tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post1148402561360903589..comments2024-03-28T21:55:51.024-07:00Comments on Banned by HWA! News and Observations About Armstrongism and the Church of God Movement: I'm not posting this......NO2HWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02018654662518613623noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-14708419591254097532018-02-12T01:27:40.796-08:002018-02-12T01:27:40.796-08:00Yes 10.41 , thinking of it.
Especially your remark...Yes 10.41 , thinking of it.<br />Especially your remark on justifying that the people here are just as moral as the groups I pointed out it telling of the insecurity that is rampant on this board. <br />It is you who read in my statement that I contrasted them with those here or deemed them better. I never said that. It was your projection. Ponder that and then you know why you feel the need to point out that I am full of crap without ever having shown a sign of where I might have contributed the slightest interesting bit.<br /><br />I am not insecure at all at my experience. That may bother some that come here to vent their negatives only, which is ok. I know where this blog falls in the greater spectrum. And it certainly earned its place. Actually it is quite good. It is mostly the commenters that I find bitter and I am learning from that as I said on the Dennis nightmare thread.<br /><br /><br />nck<br /><br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-74174412227541136112018-02-12T01:16:39.866-08:002018-02-12T01:16:39.866-08:0010:41
Yes, I noticed some monitors are quite stri...10:41<br /><br />Yes, I noticed some monitors are quite strict. But most? I mean besides the "groups" there are thousands of personal facebook pages ( with many people nicely associating). I'm sure you have one too.<br /><br />Look Donnie was not associated with one of the COG's. I was merely pointing out that (not the blog) but a lot of the participants here are partiularly bitter as compared to the many friends still connected "despite" their former association. <br /><br />Man, some funtions of the church seem like all participants are connected on facebook or alumnisites from 40 years ago. As if nothing had happened. <br /><br />This would NEVER have happened if ALL were beaten like for instance BB testimony which I have no doubt happened. It just didn't happen that way for the majority. If you would claim so YOU are full of crap.<br /><br /><br />Moreover I was not CONTRASTING the moral lives of those thousands of still connected people with your or anyones life of the participants on this blog. I was merely pointing out that the people on this blog DO NOT constitute the standard of EVERYONE's experience in the church. Actually it is quite warped here and even in some cases limited to a cultural time frame and frame of location. All of their experiences are true I must assume. But they are certainly not representing my experience or any of the people I met during my 25 year stint.<br /><br />Let me know when I might have something interesting to say. I might just focus more on those topics then. For instance you might apreciate that I have been engaging with a single person far away in the galaxy of this blog, not in the limelight. Not seeking attention. I guess you apreciate that. So good to have iron sharpen iron and better to let me know where I might have added something interesting.<br /><br />Cheers 10:41<br /><br />ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-3190717077709589622018-02-11T22:58:03.526-08:002018-02-11T22:58:03.526-08:00Perhaps it is in both our natures to now start quo...Perhaps it is in both our natures to now start quoting thousands of scriptures why or why not hwa or others in mormonism are "lost".<br /><br />My point is that our judgment would only be an estimation by the data that we have gathered for over at most 90 years. So I feel you should have phrased it. HWA might by my estimation be lost......instead of taking Gods chair.<br /><br />Now, would this be an excuse as not to intervene or warn a toddler nearing the boiling teapot? No of course not, we are to weigh the evidence, sometimes within nano seconds.<br /><br />My point is, who am I to say the toddler is stupid or deserving of mishap. While in another universe the toddler might just have been following mommy's example to serve daddy a cup of tea, or perhaps mistaken the real thing for one of the toys.<br /><br />So yes. We are to warn, intervene, help and aid by rational standards. And we are to evaluate our judgments and motives while executing our actions.<br /><br />This is not a condemnation of you. Just a reaction to some of the results of missionary works I saw yesterday on a documentary after "pagans" had been saved from their former ways. While their society had collapsed and alcoholism was rampant. Again good intentions perhaps (as was the seperation of australian aboriginal children from their parents) but poorly executed with horrible results.<br /><br />I do admit the christianization of the viking race has been a great succes so far and is producing fantastic results since they ceased raiding. <br /><br /><br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-12608377327847500842018-02-11T22:41:08.028-08:002018-02-11T22:41:08.028-08:00NCK. I am on many of those Facebook groups where ...NCK. I am on many of those Facebook groups where everyone is supposedly friendly and warm and fuzzy. Most of this have admins who delete or kick out anyone who dares to criticize Herbert, the church, YOU, SEP, or any of the satellite organizations or splinters. Information does not freely flow like it does here. The people here are just as moral and well adjusted as you claim they all are. We are also just as successful as they are. Some times you have interesting things to say, other times like now, you show how full of crap you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-84616134049043766512018-02-11T21:52:11.146-08:002018-02-11T21:52:11.146-08:00Donnie
