Profile for Stillness
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Stillness |
| Member number | 7723 |
| Title | Lifecrafter |
| Postcount | 701 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 05:28
Profile
Morality 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Supposedly, laws are based on morality. Universal laws are an indication that certain morality is universal. I’m curious about your non-moral (based on the definition above) reason for theft and murder being illegal. quote:I think this whole question is beautiful even if “morally right” is redundant. It goes to my “the-Bible-makes-sense-to-me” argument. If we were hard-wired to believe in a flat Earth it would not. The evidence that we are programmed for certain morality harmonizes perfectly with the idea that we are made in the image of a loving Creator that wants what’s best for us. The Bible would be useless if it didn’t match up with reality and if the stuff it says to do didn’t work. I wouldn’t believe it. Also, I have and do research other religions including Jainism and am aware that some regard all life as sacred and worthy of preservation. I didn’t mean my comments to be taken as quotations from Jain holy scriptures. I only meant to make a point. If I was afraid or didn’t care to listen to other perspectives I wouldn’t be talking to you all. quote:I thought I was clear that I was speaking about world conditions. You mentioned Africa so I thought the point I’ve been making for the entire thread was understood. Besides, linking to 100+ page files concerning the past 50 years with no explanation is not really a way to make an argument about the past 100 years and what happened before. Lack of peace is not evidence against an absolute moral code. At the most it could be evidence that people are not applying it. Also, I’ve abandoned my moral code to match one I saw as superior. When I’m presented with differing codes I examine them based off which one seems more just, reasonable, and loving. quote:I lazily made my point because I was taking Synergy’s knowledge for granted. I quoted it to make it clear that in Christian thought a man has no choice but to answer to his wife, in this case her sexual demands. This was to counter his assertion that the Bible has women treated like property and is anti-woman. This scripture applies the same rule to husbands as to wives - making it clear thet they are both "owned" by one another. I agree about the purpose of the scripture though. It’s anti fornication. It’s also pro one-woman-one-man. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 21:46
Profile
Intuition can be a guide because morality is hardwired. The universality of laws against things like murder and theft are a testament to absoluteness. I would argue that the mosaic law will seem more moral to us because it is more moral. quote:I gave the reasons that convinced me. As I said, each one has to investigate and figure out what’s best. If Jehovah is real he’ll determine whether or not we chose correctly. If the Jainist diety is then the same goes for him. If the atheist is correct it only matters for a few more years after which we’ll become one with the stars or whatever. quote:That’s why I made a distiction between desirable and moral. I’m sure most thieves realize that theft is wrong, but they still desire to take your stuff. I would only choose a system favoring me if I put selfish interests above community. Egalitarianism is not a new idea, as I understand it. It’s a very prominent theme in the Bible. quote:Drifting in and out of relationships is the opposite of stable. I’m not following you here. quote:What distinguishes a marriage from a relationship or partnership? quote:You discriminating baby bigot! Let them make decisions for themselves like adults. Give the toddlers an opportunity. Maybe you could give them a chance to be in charge of the family. What’s so bad about cake and Fruit Loops® for dinner? Share authority. Why do you hate infants, Alo? Don’t try to control them because they’re smaller. You adult supremacists make me sick. quote:Seriously? Why? I do think there is some good to be found in America and Europe. Like I said, the world is not all bad. ------------ Synergy, I forgot to address this: Women are never treated like property in the same sense that cattle or land is. Jehovah is said to be a “husbandly owner” of his people. That does not mean he doesn’t treat them with the utmost love and kindness. In fact, husbands are told that they do not ‘exercise authority over their own bodies’ because their wives do. (1 Cor 7:4) Apparently this concept was not foreign to pre-Christian women since Rachel hired out Jacob’s "services" to Leah. Also Sarai arranged a marriage between her maidservant and Abram. (Gen 16:2, 3; 30:16) I think some of us may assume that women were just helpless victims of a harsh patriarchal system. That is far from true. Women have always greatly influenced culture. “The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” – My Big Fat Greek Wedding Maybe they influence it less in a rigid patriarchal environment, but the Bible is certainly not behind that. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 18:59
Profile
