Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...native Americans* lived sustainably off the land without cultivating it...

Actually, some did "cultivate" it. They grew corn, for example, and other crops, but in a limited way. They usually cleared land through the expedient of burning it clear...hardly your ideal "sustainable" solution. And when each tribe had defiled or depleted the land on which they were located, they simply moved on and did the same in a new place.

Just like you and I would have done, if we were they. It's the only way an ancient tribe can make do.

Human nature is universal. One doesn't become a special kind of "good" person by way of being primitive.

[Harry Baird]

I give up no rights.

You assume that you have a choice.

[Harry Baird]

Actually, some did "cultivate" it. They grew corn, for example, and other crops, but in a limited way.

Sure, just like the indigenous Australians did. It was a cultivation that was minimalistic and sustainable though - not at all like modern agriculture.

They usually cleared land through the expedient of burning it clear...hardly your ideal "sustainable" solution. And when each tribe had defiled or depleted the land on which they were located, they simply moved on and did the same in a new place.

Just like you and I would have done, if we were they. It's the only way an ancient tribe can make do.

If that were their approach, then they wouldn't have survived in the long term, but they did.

Indigenous Australians used fire, but it was in a very, very careful and organised manner. I suspect that the manner in which Native Americans used fire was similar.

Human nature is universal. One doesn't become a special kind of "good" person by way of being primitive.

Insofar as "good" connotes "sustainable", then, yes, the "primitive" cultures were "good".

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can; seeds:

Say what you like, the inescapable truth is that Christ - according, at least, to the Gospels - taught that celibacy is preferable.

Your proof-quotation, dear seeds?

Do you perhaps, mean me: dear Harry?

Yes, sorry..."dear Harry"...the quotation citing was messed up.

Try Matthew 19:12:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

Note: should accept it.

Note: the one who CAN should. But most cannot; and to refer to the exceptional is the clear intention here.

Or, as Paul says, "It is better to marry than burn [with desire]." But if you can be purely dedicated to God, and not need companionship, then you're an exceptional individual. Most people cannot.

Also try Luke 20:34-36:

Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

No, that's a description of the future age, not of any commandment pertaining to this one. And it does not say, as you appear to suggest, that those who are celibate get thereby a special pass to the age to come.

Meanwhile, it says, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage." So for this world, that's how things are. The next one has different rules. That's the teaching there.

There are probably more, but I don't have the patience to search for them.

Well, those two clearly won't work. But it's up to you, of course.

[attofishpi]

He has everything arse about face because he's a religious maniac.
I suppose it's like when someone dies, the universe ceases to exist for that person. IC seems to think that's the same as saying the universe is 'caring' about us

Sorry to have to jump in with my outside of the norm box of fortitude of thought, but atheist thought that you are born once, you exist, and you die to never exist again, although at times I have wished for that last contemplation, it is extremely shallow and short of sight when considering the plausibile nature of physics (of which we are entwined) in comprehension of recursion of matter through time.

Perhaps you might consider editing this because it makes no sense. I'm not into translation (or double translation).

..anything for you Veg, but I refuse to edit what you just wrote. If what you wrote doesn't make any sense to you, then you should perhaps have refrained from typing it.

[Harry Baird]

Note: the one who CAN should.

Exactly: so, it's preferable, as I originally said. Quit ducking and weaving.

[Immanuel Can]

They usually cleared land through the expedient of burning it clear...hardly your ideal "sustainable" solution. And when each tribe had defiled or depleted the land on which they were located, they simply moved on and did the same in a new place.

Just like you and I would have done, if we were they. It's the only way an ancient tribe can make do.

If that were their approach, then they wouldn't have survived in the long term, but they did.

No, it was never a problem because of two factors: limited numbers and limited technology. It takes plenty of population and an advanced society to do irreparable damage to an environment, especially over the short term.

But it sure wasn't because of their virtuous methods that the aboriginal tribes survived. Nor by their exceptional moral character. it was their comparative powerlessness to affect an environment as big as the one in which they were living.

Human nature is universal. One doesn't become a special kind of "good" person by way of being primitive.

Insofar as "good" connotes "sustainable", then, yes, the "primitive" cultures were "good".

