Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
General Religious Discussion / The subjective nature of love
« Last post by Jag on Yesterday at 01:20:40 PM »
As explained by the Greeks: 6 words for love.

Short version:
Eros = sexual passion and desire (side note, the Greeks didn't see this as an "always positive" kind of love, it was dangerous because it included a "loss of control" aspect)
Philia = deep friendship, brothers-in arms, loyalty, includes storge, love between parents and children
Ludus = playful love, affection, between children, between adults having social fun like dancing, laughing, bantering
Agape = love for everyone, selfless love, universal love
Quote from linked article:
"Empathy levels in the U.S. have declined sharply over the past 40 years, with the steepest fall occurring in the past decade. We urgently need to revive our capacity to care about strangers."[/nb]
Pragma = mature, long-term love, staying-in-love love (patience, tolerance, compromise)
Philautia = love of self, self-compassion; Aristotle says "All friendly feelings for others are an extension of a man's feelings for himself."

Agape is the Greek term for the contemporary Christians idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin". My boyfriend and I were just discussing how hard this is to put into actual practice - it's easy to love your own children when they misbehave and to cut them some slack for circumstances, but we can be pretty judge-y about other people's kids, for instance. Agapic love requires a certain level of compassion and a suspension of judgment that can be hard to apply with any consistency, and it requires a lot of sustained self-awareness. This kind of love is active, it takes conscious effort to set aside biases to look at the human being, and it's ongoing by definition.

This article and the secondary link to the study in Scientific American do a great job of nailing down what I find so frustrating about many of the theist discussions here about love. They throw the word around to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment until it means nothing at all.
62
Science / Re: Mining the Moon
« Last post by Graybeard on Yesterday at 01:12:07 PM »
Will you please share your opinions on the possible consequences of mining the moon?

It scares the s**t out of me.
Yeah, it’s well known that even dropping something heavy on the moon will break it in two and half would fall straight on America.

That’s why the Moon Landings were filmed in California.

Quote
Any light you can shed on that big ass particle maker would also be appreciated.  Do they really have control over all that energy?
Well, the verb “control” is a bit strong – they have a switch to turn it on, but the current is so strong that it doesn’t always work if you try and turn it off. There is a report on the internet that says so far 27 scientists have just “disappeared” leaving behind only a smell of burnt flesh. CERN (who run the show and are funded by “Big Pharma” and the CIA) have just said, “Their contracts expired and they left. We do not track ex-employees.”

There was an earlier model built in the late 1990s in Northern Sweden: nobody is allowed near the area now, and Google Earth maps have the area covered in cloud.

Quote
Do earthlings really have the "right" to explore outer space?
No, we don’t. In 1958 the United Nations signed a declaration that there would be no space exploration at all, ever. However, the Soviet Union and China both ignored it. When the US found out, they decided that, for security reasons they would have to break the treaty. You might have thought that the Cuban Missile Crisis was about Cuban Missiles… but no, it was all about that Treaty, but the government won’t ever admit it.

(True Story!)

Quote
There is already a problem with space junk hitting people's houses while their watching TV.
Yeah, you’re right, and we only get to hear about 1 in a thousand disasters! Most are reported as “gas leaks” or “a Truck hitting it” or “a hurricane.”

Quote
Really sincerely curious JB.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to publicise these secrets they don’t want you to know.

If you have any questions about the man-eating tendencies of Bigfoot, or Why Area 51 is not Area 51 but Area 51A or how the Illuminati have control of Obama, or the secrets of the Bilderberg Group, or the influence of the Masons, the truth behind “the grassy knoll”, or the chemicals in Con-Trails, let us know.
63
General Religious Discussion / Re: For Theists - The Case for atheism
« Last post by Merlin on Yesterday at 12:51:31 PM »
That's what I said.  That's what I've been saying for months.  We do not know.  Atheist don't know.  Theist don't know.  That's why I'm neither one.  I am perfectly content with we don't know.   When you assume things you make an ass-u-me.

Atheism assumes.

Not quite right, JB.  I agree that you don't accept religion or atheists.  You made up something called 'Spiritualismtm'.  You agreed above that we do not know what is right, but you made up your own beliefs anyway.  When anyone moves away from atheism on this sliding scale, they have to begin making things up. :-[
64
Science / Re: Mining the Moon
« Last post by jetson on Yesterday at 12:46:09 PM »
If you take a nihilistic perspective, humans are just another part of the universe, and thus every action they take is just another action - it is not good or bad. It is humans themselves that create all of the emotions and labels, good or bad, around the actions it takes.

Humans have created all of the "meaning" that people love to cling to. Outside of our language, labels, and the words we use to define and categorize stuff - everything just exists - with no concern over what humans do or do not do.

In the grand scheme, we will never be noticed by the universe. Mining the moon around the planet we live on is no exception.

If we destroy ourselves, there will be no one or no thing that cares one way or the other.

Having said all of that, we should weigh the pros and cons of our actions, and try our best not to destroy things for the sake of destroying them. We should learn to utilize resources so that the least amount of harm is done - based on what we know about how our resources are made available, and what we know about the limits of those resources.
65
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ethics of Slavery and the Bible
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Yesterday at 12:43:40 PM »
I do.

Do you agree that you have been using a double standard?

I don't because I've not been talking about keeping them against their will.  How do you know they were kept against their will?

And since you agree there is no difference in being a slave and being kept against your will then do you agree that prisoners are the same as slaves?
66
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ethics of Slavery and the Bible
« Last post by Jag on Yesterday at 12:37:15 PM »
I do.

Do you agree that you have been using a double standard?
67
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ethics of Slavery and the Bible
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Yesterday at 12:29:39 PM »
Quote from: Jag
And you didn't actually answer my question - what the functional difference is between being unwillingly "kept" by someone, and being someone's "slave"?

Sorry I went on to defend the answer without actually giving it.  The answer is that it depends if they were kept against their will or not.

.....really?  :?  Read the question AGAIN please. The word "unwillingly" is right there. You are using a double-standard that you are not acknowledging regarding which one of us can add qualifiers and interpretations to what the bible says.

Explain please. You still have not given me any idea of what you see as the functional difference.

No I overlooked that word.  There is no difference.  Do you agree there is no difference?
68
jst, you didn't answer on the other thread, hope you will here, would it be ok, in yr view, for the jews to defeat (totally) and enslave the Palestinians?

No.  That is not what Christ instructed us to do.   
69
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ethics of Slavery and the Bible
« Last post by Jag on Yesterday at 12:23:50 PM »
Quote from: Jag
And you didn't actually answer my question - what the functional difference is between being unwillingly "kept" by someone, and being someone's "slave"?

Sorry I went on to defend the answer without actually giving it.  The answer is that it depends if they were kept against their will or not.

.....really?  :?  Read the question AGAIN please. The word "unwillingly" is right there. You are using a double-standard that you are not acknowledging regarding which one of us can add qualifiers and interpretations to what the bible says.

Explain please. You still have not given me any idea of what you see as the functional difference.
70
Science / Re: Mining the Moon
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 12:23:22 PM »
Humanity is at its best when it forges ahead rather than hanging back.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10