I challenge Drew or anyone to present evidence that “people these days are generally better off financially.” Also I would like to be clearer on what he means by “quality of life” so that we can see whether or not I’m obtuse. BTW, you’re behind in the discussion, because we left off using “Christian” because of confusion and hurt feelings that may arise and have opted for “people who follow the Bible” and the degree to which they follow it. Animals are important, but not as important as humans. We’re both made by God, but humans are made in God’s image. We’re also made to rule them. That view is practical because it allows for killing and controlling of animals when it’s good for us (e.g. food clothing, protection, companionship), but does not allow for mistreatment or abuse of our authority over them. It also requires that we deal with them in wisdom, knowing that our well-being is linked to them. So when I said Jainism was impractical it was compared to what I consider a better way. Sorry in advance if anyone is offended by my view. ------------- You can’t judge another moral code if you assume that there is no absolute morality. If there is then you can judge. Other “senses” help, such as fairness and empathy. Let’s say you are a noble. Hammurabi grants you lighter judgment for a crime. That works out fine for you. In fact it’s all you know so you accept it. Now let’s say I tell you, “Imagine that you were not a noble. How would you feel about a law that discriminates by class? Did you know there is a law code that does not make such a distinction?” You can become enlightened and recognize that your culture’s code is not the most moral because it’s not the most fair. I agree about stable relationships, if by stable you mean healthy lifelong commitment. It provides a sense of security for both mates and any children. That’s effectively what marriage is though. The difference being that one is legally recognized as marriage and the other is not. A mate may wonder why you don’t want your union legally recognized as such as may children and others in the community. That would raise some doubt as to commitment. So legal marriage is better in that sense. Of course amicable divorce is better than a bitter one, but a preserved and healthy marriage is best. You mention that secular humanism does not allow hitting without good reason. The Bible does not either. You also mention discrimination as being excluded in secular humanism. Does that mean there can be only unisex bathrooms? Can we have a WNBA by secular humanist standards? Would babies be expected to earn a living and pay taxes? Why or why not? Good religion is never amoral. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 11:17
Profile
We all have a sense of right and wrong. That sense allows you to measure the moral standing of an action or belief based upon your own, or even to adjust your own when another appeals to you more. It's by that sense that I said the code through Moses is more moral than Hammurabi's. What you're really probably getting at (if you're not trolling) is absolute morality, which I believe is hardwired into us, but can be redirected by personal decision and societal pressure. That's really what I'm appealing to. We all hate injustice, at least when we feel the bad effects of it. So when we compare a code that allows someone license to commit crime if they are a noble to one that applies punishment universally we generally don't like the former as much. If we're a noble, we may like it, but still we recognize it's not as morally sound. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:22
Profile
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. from dictionary.com. I would say atheism fits this definition. Some do have folks like Dawkins or scientists in general that they rally around as sort of a priesthood. They also can have humanistic morality. They only lack belief in superhuman agencies, which does not exclude atheism from the definition "religion" above. Even if you have a definition that would exclude atheism, the point is that they behave as the religious do in many ways. Even when they lack devotion to gods, they still have "higher" aspirations. It goes toward the argument that it's part of our nature. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 10:03
Profile
Unmarried people don't get pregnant and people don't beat one another if they apply biblical values. We've been through this. EDIT: You almost pegged me right. And I would say that your statement about no one living by biblical values is somewhat true. Which I why I said somewhere early on that "to the extent you apply biblical values you benefit." There are some people that do try very hard though. Others don't try at all. Then you have people everywhere in between. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:09: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 09:06
Profile
quote:We all have morality and it varies from person to person, so in that sense it is based on how we feel. So the question comes down to what do you feel is best when examining two seperate standards - a question you did not answer. I'm not really out to convince you at this point Thuryl. If you think as many people die now as in the past or in the same percentages then go ahead. Alex, I picked the past 100 years, in particular starting with WW1 because of the powerful effect it had and the decline in morals ever since. The past 50 have had their share of bloodshed as well though. If there were no wars or even if the western world was peaceful and the rest of the world was headed in that direction, I'd be agreeing with you. As it stands, the country I live in (supposedly the front line in the advance of frredom and peace) has declared an unending "war on terror" which has already caused deaths reportedly in the 100's of thousands. I am not comforted by that. Nor am I hopeful that humanity can have success in pursuing global peace, especially anytime soon. It's not negativity, but a realistic look at where we are and where we've come from. Oh, and I’m not advocating Islamic, African, or archaic values. I’m advocating biblical ones. So you have to compare families that have them to families that do not. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 07:44
Profile
I see your point about truth and accept it. Logic does not always lead to truth even when applied properly. We all try to do the best we can, though. Each one has to decide what he will believe and why he will believe it. And I’m not “so suspicious of scientists” - at least not anymore than I’m suspicious of anyone. I’m skeptical of everything until it has been proven or at least makes sense. For example, if my mother had been prone to lying and other people were outside at the same time and saw nothing I’d have doubts. If my mother was as I said, there were reports of animals acting strange, garbage cans had been turned over all over the neighborhood, other people had reported seeing something similar, etc. I would give serious consideration to what she said, even if was convinced beforehand that there was no Bigfoot. It’s morally cleaner in my opinion. I don’t want someone killed because he’s starving and steals a loaf of bread. I would like him to compensate, though. Although I realize that in reality the things our parents do affect us, I don’t want punishment for a crime my father commits to fall on me. I want to be judged based on my actions. I also don’t think punishment for a crime should be lessened because a person belongs to a higher class. How do you feel about it, Thuryl? quote:So you think it’s wrong? If so, what part? The figures from the past century? The previous 1900? Both? Alex, I don’t believe males are “supreme.” You missed my point. I also addressed the point about advanced weaponry. The reasons don’t change the facts. And I’m not talking about Europe this moment, I’m talking about the world over the past hundred years. By the way, because of technology and globalization, wars and conflicts elsewhere have an impact on everyone, even if you’re not bothered by people you don’t know dying by the thousands. Marriage and family are central to stable societies. People who care about healthy civilization care about them unless they’re ignorant of that fact. And a marriage may be miserable because you don’t know how to make it work. If you can make it fulfilling and successful as opposed to abandoning it everyone will be better off – mates, children, society. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:19
Profile
Logic is good, but it should be used properly. When my mother says something I’m thinking 1) she’s not insane or otherwise mentally imbalanced, 2) She has always wanted the best for me and worked toward that end and stuck by my side through thick and thin. That is the way my logic works. For most (but not all) those are true. So if your mother says something the question is not, “what does she have to gain from me?” or “is she crazy?” The question becomes how qualified is she to assess a situation and report it accurately. This process is not any kind of fallacy. It’s good logic. It has nothing to do with establishing scientific truth. That’s why I said, “would you think twice?” not “would you write your thesis on Bigfoot?” Healthy skepticism is good, but like with everything there is balance and extremes on either end are unhealthy. But, never mind sasquatch. I didn’t mean it to be taken very seriously, although the responses were sorta informative. Some insects are unhealthy or dangerous and deadly. Also constantly carrying a broom and sweeping would be quite restrictive. I would not adhere to your religion because it’s not very practical. That is one of the reasons the Bible is convincing to me, because what it teaches is practical. Without the other reasons I gave, one would not be very convincing. The interesting thing is that the biblical prophets sometimes mess up well after they receive their messages even after they are pillars of faith among God’s people and sometimes multiple times. There’s never any sugarcoating of the failures of powerful kings, prophets, or the nations of the penmen. That I find uncommon now and in the past. ------- Synergy, I do think the Bible was influenced by the ancient cultures, but I don’t know what you mean by “evolved.” The influence comes from God dealing with them on their level. It doesn’t change the value to us now though. If it was only good for them and not for us I’d be on your side. As it stands it works for people regardless of the era in which they live. And how many people believe or accept a thing does not have any bearing on reality, unless you’re measuring popular opinion. Jesus and his disciples after him foretold an apostasy during which time most would not hold to correct teachings. When they wrote and spoke the words of Jesus and his apostles were regarded as God’s word. When I look back at the history of the Church I can see the apostasy clearly. It did everything it