|
Post by placid-void on Mar 17, 2016 12:24:38 GMT -5
"Why" is a quintessential rejoinder of a skeptic. A skeptic is a person 'inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions'. Recognizing the futility of the effort, I would like to consider the question of why the statement - "Human life is sacred" is valid and conveys significant positive value to many rational individuals. I acknowledge that there are and perhaps always will be rational individuals who choose to limit their perspectives to provable propositions within their universe. My presumption is that the statement "human life is sacred" is questioned because of the word "sacred". Sacred is defined as "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration". I believe it is fair to say that 'rational' dismisses all statements or concepts referencing God (or the gods) as "paranormal". I do not share his point of view on this point. But this difference of opinion need not be self-limiting in a conversation. It has been demonstrated within the rigorous confines of mathematics by Kurt Godel that there exist propositions A for which neither A nor not-A are provable. These are referred to as "undecidable propositions'. God exists/God does not exist is an undecidable proposition. As an agnostic, I am prepared to accept an undecidable proposition for what it is and consider the implications of both A and not-A. I am prepared to accept the proposition that human life is sacred for the following reasons. If the proposition that there is no God is true then the 'connection to God' implied by sacred references an indescribable (at this time) process considered to be worthy of veneration. The God implied by the definition is not a "God of the gaps" because no boundary conditions are stated nor implied that would restrict the breadth of knowledge retained within the sphere of all knowledge that remains "unknowable". Emerging now, within the sciences, is an attempt to describe the "limits of knowledge". David Wolpert is refining a proof of the proposition that "no matter what laws of physics govern a universe, there are inevitably facts about the universe that its inhabitants cannot learn by experiment or predict with a computation." If one were to reject the proposition of human omni-intellect, the prospect emerges that an entity with an intellectual capacity different than (perhaps greater than) Homo sapiens may exist. Some might refer to this putative entity as "God" without further specification. The process of life from conception, through development and birth, through infancy and childhood, throughout the maturation periods of adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood, middle age, geriatrics and death is a complex process. It is a complex and precariously balanced system dependent upon other complex and precariously balanced systems such as homeostasis. It is known that homo sapiens can intervene selectively in components of the system to facilitate death or extended life. Beyond these limited and selective interventions much more is unknown about the intrinsic nature of life than is known. Of all that is unknown at the present time, some will become known over time through the persistent manipulation of modern science. There is no basis, however, to dismiss the proposition that some aspects of human life will remain unknowable. Based on these and other considerations it is not unreasonable to venerate human life and by induction embrace the assertion "life is sacred". A separate analysis based on history, other social sciences, evolutionary biology and related fields could be used to examine the pragmatic consequences of not accepting the proposition that "human life is sacred".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 13:02:05 GMT -5
our lives are sacred because we possess sacred qualities. Your answer is useless because it contains nothing useful. This syntax seems to be able to answer any/all questions!
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 17, 2016 13:39:48 GMT -5
[] Jefferson's original draft should have been used: [
i]We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;
that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty] If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. It was quoted from Jeffersons unedited D of I Thinking you understood what Jefferson meant by : sacred +undeniable. If we possess sacred rights , this assignment is not an article that can be discarded or denied. I thought you liked this version?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 13:40:18 GMT -5
"Why" is a quintessential rejoinder of a skeptic. Or the question asked when seeking an answer. In this case it was like standing in a room of people and asking the 5 year old what the sum of 3 + 5 is and having one of the adults yell out "8"! A bit broader: scepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.Also known as the 'incompleteness theorems' and related to the liar's paradox (This sentence is a lie.)? I would agree. And here I begin to disagree. It sounds like whether or not there is a god you are saying that because someone has made the claim that life is sacred it means that life is a process worthy of veneration. Yet the fact that makes it worthy of veneration is because someone has called it sacred which means it is connected to god. Seems like that could go round and round. Why would such an entity be referred to as god? Does it have the characteristics generally given to god? This reminds me of people who say that god is love. It answers no question and provides no new data. Love is defined and god is defined. Redefining god as love serves no purpose. Well, unless you really mean to reduce the general notion of god to an emotion. It is for all living entities.So true. A slight maladjustment in a salt water fish tank and you are left with an expensive dinner.As can a parasitic wasp.But that is working within a bounded system... If there a reason to venerate human life besides the fact that someone has claimed it is sacred? I agree life (of all types) is complex and there is much that is not yet understood. This is true of a number of things. But I must of missed the reason to venerate it. Would the world be a better place?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 13:43:47 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. :) It was quoted from Jeffersons unedited D of I Thinking you understood what Jefferson meant by : sacred +undeniable. If we possess sacred rights , this assignment is not an article that can be discarded or denied. I thought you liked this version? It is the truth being stated as sacred not the rights.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 14:12:30 GMT -5
It was quoted from Jeffersons unedited D of I Thinking you understood what Jefferson meant by : sacred +undeniable. If we possess sacred rights , this assignment is not an article that can be discarded or denied. I thought you liked this version? It is the truth being stated as sacred not the rights. the sacred truth is (=) that we have inalienable rights, according to Jefferson,, So who possesses these "sacred truths" ? Could be implied that all humans do and I believe so. This. Is a reflection on the belief of Jefferson I interpret as meaning if we have sacred rights as humans, then human life is sacred, also , I believe Jefferson would agree
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 17, 2016 18:19:57 GMT -5
Some consider cows to be sacred and will not kill or eat them. In that aspect, I expect the majority of people here consider humans "sacred"?
Which , on another tangent , reminds me of the american in Africa who saw a local man carrying a bible. "Back home in america most of us dont pay too much attention to that ancient book anymore" to which the local man replied " well, good for you but if not for this book you might well be in my tummy" Alvin
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 19:02:36 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. Hi ration, this was my reply, : Our lives are sacred because we possess sacredness in our lives. My life is successful because I possess success in my life. My life is sick because I possess sickness in my life. My cat has tails in his life because he chases his own, round and round. God revealed that to me, otherwise no one would ever know such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 19:03:59 GMT -5
Yet some would argue that the verse: All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.indicated that the believers were a communist group. It might work for a period of time, but the track record for modern communist governments Iis not very good,. That's undoubtedly why they're disappearing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 19:09:04 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. It was quoted from Jeffersons unedited D of I Thinking you understood what Jefferson meant by : sacred +undeniable. If we possess sacred rights , this assignment is not an article that can be discarded or denied. I thought you liked this version? Since when has Jefferson been a sacred prophet?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 19:12:00 GMT -5
It is the truth being stated as sacred not the rights. the sacred truth is (=) that we have inalienable rights, according to Jefferson,, So who possesses these "sacred truths" ? Could be implied that all humans do and I believe so. This. Is a reflection on the belief of Jefferson I interpret as meaning if we have sacred rights as humans, then human life is sacred, also , I believe Jefferson would agree The Declaration of Independence is NOT in the Bible, Commonman. The topic here is contradictions WITHIN the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Philistine on Mar 17, 2016 19:37:57 GMT -5
Hmmmm, ya ( what he said).
Amalek (are we unclean?).
Well it could be a paradox?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2016 22:15:38 GMT -5
It might work for a period of time, but the track record for modern communist governments Iis not very good,. That's undoubtedly why they're disappearing. Wonder why the communal living idea in Acts disappeared? Never heard of it even being mentioned after those few verses in Acts.
Anyone have any ideas why it disappeared?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 22:19:20 GMT -5
That's undoubtedly why they're disappearing. Wonder why the communal living idea in Acts disappeared? Never heard of it even being mentioned after those few verses in Acts.
Anyone have any ideas why it disappeared?
It basically survives in the 2x2 ministry, in a Communistic and parasitic way. In the 60's Canadian workers going to Cuba were told by Cuban officials that they (the workers) were more Communist than they were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 1:14:14 GMT -5
That's undoubtedly why they're disappearing. Wonder why the communal living idea in Acts disappeared? Never heard of it even being mentioned after those few verses in Acts.
Anyone have any ideas why it disappeared?
probably because it doesn't work very well except for in SMALL groups...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 18, 2016 1:53:19 GMT -5
Wonder why the communal living idea in Acts disappeared? Never heard of it even being mentioned after those few verses in Acts.
