|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 10, 2011 21:26:46 GMT -4
Personally, I wouldn't mind if we never mentioned JW on this forum again...
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 29, 2011 17:27:45 GMT -4
I have emphasized the flaw in your example. The actions described at ages 14 months and 14 years are not congruent. Opening the cabinet doors is not the relevant action, but what she does with the cleaning products. I expect you would not encourage, much less require, your 14-year-old daughter to play with cleaning products. Point taken, but the commandment to the 14-month old is indeed "thou shalt not open the cabinet door." Opening the cabinet door is sufficient for me to remove her from the situation - before she even reaches for the cleaning products, which is of course my real reason for forbidding her from opening the cabinet. And the commandment to the 14 year old to do her chores will of necessity contradict the earlier commandment, even if I don't specifically tell her that it has been rescinded. Your analogies suck, Jason! Can it be compared to God commanding someone to destroy a town, kill every male in it, capture the women and loot everything of value? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 28, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -4
In point of fact, in the New Testament, Jesus explicitly rejects one of the laws of the Old Testament, proving that even God can change His mind. In the Old Testament, the morality was "an eye for an eye," and Jesus Himself throws it out in favour of "turn the other cheek." If morality doesn't change, what's that about? Socrates said that you can tell if a god is really God by the laws that he commands. If they are not "good" then you know it isn't really God. Your point about how morality changes in the Bible is evidence of a non-objective morality, I would think. Of course I guess someone could say that God can do anything - even change his mind perhaps but to me this would make no sense. Of course I'm only a human with my feeble capabilities of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 28, 2011 17:35:59 GMT -4
Hmmm...
I really don't know if there is an objective morality...
I would think that if there was a God, it would exist. One of the reasons I do not believe in God (at least the "God" as presented in major religions) is that the moral standard seems to be corrupt. I would expect the moral standard to remain the same throughout history, but it seems to be more fluid than that. Indeed, in the Bible (just picking this one because I'm more familiar with it) God seemingly instructs his followers to murder, rape, and pillage. This suggests to me that: either the instructions were not from God at all, or that God's idea of what is right and wrong changes over time, in which case it would not be an objective morality at all, or that these episodes indicate that the Biblical God does not exist, but is just a reflection of man's morality at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 24, 2011 16:35:22 GMT -4
Good question, and I don't have an answer for it. I guess its simpler if you break it down to good and evil, but there's so many grey areas in between - making the right decision in all circumstances - seems to really rely on your own instincts about what is the right thing to do. After all, there's not two people on this planet who agree completely on what is right and wrong in every situation. I agree that you must make your own determination on what is right and what is wrong, which includes listening to those you trust on moral issues. And why should the fact that people can't agree mean that a thing has no objective reality? If no one agreed on exactly how fast gravity accelerates your feet to the ground it wouldn't mean that gravity doesn't in fact work. But as you say, they weren't really talking to God, were they?[/quote] I hope not! Maybe a thread about "Objective Morality" is due, Jason?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 21:49:37 GMT -4
As an agnostic, I'm often confused over the importance of an "objective moral authority" that people of religious beliefs keep bringing up when debating with atheists. Why can't proper behavior be developed and keep evolving as mankind does - why does it have to be part of some divine creator's will? Why can't man, as he matures throughout history establish a code of conduct on his own? Does objective morality require the existence of a creator? In my view it doesn't. What is good is good and what is evil is evil, and it wasn't arbitrarily determined by God. It's simply the way the universe works. Can mankind discern what is good and evil on its own? Certainly we could, but if a loving and wise parent wishes to give you advice on what is good and evil, why reinvent the wheel? Good question, and I don't have an answer for it. I guess its simpler if you break it down to good and evil, but there's so many grey areas in between - making the right decision in all circumstances - seems to really rely on your own instincts about what is the right thing to do. After all, there's not two people on this planet who agree completely on what is right and wrong in every situation. I guess a religious person might pray to his/her God for advice, but lots of people have "talked to God" (the voice in their head) and did terrible things.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 17:29:19 GMT -4
Hey, don't pin that one on all people with religious beliefs. Okay, "some". Thats what I meant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 23, 2011 17:13:58 GMT -4
I don't know if there is such a thing as "true nature". People act and react differently to different things depending on many influences. Some are more likely to act "bad" in crowds or alone. For instance a serial killer compared to those idiots in Vancouver riot's last week. Would the effects of bad parenting warp the person's "true nature"? Many events in live shape a person's personality... being bullied as a kid, being pampered growing up, educated vs. non-educated, being brought up religious or not (you can decide for yourself which is better), being poor or rich, healthy or sick, having friends or being alone...