was not supposed to do. So people not believing in the Bible presents no hurdle to me accepting it. In fact, I’d be amazed if they did. Why would you assume mosaic law stemmed from Hammurabi’s code instead of the coming from the same source – that is a codifying of practices and laws of the Semetic peoples which came from Noah? That being said the mosaic is morally cleaner. For example a thief could be punished with death while Hebrew law required compensation. Hammurabi made class distinctions, Moses did not. Hamurabi also did weird stuff like kill the son of a builder if someone’s son was killed by falling off of a roof he built. Also I’m pretty sure that the mosaic law is unique in that it governs not just actions but the feelings that lead up to them. You could abide by the law as far as anyone could see, but be a criminal if you don’t love God in your heart, secretly want your neighbor’s wife, or hold a grudge against a fellow believer. quote:http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1650 “Three times as many people--110 million--fell victim to war in this century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899.” quote: quote: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 06:16
Profile
*Holds award* “First I’d like to that God. None of this would be possible without him. And I can’t forget you Ma. You always said I was a genius even when they said I was average. I wanna give a shout out to my homies back in Detroit… Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, July 17 2007 10:23
Profile
Believability depends on the veracity of the source. I'm convinced that the Bible comes from someone very honest. If you are not convinced that the source exists or cares of course you'll have doubts. If yo mamma told you that she clearly saw a large bipedal hairy primate through her bedroom window rummaging through her garbage for 30 minutes not more than four feet from her that could not possibly have been a man in a costume, might you think twice? Let's give her a PhD in zoology with a specialty in primate studies. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, July 17 2007 07:52
Profile
No, but we have an eyewitness account. I don't feel that some people lived to 400 based off of theory. I'm trusting a historical record. It is not unreasonable to me just because we don't see it now. If someone believed something for which there was no record of ever and not observable now I would think that was unreasonable. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, July 17 2007 05:58
Profile
If there were no record of such a thing and I simply felt that it happened because it fit my worldview better then you'd have a point. In this case we have an actual eyewitness making a matter of fact statement as if it's no big deal, and even as if it's actually a small thing - calling 70-80 years 'quick.' It's also not farfetched because we see basically the same thing now. This is the situation we had on the other thread and we're in the same positions. I think things are the same, you think they work differently. If that somehow makes me a hypocrite or stupid in your eyes, so be it. I don't know why you can't just leave the past in the past. I don't have any bad feelings toward you because we disagreed. I actually enjoyed the discussion and feel I grew from it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 20:31
Profile
quote:OK, but would you mind clarifying exactly what was hypocritical for my own edification before you and Kel check out. If I see I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit to it. I really don’t get it atm. Are we talking about video game addiction or the infamous “Regulation?” quote:Alo, if you’re speaking about me, I wasn’t dismissing you as an atheist or saying your belief is worthless or even talking about you. I was talking about those calling me and anyone with religion stupid, jerk, etc. and claiming I derail every topic (which is completely false). Oh well, guess you can’t please any of the people some of the time. Also your attempt at turning my words around on me was poor, as my main point was that those who vehemently attack religion are in a religion themselves. It would be good if I didn’t think I was in a religion. It would also be good if I went around calling people stupid, idiotic, jerks. I do not. Not where I can hide in anonymity behind a screenname, nor in person. quote:Hard numbers. I already have. If you don’t see more people dying numerically as well as proportionally as an increase in bloodshed I don’t really know what to tell you that won’t sound disrespectful. It’s not like the past wasn’t bad too, just not as much. So it’s not romanticized. Still there are good things now, there always has been good. It can and will be much better. The truth is I actually agree with a lot of the things you say about religion and God, like the part about letting us fall on our faces. I can’t help but to sense some negative experience that turned you off. What was it? Or was it just an accumulation of doubt over time? The reason I call you an opponent is because of stuff like what you say next which is false, yet you continue to repeat. quote:Gen 1:24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh. Deut 17:17 He should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside… Deut 21:14 And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her. Mal 2:13-16 13 “And this is the second thing that YOU people do, this resulting in covering with tears the altar of Jehovah, with weeping and sighing, so that there is no more a turning toward the gift offering or a taking of pleasure in anything from YOUR hand…Jehovah himself has borne witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you yourself have dealt treacherously, although she is your partner and the wife of your covenant…with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously…For he has hated a divorcing,” Jehovah the God of Israel has said. There is much more. So you are simply wrong. Polygamny was tolerated and regulated, not promoted. Marriage was given great attention in the “Old Testament.” You are equally wrong about the original institution being restored under Christ. See Mat 19:4-9; 1 Cor 7:2. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 12:40
Profile
I find it ironic that one of the mascots for the aggressive athiestic movement appears right after JS's last post. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Europa, God, and you, or Where it all fits. in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 10:00
Profile
I find "thank God for x" overused too. I must admit that I am less irritated by it than I was before. The idea is that "every good and perfect present is from above." The problem becomes identifying what truly is a "perfect present." For example, if someone doesn't shoot themselves it was their will to live that won over. That comes from God and is good, so he can rightly be thanked. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 09:37
Profile
I don’t push my faith on the internet on video game forums. I go out live and in person door to door and into the homes of people who want to listen when its time to preach. I talk to the folks here because I like video games and I find some of the discussions and perspectives enlightening. I didn’t start this thread or derail the one that spawned it (which I did start because I wanted to talk about life on other planets). Some people obviously are interacting with me because they want to for whatever reason or I wouldn’t be posting. If you do not because I’m a jerk you have options. I know I have some sort of magnetism that makes people who hate my posts unable to resist reading them and responding. Be strong. Fight it. Maybe you can pray to your plate for strength on pasta night. I always find the antics and reasonings of the obstinate atheist to be amusing. (I’ve seen video of guys preaching the pasta god and must admit they are quite funny). You all imagine that your way is the pinnacle of thought and that the majority of men now and throughout history are insane or deluded for believing in a spiritual realm. You minimize the spiritual nature and desire for higher purpose in our race, even the one in yourselves. You brush off encounters that people have had with this realm as nonsense simply because you haven’t had the experience. You exchange belief in spirits with faith in men with microscopes or promises that hope lies within us. But you still have religion. There is always something you follow. “We all can do what we please as long as no one’s hurt,” “People who believe in gods are seeking comfort because they can’t deal with death,” “Man arises from chaos and nothing more so we have to unite and put aside our differences to bring about peace.” The people who believe this stuff are more adamant than I’ll ever be in “pushing religion.” It’s funny when they can’t see that and attack the “religious” for the same things they do. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 09:34
Profile
quote:Because you took my comment out of context. quote:Then why do you expect that God would respond if you were petitioning Jesus? My experience is that God does respond if you petition him properly. The experience of many is that he even responds if you petition him improperly. The question is how will you treat his response. You definitely gained knowledge of God since then. You’re more educated than many on what the Bible teaches. It’s unfortunate that you have become an opponent of it. I love the account where Jesus is praying that God lets him do things differently and God’s sends an angel to strengthen him effectively answering no and Jesus gets into an physical and agonizingly painful sadness, yet he obeys. It’s because he was humble and could take the answer, ‘No. My way is best.” Some cannot. Self-centeredness and pride prevent them. quote:No, the future is bright. The world will get better. It’s just bad for now. And it’s not ignorance because I have the same hard figures we all have access to that show an increase in human suffering and bloodshed. Ignorance would be ignoring them. quote:False. Please show the scripture(s) that promote polygamy. quote:(1 Timothy 3:12) Let ministerial servants be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over children and their own households. quote:This is not God’s way and is unchristian. God’s way works best as it always has. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, July 16 2007 09:29
Profile
