tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post4901361071990594150..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: Christmas: The Beauty and Challenge of ForgivenessRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-84795669641453271382013-01-23T16:38:36.478-08:002013-01-23T16:38:36.478-08:00Appreciate it all of on your interesting plus usef...Appreciate it all of on your interesting plus useful <br />responses up to now. Very much meals to get considered.<br />Some sexy suggestions as well as points of views all about.<br />I can not point out that Certainly with everything else <br />that you say however if some know the actual legitamecy of <br />your respective publish We would often be uninformed for your <br />awareness.<br /><i>My blog</i> :: <b><a href="http://www.onlinehelpdesk.be/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10282" rel="nofollow">Criminal Search</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-4056674965232713802012-04-22T06:20:13.619-07:002012-04-22T06:20:13.619-07:00So Dawkins tries to simplify a process for better ...So Dawkins tries to simplify a process for better understanding (at least from what I can tell, I'm no biologist): LIE LIE! <br /><br /><br />God tells Samuel to give a false reason for his trip to David's fathers family...NOT A LIE!<br /><br /><br />Nice to see how consistent you are about being honest.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-66715631159258373002012-04-18T16:29:36.417-07:002012-04-18T16:29:36.417-07:00I forgot to mention one thing about xianity and th...I forgot to mention one thing about xianity and this idea that warden has that it's xianity that's to be credited for the concept of unconditional forgiveness. It apparently isn't really true:<br /><br /><b>Mark 11:25</b> ulterior motive: to help get forgiveness from god<br /><br /><b>Luke 6:27-37</b> ulterior motive: so that others will treat you well<br /><br /><b>Romans 12:19-21</b> ulterior motive: to make our enemies feel bad<br /><br />If I'd remembered about those verses and others like those in the first place, I'd have saved a lot of time arguing since xianity doesn't really seem to have a concept of true "unconditional forgivenss" after all.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-59966004845347883132012-02-13T12:15:07.868-08:002012-02-13T12:15:07.868-08:00(OK. This has managed to get eaten three times, so...(OK. This has managed to get eaten three times, so pardon my brevity.)<br /><br />Your reasoning is faulty here:<br /><br /><i>1. Male courtship traits in web-building spiders are heritable from father to sons<br /><br />http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html<br /><br />2. Research suggests unique mating behavior is heritable in spiders: "As a result, we predict that male courtship performance is under positive selection and heritable, passed from father to son."<br /><br />http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html<br /><br />3. Certain spiders and praying mantes share the unique behavior of filial cannibalism.<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01792.x/abstract<br /><br /><br />4. This implies that the unique mating behavior os sexual cannibalism is heritable also for the praying mantis.</i><br /><br />If you look at the research you cite, it's courtship, not post-copulation behavior. In addition:<br /><br />1) Traits of type A are heritable in category X<br /><br />2) Traits of type B exist in category X and category Y.<br /><br />3) Therefore traits of type B is heritable for category Y.<br /><br />I trust you can see the flaws in your reasoning?<br /><br /><i>"Sexual cannibalism exists, and it's difficult to explain according to evolution theory. But that's what we are stuck with."</i><br /><br />Absolutely wrong in your paraphrase. It's easy to explain in evolutionary theory; indeed, I did it once already before:<br /><br />" if that trait aids in reproductive success (by, say, giving the female praying mantis a nice little protein snack, thus increasing her chances of survival until reproduction is complete), then it can be passed on, and gradually selected for."<br /><br />So; it aids in reproductive success, can be selected for, and is therefore easy to explain evolutionarily. That's a large part of how evolution *works*.<br /><br />Now, the creatures who practice it are stuck with it, because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_landscape<br /><br />(Since you clearly didn't look at the Dawkins reference I cited earlier.)<br /><br />Clear?<br /><br /><i><br />Evolutionists seem to just assume that these traits must have been passed down soemhow, even though the behavior occurs after the female has copulated and the DNA has been formed.</i><br /><br />I've already told you (twice now) how such a thing could be passed on.