A thought about our significance

[rogue06]

Whew! Does that means I can get a puppy now?

You can. And many places from whence you can get a puppy have a return policy.

No.

But you CAN have unprotected sex...

um...

[mikewhitney]

Yes...it doesn't. But you are essentially making my point. The right values life over liberty. The left values liberty and does not see it as a trade at all because they do not recognize the unborn child as a human life. I see it as a trade because I do. But a human being has autonomy - and to forcefully sacrifice that autonomy is not something I can do. Neither can I forcefully sacrifice life. That is why the abortion discussion creates a dilemma that can ONLY be solved by creating a context where that choice need not be made.

I don't see anywhere where the left values liberty. Currently the left advocates the greatest seizure of private property through taxes. The left seeks greatest size of government and even supports lots of wars. (We really haven't had anything right since Kennedy, maybe -- until possibly now. So we may see some liberty being restored.)

[QuantaFille]

But you are necessarily measuring these things from a human perspective, essentially maintaining the human egocentrism. To us, we are the most important thing in the universe. To the universe, we just are. And to god...? Apparently he/she/it is narrowly focused on humanity, which fits perfectly with... human egocentrism.



So, by your measure...if a scenario were ever to develop where allowing a single person to die would preserve an entire galaxy, the human person should be saved and the galaxy forfeited because the person is sentient and the galaxy is not? And there is no sense in you, whatsoever, that this smacks of arrogance and egocentrism?



Wow. So the purpose of all existence is humanity, and everything else is for our benefit? And then you wonder why I find there is a certain degree of arrogance and humancentrism to religions?

And the "we're smarter than everyone else" of atheism doesn't smack of arrogance to you?

[Sparko]

I don't think she's that kind of Christian. If I understand her correctly, she believes in a god that looks into the heart and makes judgments on the basis of what he/she finds there. She sees me as a fundamentally good person, so she believes we'll be together in the hereafter.

If she thinks you don't need Jesus to be saved, then either you don't know what your wife believes very well, or she isn't really a Christian. But then you used to be a Christian right? Perhaps she believes in once-saved always saved. I do. So if you truly believed at one time, and accepted Jesus as your savior, then you are saved.

I said nothing so general about Christians - nor do I think that way. But now I am truly confused. You actually agree with a position I didn't take, but you appear to be angry about it?

I cannot even begin to follow the logic...

You were trying to make a dig at Christians being weak willed. You meant it as an insult, but I take it as "yep. If being weak willed means that I can give myself over to Jesus, then I am glad I am weak! I wish everyone was!"
What I was "angry" about was you being wishy-washy about taking responsibility for your initial comment and trying to walk it back. I would respect you more if you would just stick to your initial statements and defend them, instead of trying to not offend people so much. I appreciate you being polite, but trust me, I have a pretty thick skin and can take your real opinion on things.

[lilpixieofterror]

Science suggests that that are an estimated 10 billion galazies in the universe, of which our galazy is only one. If they all have the estimated 100 billiion stars that exist in our universe, and if the average life of a star is 10 billion years, this suggests that 100 billion stars end their lives in this universe every year. This suggests that 281 milliion stars end their existence each day, which is 11.7 million starts per hour, 195.6 thousand per miniute, and 3,260 stars end their lives every second of every day of every year.

There are an estimated 7.6 billion humans on earth, and we average a 79 year lifespan. This means 96.2 milliion people die per year, 263,6K die per day, 11K die per hour, 183 die per minute, and 3.05 die every second of every day.

3260 stars per second....
3.05 humans per second...

A star has an enormous average power output. The power output of the average human is on the order of a few D-cell batteries.

But we have to audicity to consider ourselves "significant," and suggest that a god of the universe (if it exists) is singularly focused on our salvation?

I would chalk that up to human arrogance - and a need to be significant.

[carpedm9587]

Nope. Did not.

Because it's a fact that liberty without life is absolutely useless.

And I (and others) would say the same about life without liberty.

