Some of us hear the words, some don't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All Men are Created Equal
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
can you not do so on your own?
with whom would you spend eternity?
you have choices to make
and yes......you will
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Curious George
Veteran Member
You seem unable to answer. By what standard do you judge between two infants worth?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
as mortal?
or as God?
at the point of birth we are little more than a breath in chemistry
consider the book of Job
the sons (plural) gathered to present themselves to God
why?
and with them came the devil
who was immediately set upon by god Himself
what the hell are YOU doing here...????….!!!!
you don't see a difference in status?
and to whom do we bear resemblance?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Either.
By what standard do you judge one infant to be of less worth than another infant?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I do not
but God and heaven seem able.....
…..and He shall be called Immanuel....
Curious George
Veteran Member
God in heaven judges one baby as worth more than another baby? How do you know this?
It "seems" as though you are now saying not that people are not equal but rather that people do not seem equal. These are very different statements.
Look around you. Do you see a creator? Do you see men being created?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
It's simply a way of saying that everyone deserves equal rights and equal opportunities.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I would suggest that it is a statement regarding a particular aspect. Such that those who profess it believe that in at least one respect we are all literally equal.
All men are conceived the way, but once they are born into the freak show that is this world, they come to realize they're no longer equal. In fact inequality is on the rise all over the world. So you must have a point there. NOT all men are made equal.
What aspect?
All humans are Created equal in the eyes of God in OUR universal spiritual journey through many worlds. In our physical reality in this physical world, no. If you believe in an omnipotent omnipresent God, the ancient world views only believe in their relationship with God is in their ancient tribal perspective only, In the universal perspective the relationship with the 'Source' some call God(s) this reality of this relationship is greater than any culturally bound ancient worldview.
The reality of our physical reality of physical inequality is true whether God exists or not. If God exists the reality of a greater evolving spiritual reality is that is the nature of OUR relationship with God regardless of what we chose to believe or not from our egocentric cultural perspective.
The reality of our physical reality of physical inequality is true whether God exists or not. If God exists the reality of a greater evolving spiritual reality is that is the nature of OUR relationship with God regardless of what we chose to believe or not from our egocentric cultural perspective.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
look in the mirror.....
is that your handiwork you walk in?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
if my relationship with God is greater than yours....
was I not born to it?
see book of Job
I don't know yet if God would consider me.....the least of servants
and if He doesn't
then what?
So, looking is not enough to realise the truth beneath the names-forms.
Augustus
…
Let's try again:
However, there are many valid reasons for acting as if it were true, for example: democracy, the law, human rights etc. are premised on the idea of equality.
This is no different from saying you have a 'right to life' or a 'right to property'. Of course you don't have a right to keep things you own any more than a lion has the right to keep a carcass from a pack of hyenas, yet we create a fictional concept of 'ownership' as it suits us to do so.
I believe it is useful to differentiate this category of fiction from simple 'lies and delusion', you apparently do not. I can live with that.
A rudimentary knowledge of logical fallacies makes one less intelligent than no knowledge at all.
If you spent spent even half the effort on reading comprehension that you do on demonstrating you don't understand logical fallacies, you might make fewer basic errors.
"Lies and delusions" were your terms, not mine. I was saying that basic functions of society often require us to act as if certain things were true, even though they are not. It helps to differentiate these from 'lies and delusions'.
Humans did not evolve to be rational. Both science and the entirety of human history confirm that humans are not rational (in the sense of 'objective truth', most irrationalities are perfectly rational from an evolutionary perspective).
Thinking that our species of fancy apes can one day can become perfectly rational purveyors of objective truth and build a society of pure reason is as delusional as any belief out there. Our brains don't work that way.
I'm not even sure what a society with no myths would look like given we are simply walking bags of chemicals that became sentient by chance that exist in a purposeless universe doing things that have no value and are ultimately entirely futile. No wonder we like making up fictions to create meaning in the world around us.
Strike 3...
I'll help you out in simple English:
1. You said "equal rights advantage mediocre individuals", not me
2. I said everyone (including you) relies on metaphorical truths. This is very obviously not an insult.
3. I said whether or not this makes you mediocre is up to you to decide
4. From this it is easy enough to infer that I don't think relying on metaphorical truths makes one 'mediocre' (and I was mocking your pretence at being superior).
5. Even if I had called you mediocre in that post, it still wouldn't have been an ad hom (can you work out why?)
Augustus
…
Humans have no more intrinsic worth than do ants or daisies.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't act as if they do.
augustus, vous n'avez pas le compétences cognitives (minimales) nécessaires pour un débat fructueux, il n'y a plus rien à dire.
to other users, it might be useful for you to see how confusion works as the ideal environment for a man (let's call him pablo) having lost an argument.
FIRST CASE
"metaphorical truths" = A
development of societies = B
sentence 1(S1) : A implies B.
hypothesis: S1 is true.
fallacious conclusion (FC): if S1 is true, B implies A.
also, if S1 isn't proved (and it's not), FC is wrong not only logically, but also empirically (as it is).
we see pablo trying to pollute the syllogism (most probably unknowingly) by introducing the objection that i called "C" (delusions and beliefs) something he called "A". which obviously doesn't change one thing for anyone but pablo.
SECOND CASE
here our pablo seems even less smart (however unbelievable it could be). he tries to equate the technical terminus "ad hominem" with the common term "insult". everyone but pablo knows "ad hominem" means choosing an argument in order to discredit your opponent, instead of refuting your opponent's argument. indeed, if i say that equal rights statistically advantage mediocre individuals, and pablo answers that i took advantage from equal rights, he is not really proving my argument wrong, but inferring something about me, which is completely irrelevant to the debate.
i hope to have turned this discussion in something profitable to other users. ciao.
to other users, it might be useful for you to see how confusion works as the ideal environment for a man (let's call him pablo) having lost an argument.
FIRST CASE
"metaphorical truths" = A
development of societies = B
sentence 1(S1) : A implies B.
hypothesis: S1 is true.
fallacious conclusion (FC): if S1 is true, B implies A.
also, if S1 isn't proved (and it's not), FC is wrong not only logically, but also empirically (as it is).
we see pablo trying to pollute the syllogism (most probably unknowingly) by introducing the objection that i called "C" (delusions and beliefs) something he called "A". which obviously doesn't change one thing for anyone but pablo.
SECOND CASE
here our pablo seems even less smart (however unbelievable it could be). he tries to equate the technical terminus "ad hominem" with the common term "insult". everyone but pablo knows "ad hominem" means choosing an argument in order to discredit your opponent, instead of refuting your opponent's argument. indeed, if i say that equal rights statistically advantage mediocre individuals, and pablo answers that i took advantage from equal rights, he is not really proving my argument wrong, but inferring something about me, which is completely irrelevant to the debate.
i hope to have turned this discussion in something profitable to other users. ciao.
Last edited: