zedvictor4

Now there's a moot point.

Proper interpretation, is basically a contradiction in terms.

In so much as an interpretations, by definition, come to varying conclusions and therefore cannot be said to be either proper or improper.

Rather, just a collection of indefinite outcomes, which in turn can be reinterpreted.

Bro D is and will be Bro D.

And one can choose to either ignore Bro D or interpret their intent as one sees fit.

As for the Christian Bible.

That is also what it is and will be.

And one can choose to either ignore or interpret it's intent as one sees fit, in accordance with the parameters of the human onboard computer and it's programming.

Basically, if one is formatively and quite rigorously programmed with certain data, then one will tend to utilise such data as an ongoing modus-operandi.

As such the veracity of the data is of little significance.

Yep, for sure.

There will always be people like Timothy McVeigh.

And I would certainly agree that most conflict identified as Nationalistic or Religious, also has an economic sub-plot.

I would suggest that being specific is reliant upon certain criteria...Primarily, an irrefutable data source...And as I was suggesting, 1700 or so years ago data records were a bit thin on the ground and came in variously translated and reinterpreted formats.

Though certainly, if one is attempting to promote a shared ideology, then being deliberately contradictory would be counter-productive.

The translation and interpretation of hand me down folk tales, is undoubtedly going to result in a non-specific and therefore potentially  ambiguous narrative.

The requirements and/or inclinations of the reader will largely dictate how the new narrative is once again reinterpreted...Which is nothing new and still an ongoing exercise.

Hopefully we are both content to be where we are.

Yes, nice chatting.

I would suggest that ambiguity in the Bible is simply indicative of the nature of it's compilation.

Multiple authors reinterpreting and translating a naive Middle Eastern mythological creation hypothesis.

Hmmmmm.

I would say that comment is a biased and stereotypical viewpoint relative to one side of a National ideological division.

Islam is one of many religions, and religions divide people and division causes wars...And Islam is still largely based upon patriarchy, as most western societies once were. (Misogyny is one of those regularly misused words).

Nope, I stand for myself and my loved ones. 

And then I have Muslim colleagues with whom I share mutual respect.

I do not fear British Muslims, though it is always wise to be wary of anyone who holds an extreme ideological outlook, which might be Islamism or Catholicism or even veganism or footballism.

And I have visited several reasonably moderate Muslim countries and have always been treated with the utmost respect, and I have reciprocated accordingly.

Sadly, extremism in the name of obsessive  ideology is perpetuated by the few and disrupts the lives of the many. (The Crusades for example).

And this has always has been the case, and probably always will be whilst fallible humans are in control.

Just keep your head down and avoid the nutters IlDiavolo.

Nope. 

See above.

Obsessive stagnation is temporarily interesting, but eventually becomes disinteresting.

We're never going to move on.

Until the next time Trade.

I suppose  we could say that about anyone with an obsessive interest in something.

Does there come a point at which indoctrination becomes self perpetuating and self limiting...I sort of think there does.

Though I'm sure that it could be argued that a general interest /disinterest in all things, is also counter-productive...And relative to material progress that is perhaps true...Obsessiveness perpetuates intellectual and  material progress.

Old religions were once a progressive ideology and motivated intellectual and material development....But those days are long gone.

The old hypotheses have long since been debunked, and obsessively perpetuating them has become a self limiting, stagnating and oftentimes destructive obsession.

The destructive nature of old guard obsessive nationalism is all too apparent in Eastern Europe at the moment.

Two steps forwards and one step back...Which may or may not be a bad thing...Stops us getting ahead of ourselves.

Good, beneficial, destructive and harmful sort of sums up the Sun for example.

Which sort of sums up the point I was trying to make.

If you get my drift.

I'm not certain at all that the Universe is human-centric.

Even though it maybe regarded as such from a human perspective.

Good to hear from you.

Not that I didn't actually perceive a visual signal.

Well, I think that "no sub-text" sums up what I mean.

A deeper message hidden in words achieves what?

Other than confusion or misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

One can only fully understand a hidden message with deeper meaning if said message is literally explained.

Therefore it would be logical and sensible to be literal.

 One would hope that a GOD would tell us exactly what it expects from us.

Not really Doc.

What we fill our days with is up to us and how we apply our grey matter.

Business is basically the application of time and effort to personal and social causes.

Financial business is definitively what it is.

Saying that financial business is a disgusting club, is no different to saying that any other business that we are not involved in, is a disgusting club.

For example, the business of professional sport is a disgusting club.

I think that we have a general sort of agreement.

Hopefully you realised that I personally only advocate abortion in the early stages of cellular division before sensory awareness starts to develop.

However, all genuine arguments are valid, therefore alternative arguments are only bad if we are not prepared to accept that all genuine arguments are valid.

And issues such as abortion, have a tendency to always have two or more perfectly valid arguments. Though in this instance we can generally differentiate between Anti abortion and Pro abortion, incorporating varying levels of both scientific and moral consideration.