<br /><br />Here's the thing: DNA codes for proteins that have effects long after reproductive fitness has passed; but those are not selected for or against, because in that regard, they don't matter. <br /><br />This is where your argument falls down; you're complaining that evolution doesn't optimize for something you think should be optimal, therefore it doesn't exist. When, in fact, if it worked exactly as predicted, it would produce the results we see.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-21807727270145217702012-02-12T09:28:51.418-08:002012-02-12T09:28:51.418-08:00I was just reviewing some facts that show how evol...I was just reviewing some facts that show how evolution evangelists such as Richard Dawkins tell blatant untruths regarding the process of evolution in order to imply it is much simply than it actually is. In your opinion, do you believe Dawkins is telling a "whopper" of a fib here:<br /><br />For Darwin Day: False Facts & Dawkins' Whopper<br /><br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/for_darwin_day_false_facts_and043691.html<br /><br /><br />Dawkins Caught Lying for Darwin <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYik52Y5rIRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-74638462370974971812012-02-12T09:21:36.819-08:002012-02-12T09:21:36.819-08:00>Those two things do not qualify it as a herita...>Those two things do not qualify it as a heritable trait. <br /><br />I'm not sure where you get your research from. Courtship traits are considered heritable:<br /><br />1. Male courtship traits in web-building spiders are heritable from father to sons<br /><br />http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html<br /><br />2. Research suggests unique mating behavior is heritable in spiders: "As a result, we predict that male courtship performance is under positive selection and heritable, passed from father to son."<br /><br />http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html<br /><br />3. Certain spiders and praying mantes share the unique behavior of filial cannibalism.<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01792.x/abstract<br /><br /><br />4. This implies that the unique mating behavior os sexual cannibalism is heritable also for the praying mantis.<br /><br />>The solution isn't optimal. But it's the solution that that set of genes has adopted, and now there is not enough slack for other options to take its place.<br /><br />- Your comment could be paraphrased as, <br /><br />"Sexual cannibalism exists, and it's difficult to explain according to evolution theory. But that's what we are stuck with."<br /><br />>...what happens after a successful fertilization doesn't matter here.<br /><br />- DNA is formed upon conception. The female praying mantis eats the male usually upon copulation. Saying "it doesn't matter" what happens after fertilization does not seem to change the logical problem. <br /><br />Evolutionists seem to just assume that these traits must have been passed down soemhow, even though the behavior occurs after the female has copulated and the DNA has been formed.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-62356857547526624452012-02-11T02:10:17.686-08:002012-02-11T02:10:17.686-08:00It just sounds like to me that this is just anothe...It just sounds like to me that this is just another way of saying that the bible's rules won't make sense until you blindly accept that the bible is correct.<br /><br />It may not be circular reasoning, but it is nonsensical. This doesn't provide any evidence that his god is real in the first place.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-7075620462116132882012-02-10T22:14:12.513-08:002012-02-10T22:14:12.513-08:00I believe, technically speaking, it's not circ...I believe, technically speaking, it's not circular reasoning; he's right. Unbelievers will find it difficult to understand. Now, in theory, a potentially non-existent entity might make it simpler for them, but saying that unbelievers won't get it isn't circular. ;)imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-60622316248860677762012-02-10T20:26:16.352-08:002012-02-10T20:26:16.352-08:00- Reynold, the Biblical moral code for life and fo...<i>- Reynold, the Biblical moral code for life and for marriage applies to believers and unbelievers will find it difficult to understand and follow without the Holy Spirit dwelling inside</i><br />Circular reasoning alert.Reynoldhttp://www.skepticfriends.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-13142389996811348152012-02-10T20:24:26.433-08:002012-02-10T20:24:26.433-08:001) Buddhism teaches the art of forgiveness essenti...<i>1) Buddhism teaches the art of forgiveness essentially for practical selfish reasons: 'a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being' - But ultimately there IS NO self in Buddhism, self and individuation are illusions.</i><br />"Pratical selfish reasons"?<br /><br />And christians do things with absolutely NO expectation of any reward in heaven?