In my opinion many people drawn to armstro...Donnie<br /><br />In my opinion many people drawn to armstrongism had already in one way or another and for different reasons been dissatisfied with "traditional christianity". Often from personal experience or rational deduction. <br /><br />The fact that I come across as "mixed" or seemingly having mutual exclusive opinions derives from whom I meet<br /><br /><br />One time a person argues the case for an all knowing loving God, then in the same sentence set himself up for being the ultimate judge on for example HWA without even having met the man. <br /><br />Thats one example why I harp on the seperation of church and state as a necessity and condition for a society to thrive. Without losing respect for christians.<br /><br />One of the attractive features of Armstrongism was the thesis that God had not revealed his plan to many<br /> Which contained the promise of salvation for 99% of those who had ever lived. Sadly this tenet turned somewhat in exclusivism. But you get the gist that Armstrongism contained many improvements on traditional thought patterns that got perverted by narrow interpretations from narrow perspectives.<br /><br />These are displayed often on this particular blog by those incapable of theorizing and only draw from bad examples.<br /><br />On the other hand. The most atractive features of Armstrongism regarding mans destiny are considered heresy and blasphemy by the traditional church philosophy anyway. Interesting stuff as for some miniature railroads are.<br /><br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-2090377139947727032018-02-11T18:43:40.353-08:002018-02-11T18:43:40.353-08:00Yes, that is certainly the conclusion one would re...Yes, that is certainly the conclusion one would reach reading this blog.<br /><br />This blog draws a particular crowd. <br /><br />There are hundreds of blogs out there with people who came to more mellow conclusions than the hardcore older generation here. This is a place of satire and people blowing of steam.<br /><br />On facebook and yahoo are groups (former wcg associates, students, youth camps) of all kinds that are very friendly, leading moral lives and succesful by material standards too. They hardly have time to wallow on hearsay.<br /><br />This blog does a good job holding some splinters with of the wall leaders accountable. But some of those getting attention never had any prominence , besides getting attention from this blog. Good fun though but insignificant as compared to the thousands of facebook friends with different associations today but remembering youth sports events or other things.<br /><br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-60516868706925983632018-02-11T17:00:43.025-08:002018-02-11T17:00:43.025-08:00To nck:
"To come on this specific blog out o...To nck:<br /><br />"To come on this specific blog out of interest for armstrongism is like reading macharthurs memos to learn about japanese culture. Japanese at times would disagree."<br /><br />So true. That's exactly how I feel when reading most of this stuff. I do, however, mine some shiny nuggets from time to time. Of course, I appreciate the satire sometimes.<br /><br />Being that I have no actual experience in organizations such as this, it is merely an intellectual exercise on my part.<br /><br />I certainly am empathetic to those here even though I am just an observer. As an observer, it is not often I have anything to contribute. I will do what I can to contribute to the continued demise of Armstrongism. <br /><br />I do have one fear and I do see it manifested here. People leaving Armstrongism and in bitterness leaving their faith. It does seem that after people are beaten down by the Army of Armstrong they are likely to suppress the concept of a loving, just, and rational God that is the creator of reality. HWA was lost, but those fallen away from HWA don't have to be.<br /><br />Godspeed to you.Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-22218730681708562482018-02-11T12:19:17.390-08:002018-02-11T12:19:17.390-08:00Donnie
I play kind of the role of maverick on thi...Donnie<br /><br />I play kind of the role of maverick on this forum of rogues. As for a french person to easily recognize subtleties in communicating with their countrymen, most here have a shared background that we can recognize when one is joking, deliberately exagerating or sharing personal stories. To come on this specific blog out of interest for armstrongism is like reading macharthurs memos to learn about japanese culture. Japanese at times would disagree.<br /><br />I believe this is the first and only thread you have engaged. Usually when I am able to recognize an anonymous I change my tone and manner and decrease my shooting from the hip and increase civility. When I will see Donnie I will remember your extended hand of friendliness. I am around on this blog. So I would change my usual manner whenever you would engage in conversation. For now I find it a good thing to know there is a person with your background on board. I can imagine it hard for you to engage when people here are bickering (in the shared knowledge of their shared background, (or heritage) as the maverick nck would call it.<br /><br />I have met with people in real life with whom I engaged on blogs and shared common interests. But I am rather fond of my privacy also, actually more than average. For now, I will promise to heed my syntax, spelling, overall formal scientific reasoning if we are to engage again in the future. You posed a challenge different from the usual and regular lunacy here. Feel free to engage, if I cannot answer in public on a certain topic we might aswell continue via e-mail.<br /><br />Nck<br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-59758037422428211732018-02-11T10:42:03.098-08:002018-02-11T10:42:03.098-08:00To nck:
