it disgusts me that the Catholic curriculum is allowed to waste valuable learning time, learning fictional stories. — Grre

I hear you but I cannot agree.

If not for those fictitious stories that my children laughed at, they might have become Catholic instead of atheists. Knowledge, even the fictions, should not be denied our children. They must learn to know one from the other.

One scholar I like is Bart Ehrman. He began as a fundamentalist and the more he learned of the bible the more he became an atheist.

Knowledge is power if one knows how to think.

Regards
DL

However, this doesn't imply that 'none' is better than 'any' - which is how it now seems to be interpreted by secular philosophers. — Wayfarer

That is the unintelligent position given the lack of equality that religions preach.
To hell with all who think god makes unequal or inferior souls.
Women, if anything, are better than men.

Regards
DL

One possibility is that the Catholic system may be able to reject difficult students from its system, — andrewk

That has never been done in Canada that I know of.
I and my children were in that system and I have relatives who taught in that system and I think you are completely wrong. I do not know what other countries are doing.

Canada is a cut above most nations. IMO.

Regards
DL

You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement. — DingoJones

I saw that and spoke to where I wanted to re-enforce. I do get carried away though as a am a passionate Frenchman who enjoys his work. I tent to speak to just what I quote as I am prolific and quite busy. Apologies for being overbearing.

Regards
DL

State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. — DingoJones

We are nations of laws so interference by the state is mandatory.

Religious interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things, like Muslim men forcing their slaved women to wear certain garb.

Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) — DingoJones

Which they do as secular law wants freedom from religion as much as you want freedom of religion.

You might wonder why secular laws want to protect freedom from religion by remembering that both inquisitions and jihads are tools that destroy freedom of religion and thought.

Throw in the fact that both Christianity and Islam refuse to grant full equality to women and gays and that should tell you that as nations of laws and equal rights, it is to it to insure that women have the right to not be slaved to the dress code whims of immoral religions and their slave wanting ideologies.

Why are you protecting and promoting religions that preach against the law of the land and who act against that law. Why are you protecting law breakers?

Regards
DL

Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. — DingoJones

The state interferes with all aspects of our lives, including religions as we speak.

You did not quote or try to refute the reasons I put above in us helping religions walk their talk as well as to do our first duty as free people to our people which is to insure that all the slave wanting religions like Christianity and Islam put the law of the land above their mostly unfair coersion and barbaric laws.

but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster. — DingoJones

?? Two words should be all I need say. Hitler and slavery. Being long winded I will say more of course.

Secular law is a side and if you look at our laws as compared to what the religious laws are, it is demonstrable that secular law is far superior to the laws of all the religious laws that I know of.

Name any exception and we can argue over it.

Regards
DL

See. Your Gnostic Grace, you just are not being imaginative enough. — Bitter Crank

I like your thinking and we will likely go for more banning over time, I hope. Every dog has his day but social change takes time and as you point out, we should not throw the baby, even if rather ugly, out with the bath water. We will have to live with the more garbage religions until the secular and atheist churches that are growing have a chance to catch up.

The world is getting more moral and intelligent and the more stupid and immoral religions are presently shrinking and our duty is to keep that attrition going and accelerate it as much as is possible.

Regards
DL

Or prohibited. That is the more gnarly part of the right. — Valentinus

I have no problem with prohibiting the teaching that women and gays are inferior citizens as compared to men and that a person's greatest ambition and wish in life should be that of being slaved to a god who is more satanic like than god like.

Regards
DL

I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state. — DingoJones

I agree, but see the state as having a duty to end the coercive part of religions that say their religions are not coercive.

The state, in that sense, is a godsend to the more sloppy and vile religions. Nice that the state can help the religionist walk their talk while getting them out of the face of the non-believers. Bad enough that the non-believers have to subsidize the tax shortfall that immoral and the vile religions create.

Regards
DL

It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression. — Valentinus

You live in a free country and are a free man and your wife and children are free to go into the public space dressed as they like.
That is not so in a Muslim household where the man is more of a slave owner than one leading a free family.
I see our first duty as free people as being to insure that all our people share in the freedoms we enjoy.
Slavery in our country is outlawed and it is our duty to insure that all are equaly able to share the freedoms we enjoy.

The religions say that there is no compulsion in their ideology and I see the laws in question as insuring that the religious live up to their claims by us putting the compulsion of law in their slave loving faces.

Regards
DL

I have long agreed with a total ban on organized forms of religion-if not to reduce tribal violence but also because religion is a tool of the dark ages, the antitheses to critical thinking and equality. In Ontario we talk about equality but still have a Catholic public ally funded school board. Ridiculous. — Grre

I agree to all but your last even as I see and agree with your point. It is you calling it ridiculous that I dislike. I call it smart as the Catholic board, unfortunately to both of our views, is producing better results than the public system. I admit to not knowing why.

My children are no longer of school age and I am, if anything, anti-religious even though I am a Gnostic Christian, but chose to put my children in the Catholic board so as to insure they got the best that Canada could provide. If the secular public schools come up to the Catholic standard of excellence, then I will be able to change my views.

Regards
DL

I can see some good points in the French approach, but it must get especially difficult around the boundary. — andrewk

There will and should be challenges to such laws and over time, the law will decide where, if any, boundaries should be set.
If I read the Quebec law correctly, it would be adjusted by the courts and likely changed to be moral all encompassing because as it stands, it discriminates against those who would seek employment within our governing and legal systems.

I think the final law in Quebec will be made to match more closely the one in France and other E.U. nations that have clamped down on public displays.

Canada will not allow, I hope, employment discrimination and will make it an overall discrimination everywhere and not just in government employment.

Regards
DL

Why are you talking about a ball of rock as if it has a soul? And how is it "stupid" that a parasitic species would move on after destroying its host? It requires a host. If its present host is about to die, wouldn't it be "smart" to find a new one? — whollyrolling

I do not speak of the earth as having a soul.
Historically, we have personified the earth as Gaia of Mother earth.
You are rather intolerant of common practice of just had nothing better to say about the issue, which was terraforming.

I think that if more people thought of the earth in a personified way, we might not be passing it to our children a lot worse off that what we began with. No?

If you think man can destroy the earth, and terraform a dead worlds when we cannot even terraform this one, then, tell me what polite thing can I say of your thinking?

Technologically, we are decades, if not centuries, away from being able to terraform a dead planet as we do not even have the teck to terraform our 99% live planet. Mars will always be a satellite or way station for earth. It will never be a home.

Regards
DL

We don't know that the earth will take care of itself. — whollyrolling

We know that it will eventually die just as all things die by entropy but it sure looks like it will outlive most species that are here now just as it has done for millions upon millions of years. Any thing we do to not go extinct is only good for us as the earth will outlast us by eons. At least on this planet.

I think it a joke that we look to terraforming another planet while we cannot even terraform ours to a better condition for us.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Regards
DL

The report is not referring to planetary collapse. — ralfy

Informative. Thanks.

Regards
DL

If you cannot see the misuse of the term love towards non-sentient life, when we are talking of love that people share, then you are not worth my time.

When those who love me say they do, it is not the same "love" that they say when they love their shoes.

But hey, if you want to love your mate the same way you love your plants, have at it.

Regards
DL

"Is Global Collapse Imminent?" — ralfy

They are asking the question and giving the facts that they know.

Fact is, with the chaos we have in the environment at present, we do not know anything for certain.

We do know for a fact that the earth will look after itself as it has for billions of years and will not collapse. That does not mean that mankind will fare as well. If we are too slow to adapt to the new environment, we might go extinct but the world will just shrug that off and replace the ecosystem we dies in by a form of life that will thrive.

Do you like George Carlin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo&feature=related

Regards
DL

That would be disappointing. — Possibility

Yes, like you saying above that you apply the word love to plants then berate me for showing the foolishness of that.

Regards
DL

You requested for a peer-reviewed report, and I presented it to you. — ralfy

I just took a look above and do not see what you are referring to.

Regards
DL

Do you really think it’s wasted? Is it wasted to love a plant - to feed and nurture it, give it your time and effort, knowing that it may never show its love for you in return? If what we do is ultimately for our own benefit, how is that love? — Possibility

If you love plants and shoes and your hair style, we are not defining love the same way.

So yes, it is a waste of time to love anything that cannot know what love is.

we’ve been taught that avoiding pain, humiliation and loss is apparently what we should be striving for. — Possibility

If you were taught that then you were taught not to compete for anything as competition is doing just that.

This indicates that you have stopped evolving and will stagnate in whatever situation you are in.

Regards
DL

Are you trying to muddy the waters or what? — S

Not in the least, but you are by indicating that we are talking about those who would lie about love.

Regards
DL

When I love someone, it doesn’t matter if they love me in return. — Possibility

I think we all dislike wasting our love and having it rejected, but ok.

Regards
DL

Test — Joshs

Was that a question?

Regards
DL

For love, reciprocity is not necessary, and in fact should neither be expected nor requested. — Possibility

So theoretically, when you say, I love you, to the next person you fall in live with, and the sentiment is not returned, you will not care or expect reciprocity and just keep on wondering if they love you in return. I do not believe that.

Regards
DL

False. I'll just repeat what I said and leave it at that. That would be a weak love if it depended on superficial shows of affection. My love is known regardless. Our love for each other is stronger than that. — S

How did your love one know you loved him or her?
How do you know you are loved by the other?
Someone had to do something to indicate it.
If you do not see that something as a work or deed then -------
Regards
DL

What does faith have to do with it? Are you saying that most atheists accept that
love without reciprocity, works and deeds is a true love whereas most good Christians don't? Why do you think that is? — Joshs

Because those of faith believe in the foolish idea of unconditional love while atheists do not share that delusion.

I would argue the capability to love someone is a function of one's ability to understand an empathize with another from their own perspective, by slipping into their shoes. That is probably the most difficult task on earth, and for that we need to make use of the most penetrating insights into human nature that are available to us. Embracing christian theological concepts influenced by 17th enlightenment enlightenment thinking will allow one to better achieve love and intimacy with others than relying on a 5th century Christian platonism — Joshs

Pffft.
Atheists would tell you to shove your inference that Christianity enhances anyone's ability to empathise as they preach a homophobic and misogynous doctrine that is anathema to empathic transference. It is the opposite of the golden Rule as a matter of fact. Not being an atheist, I would be more loving.

Your enlightenment period of time was rife with inquisitions and murder and the end of freedom of religion and I don't see any empathy from Christianity in that epoch.

By the same token, I believe that seeing the world through a Kierkegaardian 'death of god' perspective will enable one to connect more effectively and insightfully with others in friendship and love that by relying on Kantian-era Christian thought. — Joshs

You assume I have read all you have read and understand it the same way. Being French, that is unlikely and what I get from this is gibberish so try common words.

And better still would be understanding and incorporation the psychological insights of postmodernists like Nietzsche in one's social life. — Joshs

Same as my last. Talk with words. Not some concept that only you are understanding in your own way.
It seems you are trying to show off instead of actually communicating. I am duly impressed, so stop it.

So , fist of all, my question to you is, which particular sort of Christianity are you advocating here as a guide to understanding 'true' love? — Joshs

Whatever kind of Christianity that uses the part where Jesus says that he would recognize his people, those he will recognize and love, due to their showing their love for him with works and deeds.

Since you reject a supernatural Jesus, it sounds like your thinking is more evolved than that of 17th century Christian theology. — Joshs

Thanks.

Given the stupidity of literalism within Christianity, anyone who has not put their brains into intellectual dissonance will likely be more evolve than those literal reading Christians. Any child or reasoning age will be brighter.

What do you think it is about Christian faith that leads to the valuing of reciprocity for 'true' love in a way that atheism doesn't? — Joshs

As stated, atheists seem more in tune with reciprocity as a part of love than Christian who hold a notion of a unqualified or unconditional love. An silly concept to me, given the need for works and deeds. Remember that even saying the words I love you is a work or deed and it you have ever told a girl that, you know you were likely expecting reciprocity and would have been some disappointed if you did not get it. I will have to check your other post later. Guests just arrived.

Regards
DL

Those are just some of the typical expressions of love. — S

Yes, and without them, the one you love would not know it. You mentioned some of the things you do to express your love while not licking the expressions of love which I mentioned. You are quite selective if you would not cover your cold child or feeding a hungry loved one while telling them you love them, which was on your will do list.

Can the one you love know you love them without you doing works and deed and can you know they love you back, which makes it a true shared love without the reciprocity of works and deeds towards you? No they cannot. Simply said, true love is giving and taking and sharing. if only one is doing it then it is a one sided love and not true love at all.

The works and deeds do not have to be much and they may not even be apparent.
Take a paraplegic who cannot even move and might only be able to mumble an I love you to his wife. Even that can be a true love as the wife would know that he is doing all he can while she is doing a hell of a lot more with only those three word that apply to reciprocity.

Have we now cleared up our ambiguity as I think we are on the same page basic page?

Regards
DL

You seem to be talking specifically about ‘true love’ as romantic love - an emotion that, if reciprocated, supposedly leads to romance, sex, marriage and ‘happily ever after’. This is not ‘love’ as described in the bible. Yes, love does require action (works and deeds), but not reciprocity. — Possibility

I did not have romantic love in mind but I find it interesting that for romantic love, you would think that reciprocity of desire would not need to be around. That is like you using the one you say you love as a masturbation tool that has no desire for you in the romantic sense. Yuk.

I love my husband, and he loves me in return, but I know that if something happened that somehow prevented that awareness of reciprocity, I would continue to love him - because I love him for him, not just for me. — Possibility

Nice that he loves you in return. You make my case for reciprocity, which you seem to deny.
If the initial awareness on his part were to somehow be negated by illness or accident, the knowledge that he would reciprocate if he could should be just as potent as the real thing, so yes, you do the right thing by continuing to love him.