<br /><br />Only if that is the case then you are justified in calling the Buddhists' motives "selfish" as you would not then be a hypocrite.<br /><br /><br /><i>According to Christianity, true justice exists because a personal Creator exists who will judge the acts of men based on God's eternal perspective. In Christianity, right and wrong actions are not 'illusions' but are serious issues with serious consequences</i><br />How about the doctor who performed an abortion to save a woman's life being sentenced to hell by the same being who repeatedly had pregnant women and children killed in the OT?<br /><br />So long as god commands it, or does it, it's ok. Under your worldview justice is arbitrary. <br /><br />In theory, under your version of "justice", the concentration camp guard who sincerely repents right before he dies would go to heaven, but the jewish person he helped gas who had cursed any god just before HE dies would go to hell. In your worldview, the mass-murderer goes to heaven, while one of his victims goes to hell.<br /><br />Is that "justice" in your view? Getting away from the consequences of one's crime like that?<br /><br />Or how about the fact that all "sinners" go the the same place. How can hell be worse for one than another? The penalty is the same for any sin, no matter what.<br /><br /><br />The xian version of "justice" is not much better than an "illusionary" basis for morality.<br /><br /><br /><i>As a religion Buddhism teaches reincarnation and rebirth but also teaches there is no spiritual soul or individuation. So this is quite illogical.<br /></i><br />Pot. Kettle. Black. <br /><br />Your religion has invisible angels and demons, talking snakes, etc. <br /><br />And you say that a different silly set of supernaturalistic beliefs is "illogical"?Reynoldhttp://www.skepticfriends.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-25313645205281047592012-02-10T10:33:54.582-08:002012-02-10T10:33:54.582-08:00>There is no "instinct of post-sexual cann...>There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".<br /><br /><i>Well, thanks for your note, but let's just review the actual definition of 'instinct'and then decide:</i><br /><br />Oh, joy; a dictionary proof.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The fact is, only certain species engage is sexual cannibalism and, in accordance with the defintion of 'instict', the strange behavior occurrs only under specific circumstances.</i><br /><br />Those two things do not qualify it as a heritable trait. The broad definition of "instinct" from a dictionary and the narrow and precise usage of heritable trait are two different things.<br /><br /><i>Your offered explanation: "There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can". <br /><br />- Most every other species has come to address this problem without cannibalism. </i><br /><br />And here we have, in fact, evidence for evolution -- the solution isn't optimal. But it's the solution that that set of genes has adopted, and now there is not enough slack for other options to take its place. I recommend to your attention "Climbing Mount Improbable", by Richard Dawkins, for an explanation of how that works in more detail.<br /><br /><i>>The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see. <br /><br />- It seems to me that you are letting your preconceived worldview dictate to you what an 'instict' actually is and can be, in contrast to the actual definition.</i><br /><br />See above regarding dictionary attacks. I am referring to heritable traits -- which is what your question involved in the first place. It's not my problem if you use imprecise terminology in your claims.<br /><br /><i><br />>If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" ...then it gets passed on.<br /><br />- So, what you are implying is that the trait of sexual cannibalism is transferred in a "fast" manner to the fertilized eggs after they have been fertilized and before the offspring is born? </i><br /><br />No, actually -- that was a typo. ;)<br /><br />If the trait is "doesn't move as fast after sex" -- meaning that the genes that code the patterns that result in that behavior (whatever they may be) will get passed on, because what happens after a successful fertilization doesn't matter here.<br /> <br /><i>Is that really what you are implying?</i><br /><br />As I said above, no.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-22576868962573238502012-02-10T03:43:12.639-08:002012-02-10T03:43:12.639-08:00>There is no "instinct of post-sexual cann...>There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".<br /><br />Well, thanks for your note, but let's just review the actual definition of 'instinct'and then decide:<br /><br />1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals..."