I would be happy to discuss American hist...To nck:<br /><br />I would be happy to discuss American history, the Bible, Christianity and my thoughts on all those. I am university educated, well read, but not an expert on every subject under the sun. My professional expertise is information technology with an interest in logical systems and methodologies. My mind is both creative and structured. I have a special interest in Armstongism and Mormonism. I have an interest in philosophy, cosmology, and natural theism.<br /><br />If you would like to discuss such matters, let's do by email. Let me know if you are intested in that.Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-79205664905501636072018-02-10T14:40:50.230-08:002018-02-10T14:40:50.230-08:00"Reactionary to something else"
A most ..."Reactionary to something else"<br /><br />A most important observation!<br /><br />I believe that original liberalism (the spinoza kind, not the narrow minded framing of the term by modern reactionaries) was indeed a reaction to experiences with outdated models of human social organization.<br /><br />So yes in that case.<br /><br />No, if you implied that I am frustrated with christian philosophy. Not at all. I have gone out of my way to express several times that in my opinion you come across as a seeker of truth.<br /><br />I do only on occassion turn antagonistic with those claiming to have found the truth, seldom with the ones who dare to ask questions and certainly not those that ask questions to have me put more effort in my thought processes.<br /><br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-1312877695632609152018-02-10T14:28:41.946-08:002018-02-10T14:28:41.946-08:00https://www.thoughtco.com/declaration-of-independe...https://www.thoughtco.com/declaration-of-independence-and-christianity-myth-249684<br /><br />https://www.quora.com/Who-or-what-is-the-Creator-in-an-atheist-reading-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence<br /><br />Thinking about it. I believe you are intelligent enough to have deduced that if I would quote from my textbooks the reasoning would be along the lines of the articles quoted above.<br /><br />You said you had studied the subject so there is no use to empty my boxes. Perhaps the occassional reader will find someting new in the brief articles above and perhaps if interested travel to Monticello to learn what Thomas Jefferson really believed and what he meant qhen defining the source of power and authority to govern/serve.<br /><br />After all my postings are not intended to convince anyone, but at least to challenge common held believes that are founded on narratives, myths, lack of research that the originators of the foundational texts of america had foreseen, but rather as only one aspect within a larger framework of philosophy on liberty than the leading narrative that it has become for the bible belt.<br /><br />Nck<br /><br /><br /><br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-21226160336120570972018-02-10T14:06:09.967-08:002018-02-10T14:06:09.967-08:00So you were never part of cog. No wonder I singled...So you were never part of cog. No wonder I singled you out for this interesting conversation. <br /><br />I think there is enough stuff for now for those interested to have an interesting read. There is slight risk I/we might slip into a discussion on what we did or did not say/type which would distract from the main body of information.<br /><br />We could continue by e-mail. But you of all people must be aware that you gave me quite some homework in order to be able to engage on a deeper level.<br /><br />For instance I will take your suggestion to look up Dr Peterson.<br /><br />One thing I am sure I do not agree with you at this time. That is your interpretation of the intent of the Declaration of Independence. <br /><br />My textbooks however are in a big box so I have to look up my source for my claim that the priests of Enlightenment for certain did not have the christian god in mind when drafting the declaration. It leaves room to interpret that way. But I have studied the philosophers of enlightenment, natural law, the law of nature, hobbes,rousseau, locke, paine, More, etc long enough to have passed real exams and know decades after the fact and of the cuff that it is different from your interpretation. In normal conversation with the folks up here I let that go and don't even bother to look up my sources. But with you I will make some time and see how I got to my conclusion which a long time ago was top of mind.<br /><br />To claim Iron sharpens iron would at this stage amount to arrogance from my side. But I do know I am not as stupid as my spelling makes me look.<br /><br />To make one more wild stab in your direction out of personal frustration to not have the necessary information available immediately.