Alain wrote:
> A very simple principle:
> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.

So, a masochist should beat up their neighbors? =)

> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
> reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil". ANYBODY who, at
> least try to, live by that principle won't wilingly commit any crime.
> What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
> 

Nice start, but it needs a few qualifiers before it works in all
situations without causing other problems. Might I suggest "Do unto
others as they would have you do unto them." That opens the door to
interpreting what someone else wants, but it's a place to start.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:12 -0000, Alain
> <ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
>>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
>>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>> So either God's a 'Worship Me or I'll beat you up' bully or a 'I'll
>>>>> help
>>>>> the tribe who showers Me with the most faith' mercenary (or both)?
>>>>
>>>> Faith, love, respect and fear are to be expected from those who
>>>> devote their lifes to God's will.
>>>  Except I'd put faith and love, and respect and fear in two entirely
>>> seperate categories otherwise we end up with the conclusions that...
>>>
>> Respect and fear realy don't deserve to be grouped. Apparent respect
>> comming from fear is no respect at all, as it soon become obvious as
>> soon as the fear aspect fades, apparent respect mutate into hate. True
>> respect comes from understanding. True respect breed more respect, and
>> reduce fear.
>> Respect can be paired with love, as both can grow without the presence
>> of the other, and both can lead to the other.
>> So, you can have "faith", love and respect on one side, and fear and
>> hate on the other side.
> 
> I failed to explain well. Faith and love are intangibles "Why do you
> love X?", "Why do you have faith in Y?" they're both something you can't
> really answer - you just do. Fear and respect have answers "I respect X
> because he's proven himself" "I fear Y because I've seen what he can
> do". You don't just fear or respect someone or something (experiments
> with spider pictures notwithstanding).
> 
>> A very simple principle:
>> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
>> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as
>> a reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
> 
> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
> them to do to me?
> 

Curses, you beat me to that! Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:10:40 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:12 -0000, Alain
>> <ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
>>>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
>>>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>>>
>>> A very simple principle:
>>> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
>>> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as
>>> a reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
>>
>> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
>> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
>> them to do to me?
>>
> Curses, you beat me to that!

Hey I'm the one who likes being beaten :-P

> Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
> might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.

Except 'I' would enjoy it whereas they possibly wouldn't. Let's say God  
set a test of faith to climb a mountain, would it really be a test for  
those who enjoy mountain-climbing? After all they might well have done it  
regardless.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:54:50 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:56:32 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>>> Therefore there is no Hell.
>>>
>>> Yep. And all the carvings on the cathedral where Jesus is guesturing  
>>> to Satan (who surprisingly looks *just* like Loki, Pan, and Bacchus)  
>>> to drag the unbelievers off in chains to hell?  That's just decoration.
>>  Who are you going to believe - God or a bunch of artists? ;-)
>
> Sharks and dolphins look surprisingly similar, too.  Doesn't make them  
> particularly closely related.

Are you saying horns are an evolutionary by-product of high temperatures?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:38:37 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Only if you presume the very old religion that started out claiming that
>> Satan was God's helper, then later blamed everything on him and made up
>> a silly, and over time increasingly complicated and bloody explanation,
>> for what he did and where he was sent, instead of the Satanists, who
>> would argue that Satan was the one that **never** deceived anyone, and
>> thus its your God that is evil.
>
> fucked up world!

Well yeah who's fault is that? You'd think an omnipotent being could've  
got things right to start with.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:12:12 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Y'know in modern times if someone were within an inch of sacrificing
>> their child and claimed God told them to do it, they'd be placed in a
>> mental health facility quicker than you could blink.
>
> Is this the same modern times which overload children and teens with all  
> kinds of demonic imagery in disguise of good entertainment?

Unlike all the warm fuzzy imagery of the Bible.

> And then eventually
> makes teens shoot people in schools or malls just like they do in the
> videogames?

When they should confine themselves to just shooting unbelievers, like  
that charming video game made by Christians.

> Why aren't all this people in a mental health facility?  oh, it would  
> make economy come to a halt...

Boon to the mental health industry though.

>> Makes me think perhaps the Bible is full of crazies. :)
>
> ever thought that maybe it passed through Abraham's, Moses's or others  
> heads that they were insane?  Yet, they persisted on their faith.

Why would that lessen the chances of them being crazy?

>  I guess the
> Message was far more convincing than that of your average psychopath's
> delirium...

Except we try to cure psychopaths of their delusions even the ones who  
claim "God told them to do it"

> I'm leaving this thread, won't be reading any more messages from it.   
> Every Christian have a limit of tolerance for twisted logic shouts and  
> verborragic blasphemies against God...


whack; hit it enough times and candy-shaped reason might come out.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:25:35 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:02:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> I don't know that it does - is there evidence/proof to suggest that  
>>>>> it
>>>>> does?
>>>> Do you know who Abraham Lincoln was?  George Washington? Adolph  
>>>> Hitler?
>>>> Julius Ceaser?
>>>
>>> What's that got to do with souls?
>>  I'll let you think about it first, for a while.  Ask yourself what a  
>> soul is, and what makes a difference between a live and a dead person.
>
> I just wondered if you wanted to continue this.  So, having thought  
> about how to try to put it in words...
<snip>
> You have a model of the universe in your head, and in that model, you  
> have a model of yourself. That is your soul. It's what makes you  
> self-aware, and it's what makes you know the difference between good and  
> evil.

But if you have a universe-modal aren't you by definition a part of that  
model and therefore conscious of your presence in that model? Take that  
squirrel who worked out how to get to the food table through the ramps  
jumps and swinging things, could he have done that without a  
universe-model and more importantly an awareness of himself. Do squirrels  
thus have souls?

> You're self-aware because you can run simulations on yourself to  
> determine what would happen were you to do something. You don't need to  
> step off the edge to know you'd bounce painfully on the way down.

But that's experience, almost Pavlovian; the only major difference is we  
can pass on such experience without the necessity of the physical process  
"Those berries are poisonous". If you argue that the possibly soul-less  
animals will jump down/across things they can't reach I'll happily point  
to supposedly ensouled humans who've done the same thing. (I know you  
won't insult me by saying that the humans were aware of the potential  
risk, whereas the animals weren't)

> You know good from evil because, being able to simulate yourself, you  
> can determine likely outcomes.  You also know good from evil because you  
> have models of other people in your head, too. You know your mom would  
> be insulted if you call her a bitch. You know, were you young enough,  
> that she would punish you for doing so. You probably even know what sort  
> of punishment, and you *probably* even understand *why* she would do so.
>
> You have a bit of your Mom's soul in your head. Put there by love,  
> unless you had an exceptionally unhappy childhood, in which case it was  
> put there by fear and hatred. Bits of your Mom's soul will continue to  
> live in your head after she is gone.

What you seem to be saying is that self-conciousness equals soul,  
therefore dolphins and elephants that preen themselves before mirrors are  
ensouled. Wow that should annoy the 'humans are the best' fundamentalists  
:-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:10:40 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
> vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain
>>> therefore I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want
>>> them to do to me?
>>>
>> Curses, you beat me to that!
> 
> Hey I'm the one who likes being beaten :-P

Already playing by the golden rule, off to a good start then.

> 
>> Although, if you were a sado-masochist you
>> might get other people to hurt you, too. At least then it would be equal.
> 
> Except 'I' would enjoy it whereas they possibly wouldn't. Let's say God
> set a test of faith to climb a mountain, would it really be a test for
> those who enjoy mountain-climbing? After all they might well have done
> it regardless.
> 

What does 'enjoy' have to do with it? The pre-supposed situation was
beating up people who might not enjoy it. =)

I was referring to the sado- prefix, which suggests you like causing
pain as well. Since you would want to beat up other people you should,
by the golden rule, let them beat you up as well.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
>> You have a model of the universe in your head, and in that model, you 
>> have a model of yourself. That is your soul. It's what makes you 
>> self-aware, and it's what makes you know the difference between good 
>> and evil.
> 
> But if you have a universe-modal aren't you by definition a part of that 
> model and therefore conscious of your presence in that model?

Well, yes. That's precisely what we're talking about at this very 
moment, isn't it?

> Take that 
> squirrel who worked out how to get to the food table through the ramps 
> jumps and swinging things, could he have done that without a 
> universe-model and more importantly an awareness of himself. Do 
> squirrels thus have souls?

Possibly. They're clearly self-aware.

>> You're self-aware because you can run simulations on yourself to 
>> determine what would happen were you to do something. You don't need 
>> to step off the edge to know you'd bounce painfully on the way down.
> 
> But that's experience, almost Pavlovian;

Not necessarily. It starts out that way, but you don't *ever* need to 
fall out of a tree so that when you see someone else do it,you go 
"that's gotta hurt."

> What you seem to be saying is that self-conciousness equals soul, 
> therefore dolphins and elephants that preen themselves before mirrors 
> are ensouled. Wow that should annoy the 'humans are the best' 
> fundamentalists :-)

Yep. You didn't ask me if it was the same soul the preachers talk about. 
You just wondered if there is such a thing as a soul.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:23:48 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> JHVH never asked anyone to bring their own child up to a mountain top
>> and sacrifice them. No, something that important and sadistic would
>> have been written down.
> 
> JHVH was testing Abraham.  The sacrifice did not occur.

That's where "sadism" comes into play.

Jim

Post a reply to this message