Anyone have any ideas why it disappeared?
probably because it doesn't work very well except for in SMALL groups... It was never designed to be a national economic plan in the beginning, but for communities. So much for recognizing the limitations of a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2016 9:11:54 GMT -5
That's undoubtedly why they're disappearing. Wonder why the communal living idea in Acts disappeared? Never heard of it even being mentioned after those few verses in Acts.
Anyone have any ideas why it disappeared?
People don't like to share the fruits of their labor equally with those who do not labor. Read about the Oneida Community for an example of why one such endeavor failed.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Mar 18, 2016 15:35:04 GMT -5
People don't like to share the fruits of their labor equally with those who do not labor. Read about the Oneida Community for an example of why one such endeavor failed. Good afternoon rational. My understanding of the Oneida Community is a little different from what you expressed above. My understanding is that the Oneida Community was in fact quite successful for many years (many of us still use pieces of Oneida flat wear). I don't recall the sharing of the fruits of each individual's labor as the sole or primary cause of its ultimate demise. As I recall the founder actively discouraged (prohibited) marriage in his Utopian community and the community prospered. He had found that individuals are more willing to work collectively and collaboratively as long as they remain single but that once the allegiances of an individual were divided between self, family and the community the willingness to work collectively decreased dramatically. It was toward the end of his life or during the tenure of his successor that the rules banning marriage were relaxed and, as the founder had predicted, the collective began to come apart. My sense has always been that the social dynamics of the Oneida Community where much more subtle than could conveniently fit a bumper sticker.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 18, 2016 16:35:16 GMT -5
People don't like to share the fruits of their labor equally with those who do not labor. Read about the Oneida Community for an example of why one such endeavor failed. Good afternoon rational. My understanding of the Oneida Community is a little different from what you expressed above. My understanding is that the Oneida Community was in fact quite successful for many years (many of us still use pieces of Oneida flat wear). I don't recall the sharing of the fruits of each individual's labor as the sole or primary cause of its ultimate demise. As I recall the founder actively discouraged (prohibited) marriage in his Utopian community and the community prospered. He had found that individuals are more willing to work collectively and collaboratively as long as they remain single but that once the allegiances of an individual were divided between self, family and the community the willingness to work collectively decreased dramatically. It was toward the end of his life or during the tenure of his successor that the rules banning marriage were relaxed and, as the founder had predicted, the collective began to come apart. My sense has always been that the social dynamics of the Oneida Community where much more subtle than could conveniently fit a bumper sticker. Ynot ~ What I found interesting in reading about the Oneida Community of Upstate NY was that they started back in 1848. They advocated free love, but forbade marriage. Quite a liberated group for their time! They reminded me a lot of the 1960's in many of their practices, too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community Oneida Community
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Mar 18, 2016 20:08:41 GMT -5
"Why" is a quintessential rejoinder of a skeptic. Or the question asked when seeking an answer. In this case it was like standing in a room of people and asking the 5 year old what the sum of 3 + 5 is and having one of the adults yell out "8"! A bit broader: scepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. Same character, fancier suitAlso known as the 'incompleteness theorems' and related to the liar's paradox (This sentence is a lie.)? Correct.I would agree. And here I begin to disagree. It sounds like whether or not there is a god you are saying that because someone has made the claim that life is sacred it means that life is a process worthy of veneration. Yet the fact that makes it worthy of veneration is because someone has called it sacred which means it is connected to god. Seems like that could go round and round. Yes, a chicken and egg problem. My perception is that the 'first cause' is the encounter of an individual (society) with a phenomena beyond their comprehension to which they often respond with awe/respect/veneration. Some then respond reasonably to that which is unknown or unknowable with reverence which in turn expands their experiential framework. They become conceptually enabled to explore realms beyond secular materialism. It is from this perspective that some then relate a great mystery to the sacred. Why would such an entity be referred to as god? One need not refer to the entity as god, if the term god has accumulated too much baggage to convey essential meaning, find an expression that contributes to understanding. Does it have the characteristics generally given to god? Don't have a clue, my intuition suggests probably not. This reminds me of people who say that god is love. It answers no question and provides no new data. Love is defined Love may be defined but IMHO any