The last 10 or is it 12 days have seen violent protests in most cities in the US of A and in some other cities around the world following the police killing or is it murder of George Floyd and there have been arguments about whether the violence is really useful?
I have seen a post that calls the violence immoral and ineffective. Immoral because the destruction of property of bystanders and ineffective because it will not earn the demonstrators any sympathies.
Should the demonstrators adopt only non violent means to achieve their ends?
I want to suggest here a unpopular opinion. That violence seems sometimes to work & its only downside is that it costs lives & property. Independence was warn in many places because of sustained violence against the colonial authorities. America has mastered the art of spreading violence all round ( cloaked in spreading democracy).
What do you think? I am not asking you to support violence but only to comment looking at history if there are situations where violence has led to progress? How can the same be achieved without resorting to violence?
Since it appears this site is not theist friendly I have a question for non theists but theists are welcome to contribute if they so wish.
Can one believe there is a god and not be committed to that belief? The corollary is of course obvious, it seems to me likely that people can be committed to the belief in god even though the existence of gods is doubtful at the least and their non existence highly likely.
Do Christians, Muslims and those in Judaism believe in the same god?
Is it the wish of the same god that there exists different competing sects, each with absolute truth on its side?
If the gods are different, are they all omnibenevolent?
Many an African theologians have argued that the gods of African religion were also omnibenevolent, is it the case then that we have many omni gods?
And my favorite subject, is there a resolution of the problem of evil or does the Epicurean problem remain as unsolved problem for theism?
I agree with Makau Mutua on the matter but find this
Let’s separate man-made religious law from holy text. In the Church, canonical law are rules made by ecclesiastical authority, or Church leadership, for the governance of the flock. It shouldn’t be confused with the Bible. In the same way that sharia or Islamic law shouldn’t be conflated with the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia is man-made law even if the religious authorities and scholars derive it from the Quran and Hadith. That’s why using canonical law or sharia law to deny penitents basic rights of equality can’t stand scrutiny.
indefensible. Is holy (sic) writ not equally work of men? And does this claim not weaken his argument? In the NT, women are told to keep quiet in church. How then would he justify having women priests when the bible forbids it? Paul says marry only if you can’t control your urges.
Anyone with some time in their hands should read William Cussel’s supernatural religion.
I think he would make a stronger argument if he argued that holy writ is work of men. The rules can be changed.
But being the nice person I am, I will keep you engaged.
James D is telling us in this post that god allows evil and sickness to exist in the world because he gave us freewill and faith. Knowing some of you to be as lazy as your host and might not click on the links, David says
I think that the honest truth is that in order for God to show us his grace, we have to live in an environment that is inherently dangerous to us. Otherwise, what would be the point of faith? Without the bad things in the world, could we truly appreciate the good things?
and isn’t this ridiculous? There are times i have had continental breakfast where my choice is between all good and healthy stuff. Should I take oats instead of weetabix. Should I eat boiled egg or fried omelette, should I eat bread or a croissant? My point is we don’t have to live in a dangerous environment to appreciate being loved.
The author of this second post (I think I should have it first) is doing a very important job, clearing up the definition of freewill. I can’t say I now understand what it is more clearly than I did yesterday. Maybe I am slow.
Diana is trying her best to confuse us. She is telling us events are fated to happen but you still have a choice. You are fated to die but you can escape death. Someone tell me my due date, I want to bribe the angel of death to wait just a little while.
And finally, if you have a lot of time in your hands, a wall (to bang your head against) and popcorn, then read this gem. David Hart writes in one of his comments
[…]My advice to you–and to any believer–is stop presuming you have to defend the idea of hell’s eternity, allow yourself to think about it as if for the first time and with no sense of obligation, and I think you’ll see that the very premise has always already undermined arguments in its favor.
See you around everyone.
This post reminds me of this one I wrote a while back on University education.
Maybe a time will come for humanity to say the idea that everything should run by the whims of the market was a really bad idea.
And don’t shoot the messenger.
If the GOP and Democratic party were to merge, what would be the difference in
1. Race relations
3. Climate change
In Nabokov’s Lolita,Humbert Humbert is attracted to a 12 year old girl.
Mark Greif in Against Everything, suggests that those who dreamed of sexual liberation did not go far enough. They should have said, he writes
Sex is a biological function—and for that reason no grounds to persecute anyone. It is truthless—you must not bring force to bear on people for the basic, biological, and private; you may not persecute them on grounds so accidental. You must leave them alone, neither forcing them to deny their sex nor to bring it into the light.
He, Greif, asks why is there an allure in youth and answers
Youth is more effective precisely because it is something all of us are always losing.
When we look back, we were once youth, it is the familiar. When we look ahead, all adults (those older than us) are strangers, for we have never been old.
Then comes this TEDx talk
This should be an interesting discussion. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on this.
I don’t live anywhere near a border neither do I deal with border security. Having said that, I disagree with Jim who thinks trumpsky should have his wall to stop
illegal immigrants. I don’t think anyone should be called an illegal. They are migrants and that’s all. And while there are concerns that the host countries cannot handle all the refugees, which I think could be possible, but we have to agree that economic policies, some pushed by WTO have made the case of economic refugees worse. So instead of burying our heads in the sand and addressing a symptom, why not bravely ask the governments to address the real problems.
Nick Kolakowoski in his post lists a few examples of border walls and their successes while William Wilcox looks at the ideology behind border walls.
I am more inclined to this position
The solution, however, isn’t to create massive walls to tell these people that they are unwanted but to increase humanitarian aid abroad, in order to address the issues creating these refugees, while working to welcome the refugees at home.
though it ain’t humanitarian aid that is needed. The place to start is fair trade agreements, reducing armed conflicts around the world, encouraging multinationals that run sweatshops in third world countries to stop and start paying fair wages.
I am confident that all of you can come up with more humane ways to address the crisis than a border wall and a government shutdown. Besides, there are reports of trumpsky having undocumented workers in his various hotels giving credence to the claim that his wall is not really about US of A’s safe borders but could be a manifestation of his racism. But maybe I am wrong about trumpsky, the wall and everything else.
On atheists and agnostics had this to say
The agnostic is an atheist. The atheist is an agnostic. The agnostic says; ‘i do not know but I do not believe there is any god. The atheist says the same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there is a god: but we know that he does not know. The atheist (too) cannot know that god does not exist.
I think this settles the matter.