<br /><br />Are you of the type that believes the mythical story about christian folk landing at plymouth rock and shaping america from that point on? Or do you have knowledge on the legal documents from what is called New York State today that shaped the destiny of America, its definitions of freedom, the legality of breaking away from the British and the true and original meaning of liberty, now woven into the very fabric of our culture, disseminated over the entire world stemming from a pirates nest (at an island at the center of the world) 100 miles down from and many years before plymouth.<br /><br />If you know about the 2nd and the origins of liberalism, (not the modern leftist commie talk, but original liberalism) then you are aware of the fallacy of the force fed narrative of America the beacon of freedom as a single christian nation by definition.<br /><br />Nck<br /><br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-14362310985695539362018-02-10T09:57:06.845-08:002018-02-10T09:57:06.845-08:00Part Four:
On your interpretation of the story of...Part Four:<br /><br />On your interpretation of the story of Abraham in the Old Testament: It does indeed seem bazaar to me and very "flat" and denies the robust nature of that story that is rich with meaning. I am not prepared to discuss theology in this short post. I usually reserve the discussion of those matters with other theists. It seems to me that it is impossible to discuss such matters with people who have a poor understanding of the nature of God or those who have a materialistic view of reality. It would suffice to say that your interpretation is yours and can do little to support your theory of morality or disprove mine. It does seem strange to me that a person who doesn't trust the reliability of the Bible would use it as evidence. Even more, you might even be bringing up a "straw man" that you can easily knock down. HWA would employ such tactics. Either way, it still does nothing to refute objective morality comes from God.<br /><br />One quick note. Dr. Jordan Peterson (not a theologian, but a scientist) has a lecture on the story of Abraham. I would encourage you to find that and review it. You should be able to find it easily on Youtube.<br /><br />You said, "I m glad the founding fathers according to the philosophy of the day did away with all this nonsense after the example of the french who ended the political power of the priests first."<br /><br />I would certainly agree that "priests" shouldn't have political power. Didn't Jesus of Nazareth warn us about this? I think so. Here is what our founding fathers thought philosophically in a nut shell:<br /><br />"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />You said, "...peoples "inalienable rights" for the very reason that they are equal to ourselves, they are OUR image."<br /><br />Not according to our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />Take my comments as you will. I hope they have helped you. I encourage you to look at why you believe what you believe. And if those beliefs are logical and rational or are they reactionary to something else? I would be happy to continue the conversation by email if you so desire. If so, let me know.Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-33523925883404270552018-02-10T09:56:45.266-08:002018-02-10T09:56:45.266-08:00Part Three:
Your comment, "I noticed that pe...Part Three:<br /><br />Your comment, "I noticed that people usually only engage in genocidal behavior AFTER they have categorized groups as NON human. This is another proof that humans intrinsically know that they should not treat equals that way."<br /><br />I think you are correct. I wouldn't call it proof, I would use the word evidence, but I get your point. You seem to be making contradicting arguments. On one hand you seem to think that there is no objective morality and then it seems that you make an argument like this that supports objective morality. If a person "intrinsically know[s]" something wouldn't that make it objective? Wouldn't that value have to lie outside of them by its very nature to be true. If it was dependent on them, then wouldn't it just be an opinion and not necessarily true?<br /><br />Your comment: "Now there lies the difference with many believing in morality being attributed from a magical source who have in the past made all effort to brandish moral people like the south koreans as pagans worthy of death through a narrow and highly subjective morality deducted from their magical books of codification that contradicts their subjective morality."<br /><br />I'm quite amazed with the language and concepts you used in this statement. It is a strange concept to me to that objective morality arises from a "magic source". It seems to me that it is you that thinks morality comes from a magic source. You have already stated that people know "intrinsically" that they shouldn't kill people because they are equal to them. It seems to me that you are relying on "magic" to assume this is true with no justification. My view is that objective morals have a source and its not magic at all. Aristotle revealed to us thousands of years ago that the concept of a Prime Mover/Unmoved Mover/God is logically coherent and without such a thing there is no coherence to reality or any reality for that matter. Objective morality flows from the Prime Mover and his nature is rational and moral -- that, my friend, is intrinsic. Atheistic thinkers have been attempting to escape this brute fact since, just as you are now with your circular reasoning and contradicting concepts.<br /><br />Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-4703627788519917802018-02-10T09:56:02.144-08:002018-02-10T09:56:02.144-08:00Part Two:
I read through some of the Quora topics...Part Two:<br /><br />I read through some of the Quora topics that you posted. The first article triumphantly uses circular reasoning to champion its conclusion. In the second article, it seems to me that the writer doesn't understand what the word "objective" means. At least, he uses it in a way to shoehorn his presuppositions. Absurdity.<br /><br />It seems to me that some of these same tactics were used by HWA to intellectually trick his followers into believing what he was saying to be the truth. Off the top of my head in his "God Family" doctrine, he has to change the actual meaning of the word Elohim and ignore the principle that God is immutable. Once, he gets that out of the way it's easy for people to believe that if they keep the sabbath and the holy days, they will become part of God. I'm sure you see my point. (FYI. I have never been a member of COG or any related organization. I am a polemicist against "Christian cults" and these days, it seems, against atheism.)<br /><br />You start off with a downright false statement: "If morality were objective than every person of our species would share the same moral values." As I have stated, every person doesn't have to believe that murder is wrong for murder to be objectively wrong. I would submit that everyone except those that have something wrong with their mental wiring does know that it is wrong to kill people for no good reason. Have you ever heard of a guilty conscious? I can state without question that it would be wrong to torture a toddler for fun no matter how much money you can get paid for doing it. I'm sure you would agree.<br /><br />If your statement was true, there could have never been a prosecution in the Nuremberg Trials. The NAZIS would have been able to murder Jews because in their society's morality is subjective to them and killing Jews and stealing their property is Ok because it allows Germans to flourish. If your statement is true then there really isn't a problem with Muslims bombing concerts and building and shooting up people in night clubs. Their social structures just allows it and allows them to flourish based on their definition of flourish. Who are we to disagree?<br /><br />Your comment: "So I said that people long ago came to some sort if definition of the golden rule as a working principle."<br /><br />Ok. So why is it good? It's begging the question to just say it's good. The golden rule is good because it allows human flourishing. Why is flourishing good? You see the circular nature, I'm sure.<br /><br />You said, "The abuse of people as slaves is only a "reduction" of the quality of human life. Just like many ordinary jobs today are a dread and do not elevate people to their full potential."<br /><br />I see a few problems with this statement. Why does a job have to elevate some one? Wouldn't someone elevate themselves by taking a job they want to do or find another way to elevate themselves (ie Chess)? Aren't free people allowed to determine what elevates them and what does not? If they don't like the pay-rate or the tasks, isn't it up to them to seek a job that suits their requirements based on their ability. I would disagree that slavery is just a reduction in quality of life. I would argue that slavery takes a person's right giving to them by God to make choices for themselves. Besides, why is a reduction in quality of life bad? We are just sacks of biochemical reactions on a rock hurdling through space on our way to a cold, bitter end at the heat death of the universe.<br /><br /><br /><br />Godspeed to you.Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-47662230535083606032018-02-10T09:55:20.027-08:002018-02-10T09:55:20.027-08:00Part 1:
To nck,
I'll start off with part of ...Part 1:<br /><br />To nck,<br /><br />I'll start off with part of my original quote:<br />"Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close." ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions<br /><br />It does seem that your definition and my definition of words and concepts is different. For instance, you used the phrase "virtue of circular reasoning". I would say that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy and by using it, we can't get to rational truth. Maybe, you think it gives you the answer you want, and maybe it does, but it precludes you from the actual truth. If you are not a truth seeker, then maybe that is ok.<br /><br />It seems that you and I have different definitions of "objective morality". If you agree with the way it was defined in the Quora article, then you only have half of it. I suspect that definition is used to allow an escape hatch. Objective morality is independent of the observer, however, the second qualification is unneeded and misleading, "Described in such a way that all observers agree." It would be wrong to say that objective moral only exists if all the observers agree with it. That would beg the question. I've heard of plenty of people that might not agree that it is wrong to rape young girls, ie, Mohammad and Herbert W. Armstrong. While they may not have thought it wrong doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.<br /><br />As I have already said, not all morality is objective. Speed limits, codes of manners, etc. Some morality is objective such as murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc. I'm sure you can tell the difference.<br /><br />Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-64839839226214199722018-02-09T15:51:57.837-08:002018-02-09T15:51:57.837-08:00I just posted a lengthy posting.
