Christmas Revolution

Stuff of interest on the Web...
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Christmas Revolution

Postby Lausten » Sat Jan 02, 2016 3:42 am

Did anyone else catch this in the NYT?

It's your basic "Jesus changed the world and created modern ethics" garbage. I can't figure out how people qualify to get in the NYT. Anyway, I pulled out one sentence from it and got into an argument with two people. The sentence is

We moderns assume that compassion for the poor and marginalized is natural and universal.


I figured it's pretty obvious that "we moderns" don't assume that all. Compassion for the poor is a fairly new phenomena. If it was universal, why are there poor? Wouldn't everyone be doing something about it? The argument was that people are naturally good, but they are coerced by leaders to do bad things and they are marginalized themselves so they can't do anything, or they feel ineffective, or something.

I think it wasn't so much an argument as different interpretation, since I agree all people are basically good, otherwise there wouldn't be 7 billion of us, we wouldn't have made it to the moon or created bacon cheese burgers. So compassion is natural, but not as it relates to the poor and marginalized. Once you get beyond your local tribe, compassion is a real struggle.

Can anyone make a good argument for what this guy is saying?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Christmas Revolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:39 am

Lausten wrote: Can anyone make a good argument for what this guy is saying?


No. I think you got it right when you said all people are basically good. That makes more sense as we are all human. Religion doesn't seem to make much difference to a person's true hidden nature.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11138
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Christmas Revolution

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:18 am

Matt: define "good." I think most hoomans are just trying to get by as best they can according to the rules they honestly perceive. A nice mix of societal law and personal morality going on. Everybody is for all that is good and right for everyone......................... balanced ................ against what is good and right for themselves. Guess what the shape of THAT bell curve is?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Christmas Revolution

Postby Lausten » Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:11 pm

ummmm, would it be shaped like a bell?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11138
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Christmas Revolution

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 03, 2016 3:18 pm

Lausten wrote:ummmm, would it be shaped like a bell?

Not all bell shapes are symmetrical....they get skewed from one bias or corruption or another. ... usually: a bad mold survey instrument.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Christmas Revolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:18 am

Lausten wrote:ummmm, would it be shaped like a bell?


Lausten. I'm going to make a very strange hypothesis as to why "humans are good in general". (It's OK to pull my strange claim apart).

Why are domesticated cats so placid? One hypothesis was that only "friendly cats" were taken into middle east households and the wild ones simply died out, 4,500 to 5,500 year ago. It's genetic.

Humans have always been living in troops for at least 7,000,000 years. The first towns are about 8,000 years ago. I openly wonder if anti-social humans have simply almost been bred out of the current human population?

If I define "good" as "complying to the social and economic harmony of the troop" then "good" humans carrying those sets of genes that do exactly that, are probably more likely to breed over extended generations.

Does that make any sense? :?:


Return to “Links”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests