Philosophy Discussion Forums

Remember, it's the rules, whether natural or constructed, and the limitations thereof that make any undertaking interesting and worthwhile. Without these, it's just chaos.

Take a moment to think about what this site would be like without the rules that have been laid out.

Imagine chess without rules. The game would be no fun at all and utterly pointless.

Spiral Out wrote:Remember, it's the rules, whether natural or constructed, and the limitations thereof that make any undertaking interesting and worthwhile. Without these, it's just chaos.

Poorly constructed rules don't do anything to make an undertaking interesting and worthwhile though.

Toadny wrote:Poorly constructed rules don't do anything to make an undertaking interesting and worthwhile though.

Well... if any set of rules were poorly drawn up, it's the Christian religion. Yet its rules compelled the European person to discover America, and other continents, while civilizations concurrently and before and after were stagnant, even if developed in other cultures. European Christianity with its incredible weight suppressing the most basic human needs created a cultural explosion which propelled a previously unimaginable acceleration of progress. (Whatever way you want to define progress.)

Bad rules are liberating when thrown off; and they necessitate rebellion. That's about the best thing about them, but they sure help progress to develop.

"Mint az orult, ki letepte lancat,
Vagtatott a haladas Europan at."

I will never say the Christian religion rules are poorly drawn up. How could it be responsible for the modern progress if the rules were poorly drawn up? Rules are made with specific purpose, "peace and order." Every rule in whatever undertaking is based on the Ten Commandments which guides and direct the way of life of a community of people to get along in peace and order. It is written by God who is also the Creator of mankind. To spread the gospel of Christ was the basic intention of the first explorers in the 15th century. They were obeying the Great Commission to "go and make disciples of all nations. . . ." "Mathew 28:18-20). Mankind long for peace on earth. That peace can only be obtained by following rules of conduct in every given undertaking. If you don't want to follow the rules given by the creator of this forum, no problem. Just quit. That is my personal suggestion.

Toadny wrote:Poorly constructed rules don't do anything to make an undertaking interesting and worthwhile though.

I don't find any of the forum rules to be "poorly constructed". In fact, I think they are well thought out and effectively address the issues that have historically plagued internet forums in general.

What is interesting and worthwhile is the challenge is to speak your mind effectively (no matter what's on your mind) within the limitations of the rules, which are pretty reasonable.

It's one thing to say the rules are poorly constructed, it's another thing altogether to support that statement with a well-constructed argument.

Josefina1110 wrote:I will never say the Christian religion rules are poorly drawn up. How could it be responsible for the modern progress if the rules were poorly drawn up? Rules are made with specific purpose, "peace and order." Every rule in whatever undertaking is based on the Ten Commandments which guides and direct the way of life of a community of people to get along in peace and order. It is written by God who is also the Creator of mankind. To spread the gospel of Christ was the basic intention of the first explorers in the 15th century. They were obeying the Great Commission to "go and make disciples of all nations. . . ." "Mathew 28:18-20). Mankind long for peace on earth. That peace can only be obtained by following rules of conduct in every given undertaking. If you don't want to follow the rules given by the creator of this forum, no problem. Just quit. That is my personal suggestion.

Josephina, you are mistaking laws for rules. And rules for laws. As per use by Christianity.

You wish I quit. I can't abide with this much display of personal hatred. Please retract that proposition. Thanks.

I'm so sorry, hate was not in my mind at all. I think it depends on how you read my post. Your words "poorly drawn" was just not right in my opinion. Laws and rules are corollaries, I suppose. Kids invent games and they have to follow the rules of the game they want to play. I am just defensive of the delicate topic that you introduced in your post. I did not wish you quit. I just suggest you quit if you can't stand to abide by the rule particularly in this forum. One thing I would remind you is that this is a game. You specifically invoked a discussion by putting down rules drawn by Christian religion. I suspect you are not a Christian. I am. That is why I am sensitive to this kind of criticism.

Josefina1110 wrote:I just suggest you quit if you can't stand to abide by the rule particularly in this forum.

If you read my words carefully, you are misunderstanding me. Because I have no issues with the rules of this forum. I had had issues, in the past, over a year ago, and I carefully described what those issues were. (A catch-22 situation.) Then I wrote that that'd been the past, the present is rosy. Or something to that effect.

For your information, since you are so concerned, I have no problems with the rules of this forum. I abide by them, and I have no problem abiding by them. Please don't think otherwise.

On the other topic you touched upon, whether rules are laws, or the other way around, I insist there are differences between rules and laws.

On the other topic you touched upon, whether everything we do in socially organized, acceptable fashion is based on the ten commandments, and therefore it is a christian achievement, I differ. Other cultures arrived at the same laws, independently from the ten commandments. Therefore christianity does not own law and order, and it does not own the basis for civilized behaviour.

Furthermore, christianity had rules and still has some, not as many as in the past, and not as bitterly restrictive, that restrict natural, harmless behaviour of people, for no reason whatsoever other than their contradicting readings in the bible. This is what I refer to when I say "the rules of christianity are badly drawn up."

You are welcome to disagree with that. However, please note that bible quotes do nothing for me to increase my understanding of history, morals, and human nature. I reject the bible as the word of god, and I reject the notion of a god in existence. I simply believe there is no god, just as much as you believe there is one.

Lastly, I appreciate that it upsets you to read bitter words about christianity. I am sorry, but I can't help that. This is a site devoted to philosophy, not to promote christian ideals. (Although one has to wonder about that as of recent, reading the super-religious fanatic bible-thumping fundamentalist posts that are getting more and more numerous on this site.) I am not breaking any rules, and I am not hurting your sentiments on purpose of hurting you, but on purpose of agreeing with your sentiments hurt me.

Yes, it hurts me to read strong, philosophically unsupported opinions on the defence of christianity as much as it seems to hurt you to read philosophically supported criticism of the bible.

Then please don't start involving anything about Christianity in your posts. We will just be hurting each other because I have to defend my belief hard. Talk about something else that don't touch our faith. Think of a topic that will not point to my God as the conversation or debate goes along. If you can think of anything let me know. I will certainly give my opinion. I cannot think of anything that doesn't involve God. So you start a good one. You mentioned "art." Anything outside science is art so that will still boil down to faith. So I don't want to discuss that.

Josefina1110 wrote:Then please don't start involving anything about Christianity in your posts. We will just be hurting each other because I have to defend my belief hard. Talk about something else that don't touch our faith. Think of a topic that will not point to my God as the conversation or debate goes along. If you can think of anything let me know. I will certainly give my opinion. I cannot think of anything that doesn't involve God. So you start a good one. You mentioned "art." Anything outside science is art so that will still boil down to faith. So I don't want to discuss that.

This is the very embodiment of unreasonableness on a philosophy forum. The very act of philosophy is to fly in the face of religious dogmas - to expose them for their manipulations and myth-making, to clear away the clouds of confusion they have cast on humanity. That is its very point.

If you are made unhappy by criticisms of religion then consider what that means for you at the forum going forward. Do you foresee many conversations that will enlighten and inspire you?

Are you are compelled to defend criticisms of Christianity on every website? Why focus on this forum?

The only reason I say not to involve Christianity is that you say you are hurt as I am defending my stance and so do I. I like this forum. But the rule is not to attack each other. But I have to defend your criticism. If you look at the banner of this forum, that is the cover of my book. That is why I am encouraged to keep up with this forum. I hope you understand. The problem is that you don't make comments on my replies. You judge by saying something like "full of hatred." I was commenting on your words "poorly drawn rules of the Christian religion." And you think I hate you for that. Is there hatred in defending my views? Now you are suggesting for me to quit just like did to you. We are just chasing rabbits here.

-- Updated December 16th, 2016, 6:52 pm to add the following --

I wonder why other guests don't give their opinions about what we are discussing. Would somebody, please speak up!

Josefina1110 wrote: If you look at the banner of this forum, that is the cover of my book.

I wonder why other guests don't give their opinions about what we are discussing. Would somebody, please speak up!

Are you saying you are the author of that Voice of Creation book?

Yes, Sir. But I am not allowed to talk about it here. You just answer the question on this forum if chapter one of that book convinces you. It means you need to read it.
Thanks for asking.

-- Updated December 18th, 2016, 12:53 am to add the following --

At least you read the review on this "reviews" topic on Online Book Club.

I read chapter one of that book. I wrote to Scott to express my disappointment at him for asking us to read it. It's an insult to our intelligence to suggest that we could be persuaded by such drivel. The book is not philosophy, it's an incoherent, ignorant rant. Scott himself acknowledges that it reads like "crank literature", I still don't understand his motivation in asking us to read it, that seems like very poor judgement on his part, in view of the very low standard of discussion that prevails here. Philosophy forums by their nature attract cranks and deluded obsessives, posting rubbish like your book and pretending that it is worthy of serious consideration will only encourage their participation.

You were just asked if chapter 1 persuaded you. If you are not persuaded then you are not. What is your problem? The book is not rammed into your throat. Why did you even read it or finish reading the whole chapter? Only to put down the author and the forum? What is rubbish to you is a treasure to others so don't generalize. There is no pretense there. Half of the world population are believers. Of course, there are adversaries like you. Thank you for reading.