Then it occured ...I just posted a lengthy posting.<br /><br />Then it occured to me that in my career I have seen many superior products fail because customers were buying the inferior product. So what is a company if it cannot convince its customers or at worst has no customers at all. So whatever flows from the company must be in harmony, balance and symbiosis with the customer. What is an opera singer without listeners. What is a God with followers confused about his communication (style).<br /><br />Ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-36147227866733865842018-02-09T15:18:23.847-08:002018-02-09T15:18:23.847-08:00If morality were objective than every person of ou...If morality were objective than every person of our species would share the same moral values.<br /><br />https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-morality-and-subjective-morality<br /><br />So I said that people long ago came to some sort if definition of the golden rule as a working principle.<br /><br />The abuse of people as slaves is only a "reduction" of the quality of human life. Just like many ordinary jobs today are a dread and do not elevate people to their full potential.<br /><br />However taken to the extreme, I noticed that people usually only engage in genocidal behavior AFTER they have categorized groups as NON human. This is another proof that humans intrinsically know that they should not treat equals that way. Because they can only engage into atrocity after they stripped the other of humanhood.<br /><br />This is quite different from Stalin or the traders you mentioned who are just attributing financial value to workers. It is different from and specific to genocidal cases stripping equality in order to be able to break the ancient golden rule and maintain a personal sense of morality. Like the German camp commandants with extremely nice families living next to the camp, or southern racism that went beyond the money value of their property.<br /><br />Now your second question.<br /><br />I stated that I am okay with your belief in God. You come across as a moral person, who endeavors to do best.<br /><br />However, watching the opening ceremony of the olympic games today I was struck with the morality and success of the people following the way of balance and dao. I have no problem with them either.<br /><br />Now there lies the difference with many believing in morality being attributed from a magical source who have in the past made all effort to brandish moral people like the south koreans as pagans worthy of death through a narrow and highly subjective morality deducted from their magical books of codification that contradicts their subjective morality. <br /><br />As you said yourself. Abraham did not write a book against atrocities. Of course not. He owned slaves. Had several wives at the same time and did many unacceptable things inspired by the magical morality of a God. I dont care about the goat. Even the attempt of murdering his son was by all standards atrocious. It is not even a lesson or inspiring and the state troopers would have shot him first.<br /><br />Abraham should have known that if he understood what I wrote of the cuff, since it has been decades after I studied this topic. But No, Abraham decided to follow a godly standard or the voices in his head. At least David knew he was wrong.<br /><br />I m glad the founding fathers according to the philosophy of the day did away with all this nonsense after the example of the french who ended the political power of the priests first.<br /><br />Instead they set up a temporary new order that indeed leaves room and respect for believers who deserve it but have on their unstoppable arrogance interpreted that freedom as if the founding fathers had based that order on christian philosophy. That is a grotesque and dangerous falsification of reality. Driving left or right who cares. But driving right in england is murderous and immoral and stealing from peoples "inalienable rights" for the very reason that they are equal to ourselves, they are OUR image.<br /><br /><br />Nck<br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-77902259795867844462018-02-09T13:54:25.411-08:002018-02-09T13:54:25.411-08:00To nck,
Briefly, I will entertain a few of your r...To nck,<br /><br />Briefly, I will entertain a few of your remarks for clarification. <br /><br />Your Comment:<br /><br />"You misunderstood the sub human definition. By you definition Stalin and the traders only REDUCED the value of real humans. I was speaking about (false) declarations and definitions that the victims were not human at all and CRUCIAL to understand the intrinsic value point I was making. That is quite a difference you made to change my point, I have reasons to think you did not do that on purpose."<br /><br />Maybe I am not that smart. What is your conclusion if your statement is true? And how is that different than Stalin and Hitler concidering some people sub human?<br /><br />Your comment:<br />"So many people attributed value to the little humans for a lot of reasons.<br />The fact that the STATE troopers got involved suggests to me that the STATE or Larger Society also attributes value to these little humans for extra reasons that go beyond that of the parents interest. Which would be ridiculous if we take into account how many of these cretins are around and how easy and fun it is to make new ones."<br /><br />So what is your conclusion? Morality is subjective? Morality is objective but the standard is not God? Please help me understand what you are trying to say?<br /><br />Thanks for entertaining my questions.<br />Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-20985947197639774912018-02-09T01:04:32.062-08:002018-02-09T01:04:32.062-08:00You have certainly shown respect to my engaging in...You have certainly shown respect to my engaging in converation. I apreciate the time you took.<br />I will have to rehash some of the theory on circular reasoning. Any further thoughts of mine could, at this stage, indeed be interpreted as an attempt on my part to show error in your way of thinking. It is not. To me this was an exchange of opinion and certainly not personal.<br /><br />Just a few more thought from my part to blow of steam for personal reasons.