(Oct 17, 2017 05:17 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 05:09 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The crux of Christianity is about suffering and 'redemption.' Jesus himself sacrificed his life, again...redemptive suffering. In Islam, Muhammad tells his followers that it's honorable to become a martyr for the faith. Likewise, the Abrahamic faiths all have that as a tenet. Suffering and even dying for the faith is seen as noble and redemptive.(Oct 17, 2017 12:38 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't answer my question. Where does it say suffering is somehow a necessity, much less a divine necessity? Notice the dearth of citations regarding those claims about Christianity.(Oct 17, 2017 03:25 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]"Suffering is a divine necessity"? Where do you get that idea from religion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering#Religion
If it's not a necessity, then someone should alert all the people who consider themselves blessed and 'better off' if they submit to martyrdom. Too late for all those who have already lost their lives ''defending'' their beliefs.
Quote:Regarding the comment about manipulation...didn't you post this?
Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:
"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9
(Oct 17, 2017 07:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 06:44 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately it looks that way to me because of the figurative cruel streak in evolution.
Interesting point, elte. I don't know if there is a cruel streak in evolution. ''Cruelty'' is a word I'd use when someone is being deliberate...Hitler was cruel. But, how can nature be cruel?
Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.
(Oct 17, 2017 08:49 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a Christian, Syne?
(Oct 16, 2017 05:59 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]While not a Christian, I freely admit to being a Christian apologist (not a dirty word). I'm syncretic in my beliefs.
(Oct 17, 2017 05:54 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 05:14 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.
I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own. I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.
I don't have a bubble. I'm constantly awash in views that oppose my own...in the prevailing secular culture and media.
Sure, from a moral relativist's point of view, all opinions are equal. So why are you arguing? You see, from your apparent belief, YOU have no reason to argue, but from mine, I do. These are very relevant issues in philosophy, and much debated. You claiming your favored philosophical view is paramount is simply a bare assertion, without any argument at all.
Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:
"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9
Quote:They are often sayings that have been embedded in a culture's folk wisdom and are tempting to say because they often sound true or good or like the right thing to say.[15]
is there a difference between genders on this ?
females being driven through natural selection to not argue
males being driven by natural selection to refuse to change
Generically speaking does "not argue" have 2 different meanings depending on its gender identity ?
men suffer from opening up to debate and allowing descent and thus loosing breeding rights to women.
women suffer for opening up debate by being beaten continuosely for years & years...
does a man saying "i do not wish to argue" mean somethng different to a women saying "i do not wish to argue" ?
hhmmm...
(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a Christian, Syne?
Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.
The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.
Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other.
But, I get your point, elte!
(Oct 17, 2017 09:21 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a Christian, Syne?
Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.
The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.
Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other.
But, I get your point, elte!
That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting. The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter. I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.
Thank you for trying to understand. I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.
(Oct 17, 2017 09:26 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 09:21 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ](Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Are you a Christian, Syne?
Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.
The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.
Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other.
But, I get your point, elte!
That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting. The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter. I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.
Thank you for trying to understand. I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.
No worries at all, you explain yourself just fine.
I've always admired that you are tactful, and never aim low with ad homs, etc.
Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose. Would you consider yourself a nihilist? Nihilism doesn't have to tie in with this, but just thought I'd ask since it crossed my mind.