<br /><br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/instinct<br /><br />The fact is, only certain species engage is sexual cannibalism and, in accordance with the defintion of 'instict', the strange behavior occurrs only under specific circumstances.<br /><br />Your offered explanation: "There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can". <br /><br />- Most every other species has come to address this problem without cannibalism. <br /><br />Another tenable explanation is 'mistaken identity' however, the behavior of spiders who also practice sexual cannibalism tends to refute this theory:<br /><br />"Mistaken identity – The simplest explanation of sexual cannibalism is that it is a case of mistaken identity, in which a male is not acknowledged as a potential mate in time. However, in most spiders, elaborate courtship is thought to prevent this.[7]"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_cannibalism<br /><br />>The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see. <br /><br />- It seems to me that you are letting your preconceived worldview dictate to you what an 'instict' actually is and can be, in contrast to the actual definition.<br /><br />>If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" ...then it gets passed on.<br /><br />- So, what you are implying is that the trait of sexual cannibalism is transferred in a "fast" manner to the fertilized eggs after they have been fertilized and before the offspring is born? <br /><br />Is that really what you are implying?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-75540473495038624242012-02-09T10:08:51.024-08:002012-02-09T10:08:51.024-08:00Um. This is perilously close to Wolfgang Pauli'...Um. This is perilously close to Wolfgang Pauli's "It is not even wrong".<br /><br />OK: Let's try this on for size:<br />There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".<br /><br />There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can". There is "The male praying mantis has an instinct to fertilize the female, and no countervailing self-preservation instinct post-fertilization".<br /><br />The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see. <br /><br />My example refers to the fact that your attempted optimization for "good health" is not anywhere near the top of the list of things evolution would optimize for, as many of them only come into play later in life (or do not significantly impair reproductive functioning earlier in life) and therefore are outside the bounds of selection save as epiphenomena. <br /><br />Does that make things clearer for you?<br /><br />Oh, and to answer your other question:<br /><br /><i>how was the noted instinct of "post-sexual cannibalism" gradually implimented if the eggs had already been fertilized?</i> <br /><br />If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" (a gross exaggeration/simplification, but it will serve for the point) exists in the genes, then it gets passed on -- and if that trait aids in reproductive success (by, say, giving the female praying mantis a nice little protein snack, thus increasing her chances of survival until reproduction is complete), then it can be passed on, and gradually selected for. Clear?imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-14373215351432274662012-02-09T01:27:10.807-08:002012-02-09T01:27:10.807-08:00Thank you for your dialogue.
>"biological...Thank you for your dialogue.<br /><br />>"biological evolution does not select for the post-reproductive health of entities..."<br /><br />- Biological evolution selects apparently for the success of continued reproduction. The specifics of how this plays out should have a logical explanation.<br /><br />1. Evolution proposes that incremental changes occur through natural selection.<br /><br />2. Natural selection offers that genetic mutations provide survival advantages that are passed down through reproductive transference.<br /><br />3. Therefore, evoution theory is based on reproductive transference.<br /><br />A Dawkins' quote seems to affirm this theory:<br /><br />"Genes are the fundamental unit of natural selection because they are the most potentially immortal of all of the other known biological self replicating units..."<br /><br />http://www.broderickboyd.com/2009/06/selfish-gene-by-richard-dawkins-summary.html<br /><br />As you've pointed out, the female praying mantis often eats the male in "post-sexual cannibalism"<br /><br />http://www.theprayingmantis.org/<br /><br />If biological evolution and traits are passed down through reproduction and incremental changes, how was the noted instinct of "post-sexual cannibalism" gradually implimented if the eggs had already been fertilized?<br /><br />It seems that if your example refutes my premise, then it also refutes the theory of evolution. How do you account for this?Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-14119249253232880552012-02-07T21:17:02.968-08:002012-02-07T21:17:02.968-08:00Thank you for your response -- I was beginning to ...Thank you for your response -- I was beginning to wonder. <br /><br /><i>I believe you are oversimplifying your summary of natural selection: "animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage..." According to basic logic, there would be 'reasons' why some would survive and others would not.</i><br /><br />Indeed. But this does not address the fact that biological evolution does not select for the post-reproductive health of entities except as a side factor (if at all -- as my examples showed.)<br /><br />So, the sort of "health" you refer to (increased lifespans, etc.) does not have to be relevant to an evolutionary discussion. <br /><br />A praying mantis that dies immediately after mating has a "healthy physiology" by evolutionary standards; but not, I suspect, by any of the standards by which you'd use the term here.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments."</i><br /><br />Some evolutionary psychologists are misguided and overstep their logical boundaries. What else is new? <br /><br />However, even if I grant you P1, P2, and C of that particular syllogism, your argument continues to fail.<br /><br />Let's look at the next one.<br /><i><br />P1. According to evolution, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'<br />P2. 'Remembering wrongs' is associated with an unhealthy physiology.<br />C. Therefore, evolutionary theory is incorrect with regard to 'remembering wrongs.'</i><br /><br />P2 here is, from a biological survival perspective, utterly incorrect. <br /><br />First off -- "remembering wrongs" is, as you pointed out, not the same as "being bitter." Remembering wrongs is a key portion of *learning*, which is, I hope you'll agree, pro-survival.<br /><br />So let's recast your P2 in terms of what you're actually saying:<br /><br />P2: "Bitterness" is associated with an unhealthy physiology.<br /><br />Even this statement, from an evolutionary POV, is incorrect. How long you survive post-reproduction is, while not utterly irrelevant (since we are a live-birth species), something so minor in terms of evolutionary development that there is no reason for longevity in that regard to be selected for.<br /><br />You may be happier living longer, but you'd also be happier with knees that worked a lot better. The argument from "It would be nice if..." is not a logically persuasive one.<br /><br />So, again -- P2 is incorrect. Therefore, C cannot be drawn.<br /><br />Furthermore:<br /><br /><i>- According to formal logic, if the premises are true and the form is valid, the conclusion is logically accurate.</i><br /><br />Your premises also have to be sufficiently precise as to be useful; this is another bar you fail to clear -- as witness your own confusion between "bitterness" and "remembering wrongs".imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-15893311464278278132012-02-06T21:25:05.859-08:002012-02-06T21:25:05.859-08:00Imnotandrei,
As for your first comment, you state...Imnotandrei,<br /><br />As for your first comment, you stated, <br /><br />"This statement, which you support in your opening, is true only within certain limited contexts."<br /><br />"P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests."<br /><br />Yes, I agree. Good point. I should clarify the difference between physiological health benefits and long-term survival. <br /><br />in your 2nd point you claim p1 is false (P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.)... because..."Evolution suggests that animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage over those that do not. ;) "Health" in a evolutionary sense involves surviving to that reproductive point; consider, after all, the male praying mantis. Evolutionarily successful, rather rapidly unhealthy."<br /><br />I believe you are oversimplifying your summary of natural selection: "animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage..." According to basic logic, there would be 'reasons' why some would survive and others would not. These 'reasons' are generally defined as 'genetic mutations' that have given some type of survival advantage to the survivors. Ironically, "mutations" are seen as a "healthy" development in evolution. A mutation that begins the development of an "eyeball" will theoretically offer a survival advantage because it will allow the creature to see its predators. I don't believe in macro-evoltution, I'm simply explaining its basic logic in practical terms.<br /><br />Though it is difficult to ascertian, evolution is not only considered physical, in terms of physical genes, but it is also related to psychological advantages in a similar fashion: "Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection<br /><br />>C: Since P1 is false, C is not logically derivable.<br /><br />- Your critique of P1 is inadequate for reasons I pointed out.<br /><br />>Forgiving is not forgetting. <br /><br />- Yes, but bitterness is not the same as recollecting a wrong done.<br /><br />>Evolution is not aiming for, nor can it ever aim for, a single optimal solution.<br /><br />- Yes, I agree.<br /><br />>But how can you get from there to the existence of some theoretically perfect being?<br /><br />- According to formal logic, if the premises are true and the form is valid, the conclusion is logically accurate.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18764844745340302382012-02-01T14:33:44.559-08:002012-02-01T14:33:44.559-08:00OK: To continue with this discussion:
Proof 2:
&...OK: To continue with this discussion: <br /><br /><i>Proof 2:<br />"P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.<br />P2. 'Remembering wrongs' would be a 'survival quality' that offers a great advantage.<br />C. Therefore, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'</i><br /><br />P1: Evolution suggests that animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage over those that do not. ;) "Health" in a evolutionary sense involves surviving to that reproductive point; consider, after all, the male praying mantis. Evolutionarily successful, rather rapidly unhealthy.<br /><br />P2: Indeed, it is; though as a subset of "remembering things that can harm you". Fire burns; that guy over there lied to me and I went hungry. These are both lessons worth learning.<br /><br />C: Since P1 is false, C is not logically derivable.<br /><br />Now, I see here several more underlying problems/issues with your understanding of evolution and your logic, which I'll address now so as to avoid being repetitive later.<br /><br />First: You seem intent on conflating "remembering wrongs" and "seeking vengeance". Forgiving is not forgetting. <br /><br />Second: Evolution is not aiming for, nor can it ever aim for, a single optimal solution. It doesn't aim. It gets better and better solutions to its given environment over time. (And, of course, if that environment changes, well...)<br /><br />People aren't optimized; anyone looking at the biophysics of the back and knee could tell you that. So how can we use the fact that some theoretical optimum is not where we are to argue for the existence of a perfect being? <br /><br />You can claim that an attitude of forgiveness is better than one of vengeance; fine. You can assert that we should practice non-attachment to the material. But how can you get from there to the existence of some theoretically perfect being?imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-28457270766349521052012-01-31T17:10:35.332-08:002012-01-31T17:10:35.332-08:00I will have more to comment on later; I have not t...I will have more to comment on later; I have not the time for a full engagement, but I see problems with premise 1 of proof 1:<br />"P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests."<br /><br />This statement, which you support in your opening, is true only within certain limited contexts. <br /><br />There are further issues along the way, which I shall return to address, but many of them fall in the same general orbit as this first problem: "Forgiveness" is taken as something that can be done in isolation from context.<br /><br /><br />Unconditional forgiveness offers health benefits in comparison to its absence when no one is trying to kill you. <br /><br />By abstracting away all the reasons one might not wish to be unconditionally forgiving, (and therefore might not live to the age where heart problems become an issue, say), you are creating a false premise.imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-68349112573973630932012-01-29T22:11:11.481-08:002012-01-29T22:11:11.481-08:00>As for 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15 does indeed sa...>As for 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15 does indeed say that if one spouse who is an unbeliever leaves, then it's ok to not remain together. Thing is, I wasn't talking about an unbelieving abusive spouse in the first place.<br /><br />- Reynold, the Biblical moral code for life and for marriage applies to believers and unbelievers will find it difficult to understand and follow without the Holy Spirit dwelling inside. However, according to Paul, The 10 Commandments today mainly have a purpose of showing non-believers that sin exists and they do sin and need a Redeemer. (Galatians 3.24) http://niv.scripturetext.com/galatians/3.htmRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-10256700546980982072012-01-29T22:04:49.851-08:002012-01-29T22:04:49.851-08:00Reynold,