Taken into account that as we age, we also become more educated, one's "true nature" may not reveal itself until close to death - again if there is such a thing.
As an agnostic, I'm often confused over the importance of an "objective moral authority" that people of religious beliefs keep bringing up when debating with atheists. Why can't proper behavior be developed and keep evolving as mankind does - why does it have to be part of some divine creator's will? Why can't man, as he matures throughout history establish a code of conduct on his own?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 16, 2011 20:55:13 GMT -4
Oh, yeah; even things that the average person thinks are cut and dry are often the subject of a great deal of scholarly debate under the surface, and that's even without getting into the whole conspiracy theory that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays. Which also fails on basic logic grounds. Shouldn't that be cut and paste?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 17, 2011 16:48:22 GMT -4
I agree that not every natural scene move emotions I was listening to a song on youtube and I liked the drawings in it a lot www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvp9eWW9nLIWhat moved my emotions is Qadisha Valley, aka the valley of saints that I went to Suday on a trip..really if one goes to all Lebanon and didn't visit this scene as if he didn't do anything.. I am sure if you were here you would have liked to draw it Honestly, almost anything can inspire me artistically - even a rock or a crack in the sidewalk. A dead leaf even.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 17, 2011 16:46:26 GMT -4
Were they happy little trees in that forest, Ginnie? ETA--Actually, I find Bob Ross soothing and have considered buying DVDs of the show. Just the thing for panic attacks. The trees had red and orange leaves, so it was fall... As for panic attacks - I take Cipralex and avoid caffeine.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 16, 2011 19:18:43 GMT -4
I unerstand that they mean to him, but I don't like such drawings..I prefer drawings of nature, of princesses..stuff like that thta moves the emotions and imagination, but it is thoughtful of him to use this technique..he will sell more What good about "art" is that anyone can find what appeals to them. I've been painting for a few years now, and I find that often I can't predict how much a painting can "move" me - even though I'm the one painting it! An example: I once painting a fairly benign scene - in the forest, a stream running through it, a big long log on the banks, a little cabin in the background. But it was boring and needed something... So I added one little thing that totally changed the painting and the emotional response it would give: I painted a young girl, sitting on the log facing the river, with her elbows on her knees. It gave the scene impact, a story, and a focus. Why was she there? Was she going to jump in the river? (you couldn't see her face, she was looking down). Was she reflecting upon something? Was she sad, happy, maybe staring at frogs in the water? So an "ordinary" painting (to me) became a very interesting one. If I can get a picture of it I'll post it. I haven't painted any good "space" pictures yet. My avatar is a painting I did of Apollo 11 blasting off. More of my paintings here: pauljhalley.110mb.com/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 10, 2011 18:32:09 GMT -4
An easy to use free WYSIWYG editor comes with the Sea Monkey Internet Suite: www.seamonkey-project.org/You can view your page in normal, HTML or Tags mode so you can tweak your page.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 3, 2011 20:40:38 GMT -4
Congratulations on surviving another election cycle. I am not looking forward to our elections next year. So instead of having red and blue states like we do in the U.S, do ya'll have red, blue, orange and teal provinces? yeah... but of course it changes every election, though some parts of Canada do generally vote for a certain party - Conservatives out west, Liberals in Quebec (until the Bloc Quebecois) etc. www.blogto.com/upload/2011/05/201153-canada_wide-map-2011.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 3, 2011 18:13:41 GMT -4
My, my, what an historic night!
After going through three minority governments in a row, we finally have a majority government. The Conservatives received 167 of 308 seats. I don't especially like that party, but its good for business and good for stability.
The New Democratic Party (our most left leaning party, but not really that radical) will form the Official Opposition - they received 102 seats - a milestone for them 'cause they usually end up in third with anywhere from 15 to 35 seats. Thats a major increase and it will be interesting to see what they bring to the table. So most of their members elected will have little or no experience at the Federal level.
The venerable Liberal Party, who have ruled this country for more years than any other party, really collapsed - receiving only 34 seats! Thats the lowest they've ever gotten.
And... the Bloc Quebecois... a Federal Party but one that only fields candidates in the province of Quebec. A party that is separtist (they want Quebec to leave Canada) and they are only interested in Quebec's interest... well, they were wiped out. They received only 4 seats, down from 49 in 2008. Hopefully this will signal the death knell for this group and they'll be gone by the next election!
Oh, I forgot to mention... The Green Party elected one member! That's where my vote went. Mind you, I wouldn't want them running the country but would like to see an alternative voice in Parliament.
|
|