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.
This post or rather set of questions have become very sensitive. One is almost always wrong, especially if they happen to be male.
Mansplaining- is there a women corollary?
All men are trash- is there an opposing corollary?
All men are retards- is there a women corollary?
How are men to navigate the discussions around feminism without appearing to silence women’s voices, appearing to be guilty of mansplaining and so on?
To put it differently, how are men to be feminists allies?
And finally, what is feminism?