You mean the same left that pitches a hissy about "client deniers", but they deny what science can clearly prove - if it's not "human life" in the womb, what is it?

This is word vomit.

Since I believe life starts at implanatation, and I disagree with the left, I will leave it to them to defend their position. But "the left" includes even some religions. I was surprised to see that the Judaic rabbinical position on life is that it begins at birth, and that a woman is not simply a "baby machine" and is not to be treated what way. I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that.

You just don't have the courage to admit that life clearly outranks a temporary PARTIAL restriction on "liberty".

The pregnant woman can still do many things - it's not like her life comes to a complete stop for 9 months --- that's just downright goofy.

It's a TEMPORARY PARTIAL restriction resulting from (the vast majority of the time) a decision she made.

And it remains a STATE telling an autonomous woman with the freedoms protected by the constitution what she may and may not do with her body for the length of her pregnancy. I have no desire to have the state dictate to me anything abuot what I may or may not do with my own body, so I am not going to get behind the state doing it to anyone else. I don't see how "courage" has anything to do with it - except it was a handy cudgel to try to shame me? CP - you know me better than that.

[carpedm9587]

I don't see anywhere where the left values liberty. Currently the left advocates the greatest seizure of private property through taxes. The left seeks greatest size of government and even supports lots of wars. (We really haven't had anything right since Kennedy, maybe -- until possibly now. So we may see some liberty being restored.)

My comment was in the context of the abortion discussion. As for the rest, I think you'll have a hard time making a hard left/right distinction for any of those things. I think you're kind of clining to some right-wing memes without a lot of substance. I find them as pointless as "the right wants to further deprive the poor and thinks they're all lazy."

[carpedm9587]

And the "we're smarter than everyone else" of atheism doesn't smack of arrogance to you?

Where on earth did I ever say I'm smarter than everyone else?

[carpedm9587]

If she thinks you don't need Jesus to be saved, then either you don't know what your wife believes very well, or she isn't really a Christian. But then you used to be a Christian right? Perhaps she believes in once-saved always saved. I do. So if you truly believed at one time, and accepted Jesus as your savior, then you are saved.

I realize that there are different Christian sects, Sparko, and some refuse to recognize others as Christian. I don't get into the middle of all that. My wife if (mostly) Catholic, though she has serious dissatisfactions with many aspects of Catholicism. She believes in the Christiana god. I'm not 100% sure about her stance on Jesus. She considers herself Christian and I accept her as such. Whether or not someone else accepts her as Christian is largely irrelevant to me. I suspect it's probably irrelevant to her as well.

As for my former beliefs - yes, I once believed I was "saved." Spent years of my life preaching, teaching, working in the church, and even preparing to be a minister of the church. That was 33+ years ago. These days, I do not spend a lot of time wondering if I am "saved," for obvious reasons. If you believe I am, that's fine with me. As I've said before, what others believe is their concern - not mine.

You were trying to make a dig at Christians being weak willed. You meant it as an insult, but I take it as "yep. If being weak willed means that I can give myself over to Jesus, then I am glad I am weak! I wish everyone was!"

No - I wasn't. I'm sorry you took it that way, but it had nothing to do with what I was saying or why I was saying it.

What I was "angry" about was you being wishy-washy about taking responsibility for your initial comment and trying to walk it back. I would respect you more if you would just stick to your initial statements and defend them, instead of trying to not offend people so much. I appreciate you being polite, but trust me, I have a pretty thick skin and can take your real opinion on things.

I have taken responsibility several times. The Christian message is one of forgiveness, salvation, loving embrace by an all-powerful god. It is a psychologically powerful message, and will be especially powerful for those who are in a vulnerable place in their life. That was the extent of my comment. Somehow, you turned that into, "all Christians are weak and too stupid to see through the fake news." I never said (or thought) any of that. If you choose to continue to be angry - you're being angry over things you added to my comment - not attitudes or opinions I actually hold.