>Again, read what I had linked to: Bu...Reynold,<br /><br />>Again, read what I had linked to: Buddhism figured out the health benefits on it's own.<br /><br />- Reynold, Buddhism may very well have some true 'points' and 'practices' in it, but like counterfeit money, when something is close to being true it is often more deceptive than when it is obviously false.<br /><br />You had mentioned "You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept (unconditional forgiveness)." Though Buddhism may teach a true act or true points I can show you why forgiveness is not central or integral to Buddhism and why Buddhism actually considers the concept of forgiveness as an illusory issue. And as a religion Buddhism can be shown to be illogical in many respects.<br /><br />In terms of forgiveness:<br /><br />1) Buddhism teaches the art of forgiveness essentially for practical selfish reasons: 'a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being' - But ultimately there IS NO self in Buddhism, self and individuation are illusions.<br /><br />2) Buddhism advocates 'doing good' to some extent: "The Buddha explained that we can use the Four Yardsticks to assess if we are practicing the correct way: one should feel happiness, compassion, love and joyous effort when practicing." http://viewonbuddhism.org/4_noble_truths.html<br /><br />- But good and evil are ultimately illusions in Buddhism because there is oneness. There is no 'goodness' just a feeling of goodness.<br /><br />3) The true concept of forgiveness is based upon acknowledging that a wrong has been done and letting go of it. But in Buddhism, as I've mentioned, the concept of 'wrong and right' actions is ultimately an illusion because there is ultimate unity.<br /><br />According to Christianity, true justice exists because a personal Creator exists who will judge the acts of men based on God's eternal perspective. In Christianity, right and wrong actions are not 'illusions' but are serious issues with serious consequences. <br /><br />As a religion Buddhism teaches reincarnation and rebirth but also teaches there is no spiritual soul or individuation. So this is quite illogical.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-85796525141006175892012-01-28T15:14:47.023-08:002012-01-28T15:14:47.023-08:00No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught...<i>No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable.</i><br />Again, read what I had linked to: Buddhism figured out the health benefits on it's own.<br /><br /><b>In Buddhism, forgiveness is seen as a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being.[18] Buddhism recognizes that feelings of hatred and ill-will leave a lasting effect on our mind karma. Instead, Buddhism encourages the cultivation of thoughts that leave a wholesome effect.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it.</i><br />Uh, how can "loving one's enemies" be "proactive"? One has to have people who have done something to oneself somehow in order for them to qualify as enemies in the first place, don't they? If that's the case, then the "loving one's enemies" is more "reactive" than proactive.<br /><br />Besides, Buddhism from what I've read seems to teach the same thing.<br /><br /><i>Buddhism places much emphasis on the concepts of Mettā (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkhā (equanimity), as a means to avoiding resentments in the first place.</i><br /><br />To avoid resentment in the first place sounds proactive to me.<br /><br /><b>1 Corinthians 5</b> that verse in context isn't even talking about marriage.<br /><br />As for <b>1 Corinthians 7</b> verse 15 does indeed say that if one spouse who is an unbeliever leaves, then it's ok to not remain together. Thing is, I wasn't talking about an unbelieving abusive spouse in the first place.<br /><br />As an aside: that 1 Corinthians 7 chapter has some other problems: It implies that one just has to marry a believer to be saved ("sanctified" is the word they used)?? <br /><br />That, and Paul implies that it'd be better for people to marry than to burn with lust? <br /><br />So does that mean that the bible is actually advocating that people are better off being single instead? What about producing the next generation of people? How's not reproducing conductive to health? <br /><br />Of course, one of the big strengths of the bible among other holy books is that it's easy to cherry-pick what one wants out of it. For instance: One can note the verse in genesis about "be fruitful and multiply" to "counter" what I just said above.<br /><br /><br />Ok, last chapter here. <b>Malachi 2</b> is addressing various priests and leaders of Judah about how the nation of Judah is being religiously unfaithful.<br /><br />Only through an analogy can one make a case here about how people should treat each other in marriage. Problem is: That chapter and verse in in the same Old Testament where a rapist was commanded to marry the woman he raped. (Deuteronomy 22)<br /><br />So, how would one go about proving "abuse" in a case like that? There is also the case that some xians <a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/there-is-no-marital-rape.html" rel="nofollow">don't even believe in marital rape</a>!Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-7285255374610667052012-01-22T22:11:04.059-08:002012-01-22T22:11:04.059-08:00>As for "unconditional forgiveness"? ...