On 23 Jan 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "misanthropic_curmudgeon"
<misanthropiccurmudgeon@breastcancermail.com> wrote:

Padraic Brown wrote:

And it is interesting to note that the largest predictor of someones
faith is the faith of their parents: religion is a social construct.

Is that a surprise to you?

Not partuicularly, given that religion is a artifical social construct,
and evolution as equiped (vulnerable) children to mimic their parents
as a survival mechanism: if the parents are deluded the children
probably will be too.

On 23 Jan 2007 12:53:29 -0800, "misanthropic_curmudgeon"



<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:

Padraic Brown wrote:

And it is interesting to note that the largest predictor of someones
faith is the faith of their parents: religion is a social construct.

Is that a surprise to you?

Not partuicularly, given that religion is a artifical social construct,
and evolution as equiped (vulnerable) children to mimic their parents
as a survival mechanism: if the parents are deluded the children
probably will be too.

The majority culture in, for example the US, is
one where male+female marriage, and taboos against certain sexual
practices are the norm.

Taboos that have been imposed subsequent to European settlement of the
continential US.

Before the Europeans came, and for a while after, there was no
"continental US"

Then please explainn what that big hunk of dirt is?It's a hunk of dirt. I'm pretty sure it's attached to the mantle

somewhere. The point is, to complain that the present laws are based
on taboos brought here by later settlers and "imposed" upon peoples
who may or may not have shared those morals is a bit pointless. The
laws are in force now and are desired by the majority of Americans,
regardless of whatever morals may have been in effect on this
continent 5000 years ago.

Whatever morals existed among the
Natives don't apply to the US,

Because of the genocidal campaigns waged by religious pilgrams.

People who saw a good opportunity for business and the amassing of

hitherto unimagined wealth and power, at the expence of those who
could not sufficiently fit in or who were inconveniently in the way.

except in so far as any minority may
try to convince the majority to accept its morals.

So when your minority imposes its will, that is OK, but when another
minority tries to, its a bad thing?

I never said anything about "imposition". It is the right of a
minority to try and convince the majority that its own morals have a
place and should be respected. Sometimes the majority agrees,
sometimes they don't.

For example, the majority decided that (certain) drugs should be made
illegal.

You seem unaware of politics and legislation in democracies:
legislation is not passed by the majority: it is drafted by agents of
the state and voted on by representives of the state whose mandate from
the voters (majority)may be several years old.

The example may be simplistic, but it is quite valid. You don't get
"agents of the state" or "representatives" without there being some
kind of support from a large segment of the population.

This is not a manner of
semantics - one have impose legislation on a populace by co-opting 51%
of the representive legislature, and even than that when the
legislature is party-driven and representives tow the party line.

Many people (and I suspect you) make the erroneous
assumption that these tabbos have been around for eons.

Actually, no. The particular set of morals you chose to discuss above
are pretty solid Christian morals.

Oh so only 1970-odd years then?

Some of them, yes. Others are much older. You happened to list a small
set of moral behaviours that are typical of Christian morality.

In a small section of the world - out
of the 10,000 years or so that modern man has existed.
Lets not count the numerous Popes who adulterised, the barbarity of
pre-Victorian monarchs and heads of the church, the .....

List all the immorality you like. I don't care. The matter at hand was
a couple of morality based laws in the US.

No morals have been around for eons.

Why?

Well, an eon is a billion years, right? There've only been people for
what, a half a million or so? What's so hard to understand about that?
;)

I suggest some
reading about pre-Victorian Britan, most of Europe, and for good
measure the relationship in British culture beween such tabbos and
distance to the British homeland.

All are very interesting, but of little import to the discussion.

Wrong: I am pointing out that the Christain morals you refer to are
attributed to the likes of (in the US) puritan sects and (outside of
the US) Victorian morals derived from a mourning queen and her
influence over her reverent people.

It
does not matter what was going on in ancient Europe or far away in
Africa. If you're complaining about Christians and their "subtle
laws", that's here (in the US) and now (early 21st century).

Newsflash: Christains exist outsde the USA

True, but immaterial. We're talking about US laws.

Prosletysation is bad manners, whether it's Christians, Atheists or
Mormons doing it. Let people come to their own conclusions based on
their own reason and study.

The nobilty of this line is thwarted by Christian treatment of heretics
both in ancient times and current.

Like I've said any number of times, people in power have often abused
their authority, and have misused religion as a justification for
their violence.

Because of the genocidal campaigns waged by religious pilgrams.

People who saw a good opportunity for business and the amassing of
hitherto unimagined wealth and power, at the expence of those who
could not sufficiently fit in or who were inconveniently in the way.

So when your minority imposes its will, that is OK, but when another
minority tries to, its a bad thing?

I never said anything about "imposition". It is the right of a
minority to try and convince the majority that its own morals have a
place and should be respected. Sometimes the majority agrees,
sometimes they don't.

For example, the majority decided that (certain) drugs should be made
illegal.

You seem unaware of politics and legislation in democracies:
legislation is not passed by the majority: it is drafted by agents of
the state and voted on by representives of the state whose mandate from
the voters (majority)may be several years old.

The example may be simplistic, but it is quite valid. You don't get
"agents of the state" or "representatives" without there being some
kind of support from a large segment of the population.

No morals have been around for eons.

Why?Well, an eon is a billion years, right? There've only been people for

what, a half a million or so? What's so hard to understand about that?
;)

Bill M wrote:

<

The world was created Good, and he told
us not to eat of the fruit of good and evil. We
should have listened to God.

...and never learned of good or evil.
That would have been dumb.

Good response. You have a good
insight into evil

Jim

Ge 3:5 - For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil.

Your god must be evil and mean to create evil!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

On Mar 20, 7:15 pm, James <bir...@allvantage.com> wrote:

jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com
Re: Why evil?

The world was created Good, and he told
us not to eat of the fruit of good and evil. We
should have listened to God.

...and never learned of good or evil.
That would have been dumb.

Good response. You have a good
insight into evil

Jim

Ge 3:5 - For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil.

Hello,

Yet the Bible clearly shows that Adam and Eve knew "evil" and what was
"good". For example, when Eve was tempted by the serpent (Satan) she
told it:

"2. The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees
in the garden,
3. but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in
the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will
die.'" " (Ge 3:2,3; NIV)

Clearly she was warned by God what was a "bad" thing to do, and its
consequences. So if Adam and Eve knew what was good and bad, what is
the real meaning of Ge 2:5? More on this if you are interested.

Sincerely, James

**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads

***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

For better fiction:
http://www.sffworld.com/community/