The rest of your post I have no argument against. You seem to have your head on straight.

Regards
DL

I don't think I need to give examples, so I won't. I'm sure you're capable of thinking some up yourself. — S

If I could, I would not have asked for examples.

Love isn't something that needs to be shown, — S

So you would not show someone you loved that was hungry your love with some food. Ok.

Or if your child was shivering in bed, you would not show your love by putting a blanket on him. Ok.

Regards
DL

It depends how self-aware they are. If they can become self-aware enough to see it for what it is, I say that they should abandon it. — S

Your judgement and not theirs is what I sought and I see that we are in the same moral position.

Nice.

Regards
DL

Shamshir — Gnostic Christian Bishop

They pulled your post. Clean it up as i am interested in your response without whatever they pulled it for.

The mods here are quite good so don't be an a hole.

Regards
DL

I was not referring to nature. — ralfy

Don't leave me hanging with a bare denial.

I obviously got it wrong but if correcting is not in you.

Regards
DL

When one loves, one loves regardless if one is loved. — Shamshir

You think love can be true love if not reflected back and shared with another. You think one can love alone.

Lets look at you and your wife. She looks at you that certain way and an emotion is generated and shared that I call love. Reciprocity is there along with the work and deeds that create it.

Let's now look at you at work where a woman who is there loves you and looks at you in that certain way. That also produces an emotion in you. Are you saying that that emotion is the same emotion that your wife generates in you?

Can true love be just one way as it is at your work or does true love need more of what your wife and you share thanks to your reciprocity?

Regards
DL

Does Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us?
Your answer is yes. He does both

But I'm not understanding your argument because
The definitions I have
1. Love (to put something above you're self)
2. stalking (unwanted surveillance)
3. faith (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.) — hachit

If yes to both, then you ignore the law of the excluded middle.

1. I do not agree in all cases, but do agree that that is usually a component of love. It falls into the deed or works part of my definition.
The exception I was thinking of is equality that I would deny all whom I love but in the law of the sea notion where men are to put women and children above ourselves. If they refused, I would ignore their equality and throw them into the lifeboat before ever taking their seat.

2. Do you like the idea of an omni-present god watching you and your made enjoying each others company in bed?

3. That is not the biblical definition. It is more like complete trust or confidence in someone or something unseen and unknowable and unfathomable that works in mysterious ways. I adlibbed a bit as I don't have the time to get the biblical definition right now.

Regards
DL

I’m curious as to what is your understanding of ‘a true love’? What do you think it means to love someone? — Possibility

I defined it in the part you quoted buddy. It consists of works and deeds and reciprocity.

I think what I gave Joshs just above might shed some light on this for you.

If not, tell us how you show someone you love them if not by works, deeds and reciprocating the emotion. That will help me formulate an answer if you do not get my position.

Regards
DL

You can love someone who has the capacity or potential to love. You can love someone who despises you , because you know he doesn't understand you. You can loved someone for their attributes, even if they don't love or even know you. — Joshs

Simply said, love is something you send out to another but if not reflected back, it is never a completed love. You cannot have true love alone. Love to be real love takes two.

If you think the love you are giving to one who despises you returns the same good emotions in you that a returned love does, I think you have not thought this out well at all.

Regards
DL

My thoughts are that love can quite obviously be unreciprocated without being stalking, — S

So love can be real love even to those who reject yours.

Tell us how that would work, let's say with one you love and who does not love you back.

How would you show that love in a way that was not stalking like?

Regards
DL

They're fictional characters, — S

Yes I know.

What do you think of the ideology that those who are too indoctrinated to recognize that truth follow?

Is it a moral ideology or an immoral one?

Regards
DL

Lol. I nominate this for the thread title of the year. Award ceremony next February. But if the Divine Creator is crushing on us, wouldn’t that be better than living alone in an empty universe? Plus, think of the swag you’d get having a supernatural honey. :halo: — 0 thru 9

Thanks.

I do not think I want to take a chance on that vile prick of a god when scriptures say that the vast majority of us will end in hell regardless of how hard we kiss Yahweh's ass and that only the few of us will make it to heaven.

Better to reign in hell that have to kiss ass eternally. Not that hell exists.

Regards
DL

But the time will come...and when a large country finally makes the move to what those smaller countries have...all countries will be forced in that direction. — Frank Apisa

Doubtful.
Politics is done for local consumption and all politicians want their brand on legislation and that is why they do not copy better systems in other countries.

Even Obama, whom I respect, wanted Obama care.
Not an --- Obama's copy of the best system on earth care.

Regards
DL