<br /><br />a) You misunderstood the sub human definition. By you definition Stalin and the traders only REDUCED the value of real humans. I was speaking about (false) declarations and definitions that the victims were not human at all and CRUCIAL to understand the intrinsic value point I was making. That is quite a difference you made to change my point, I have reasons to think you did not do that on purpose.<br /><br />"Your experiment cannot determine the value of the kids nor can in explain why people were upset."<br /><br />-The average net value of a 16 year old kid in the western world is about 150.000 dollars.<br />-None of the parents called me out on the money value<br />-None of the parents bothered not to come to school since the value of their kids had expired. Just continue working and make another kid would be the rational thing.<br /><br />So many people attributed value to the little humans for a lot of reasons. <br />The fact that the STATE troopers got involved suggests to me that the STATE or Larger Society also attributes value to these little humans for extra reasons that go beyond that of the parents interest. Which would be ridiculous if we take into account how many of these cretins are around and how easy and fun it is to make new ones.<br /><br />I'll leave you with these thoughts, while I will be contemplating the virtues of circular reasoning.<br /><br />Thank's again for the food for thought.<br /><br />nck<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-61227655344982657812018-02-08T15:36:18.710-08:002018-02-08T15:36:18.710-08:00To nck,
You have far more endurance than I have. ...To nck,<br /><br />You have far more endurance than I have. I'll make some brief comments and leave you to your own devices. It has become a bit of a burden to me to go around and around, but I do want to be respectful of your thoughts. It seems to me that you have yet to show error in my thinking while continuing to beg the question and engage in circular reasoning. I am not trying to be hurtful or discourage you from thinking. I am instead encouraging you to think more carefully. It is with courage that you and I chose to think at all these days with absurdity and incoherence being shoved down our throats (ie David Peck and Aron Ra).<br /><br />First a couple of definitions.<br /><br />begging the question: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.<br />circular reasoning: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.<br />intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature<br />axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true<br /><br />Empirically, your science experiment would only net you these results:<br /><br />-- the physical damage your weapons caused (dead and hurt kids)<br />-- people where upset<br /><br />Cause and effect. Your experiment cannot determine the value of the kids nor can in explain why people were upset. You would then need to use philosophy or another methodology to determine the answer to other questions. I'm sure you see the absurdity of your proposition.<br /><br />You said, "On slavery, I said specifically that it was wrong NOT because God condemned it and told Abraham to write a book condemning the practice. Slavery is wrong because PEOPLE should be treated as equals."<br /><br />As far as I know, Abraham never wrote a book. I've also never claimed that slavery is bad because it was written in a book. You make a good point that slavery is wrong because people SHOULD be treated as equals. I would agree. The difference in my opinion and yours is that I can justify SHOULD and you cannot. My justification is that people are created in the image of God by God who is holy and rational. You say it because of intrinsic value or it's axiomatic. I say that is not justification at all, but a nice little escape hatch. Stalin and Hitler certainly had a different opinion on what the intrinsic and axiomatic value of humans are.<br /><br />I would certainly agree that some people have justified slavery and genocide by defining people groups as Sub Human. Stalin would consider anyone that didn't agree with him as a sub human. Hitler considered anyone that was not German a sub human. Arab slavers considered black people sub human, etc, etc.<br /><br />One of the problems of stoicism is that the philosophy has no ultimate justification and can't deliver on its promises. Non-attachment doesn't lead to happiness, it leads more likely to nihilism. <br /><br />I'll leave it there for you. Godspeed.<br />Donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06252515868132708842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-21460972582690653472018-02-08T03:42:40.612-08:002018-02-08T03:42:40.612-08:00Oh man Sorry,
Socratic Dialogue I meant of course...Oh man Sorry,<br /><br />Socratic Dialogue I meant of course, <br />not Aristotelan. I'm sorry I'm occupied with listening to the sound of QE unwind in the distance so the dialogue is a nice distraction.<br /><br />nck nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-79866123453824279562018-02-08T02:02:55.104-08:002018-02-08T02:02:55.104-08:00You might have understood that after my emperical ...You might have understood that after my emperical research "society" has granted me more time to think this issue over. After re reading my 11:51 I must first apologize for some atrocious mistakes in typing and grammar. This happens when typing with one finger extremely fast. But you do not seem to be the type of person pointing out grammatical mistakes in order to mislead on my general thesis.<br /><br />It just occured to me that their are many ways to attribute "value" to annimate or inanimate objects.<br /><br />One of the most often used attribution model is the "scarcity model."<br />Therefore diamonds are attributed more value than plastic. While in reality they are just compressed C. To some islanders some colored shell or stones with holes are worth more than 15 camels to buy a wife in another society. <br /><br />My point.<br />I guess the value atributed to those toddlers could perhaps be assigned to the scarcity of the specimens. Or perhaps the effort that goes into keeping them going. (takes longest of all primates) My argument in court will be: "Oh you people get a life, make another one, its fun too." While my lawyers have adviced me to not question the "scarcity model" in court. The parents will as it seems argue the uniqueness of availability of said toddlers, as it seems.