I would also like add to this discussion by saying, that within the context of living organisms, I regard all life as equal.

And therefore all life as dictated by natural processes to be universally dispensable, and none to be universally special.

And for sure, the human condition is such that we all get hung up on thoughts.

Yep, all very true.

In so much as GOD is an understanding of material development.

Represented in some minds as the work of a humanesque entity.

Or in others as a physical process initiated by the currently unknowable.

Yep.

In the good old chivalrous days of war, leaders used to lead their soldiers into battle.

Now they start wars and hide in luxurious protection.

Perhaps eventually we will develop a test for the arsehole gene and abort appropriately.

There are stages of development of the human organism, and a child comes post natal somewhere after baby.

So we can employ misrepresentational rhetoric and provide a emotional argument.

And we can also apply logical rhetoric. Whereby we do not attribute a bundle of cellular tissue with sentience.

We can also apply a moral logic, whereby a level of  pre-natal development is reached and abortion becomes immoral.

Notwithstanding rare exceptions though, most women are aware that they have had unprotected sex and medical intervention provides every opportunity to terminate a fertilized egg at this first stage.

I would very much doubt that a fertilized egg knows much of it's future potential.

Changes in body chemistry is also a strong indicator of stage 2 zygotic development, wherein sentience is also not a developed quality of the tissue.

So there is every opportunity in the early stages of pregnancy, to terminate without moral obligation.

Of course, morality and emotion are arbitrary concepts.

And therefore a persons moral and emotional response to unwanted conception, should be the individuals choice. Which in most cases is a women unprepared and unready for the responsibilities of motherhood.

And certainly not the choice of  piety or self-righteousness.

People are in debt because people buy debt from debt sellers.

It's known as credit with interest, and is very popular in consumer societies.

F-ing true dat.

I certainly doubt that they are Russian.

Who you referring to you old duffer?

Interesting or silly.

If you put a lot of snowballs together you will eventually create a pile of snow.

Stick a small pile on top of a large pile and whack on a carrot.

And voila.

A baby.

I would suggest that a GOD would be omni-sensible, omni-logical and therefore omni-literal.

No sub-text as it were.

Thankyou Mr 20k.

Everything that occurs within a Universe at any given moment, is naturally occurring.

True dat.

Abortion is a demonstrably feasible solution to a real time problem.

Whereas ethical and moral disputes based upon ideological premises, are what they are.

Unborn Victim.

Or Not-born Not-Victim.

You choose GODDO.

Opponents of any government will jump at any opportunity to discredit.

Fact is people are far more interested in sleaze and media sensationalism, than they are about the cost of living and national security.

Most people probably don't even know what a Nazi actually was. They're far more interested in the sensational era of European history that followed.

Well, statistics are as statistics do, I suppose.

Which leaves 40 million people unaccounted for.

And 14 million whose income didn't keep up with inflation.

And 13.5 million whose income either kept apace with inflation or exceeded inflation.

Perhaps.

The problem I have with statistics is that they are often designed by the statistician to say what the commissioning body requires them to say.

Nonetheless, given the nature of people relative to perceived material and social expectation, in a reasonably free and democratic society,  I would say that the above statistics are probably realistic.

How these figures relate to quality of life/poverty today, compared to quality of life/poverty a hundred years ago is perhaps more interesting to consider. Especially if we look at the material and social expectations  of the lower 14 million, compared to the material and social expectations of poorer people 100 -150  years ago.

The inevitable fact in this modern reasonably free and democratic society, is the trade off between social freedom and intellectual/earning ability. Whereby the lower 20% will always look to the higher 80% for both guidance and support. I'm pretty sure that 100 - 150 years ago,  the lower echelons of society were not afforded nor expected such a luxury as social support.

And not taking into account the employability/necessity of some people in a rapidly evolving technological and automated world. Even if we continue to educate our children out of intellectual poverty.

And also not taking into account the ongoing thing that is New World Order. Wherein we currently have 8.1 billion people looking for something to do.

Thanks FLRW, or can I call you F.

I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

Just struck me that he was formerly a Nazi, means that he is currently not a Nazi.

Just like everything that was formerly...Now isn't.

Though I would assume that the inherent contradictions  are applied or not, relative to previous contexts.

Mystical bollocks BK.

He ate when no one was looking.

One way to earn a living I suppose.

Otherwise known as Mysticlbollockseatingdeceptivelyarianism.

Someone whose diet is restricted by their own need to appear mystical and special, will inevitably be skinny.

I'm a Threemealsadayandnospiritualbollocksarianist.

Such are clever people.

We haven't quite left the Dark Ages yet.

Hampered by the inherent sloth of the human condition.

Still bogged down by religion and tribalism.

Assuming that with all our gadgetry, somehow we are  emotionally progressive and connected.