They were only "sustainable" in that the environment could eventually recover from the limited scope of their abilties for predations, pollution and exploitation of resources. They didn't mine, didn't large scale farm, didn't set up cities, didn't have markets or consumer demand, didn't have mass sewage or factories, so they were not able to harm the environment much. You're giving them moral credit for something that was a product merely of their primitiveness and lack of power.

They weren't better than the settlers...just less able.

[Immanuel Can]

Note: the one who CAN should.

Exactly: so, it's preferable.

Preferable for those who are specially able to endure it. Not preferable for those who can't, and not a ticket to heaven.

[Harry Baird]

But it sure wasn't because of their virtuous methods that the aboriginal tribes survived.

You're just wrong here, and you also obviously have a biased agenda. I'm speaking from the perspective of indigenous Australians, since that's the indigenous culture I know best (though not very well). They had/have an intricate and beautiful system of cooperation with the land of which they considered themselves custodians, not owners. It was because of their culture and what we would call "religion" that they lived so sustainably on it.

From what little I know of Native Americans, they had a similar approach, which is why I'm calling your agenda out.

[Harry Baird]

Note: the one who CAN should.

Exactly: so, it's preferable.

Preferable for those who are specially able to endure it. Not preferable for those who can't, and not a ticket to heaven.

Preferable in general, but allowances are made for those who can't endure it. And I never claimed it to be a ticket to heaven.

[Immanuel Can]

But it sure wasn't because of their virtuous methods that the aboriginal tribes survived.

You're just wrong here, and you also obviously have a biased agenda.

No. I've done the historical research, and I've been among primitive tribes, and on more than one continent. The only way the "Noble Savage" myth survives at all is because of Western ignorance of about the people the claim to so admire. It's easy to denigrate or valorize people that one really doesn't know. They stop being real people, and start being counters to be pushed around to serve an ideology.

Here's what I know: people are people. Aboriginals are intrinsically no worse and no better than anybody else, just as Chinese aren't better than Hispanics, and African blacks aren't better than East Indians or Koreans. People are just people. And people do whatever people do. Only their circumstances change. Human nature is a constant.

And in one way, that's good news for us all. Because otherwise, we have to start imaginging that some people are born intrinsically, naturally, automatically more moral that others. And that's as strong a rationale for racism as one can find. So we don't need that kind of thinking.

[Harry Baird]

Here's what I know: people are people. Aboriginals are intrinsically no worse and no better than anybody else

Dude. I'm not saying that indigenous people are, as individuals, morally better than any other individuals from any other culture, but they clearly as groups had/have a more sustainable way of living than we have now.

[Nick_A]

The 'universe' is neither accidental nor the result of a final cause. The 'universe' is designed by necessity , necessity is not a final (teleological) cause.

No, sorry: by definition, the universe is not a "necessary being." It's a contingent one. And we can tell, very easily, scientifically, that that is exactly what it is. It could have "not existed" at all, it certainly "could be otherwise than it is," so it's not, in any precise sense, a "necessary" entity.

But your phrase "is designed" is sneaked in, in a very interesting way. Anything that's "designed" is not an "accident." So you're saying the universe was "designed"... Figure out the logical corollary...you can do it all by yourself.

So you've just got the case wrong, B. Nothing in science or logic will support that claim you've made.

Belinda is right. God within the universe is three rather than one. It includes all conscious potentials as one, the manifestation of all levels of potentials or everything, and that which unifies them. Take away the universal machine or the body of God is impossible since it is a necessity as a part of God as three.

Since man is a part of the machine it is reasonable to study how it works and man's purpose within it rather than arguing God

[Alexis Jacobi]

I give up no rights.

You assume that you have a choice.

Now I’m hopping mad!! This is an outrage!

[Immanuel Can]

Here's what I know: people are people. Aboriginals are intrinsically no worse and no better than anybody else

Dude. I'm not saying that indigenous people are, as individuals, morally better than any other individuals from any other culture, but they clearly as groups had/have a more sustainable way of living than we have now.

Only "sustainable" because primitive. It was every bit as wasteful, indifferent to the environment and locally messy as anybody else's life, but more limited as to means. That's all. Don't lionize weakness or inability. That's all it was.