<br /><br />In the past or today in Africa, it seems the scarcity of chances of survival for toddlers were very much lower than today. It could be argued that the attributed value to those toddlers at that time would be significantly higher since their survival rate was scarcer. <br /><br />Judging from my ancient family tree it seems they were valued lower since reproduction rate was extreme. It seems that people have a way of coping. On the other hand I would readily accept that in the past RELIGION attributed a higher value to those toddlers than my rational assumption deriving from scarcity. Relgion contributed some mighty valuable stories about little angels in heaven. Now that I call value attribution. That is also exactly the reason why I should respect your viewpoint as long as the exchange is civil.<br /><br />It seems that the code book that starts the story with 2 people attributes extreme value to those humanoids, living in perfect conditions. The value of that species greatly diminishes when they increased into a multitude and could be whiped out by a flood at the whim of emotion. The God from whom value seemingly was attributed later felt ill about what happened and send a rainbow to remind himself of his foul deed. But the supposed value flowing from that creator had not stopped him to withdraw that value at a whim. <br /><br /><br />Which would have been different if that God had to abide by the rule of law attributing intrinsic value to ALL humanoids and remind him that those evil clay puppets were his image (gone berzerk perhaps, but his image nonetheless.<br /><br />nck<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-16727964382368108102018-02-07T23:51:42.200-08:002018-02-07T23:51:42.200-08:002)
I do get "the organizing principe" o...2)<br /><br />I do get "the organizing principe" of traffic rules. Most countries drive right. British organized left. Nothing moral about that. UNTIL one decides to drive right in England and left in America. Then you display immoral behavior by endangering people living according to that specific ordering principle. The same goes for the DANISH burka ban. In Victorian times the showing of an ankle would be extremely arousing and tea tables and chairs had their legs covered for this very purpose. <br /><br />On slavery I said specifically that it was wrong NOT because God condemned it and told Abraham to write a book condemning the practice. Slavery is wrong because PEOPLE should be treated as equals. That is the very reason I cited that as soon mankind enters into atrocious behavior it immediately starts rationalizing by DE HUMANIZING its victims. Because it is self evident that you cannot not allow such behavior to other humans but perhaps by classifying others as sub human or half animal rationalizes it.<br /><br />I guess the intrinsic value of an educated person in the western world in money terms is 150.000 dollars. And more if you teeth are covered in gold. Of course we are talking about "intrinsic or axiomatic' value.<br /><br />On AI. I do not expect you to be an expert in this field. Therefore it is ok to have misunderstood. The entire premise of AI is that at first the machines are programmed and soon after THEY START LEARNING THEMSELVES. Now with big data these machines within a short time span have the ability to learn faster, proces faster and make FAR MORE better informed decisions than man can ever be able to.<br /><br />(I am not saying that the machines are moral, I am saying that they sure will be better informed.) As a matter of fact. Figuratively speaking at Facebook they are able to predict with a reasonable accuracy what you are going to do today, when and how and what you would like to eat tomorrow. At the same time YOU might still be thinking about planning your day and talk to your wife about tomorrow's dinner.<br /><br />My point was that the "self learning" machines might just come to the conclusion that mankind is destroying its habitat and therefore must be reduced or eliminated, which would be the rational thing to do through the scientific method.<br /><br />We must therefore understand the self evident nature of our own destruction by for instance not being a good steward of nature's resources. <br /><br />Therefore I find plenty of topics and levels of agreement between us and for now have no desire to change your opinion but rather learn from it.<br /><br />And not turn the other way when intrinsic or attributed value seems to prohibit the torture of todlers, but 300 million people turn the other way when Gulfstream jet fly to Poland and Morocan prisons to extract information from the "orange suits".<br /><br />A moral life of modesty, discipline based on fact was propagated by the stoics as I recall. The christians brought some discipline and order to the Swedes in 900 AD. There the twain shall meet.<br /><br />ncknckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-75706722223482741932018-02-07T23:51:12.172-08:002018-02-07T23:51:12.172-08:001)
Donnie,
I do enjoy this "Aristotelan deb...1)<br /><br />Donnie,<br /><br />I do enjoy this "Aristotelan debate". And I apreciate your manner of reasoning. Like you I have limited time. So I do not expect you to adress all points raised by me. They are merely questions and amount to rambling since it has been awhile that I could pass a systematic exam on chomsky et all.<br /><br />I have no wish to change your belief that worth is attributed by God.<br /><br />I have taken your advice on empirical testing. And rammed my car into a kindergarten yesterday. Started throwing marbles at the toddlers, hit them with pencils over the head and pinched them in the nose. <br /><br />Non of the staff, parents and police used the argument later on that I was infringing upon their God attributed value. Most parents shouted that I endangered THEIR hopes and future, most toddlers cried and responded negatively because I attacked their intrinsic value, the police said that I should be put away for "being a menace to society", and the law stated that I will be punished for having infringed upon the intrinsic right of individuals and society as a whole. (basis for penal system)<br />nckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580008070423402328noreply@blogger.com