definition I have ever encounter falls woefully short of the actual experience of love (similarly for "definitions" of god) and god is defined. Redefining god as love serves no purpose. It serves the purpose of metaphor/analogy/allegory to convey a complex feeling/emotion. I notice you frequently use similar rhetorical devices to convey your meanings. Well, unless you really mean to reduce the general notion of god to an emotion. It is for all living entities. This discussion was specifically about the assertion: "Human life is sacred", but yes I agree similar arguments could be extended to other living entities including the Ebola virus. So true. A slight maladjustment in a salt water fish tank and you are left with an expensive dinner.As can a parasitic wasp.But that is working within a bounded system... Would very much enjoy having you expand much more on this statement.If there a reason to venerate human life besides the fact that someone has claimed it is sacred? I agree life (of all types) is complex and there is much that is not yet understood. This is true of a number of things. But I must of missed the reason to venerate it. If you choose not to venerate human life, I can conceive of no reason why you should, you are a free agent in this regard. Further, I believe that your decision should be honored and respected regardless of my or anyone else's opinion on the topic.Would the world be a better place? My intuition and sense of the long view of history suggest that the answer would be - "No".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2016 21:35:14 GMT -5
People don't like to share the fruits of their labor equally with those who do not labor. Read about the Oneida Community for an example of why one such endeavor failed. Good afternoon rational. My understanding of the Oneida Community is a little different from what you expressed above. I actually didn't express anything about the Oneida community. The Oneida community was provided as another example. Perhaps Fruitlands would have been a better example.It was successful for a long time. But so were the Shakers. Oneida flatware was an industry and separate. It is still producing products today but it is under the EveryWare Global Inc. umbrella. It was a comment on communes in general, not the Oneida community. The Oneida community had other problems. Paul addressed this issue in 2 Thessalonians: Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.Not a lot of incentive to work if everyone gets paid no matter what they do. Was it that or those atheists! Or was it the legal issues that started to be raised regarding the way children were being raised and instructed in the art of sexuality?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 18, 2016 23:21:04 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. Why does the image of my cat chasing it's tail come before my eyes when I read that?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 19, 2016 0:42:30 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. :) Why does the image of my cat chasing it's tail come before my eyes when I read that?
You mean like Kekulé's dream of the ouroboros??
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Mar 19, 2016 11:50:42 GMT -5
If we possess something that is sacred, as a part of us, then we are as sacred as those virtues are part of who we are. Why does the image of my cat chasing it's tail come before my eyes when I read that?
Probably because your consciousness imagined it ? Btw, do you think that sacred truths are best understood by a sacred consciousness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 13:14:51 GMT -5
Hi ration, this was my reply, : Our lives are sacred because we possess sacredness in our lives. My life is successful because I possess success in my life. My life is sick because I possess sickness in my life. My cat has tails in his life because he chases his own, round and round. God revealed that to me, otherwise no one would ever know such a thing. I thank God for the book of Revelations.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Mar 19, 2016 14:32:45 GMT -5
My life is successful because I possess success in my life. My life is sick because I possess sickness in my life. My cat has tails in his life because he chases his own, round and round. God revealed that to me, otherwise no one would ever know such a thing. I thank God for the book of Revelations. And just to be a nitpicker, it is actually the book of Revelation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 15:24:06 GMT -5
I have seen contradictions in the so called infallible science. Growing up, the earth was millions of years old and then it became BILLIONS of years old...adding a billion every so many years. We don't know and will never be able to know. We weren't around then.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 19, 2016 16:53:34 GMT -5
I have seen contradictions in the so called infallible science. Growing up, the earth was millions of years old and then it became BILLIONS of years old...adding a billion every so many years. We don't know and will never be able to know. We weren't around then. Walker ~ I was just reading an article along these lines today and was astonished to see that you brought up a similar idea within your post above. Here's that article that supports such a radical idea, too. It even discusses carbon dating, which is used to support the billions of years in the creation of the earth and mankind as well as the animals from fossil evidence. All of this is now being questioned due to new discoveries in recent years. creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the Earth
|
|