SoT and Alo make a good point on distinguishing between life span and life expectancy. When I said 70-80 as average age I meant average life span. That certainly is not to say that everyone made it to 70, but that 70 or 80 would not be viewed as unusual by a person in that era whereas 90+ might be seen as very old. That is what I meant when I compared now and then. I’m not proposing that there was a statistical analysis done including infant mortality rates that we can pull up. The proof that I know of is in the Bible. Whether you take that as historically accurate or not is of course dependant on your worldview and what you choose to believe. What kind of evidence would you expect to see from millennia ago? I find the article narrow in scope for the reasons I gave earlier. For example, it mentions sewers as marking “one of the biggest jumps in life expectancy.” Where do you see that big jump in the article or the chart? One might be lead to conclude that sewers were invented in Greece or in the past couple of centuries. I also noticed that the chart jumped from broad time periods to times and places (e.g. upper Paleolithic and neoloithic compared to classical Greece and Rome). It’s not a big deal if you take it for what it is – a Wikipedia article. I hope that answers your two questions. Incidentally the article mentions diet and public health as affecting expectancy and we do know for a fact that risky foods were banned, waste was buried outside the camp, the diseased were quarantined, contact with dead animals and people was prohibited, and washing for cleanliness was a part of the culture in the days of Moses. That’s why I have no problem accepting them as living as long as we do. EDIT: quote:“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month… “in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month…” “in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month…” “in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month…” These are from Noah’s log in chapter 7 and 8 of Genesis. His months were 30 days and his years had 12 months. This account shows 150 days is 5 months. The Hebrews also had a 13th month (second Adar or Veadar) for adjustment. Methuselah’s father is recorded to have fathered him when he was 65 and his grandfather came when his great-grandfather was the same age. That would make them 5 or 6 when their son was born if we divide by 12. These ages are only a problem when you assume that nothing has been lost to us, which is a big assumption. We know that genes mutate and whole species can disappear. Why is it a stretch to think that some change caused a decrease in maximum life span? It’s not at all for me when whales and tortoises can break 200 years, mollusks can approach 400, and some trees seem to have infinite life spans with ages in the tens of thousands of years. If you told someone who didn’t know that a shellfish could outlive them 4 times over they’d think you were joking. So it goes with lack of knowledge. But, I guess since man is at his peak it’s absolutely impossible for anything to have existed that we don’t see today. Any evidence to the contrary should be automatically discounted and mocked. [ Monday, July 16, 2007 09:32: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 10:44
Profile
The statement indicates that as an average age at the time. That is part of the evidence. What I find lacking is the narrow glimpse the article gives. Obviously it mislead you because you facepalmed when I made the statement that life expectancy has had ups and downs but is not really higher now than at other times in history. You would probably facepalm also at the idea that Abraham was 175, his son 180, and his son 147. You probably would not facepalm if I told you his son was 110. Maybe you would facepalm at the idea that their grandson, Moses, was 120 and in good health, maybe not. If you did at any of these, it’d probably be because you think like Alo and Synergy that humanity is at its “peak” and because this would indicate that they were better off than us in some ways. In some ways I actually would agree about now being a peak. Overall, I do not. I certainly don’t think we’re as healthy as the people in that area at that time. I doubt our diet and exercise as a society equals what they had. I’d bet they didn’t have a problem with obesity. I find the typical American attitude is that we are the smartest, best, most civilized people in history. Even if they don’t come out and say it straightforwardly, that is the way they feel. I also think this is a great country (so don’t tell me to go somewhere else). But, when you speak to people from other cultures (especially more ancient ones) and take a well-rounded look at history and current affairs from different perspectives you start to see that this view is wrong and some of our highly-prized freedoms come with a price. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 08:33
Profile
Yama, the Wikipedia article leaves much to be desired and I think is misleading. People lived 70-80 years 35-36 centuries ago in Israel. Cities with indoor plumbing have been around for at least three and a half or four millenia, if not more in Mesopotamia. As I said things fluxuate as cultures advance and regress. When you start looking outside of western oriented history you get different perspectives. For example, the chart for expectancy by era lists Greece, Rome, Britain, then Europe as if Greece was the beginning of civilization or as if Western culture was the height of civilization for everytime between these world powers. Neither of these is true. (Psalms 90:10) In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly superscript: A prayer of Moses, the man of the true God. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 07:12
