They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[accelafine]

'Sex' pay gap. There's no such thing as 'gender'.

[godelian]

If God says something, and people reject it, it's still Law. It just becomes the Law by which they are going to be judged. "Jurisprudence" will have no effect on that, I would say.

How do you actually know that something is divine law?
I use a very simple litmus test.
There exists a demographic of scholars who write jurisprudential rulings based on it, and you can find its database.

By the way, what you are doing, is strictly forbidden by The Holy Apostolic Church.

The Holy Apostolic Church forbids the use of the Bible for solving jurisprudential questions, because as they retorted to Martin Luther in 1521, during his trial for heresy, The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn its deceptive arguments. Furthermore, the Holy Apostolic Church is actually right in that regard, because the Gospels were never meant to be divine law.

Christianity is not a scriptural religion. It is a clerical religion. The Biblical scripture is not the foundation of the religion. It is the clergy that decides, case by case, what is Christian doctrine and what is not. In Christianity, there is no simple "scriptural logic" to the madness. Its doctrine is not based on logic at all. What you are doing, is in violation of the fundamental nature of Christianity as a religion. Christianity is simply not Judaism or Islam. It is the infallibility of the Pope that decides a jurisprudential question and not logic.

Then they are Law whether or not any "jurists" are willing to admit it.

Martin Luther was sentenced to death for heresy, exactly because he argued that Christian doctrine was based on logic. Luther was wrong. Christian doctrine is not based on logic.

Unlike what Luther argued, the Church was perfectly allowed to sell indulgences because the infallible Pope had decided so. The Church had turned crime into a multinational capitalist business that benefited the Christian clergy. Luther was against that, but as a member of the clerical staff, it was simply not his job to decide about that. The decision had been made above his own pay grade.

First, you buy the clerical power position through simony, i.e. corruption. That is how you become a bishop. Next, you get the money invested back by selling divine forgiveness notes to the criminal mafia. All the sins of the criminal mafia, including murder, rape, torture, embezzlement, and theft were to be forgiven if the criminal mafia did 50-50 on their profits with the Church by buying their indulgences. Hence, the Church was turning crime into a profitable capitalistic venture. As long as you paid the Church, you could liberally engage in the most heinous crimes.

The Holy Apostolic Church has always pointed out that Christianity is not about the Bible at all.

You are not even supposed to read the Bible by yourself.

You are even acting in violation of the Blood Edict of 1550 ("Bloedplakkaat") by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.
This edict was issued under Charles V's authority and in his capacity of Lord of the Burgundian Netherlands:

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/20 ... ty-years-w

Moreover, we forbid all lay persons to converse or dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly, especially on any doubtful or difficult matter, or to read, teach, or expound the Scriptures unless they have duly studied theology and been approved by some renowned university…should anyone be found to have contravened any of the points above mentioned, as perturbators of our state and of the general quiet, to be punished in the following manner… ("burning at the stake")

I should even be able to get half of your assets by denouncing you to the Spanish Inquisition:

The informer, in case of conviction of the alleged heretic, should be entitled to one half of the property of the accused, if not more than one hundred pounds Flemish; if more, then ten percent of all such excess.

You are exactly what emperor Charles V designates as "an alleged heretic". After interrogation under torture by the Spanish inquisition, the imperial decree insists that an alleged heretic is to be burned at the stake.

In fact, you have absolutely no clue as to what Christianity really is.

It is not about "loving your neighbor". You really live in a delulu fantasy.

It is about maintaining particular power structures in society and preventing uppity individuals from asking annoying or pesky questions about these power structures. I personally side with the Pope and the emperor, because I am perfectly fine with making money from the denunciation of alleged heretics. I do not believe in Christianity but I do believe in the existence of societal power structures.

[bahman]

A "kid," maybe you mean? Well, again...you can't be sure that wasn't human-caused. Perhaps bad lifestyle, like smoking, or other carcinogens ingested by the mother played a role...perhaps toxins dumped into the environment had a role...

Ahan, I see!

That's the difficulty of separating out "human evils" from "natural evils." It's really hard to know, in many cases. For sure, some distinction is necessary; but if you decide to eliminate human evils from consideration, it puts a pretty heavy burden on the speaker to show that whatever he picks is truly devoid of human contribution.

I think there is a clear line between human evils and natural evil unless you are Buddhist and believe in Karma! Are you a Buddhist?

I'm not, but I can't see how a Buddhist would be in a better position, regarding that.

Oh, come on, you are literate enough on Buddhism. You know, the cycle of rebirth and suffering for the wrong acts you committed.

[Immanuel Can]

If God says something, and people reject it, it's still Law. It just becomes the Law by which they are going to be judged. "Jurisprudence" will have no effect on that, I would say.

How do you actually know that something is divine law?
I use a very simple litmus test.
There exists a demographic of scholars who write jurisprudential rulings based on it, and you can find its database.

That strikes me as not a very good definition. It means that you're relying on mere human beings to determine what is the divine law. But human beings are notoriously capable of deception and error, as you know.

By the way, what you are doing, is strictly forbidden by The Holy Apostolic Church.

You mean "The Catholic Church"? I have no concern at all about them.

Christianity is not a scriptural religion. It is a clerical religion.

That's Catholic. It's also manifestly wrong, for many reasons -- among which that no man has authority to do, as if the name of Christ, what Christ has commanded he must not do. Another is that there is absolutely no mention of the sanctioning of any clergy at all in the New Testament. So that's a pure invention of the Catholics themselves.

The Biblical scripture is not the foundation of the religion.

The Reformation said the opposite, in fact. "Sola Scriptura" became its rallying cry.

What I'm gathering from this is that you are only familiar with Catholicism. You don't know Christianity, apparently. I can tell from these mistakes. Somebody who knew would never even make them.

But this "jurisprudence" standard simply makes everybody a patsy of a self-declared ecclesiastical authority, like the bishops, cardinals and popes, that have absolutely no authority from God to do what they're doing. And the same danger applies to Islam, of course, to the extent that it's jurisprudence-dependent. It means that men can simply manipulate people, pronouncing in the alleged name of Allah, but say anything at all they want to...and you'd have to believe them.

But if it's foolish for people to follow cult leaders or huckster preachers on TV, is it any better if they follow cultish imams or Islamic hucksters? Or are we going to think that Islam, alone among all human civilizations, is magically immune to the worst inclinations of human nature, and just believe that for no particular reason?

Isn't that obviously unwise? I think so.

[Immanuel Can]

Ahan, I see!
I think there is a clear line between human evils and natural evil unless you are Buddhist and believe in Karma! Are you a Buddhist?

I'm not, but I can't see how a Buddhist would be in a better position, regarding that.

Oh, come on, you are literate enough on Buddhism. You know, the cycle of rebirth and suffering for the wrong acts you committed.

I know what it is. I don't see that it makes the situation any better.

The Buddhist cannot tell whether the samsara that falls to him is the result of anything particular; it happened in a previous lifetime, and the wheel has turned. He just has to assume that the samasara is the result of bad karma, consequent upon him having failed his dharma in a previous life. But what the mechanics of his suffering is, how can he say? And what his role has been, he can never say.

[bahman]

I'm not, but I can't see how a Buddhist would be in a better position, regarding that.

Oh, come on, you are literate enough on Buddhism. You know, the cycle of rebirth and suffering for the wrong acts you committed.

I know what it is. I don't see that it makes the situation any better.

The Buddhist cannot tell whether the samsara that falls to him is the result of anything particular; it happened in a previous lifetime, and the wheel has turned. He just has to assume that the samasara is the result of bad karma, consequent upon him having failed his dharma in a previous life. But what the mechanics of his suffering is, how can he say? And what his role has been, he can never say.

I think some Deities are in charge of enforcing Karma if that is your problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, come on, you are literate enough on Buddhism. You know, the cycle of rebirth and suffering for the wrong acts you committed.

I know what it is. I don't see that it makes the situation any better.

The Buddhist cannot tell whether the samsara that falls to him is the result of anything particular; it happened in a previous lifetime, and the wheel has turned. He just has to assume that the samasara is the result of bad karma, consequent upon him having failed his dharma in a previous life. But what the mechanics of his suffering is, how can he say? And what his role has been, he can never say.

I think some Deities are in charge of enforcing Karma if that is your problem.

That's not at all the "problem." The real problem is that if you're reincarnated, you have no idea what actually causes you to suffer in this life. It's just your karma.

And here's another problem in separating human and natural "suffering": natural events don't cause "suffering" unless their effects are felt by a sentient being, particularly a human being. The very recognition of "suffering" depends on the existence of mankind, and of its effects on him. A purely natural event isn't even a case of true "suffering" unless it inflicts something on a human being. A rock falling down a mountain is not at all a noteworthy event; a rock falling down a mountain and crushing villagers is. So natural and human forms of "evils" are united in that they are always perceived and experienced by human beings, no?

[Immanuel Can]

'Sex' pay gap. There's no such thing as 'gender'.

Well, we agree on that. But there's also no "pay gap." So there are two myths there.

[bahman]

I know what it is. I don't see that it makes the situation any better.

The Buddhist cannot tell whether the samsara that falls to him is the result of anything particular; it happened in a previous lifetime, and the wheel has turned. He just has to assume that the samasara is the result of bad karma, consequent upon him having failed his dharma in a previous life. But what the mechanics of his suffering is, how can he say? And what his role has been, he can never say.

I think some Deities are in charge of enforcing Karma if that is your problem.

That's not at all the "problem." The real problem is that if you're reincarnated, you have no idea what actually causes you to suffer in this life. It's just your karma.

You don't need that. What you need to know is that you will pay for the wrong action. That is all that matters so either avoid the wrong action or be prepared to have the consequences.

And here's another problem in separating human and natural "suffering": natural events don't cause "suffering" unless their effects are felt by a sentient being, particularly a human being. The very recognition of "suffering" depends on the existence of mankind, and of its effects on him. A purely natural event isn't even a case of true "suffering" unless it inflicts something on a human being. A rock falling down a mountain is not at all a noteworthy event; a rock falling down a mountain and crushing villagers is. So natural and human forms of "evils" are united in that they are always perceived and experienced by human beings, no?

The existence of humans is not necessary. Animals also suffer.

[Immanuel Can]

I think some Deities are in charge of enforcing Karma if that is your problem.

That's not at all the "problem." The real problem is that if you're reincarnated, you have no idea what actually causes you to suffer in this life. It's just your karma.

You don't need that.

Well, if we are trying to detect the difference between the samsara that comes from natural things, and the samsara that comes as a result of our own actions, we'll be unable to tell.

So yeah, it matters.

And here's another problem in separating human and natural "suffering": natural events don't cause "suffering" unless their effects are felt by a sentient being, particularly a human being. The very recognition of "suffering" depends on the existence of mankind, and of its effects on him. A purely natural event isn't even a case of true "suffering" unless it inflicts something on a human being. A rock falling down a mountain is not at all a noteworthy event; a rock falling down a mountain and crushing villagers is. So natural and human forms of "evils" are united in that they are always perceived and experienced by human beings, no?

The existence of humans is not necessary. Animals also suffer.

Animals can't ask the question you are asking. Humans can ask it on behalf of the animals, but the animals can't. It takes a human even for there to BE such a question.

[bahman]

That's not at all the "problem." The real problem is that if you're reincarnated, you have no idea what actually causes you to suffer in this life. It's just your karma.

You don't need that.

Well, if we are trying to detect the difference between the samsara that comes from natural things, and the samsara that comes as a result of our own actions, we'll be unable to tell.

So yeah, it matters.

Suffering is suffering so the source is not important.

And here's another problem in separating human and natural "suffering": natural events don't cause "suffering" unless their effects are felt by a sentient being, particularly a human being. The very recognition of "suffering" depends on the existence of mankind, and of its effects on him. A purely natural event isn't even a case of true "suffering" unless it inflicts something on a human being. A rock falling down a mountain is not at all a noteworthy event; a rock falling down a mountain and crushing villagers is. So natural and human forms of "evils" are united in that they are always perceived and experienced by human beings, no?

The existence of humans is not necessary. Animals also suffer.

Animals can't ask the question you are asking. Humans can ask it on behalf of the animals, but the animals can't. It takes a human even for there to BE such a question.

Why that should be important?

[Immanuel Can]

You don't need that.

Well, if we are trying to detect the difference between the samsara that comes from natural things, and the samsara that comes as a result of our own actions, we'll be unable to tell.

So yeah, it matters.

Suffering is suffering so the source is not important.

Okay, if you want to say that, then we can't talk about "natural" versus "human" kinds of "evils." There's no difference.

I think that's probably not right, but we can go that way if you prefer.

The existence of humans is not necessary. Animals also suffer.

Animals can't ask the question you are asking. Humans can ask it on behalf of the animals, but the animals can't. It takes a human even for there to BE such a question.

Why that should be important?

Because humans are more than neccessary: they're the only way there can be any question about evil at all. Without them, there's no questioner.

[bahman]

Well, if we are trying to detect the difference between the samsara that comes from natural things, and the samsara that comes as a result of our own actions, we'll be unable to tell.

So yeah, it matters.

Suffering is suffering so the source is not important.

Okay, if you want to say that, then we can't talk about "natural" versus "human" kinds of "evils." There's no difference.

We can make a distinction between natural and human evils. The important thing is that we have to be careful of our wrong actions since everything we do has a consequence.

I think that's probably not right, but we can go that way if you prefer.
Because humans are more than neccessary: they're the only way there can be any question about evil at all. Without them, there's no questioner.

Actually, humans suffer more than animals most importantly psychologically.

Animals can't ask the question you are asking. Humans can ask it on behalf of the animals, but the animals can't. It takes a human even for there to BE such a question.

Why that should be important?

Because humans are more than neccessary: they're the only way there can be any question about evil at all. Without them, there's no questioner.

Well, the difference I can make is that humans probably can clean their Karma by doing things right since they are aware that there is a Karma for any wrong action. Animals cannot so they have to suffer their life sentence.

[Immanuel Can]

Suffering is suffering so the source is not important.

Okay, if you want to say that, then we can't talk about "natural" versus "human" kinds of "evils." There's no difference.

We can make a distinction between natural and human evils. The important thing is that we have to be careful of our wrong actions since everything we do has a consequence.

If that "consequence" is samsara, then ALL evils are caused by human beings, and there aren't any "natural evils" at all. Because Buddhism believes that our whole state in life is caused by karma...and karma's about us doing our duty, so as to be able to escape the great wheel of being altogether.

But we don't have to be Buddhists, of course.

Because humans are more than neccessary: they're the only way there can be any question about evil at all. Without them, there's no questioner.

Well, the difference I can make is that humans probably can clean their Karma by doing things right since they are aware that there is a Karma for any wrong action. Animals cannot so they have to suffer their life sentence.

If you're a Buddhist, then, you already don't believe there are "natural evils." So for a Buddhist, there's no question to be asked. They have the answer they believe in: it's all samsara, and all of it is an illusion (maya) anyway.

[bahman]

Okay, if you want to say that, then we can't talk about "natural" versus "human" kinds of "evils." There's no difference.

We can make a distinction between natural and human evils. The important thing is that we have to be careful of our wrong actions since everything we do has a consequence.

If that "consequence" is samsara, then ALL evils are caused by human beings, and there aren't any "natural evils" at all.

I still distinguish between evils caused by humans and natural evils although the root of both are the same.

Because Buddhism believes that our whole state in life is caused by karma...and karma's about us doing our duty, so as to be able to escape the great wheel of being altogether.

But we don't have to be Buddhists, of course.

I am not Buddhist but I think some of the concepts like Karam and Nirvana are correct. Nirvana to me is a state of Omniscience and Omnipresence. In this state, we are revealed with the meaning as well.

Because humans are more than neccessary: they're the only way there can be any question about evil at all. Without them, there's no questioner.

Well, the difference I can make is that humans probably can clean their Karma by doing things right since they are aware that there is a Karma for any wrong action. Animals cannot so they have to suffer their life sentence.

If you're a Buddhist, then, you already don't believe there are "natural evils." So for a Buddhist, there's no question to be asked. They have the answer they believe in: it's all samsara, and all of it is an illusion (maya) anyway.

I agree that we live in Maya in a race to find Truth and Justice.