[carpedm9587]

Actually - yes. In basic economics, supply and demand suggests that an abundance of any material drives down its value. The diamond is just as pretty, and doesn't change any of its qualities, but it is indeed less "valuable."

And I have no idea what that has to do with what I was saying...?

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually - yes. In basic economics, supply and demand suggests that an abundance of any material drives down its value. The diamond is just as pretty, and doesn't change any of its qualities, but it is indeed less "valuable."

And I have no idea what that has to do with what I was saying...?

[carpedm9587]

Yes - they do. The sentiment someone might feel for a particular diamond (i.e., an heirloom) is not impacted by the presence or absence of other diamonds. I interpreted your observation in terms of monetary value. There are other forms of value, as you note.

Perhaps. But to tweak your analogy a bit, there are an estimated 10x10^20 stars in the universe. There are an estimated 7.5x10^18 grains of sand on the beaches of the earth. So a god having special concern/love for the beings on one of the satellites of one of the stars on this universe is somewhat the equivalent of a human person being intimately concerned with the well-being of the microbes on a single grain of sand somewhere on the planet.

Is it possible? Absolutely. But just how likely is it to actually happen? It seems to strain credulity to me. Now, if I was an actual microbe, I might really WANT this human to care so much about me, because I am very small and very vulnerable, and it would give me a sense of importance to know that this massive, powerful human would so care for me. After all, I would see myself as a "special diamond" of great worth. The question is, what are the odds that the human would see me in those terms?

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes - they do. The sentiment someone might feel for a particular diamond (i.e., an heirloom) is not impacted by the presence or absence of other diamonds. I interpreted your observation in terms of monetary value. There are other forms of value, as you note.

Perhaps. But to tweak your analogy a bit, there are an estimated 10x10^20 stars in the universe. There are an estimated 7.5x10^18 grains of sand on the beaches of the earth. So a god having special concern/love for the beings on one of the satellites of one of the stars on this universe is somewhat the equivalent of a human person being intimately concerned with the well-being of the microbes on a single grain of sand somewhere on the planet.

Is it possible? Absolutely. But just how likely is it to actually happen? It seems to strain credulity to me. Now, if I was an actual microbe, I might really WANT this human to care so much about me, because I am very small and very vulnerable, and it would give me a sense of importance to know that this massive, powerful human would so care for me. After all, I would see myself as a "special diamond" of great worth. The question is, what are the odds that the human would see me in those terms?

[carpedm9587]

So, if I understand this correctly, you even argue with me when I agree with you?

The book you are citing was written by...people! It's like a microbe writing a book about how much those huge humans care for them. If you find it likely that a human would have a loving, concerned relationship with a collection of microbes on a single grain of sand somewhere on the planet, and want to see to their salvation, so be it. I find it to be a little egotistical on the part of the microbe to think this is likely. A matter of perspective, I guess.

Collectively, perhaps. I take it you're not suggesting that humans make god possible? That would be my position..

[Cow Poke]

And I (and others) would say the same about life without liberty.

Without TOTAL liberty, sure, but most of us can stand some temporary PARTIAL restrictions. You make it sound like a pregnant woman's life just stops, or is held hostage.

Since I believe life starts at implanatation, and I disagree with the left, I will leave it to them to defend their position. But "the left" includes even some religions. I was surprised to see that the Judaic rabbinical position on life is that it begins at birth, and that a woman is not simply a "baby machine" and is not to be treated what way. I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that.

Actually, the Jewish Rabbi I know says life begins when the dog dies and the kids move away.

And it remains a STATE telling an autonomous woman with the freedoms protected by the constitution what she may and may not do with her body for the length of her pregnancy. I have no desire to have the state dictate to me anything abuot what I may or may not do with my own body, so I am not going to get behind the state doing it to anyone else. I don't see how "courage" has anything to do with it - except it was a handy cudgel to try to shame me? CP - you know me better than that.

I think you're really overplaying this "slavery" angle - she's still free to live her life, albeit with some limitations or complications resulting from decisions (in the vast majority of cases) that she made herself.