Dean Anderson

Okay, we seem to be pretty much in agreement now. (This must be an Internet first! A discussion where the people start with somewhat opposing views and over the course of the discussion they accept each other's points and end up agreeing rather than getting more polarised and ending up flaming each other!)

It's probably some of each. People would help each other anyway, but the wake of a disaster has a way of making people realise how much we sometimes need each other's help and shaking them out of their complacancy.

I would say that it is a combination of our natural empathy and communication/transport technology.

Our empathy is always strongest towards those "like us". With the increases in communication and transport over the centuries, our horizons are expanded and the more contact we have with others, the more "like us" we classify them - so our empathy towards them increases.

I got the (probably mistaken) impression that you did indirectly when you disagreed with me when I argued the postition against Neorask.

Basically...

1) Neorask says people inherently dislike authority.

2) I said that the evidence (people pretty much always set up authorities on any kind of social structure they invent) showed this to be false.

3) You replied to this by saying that people set up authorities not because it is in our nature to do so - but because it is in our nature to do the opposite, and therefore we reluctantly set up authorities to guard ourselves against our own nature.

I took this to mean that you were agreeing with Neorask.

My apologies - I am the one who has been unclear here.

It is not a move from my original position, but a clarification of my original position.

I'll try to explain more clearly.

When I originally talked about an "anti-social minority", I was referring to the fact that there will be a minority of people who break the rules of society - hence the need for an authority to enforce those rules.

However, I was not talking about this minority a a discrete group. If we looked at the rules in a society, for each rule there would be a minority of people who break it. However, it is not always the same people. Almost everyone would break some rules, and some people would break most rules.

In other words (to use an extremely abstract and simplified example), let's say we have a village of 100 people.

There might be 3 people in the village who would cheat at cards.
There might be 1 person who fiddles their taxes.
There might be 2 people who would short-change customers.
There might be 3 people who would shoplift.

Now here, we always have an anti-social minority - from 1-3 people depending on the situation at hand - but it is not the same people in each instance. Indeed, if we listed all the "rules" of the society, we would find that almost everyone would break some rule or rules.

However, most people obey most of the rules most of the time.

I think that difference is a fundamental aspect of Christianity's teachings. Christianity teaches that we are all chiefly defined as being "fallen" and "sinners". It emphasises the anti-social (and immoral, but that is a seperate discussion) aspects of our characters because it is trying to convince people that they need "saving" from such a "fallen" and "sinful" state.

Basically, if each person is 95% social and 5% anti-social (I realise you can't put actual numbers on this, but bear with me), Christianity would seem to concentrate on the 5% and say that we are not "perfectly" social - therefore we are anti-social, whereas I would look at the 95% and say that we are basically social.

It is basically (to borrow from - and mangle somewhat - a cliche) a glass-almost-full or glass-NOT-full question.

We are going fairly off topic here (as a GRD moderator I may have to reprimand myself for this) but I agree.

I would even go so far as to say that modern Christian theology often bears little resemblence to the Biblical texts. This is something that always amuses me when Literalists try to take the texts and read them literally, but still need to twist and interpret them to make them follow modern Protestant theology rather than actually reading them literally (with an open mind as to their interpretation) and seeing what the texts actually say.

I think I would both disagree with you and with modern Christian theology. I interpret the Bible as saying that the souls of most (but not all) Christians are conscious forever and the souls of non-Christians are destroyed in the eternal flames (note that it is the flames and smoke that are described as eternal, not the "punishment" in them).

jbernier

I share your amazement. I realized we were largely in agreement yesterday and thought "Holy @$*%, how did this happen?" More on the rest of your post later, as I am about to drive home from my parents' after much Christmas cheer (read: too much red wine at my best friend's party last night).

sharon45

But it does have to do with what you posted, you just wished to only show a small amount of the much bigger 'picture', which is what I am mostly concerned with.

'Paul' is a supposed historic figure, I do not accept him completely as a real person based on his supposed writings. As I've pointed out many times already, contradictions can't exist in real life, so one person can't be counted on for much if they constantly contradict themselves. This is especially true when one can only be judged by their 'writings', without actually being able to also observe their actions as well.

The "I think" should show that you do not know for sure, which is correct, because it is a wrong assumption. Very few snippets from a passage are going to honestly speak for themselves, especially when taken out of context. The part you presented was an ungrouned assertion when taken through more complete context from the passage itself.


Because it doesn't have to do with a christian's argument, it has to do with their avoidnce that I find fascinating.



It might easily be seen as an old argument, afterall, I do use it a lot, but not to 'win' an argument, far from that, but to simply state the truth. As far as an ad hominen, that is another groundless assertion on your part as well as leaving yourself in contradiction once again with that, and with your claims.

I can't prove or disprove the 'OT'. I can cite many places where it resides in lies and contradiction, but as far as for it being untrue, I can not yet do that. It remains though a great ungrounded assertion that has yet to be ever shown as true. Now the 'NT' is quite a different story. On it's own, it does not hold up, but completely 'drowns' when trying to connect itself with the 'OT' which is the bible. An even more absurd assertion made on top of another.

The later part has some sense, yes. The bible, warts and all, is a good study into human behavior, but about any writing can offer some insight as well. For being a work of truth, no, then it would have to connect. Having to 'NT' 'tagging along', this can not be. You might see it more differently if the bible really consisted with the qu'ran and the book of mormon inclosed.