Nope, emotionally retarded and as paranoid as ever.

That is...All except you and me and our tribe Stephen...LOL.

Worcestershire...Land of the free.

Well, I'm and expat.

I think that my expectations have always been the same really.

Which might seem a tad contradictory.

When we are young we expect that a modern society somehow as more to give.

But that is a materialistic view of things.

I was never encouraged to expect too much, and encouraged to be content with simplicity.

And though inherent emotions often challenged my situation, especially in the early years of marriage and whilst my children were growing up, I never strove to achieve more than was necessary, but never  felt that I was missing out.

I think what I am trying to say is...That although I was  aware of expectations, I never possessed an overbearing need to achieve them...If that makes sense?

And I think that I am very much the same now.

Interpretation, misinterpretation and reinterpretation Trade.

All indicative of uncertainty rather than a definitive answer.

So you need to prove something that you cannot prove.

And I do not need to disprove something that cannot be proven.

Status quo relative to alternatives.

But always enjoyable to interact from time to time.

Sounds amusing.

I will take a look later.

They were created good, but sinned.

So why did they sin?

Because the were created thus.

And then you go on to say that the weak fence was the fault of the designer.

Which was exactly the point I was making.

Week humans were the fault of the designer.

Thought is an involuntary, in built design feature and process of the functioning organism.

And sexuality is an in built and deliberate design feature of the organism.

So Adam thought about sex, by design.

As GOD intended.

And let's just make it clear that in the last instance, I'm referring to GOD, and not God.

Design or inevitable occurrence...Who knows.

Nonetheless Trade...Cause and effect.

Dogs for example, may not be factually knowledgeable.

But their sensory awareness far exceeds that of humans.

They know stuff that we can never know, as it were.

So in terms of degrees of sensory awareness/consciousness, I would say that we are relatively lacking.

Whereas in terms of manipulating acquired data and developing matter, our capabilities far exceed that of any other living organism.

So similarly, we know stuff that they can never know.

Though in both cases, consciousness  as in switched on and functioning, is of equal necessity.

True.

 "Awkward"...good choice of word.

I would say that my relationship with my parents was always awkward.

They were kids of the 1920's and I was a kid of the 1960's.

Our expectations were so different.

Though these days I see so much of my dad in myself... In terms of expectations and what I need in order to find contentment.

Hey, things have developed.

So the thread was worthy.

And funnily enough, as young children my sister and I were only allowed to watch children's T.V. between 5 and 6pm.

Suggests that you and I were conditioned.

Which is probably  also why I am atheist. 

And goes to prove that what we think today is likely to be based upon what we were taught as young children.

You stated that we were all born sinners, and that Adam and Eve wanted more.

And you just stated that "God created humanity- but he did not create sin"...So who unwittingly incorporated sin into the design then?...And then blamed the product.

So my conclusion was based upon your statements.

If an omni-sensible GOD didn't want these features incorporated into it's design, then the design was flawed.

Which I think is a  pretty logical conclusion Trade.

And a gun is designed with a purpose, that if effective, is not flawed.

If I designed and built a fence, that blew down in the first strong gust of wind. 

Would that be the fences fault?

Or mine for building an inadequate fence.

If a GOD designed us and we are faulty.

Then the buck stops with the  GOD

Though  if a GOD was omni-sensible, it would have realised it's error, and rectified the design fault.

As it was we were  just let to get on with things.

Though one might suggest that in terms of material evolution and the role we play in GODS greater Universal purpose.  

Cognition and the development of intellect...Wanting more as it were...Is a specific and crucial design feature.

Really, sin is just a latter day side effect of the human condition relative to the development of sexual angst.

This probably makes GOD chuckle.

LGBTQ...Hark, is that roars of thunderous laughter I hear.

I would regard consciousness as switched on and cognitive systems functioning appropriately.

Once switched on, organisms acquired varying levels of awareness.

1 to 10

1 to 360

1 to 360 000 000

Depends upon the size of the increment.

Though I do understand the analogy.

I would further suggest that in terms of awareness, certain other animals possess higher levels of sensory ability.

Isn't knowing stuff and remembering it, just a consequence of consciousness and awareness?

Mike and the Mechanics....The Living Years.

Give it a listen.

Hmmmmmmm.

Honestly couldn't say.

Though certainly not Boris.

Will ask Mrs Zed later, and get back to you.

If we are all born sinners, then we were clearly, badly designed.

So not our fault.

The poor designer's fault.

Nope, show me an omni-sensible GOD Trade.

Not a sin and salvation nutcase.

Just make sure that you're there for him when he needs you.

That's all that he requires.

He doesn't need you to be anything other than you.

Trouble is Trade.

Religion has always taken sides and sponsored wars.

Simply because a religious person is no different to a non-religious person.

A general overview of an entire species is not the same as ones perception of an individual.

Though your T.V. inspired kidnapping scenario is not really relevant to the discussion.