>As for "unconditional forgiveness"? Other beliefs like Buddhism as I have mentioned before have similar views. You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept.<br /><br />- No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable. Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it. We as Christians are free to love unconditionally because we understand God will judge righteously in the final analysis and it is not up to us to make sure justice will be enforced on this Earth. For the Buddhist the concept of eternal justice is ultimately a non-issue. But we as humans do have a sense that the question of justice is important one and not a philosophical concept that deserves to be ignored.<br /><br />>the only reason for divorce is unfaithfulness, not beatings. <br /><br />Reynold, we are advised to consider the whole context of scripture, not just one verse. (2 Tim. 3.16)<br /><br />"If abuse continues, the Word says the issue should be told to the church. This step is almost impossible to fulfill in the modern church. Pastors generally won’t allow it because they do not understand the Word on the subject. So, the abused spouse should attempt to press the pastor to allow this step, but if the pastor refuses, the abused spouse may need to move on to the final step.<br /><br />The final step is removal from the relationship. Matthew 18 says to separate from the unrepentant offender. I Tim. 5:8 says a man who does not provide for his family (provision = financial, spiritual, emotional protection and leadership) has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. God calls an unrepentant abusive spouse an unbeliever. That is not my judgment; it is God’s. I Cor. 5:11 says believers are not to associate with, are not even to eat with, a person who is verbally abusive (“railer”). And I Cor. 7:13-15 says that if an unbelieving spouse removes (walks away from the marriage covenant – which can include staying in the house but leaving the relationship) himself from the marriage, the believing wife is to let him go. It may seem backwards for the believing wife to leave – but we have to remember that the “leaving” happens when a spouse does violence to his house (Mal. 2:13-16). The believing wife who removes to safety is not the one who abandoned the relationship."<br /><br />http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/articles/abuse-in-the-christian-home/does-god-want-me-to-stay-in-an-abusive-marriage/Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-2546756739274419152012-01-22T09:46:05.576-08:002012-01-22T09:46:05.576-08:00Well, you've not commented on most of the poin...Well, you've not commented on most of the points I made so can I take that as a concession?<br /><br />As for "unconditional forgiveness"? Other beliefs like Buddhism as I have mentioned before have similar views. You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept.<br /><br />As for the situation with the beaten wife? Remember, according to the bible, the only reason for divorce is <a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/abuse-divorce.html" rel="nofollow">unfaithfulness, not beatings</a>. <br /><br />True, he lists verses that say the husband should treat the wife well and he advocates that the wife call the cops if beatings happen, but nevertheless that's a secular, not an actual biblical response.<br /><br />It may be an assumption that the bible would permit the wife to leave, but biblically she is still stuck with that guy in marriage. Where does it say that she should leave?<br /><br />Good thing our secular laws don't work that way, as it would make it harder to stay away from him.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-39061386474078701082012-01-05T07:12:50.770-08:002012-01-05T07:12:50.770-08:00Reynold, You wrote, "Apparently not all do!&q...Reynold, You wrote, "Apparently not all do!" (Christians claim that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a moral ideal central to their paradigm.) <br /><br />- That's a good point. I should write that this is Christ's claim.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-59686953838103918462012-01-05T05:27:58.913-08:002012-01-05T05:27:58.913-08:00Reynold, per your note, "If a wife continues ...Reynold, per your note, "If a wife continues to forgive a habitually unfaithful and abusive husband unconditionally, her toleration of his behavior will probably result in even more abuse and disrespect." - This comment does not clarify the difference between forgiveness and permissiveness. It is healthiest for an abused wife to completely forgive and also to leave the home if there is continued abuse.<br /><br />Repentance and confession of sin are required for salvation, true. But no striving or good works are required to earn (or deserve) forgiveness and salvation, as some Christians and atheists believe.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.com