many possible lines "spend-thrift vs waster" Coward vs berzerker .... This lead to my own idea of a "virtue space" which has as many dimensions as there are virtues. Anyone of us can be plotted into virtue space and each of use would have a unique postition in that space. When turing my attention to the nature of the person who plots at the origin. The next step in the Saturday morning while drinking my coffee adventure lead me to think that since we all are located at different locations and our goal MAY be teh same (the origin of virtue space) then it makes sense to me that no two of us have the same path to tread. So the direction that is appropriate for me is the wrong path for others.

So in the limited sense of my virtue-space there a place where I should move toward.

Just my thoughts,

Ben

I appreciate the response, even though I won't yet claim to have understood everything yet....

I would argue, however, that even the origin of virtue space is actually an individual trait. Everyone's virtue system is slightly different. There are no absolute scales for virtue. So it in in reality a bit more complicated because a position x,y,z in one person't virtue space will not neccessarily co-exist with position x,y,z of another person's space.

I also find the combination of "measuring" virtue and human behaviour to be a mix which leads ultimately to some contradictory situations. Being guided largely (although not exclusively) by emotions and desires, our unwillingness to "slip down the scale" of virtue leads us to concoct some really abstract and illogical situations where something which is not inherently virtuous is deemd as being something "good" simply because of its neccessity. This can lead to a severely skewed and ultimately misleading grading of a person's actions.

Waging war is an example. I think it's clear to everybody that war is essentially inevitable (although the arguments about when, why, how and where are endless). But does this make it virtuous? Is it a virtue to engage in extreme violent conduct in the name of one's country? In the name of anything? In any other setting it would be condemned but the neccessity for such actions (being human as we are) makes us spin a web of virtue around something which is not inherently virtuous. This is a big problem I have with any aattempts to prescribe an absolute virtue space. Due to the inevitable nature of war and the unwillingness to "slip down the scale", society moves to declare by consensus that war shouldn't be put on the negative virtue list because that would interfere with out way of doing things. This is moral relativity in it's worst form because it actually pretends to be absolute.

Now, before I get flamed, I'm not saying that I'm totally anti-war. I believe it IS neccessary in certain conditions and is almost certainly largely unaviodable but I also believe it a folly to dress it up as being an act to be celebrated in any way. We should call it what it is.

By relating to where a person "should" be you are automatically creating such a construct as I have outlined above where the person actually strives to climb the ladder and (being human) ends up misusing the value system to serve their own needs in an innocently selfish way. Kind of like a white lie.

Personally, I tend to avoid absolute moral compasses. This was perhaps accelerated by coming from Ireland where the Catholic church WAS the absolute moral compass and has been involved in a serious and continuous stream of child abuse claims for the last 20 years or so. Some moral compass there. Even the current pope Mr. Ratzinger is being directly linked to the systematic cover-up which was performed by the church over the years.

Or perhaps the ultimate christian moral compass, the decalogue, is also often conveniently ignored or bent to one's will when required. "Thou shalt not kill" seems fine, but what if someone is threatening my family's life? If I kill someone to protect my family is that a good or a bad act? For me and my family it's probably good but for the dead person it's almost certainly bad. No absolute compass to be found here. It simply does not apply in all situations.

We all possess an inner sense of what is right and what is wrong in any given situation. This is independent of our background (although some can blend it out more than others) and is often very different in people who otherwise claim to share the same beliefs or absolute moral compass.

To summarise, I think an moral compass can help in some situations to offer guidelines as to how to behave (and the bible offers some good examples but also some absolutely terrible examples) but regarding a sense of "absolute" good and bad, it simply does not exist and to think it does is simply fooling ourselves.

So while you and I most likely share a very large part of our beliefs of what is right and wrong, I think we might very well give very different reasons as to WHY they might be right or wrong.

I'd better start working otherwise my boss will point my moral compass to a state of unemployment.....

Shane.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I appreciate the response, even though I won't yet claim to have understood everything yet....

I would argue, however, that even the origin of virtue space is actually an individual trait. Everyone's virtue system is slightly different. There are no absolute scales for virtue. So it in in reality a bit more complicated because a position x,y,z in one person't virtue space will not neccessarily co-exist with position x,y,z of another person's space.

...

So while you and I most likely share a very large part of our beliefs of what is right and wrong, I think we might very well give very different reasons as to WHY they might be right or wrong.

I'd better start working otherwise my boss will point my moral compass to a state of unemployment.....

Shane.

Thank you for the thought provoking response Shane. I feel a little slimey since I have been attempting to share my crazy ideas without offending so please excuse me if I try to slip out between the lines.

I think we MAY agree that where we place the origin in our virtue space is an imporatant factor in who we are and our path either toward or away from that goal.

"Why"

Was it Shakespeare Hamlet that said "We see through a glass darkly."? Like the deep field study done with Hubble, (think data points are like photons) the more information we gather, the clearer the picture. By talking we share the data we have. Again taking an analogy too far... by doubling the number of observers, we are effectively increasing the apperture size and increasing our resolution.

So again thank you for your reply!

Ben

[shoneill]

I feel a little slimey since I have been attempting to share my crazy ideas without offending so please excuse me if I try to slip out between the lines.

Slimey? That I don't understand. I'd rather you discussed more rather than slip out, but it's your call.

Please don't confuse my candid opinions with aggression or intolerance. I'm just looking for other people's takes on something which belongs to the ultimate question whose answer is 42.

Shane.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Slimey? That I don't understand. I'd rather you discussed more rather than slip out, but it's your call.

Please don't confuse my candid opinions with aggression or intolerance. I'm just looking for other people's takes on something which belongs to the ultimate question whose answer is 42.

Shane.

Disclaimer: Any simularity between the following story and any persons alive or dead is accidental.

I used to have a buddy that was diagnosed as psychotic (?) and they eventually ended up locking him away and kept him under control with thorazene (?Sp?). Every time I would try to corner him on a point, he would never reply but would respond by changing the subject.

looking back over my replies in this thread left me feeling that I was not replying.

If I fail to reply directly to your thoughts it is because I simply don't know the answer OR what I believe is questionable.

Case in point: "the ultimate question"

I think that Solomon explored that question and answered it in Eclesiasties (?sp?) where I came away with (paraphrased) "So what is the end of it all? To serve God and be happy doing it." The "to serve" part drives ME to try to calibrate my virtue space.

Ben

[Yair]

I am REALLY tempted to abuse my temporary moderator privileges and kill this thread.

I got the same feeling recently in his other thread when he basically compared the "communist Jews" to the Nazis, which would have been the perfect chance to invoke Godwyn's law. I'm not a fan of censorship at all, but there are some lines which need to be drawn. Unfortunately, my plea to the proper mods seems to have gone unanswered.

BTW, just for the record, some of my best friends are animals.

Some of my best friends are Mossad agents.

I don't know which ones, though.

[shoneill]

If I fail to reply directly to your thoughts it is because I simply don't know the answer OR what I believe is questionable.

Who KNOWS anything in this regard. It's mostly personal feeling and second-guessing I think.

That's what makes it so hard.

Shane.

[alfa]

In my view with such dummy leaders EU will not be able to compete with USA.

I understand why Nigel Farage is upset.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7040733.ece

[crelf]

I'm not a fan of censorship at all, but there are some lines which need to be drawn. Unfortunately, my plea to the proper mods seems to have gone unanswered.

We don't necessarily answer all reports to the Moderator Report Center, but be assured that everything in there is watched closely.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

http://alfastring.tk/