I would think that LagDotCom's post would discourage reproduction. At least I read it as intended that way.
By the way, with the development of nanotech, we will soon be able to control our own evolution. Just thought I would point that out.
"No one needs money, and you should not try to earn it, but, err, if you do.. then give it to other people. That's kinda makes them richer, therefore to some extent making them less willing to serve me, so you kinda damn them by doing so, but, eh, it's for a good purpose, right?"
I have hard time figuring out whether you're just trying to twist for the sake of twisting without realizing how witless your retorts are. But to err on the safe side, I'll interpret you by the face value. If doing so puts the mindlessness of your posts to a pedestal in the process, so much better ;)
In general, the Bible does not say that you do not need money nor that you should not try to earn it.
Sure, there are situations where Jesus said, "worry not what you should eat and how do you get clothes for yourself" [1], or even, "take nothing with you, no money, no food, no change clothes" [2][3].
Let's see if I can make this clear. The general outline is: One should always put God first ― and material blessings will follow.[4][5][6].
Don't worry whether you will have enough food or clothes ― if you do God's will, he will provide all that you need. It does not mean that you should immediately go and sell everything you have; that could be really stupid, because then you would become a poor in turn. It just means, that one should be obedient to God. Giving alms is of love. Jesus said, "sell what you have" ― this does not mean that you should sell your house and everything, but it does mean selling excess things. Such as if you're an art collector: unless possessing that art is the means for doing God's will[7], you should sell it and give that money for charity (or possibly utilize for other purpose that is God's will ― for example, to build a church, whatever God has put on your mind and confirmed to you).
Neophos wrote:
'You fool, this night your soul will be claimed; where will end up all that you have acquired?'
"Well, maybe I didn't plan for my wife and children to die of starvation a week after I pass away, you know? No? Alright, guess not, I'll go get a torch."
The parable makes no mention of a wife and children; if we go that road, we could just as well assume that the rich man of the parable has also a son who would carry on with the work.
Instead, the focus of the parable is that the things that the man has collected, are solely for his own entertainment; it does not say "my family has wealth in case I die". It says "I can just sleep and party and rejoice for I have so much, me me me."
Neophos wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
"What matters is where our soul ends up, with whom"
Apparently with some prick that doesn't want me to have fun.
Don't know about you, but I'm having plenty of fun. Earlier[8] I wrote about a joy[9][10][11][12] that is deeper than anything else I have experienced.
In general, realizing how God acts, as in really does something, to or through you, or even when you're not involved yourself, is the most fascinating and refreshing feeling you can ever have.
Though sceptics categorically deny anything claimed as being done by God – even if such denials go as far as to say "sometimes that just happens. We have no idea why."[13], – they're only denying themselves the wonderful realization[14] of how God really acts; a realization that for born-again believers, is granted, for the God's Spirit[15][16][17][18] in themselves witnesses[19] about it.
_____________________________
I feel like the fact that I'm linking to a shakespearian translation of the Bible that uses words like "ye" and "thou" somewhat hinders the usefulness of the said links… But what can I do, English being such a horrible language and all – or more to the point, newer English translations of the Bible either being inaccurate or horribly copyright-license-restricted so that you cannot redistribute them. Eh.
EDIT: Installed NIV. Now with slightly better readable readings :)
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
yeah, I guess all languages use words correspondent to "ye" and "thou" in their classic translated bibles. That makes the book really annoying to read.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
yeah, I guess all languages use words correspondent to "ye" and "thou" in their classic translated bibles. That makes the book really annoying to read.
Well, not Finnish. Finnish does not really have any obsolete pronouns.
yeah, I guess all languages use words correspondent to "ye" and "thou" in their classic translated bibles. That makes the book really annoying to read.
Well, not Finnish. Finnish does not really have any obsolete pronouns.
You are hereby declared lucky; Shakespeare is a bitch to read.
Actually, I think I will turn my OT comment into a question. Do you have any "Great finish writers of the XXth century"? Shakespeare is English, and is known throughout the world (I believe). Any Finnish writers that are famous inside Finland's borders?
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
Bisqwit, why don't you believe in a true Finnish religion like Kalevala instead of this dude Jesus from middle-east?
mz wrote:
The main aim of reproduction is to try to preserve our genes.
You can't say that preserving our genes (or reproduction/survival) is the purpose of life because it doesn't answer what the purpose of preserving our genes is.
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Wow, the 34th page seems to be a barrier for religous talk.
There is a purpose for preserving our genes, preserving them to reproduce another day. If we didn't reproduce, our species would end.
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
There is a purpose for preserving our genes, preserving them to reproduce another day. If we didn't reproduce, our species would end.
You can't say that preserving our species is the purpose of life because it doesn't answer what the purpose of preserving our species is. I wouldn't even agree that humans are 'species' though. We are very distinct from animals.
I sort of take Bisqwit's side on the money issue. Jesus seemed to advocate socialism/communism in the NT. Nowever, I think that Neophos referred to Christians who say to give money to a church rather than to charity.