Profile
That's a bizzare and pessimistic view, Thuryl. There's a study somewhere by the department of health that shows that something like 4-5 out of 10 marriages won't make it to 15 years. I have heard of seniors getting divorced nowadays, but I can't see your ideas having any substantial contribution to that phenomenon. Old people can be selfish and have a lack of regard for the sanctity of marriage just like young people. I doubt it's anything more than that. EDIT: As a side note I just want to add that people aren't really living any longer than in ancient Bible days. The numbers may go up and down depending on culture and era, but it's the same right now as in the days of Moses. [ Saturday, July 14, 2007 07:16: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Most Favorite Leader in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 06:37
Profile
Ghaldring Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 06:13
Profile
quote:No one should have to tolerate physical abuse. I don’t think that is the driving force behind the divorce rate though – maybe a few, but not most. I think it’s infidelity, money, maybe differences in childrearing, and most of all selfishness. Whatever the case, divorce is bad for families, regardless of what causes it or even if it is justified. All couples have problems, some don’t have the stick-to-itiveness and tools to overcome them. I do agree that some relationships can just be lost causes, but the vast majority can be healed, even in the case of adultery. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 23:55
Profile
quote:That was never my argument, not now nor from the beginning, nor anywhere in between. I gave it as an opinion, not as a reason. I initially said that to the extent that cultures apply the Bible in their activity they’ll benefit. Someone (maybe you) brought the charge that the Bible is patriarchal which equates to “bad” (which was never really proven). I argued that the Bible may be patriarchal (if that is taken to mean men take the lead in family and worship), but that this is actually good! I mentioned two studies along with my personal experience, one in Russia and one Germany that showed a divorce/separation rate of under 5 percent. One sociological study entitled The Family and the Bible, conducted by A.I. Antonov, head of the Department of Family Sociology at the Lomonsov Moscow State University, established that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses "plays an important role in strengthening the institute of the family." In particular it shows a divorce rate among Jehovah's Witnesses of less than 5 percent compared with 40 percent among the general population of Moscow. (emphasis mine) http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0102b.html I found out that the Russian sample was only 1000 people according to the above site. I couldn’t really find out much more about the German study. So I understand if you question the results. But if it’s representative here is the logic (SoT, Kelandon, and Alo taght me this): 1) Divorce is bad for families. 2) Those that apply western family values have a higher divorce rate than those that strictly follow biblical guidelines. 3) Western values are not as good for families as strictly following biblical guidelines. And 1) A ‘strong institute of the family’ is good for society. 2) People that strictly follow biblical guidelines for family have a ‘strong institute of the family.’ 3) Strictly following biblical guidelines is good for society. That’s what I was really saying. The rest was basically sidetracking. I might add “regardless of their religion” at the end of both “2’s” because there is a lot of confusion with “religious” and “Christian.” quote:I addressed this above. Religion and the church are not what makes a family thrive. Applying bible teachings is. SoT (please don’t be offended) for example is very religious and seems to be into his church. He does not believe what the Bible says about headship applies to him though. That is a common belief of many of the faithful in our society. So your anecdotes are not really fitting. If your “biblish” couples had said, “we’re doing exactly what the Bible says, but it’s just not working” then you’d be on to something. I’ve never heard that. All I hear is the opposite. In fact, if both mates go with the bible they’re pretty much guaranteed success. That’s why those rates are so low. quote:There you go putting words in my mouth. If you want to be a Christian and your desires are anti-Christian, then what does that mean? It’s not complex at all to me. We all make sacrifices based on what we value most. If you think God is more important you act accordingly. If you think your desires are you go that way. If you really believe in God though, you know that he promises a life more fulfilling than anything this world has to offer – now and in the future. And you can use your talents no matter what your gender. Our women are very active in leading people to God. If you have leadership ability as a Christian woman then you and everyone who will listen to you are all the better for it. I know women like this and I learn from them. They’re happy and fulfilled. To each his own though. God is most tolerant. I try my best to be as well. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |