• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by panpareil

  1. The problem of God's relation to good and evil is based on our understanding of omniscience. We assume he does not have the power to not know something, or to create something that is random. Something to remember when framing these specifically anti-Christian topics, no religious or spiritual stance stands up to logical scrutiny. They are not supposed to. That is not their purpose.
  2. Last time I saw tornadoes were down as well as hurricanes. I think if you build more things in a tornado zone, more things get blown down, whether there are more tornadoes or not. Arctic ice has returned after a temporary cyclical warm period. Antarctic ice is at a record high. Plants are growing more with an 11% increase in global foliage. The Sahara is shrinking. Polar bears are at a record high. The ocean continues to rise at the same low rate it has for hundreds of years. The earth seems to be taking a CO2 lemon and making lemonade. There is also predicted a possible collision with a Mesozoic ending sized object in 2037. Unfortunately, I will probably not be able to attend the celebration party for yet another miserably incorrect end of the world prophecy. Perhaps I will just celebrate today!
  3. I am saying insanity and malevolence are inconsistent with order and beauty. They are the absence of order and beauty. The miracle of life is that anyone has one at all. The dividing line amongst humanity is between those who appreciate life, and those who find fault with it. Notice, I did not say their life, but life in general.
  4. Children do hate to be punished and often find no reason in it. Then they grow up. If the maker of this world were malevolent or insane why is there order and beauty.
  5. Nature has a way of eliminating those who dwell too much on the end that awaits all things, and rewards those that spend more but not all time on living. It's like a bell curve.
  6. Just gave up the land line. It is still more secure, but don't need it any more. The thing with DVDs is that they are not pay per view. They are, if not under our current law ownership, at least permanent license.
  7. Can't be done. Evil is partial and therefore inconsistent. That's one of the things that makes it evil. I think it is equally as difficult to define what is good as well.
  8. I see no valid moral objection to cannibalism. There can be a legal objection on the point of property ownership of the corpse. There can be a medical objection on the point of communication of disease. It is immoral to kill to cannibalize. But there is nothing inherently immoral about eating human flesh. As to homosexuality, I would find it emotionally confusing to be simultaneously in competition with and attracted to the same person sexually. I think the discrete compartmentalization of these two conflicting emotions that is inherent in heterosexuality is a more stable internal environment.
  9. I just wonder among the members here who live in a society with Christians, do you recall the last time any beheaded or otherwise killed a witch. I would guess the same community beheaded Christians as well.
  10. Yes, just because one is paranoid does not mean someone is not out to get you, but neither does it diminish the irrational paranoia. What is common among accusers of witches and riches is an intellectually underdeveloped, possibly passive aggressive, need to blame others instead of taking responsibility for the direction and outcome of ones life.
  11. I do not believe that Christianity holds the majority of those who attack those who are charged with performing malevolent spiritual acts. I believe now as in the past the common denominators for such attacks are ignorance, stupidity, and projecting ones personal malevolence onto others.The common denominators for the end of such attacks are education, civilization and prosperity.. The modern aspiritual equvalent of accusing witches of causing your problems is the delusional blaming of big corporations, the rich, or the right wing conspiracy for causing ones problems.
  12. I am surviving yet another day in mostly the way I choose.
  13. While it may be reasonable to state that a electron is a particle(A) with a specific location in space and not a wave(B) that has no specific location, it does not inhibit an electron from being either or both. Even if it is absurd. The assumption in the initial logic is that God is not the Devil which could be just two pseudonyms for A, allowing A to remain A. There are objects and there are properties, which are instances of the "has a" relationship. An object has a property. A deity can have one name, God, and a second name Devil. A deity can love, hate, deceive, and enlighten, all at the same time.
  14. And the Muslims in the north have always just cut their heads off. I do not find any record of widespread homosexual acceptance in African culture before the Christians got there, or the Muslims. It does seem that any form of infertility is unacceptable in primitive societies that live at the edge of subsistence, where breeding is a necessity for survival. Not that I condone persecution, but there does not seem to be a golden age of acceptance for homosexuals that we have fallen from. Homosexual acceptance has risen in kind with the prosperity of the Mercatus Liber or the Free Market, but not done so well under socialist rationing.
  15. If there must be a creator for nature then there must also be a creator for the creator. If there is no need for the creator to have a creator then there is no need for nature to have a creator either. If there is evidence for intelligence in the design of nature why would you think that the intelligence lies outside of nature? Man is the perfect example that intelligence lies within the creation itself. Instead of Intelligent Design it should be Intelligent Auto-Design.
  16. The religion is irrelevant since non-Christians do exactly the same.
  17. All well and good, but what do you think their vacation plans are?
  18. Not necessarily. Questions and statements are usually presented within a framework of terminology designed to prevent reasonable dissent. The framework is presented as undeniable. Often it is required to bring into question the framework itself in order to reasonably address the presented question. As with, "Why did it take you so long to stop beating your wife?" Followed with, "I can understand your denial but that still does not address why?" Take the word fat. Dan just rattled off several variations, but the meaning of all of them was that fat is bad. Someone's weight can be determined by a scale, their girth can be determined by a tape measure. But the value of being fat can be determined by anyone (diverse individuality) or no one, but not by everyone (universal agreement). Values are not objective, but are often presented as if they are, or as a veiled ad hominem.
  19. Since the causative benefits of society are equally accessible to all, (roads, running water, mail, police, firemen) why is it that some still end up benefiting more than others? It is because the government is inept or discriminatory in its distribution of societies resources? Or perhaps the causative benefits of society are not really the most important factor for success. Maybe there are greater and more essential causes of success than society.
  20. Another thought. If society deserves the lions share of the credit for things getting done and individuals are only marginally necessary, why is the entirety of the government not run by committee? Why is there a president, a single individual man? Shouldn't the executive branch require a multitude of men each with equal executive power? Shouldn't there be no place where a single individual is allowed to make decisions on his own, or where a single individual be allowed to be the deciding factor? More importantly if it can be justified to have an individual make decisions seemingly for all of society in the position of president, why not everywhere else?
  21. If "you didn't make that" is true, does that also mean that for the liberal religious there is no hell or judgement? If society creates the circumstance for those who are rich do not those same circumstances create the poor as well? If the only tools for obtaining wealth are dispensed to all by society, then why are only some rich and others poor? Can society claim responsibility for the good things in mans life but avoid the same responsibility for the bad? if you can not claim ownership for the good in your life are you free from guilt for the bad in others lives as well? It seems someone or something is shirking their responsibility, or claiming to be responsible when they are not.
  22. Living things are required to judge living things, that is if they want to continue living. Our androids will discover this as well. The question is how will they judge us.
  23. Happy 54rd anniversary of the founding of the Universal Life Church on May 2nd 1962.
  24. panpareil

    Star Wars Day

    May the 4th be with you.