Bisqwit wrote:
Though sceptics categorically deny anything claimed as being done by God – even if such denials go as far as to say "sometimes that just happens. We have no idea why."
Though noncognitivist sceptics such as me deny that statements about "God" have any scientific content.
nfq wrote:
I wouldn't even agree that humans are 'species' though. We are very distinct from animals.
Bisqwit, why don't you believe in a true Finnish religion like Kalevala instead of this dude Jesus from middle-east?
In general I ignore your posts because of the low signal-to-noise ratio, but since you asked a direct question...
Simply because I'm not a religion shopper.
Actually, I think I will turn my OT comment into a question. Do you have any "Great finish writers of the XXth century"? Shakespeare is English, and is known throughout the world (I believe). Any Finnish writers that are famous inside Finland's borders?
Aleksis Kivi is quite famous -- and actually the only person from this list that is famous enough that I know what they wrote.
The list of Finnish composers is significantly longer.
Jean Sibelius is arguably the best known world-wide. Particularly every Japanese person I've met seems to know about him. Ironically, his name isn't very Finnish.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
nfq wrote:
Bisqwit, why don't you believe in a true Finnish religion like Kalevala instead of this dude Jesus from middle-east?
In general I ignore your posts because of the low signal-to-noise ratio, but since you asked a direct question...
Simply because I'm not a religion shopper.
By the way, Kalevala is not a well established religion anyway. It is a piece of epic poetry. "Kalevalaism" brings 0 search results everywhere.
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
nfq wrote:
Rridgway wrote:
There is a purpose for preserving our genes, preserving them to reproduce another day. If we didn't reproduce, our species would end.
You can't say that preserving our species is the purpose of life because it doesn't answer what the purpose of preserving our species is. I wouldn't even agree that humans are 'species' though. We are very distinct from animals.
What defining traits set us apart from animals?
Our brain isn't the largest, we aren't the best runners or jumpers, all we have is the ability to use what we have very well.
Note: I am not talking about our emotional aspects, such as language and emotions, although our regional annotations (accents) are not exclusive to us.
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
Note: I am not talking about our emotional aspects, such as language and emotions, although our regional annotations (accents) are not exclusive to us.
Whenever there's a discussion about "what is it that humans have that other animals don't have, what makes humans so special?", it always goes like:
"Humans can do thing X."
"But animal species Y can also do that. Thus it's not a defining character of the human species."
Repeat ad infinitum.
What they usually fail to see is that humans have all those qualities *at the same time*, while the listed animal species only have one or two of them at a time. No animal species has the combination of qualities as humans do, even if no single quality is exclusive to humans.
Note: I am not talking about our emotional aspects, such as language and emotions, although our regional annotations (accents) are not exclusive to us.
Ugh. Don't ever trust anything the BBC says about linguistics.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
RT-55J wrote:
Rridgway wrote:
What defining traits set us apart from animals?
Intellect.
Many species of animals have been shown to be able to learn and utilize tools, so intellect is definitely not what sets us apart. A lot of people would probably say that humans having a soul or spirit sets us apart from animals, but without some way to measure a soul, it's impossible to quantify.
Biologically, not a whole not.
If you want to stop there, do so.
In the bigger picture, God created the human distinctly from the rest of the creation, and has continued to treat us specially from ever since.[1]
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Do you believe relief work for 3rd world countries to be worthwhile?
It may prevent suffering now, but it also could be argued that it props up a population that is not self sustaining, and will cause that population to grow into further dependence, but that argument often comes from people who are just rationalizing.
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
DaTeL237 wrote:
Rridgway wrote:
What defining traits set us apart from animals?
I'm sure someone will be able to provide a solid counter-argument... but I like to think of the ability to act other than what natural instinct tells
What are our natural instincts?
Bisqwit wrote:
Rridgway wrote:
What defining traits set us apart from animals?
Biologically, not a whole not.
If you want to stop there, do so.
In the bigger picture, God created the human distinctly from the rest of the creation, and has continued to treat us specially from ever since.[1]
Expanding on this, the original Middle English term "man" only means human, gender neutral. Man and woman in today's usage were "werman" and "wyfman" respectively. In an older time it was still correct to use masculine pronouns to refer to people in a gender-neutral or collective way (this usage will be familiar to speakers of French, who have two "they" pronouns, one for entirely female groups and one for all-male or mixed groups), while genderless entities were typically referred to with feminine pronouns.
(this usage will be familiar to speakers of French, who have two "they" pronouns, one for entirely female groups and one for all-male or mixed groups)
As far as I remember, it was the same in Spanish: Masculine pronouns also doubled for gender-neutral pronouns when talking about mixed-gender groups of people.
AFAIK, it has always been the same in English: "Man" can refer to a masculine person, but also to a person in general (eg. "mankind", "where no man has gone before"). Also, AFAIK, masculine pronouns have been used as gender-neutral pronouns as well. It has only been in recent decades that political correctness has introduced the completely artificial notion into the English language that using the masculine pronouns and nouns for people in general is not "politically correct".
