Paul Osborne wrote:I've had a few glasses of wine with my dinner
You're a drunk! A drunken women. Forget the wine. Try Jack Daniels black lable.
Paul O
No I don't like most alcohol, occasionally beer, wine or martini's.
BoM-(for Gaz)
-
_marg
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
No I don't like most alcohol, occasionally beer, wine or martini's.
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
marg wrote:
I've had a few glasses of wine with my dinner.
Paul wrote:
You're a drunk! A drunken women. Forget the wine. Try Jack Daniels black lable.
Paul O
marg:
No I don't like most alcohol, occasionally beer, wine or martini's
Martini or Merlot - my preferences
JAK
I've had a few glasses of wine with my dinner.
Paul wrote:
You're a drunk! A drunken women. Forget the wine. Try Jack Daniels black lable.
Paul O
marg:
No I don't like most alcohol, occasionally beer, wine or martini's
Martini or Merlot - my preferences
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
Post Reference
marg wrote:
As an atheist I appreciate that to experience the good things in life to some extent one must appreciate how things could be much worse. If all you ever experience is good things and that's your bench mark there is a tendancy to not only take them for granted but to not fully appreciate them as you possibly could.
It’s even more stark than this. Only by comparison can one conclude something is better than something else. If “all you ever experience is good things,” you have no basis for concluding that they are “good.”
Of course it’s not possible for humans to do that. We make comparisons constantly. Most of the time, we choose between something better (in our view) and favor that over something worse. But, there is no choice if ALL is equal. There is no good. There is no bad.
To illustrate: Food tastes good when we are hungry. If we have stuffed ourselves to the point of discomfort, no food looks good then. People so malnourished or at the point of starvation cannot eat. They lack the strength to eat. If they survive, they must take on nourishment very slowly and with help.
The notion that there ever was a world with no alternative but good and equally good, is a notion that never was nor will be.
Some imagine a world of eternal bliss. How could that be? What is there for comparison? In addition, it would be a world without challenge. What is there to do? What is there to think?
I should conclude such a world would be what some would call “hell.” A world with no challenge, with nothing that needs to be done, with no opportunity to make choice seems a worst world possible.
As marg point out, how could anything be appreciated absent recognized contrast with what is not good, or what is inferior? What would be the basis for recognizing anything was “good”?
Eternal bliss sounds like very bad news.
JAK
marg wrote:
As an atheist I appreciate that to experience the good things in life to some extent one must appreciate how things could be much worse. If all you ever experience is good things and that's your bench mark there is a tendancy to not only take them for granted but to not fully appreciate them as you possibly could.
It’s even more stark than this. Only by comparison can one conclude something is better than something else. If “all you ever experience is good things,” you have no basis for concluding that they are “good.”
Of course it’s not possible for humans to do that. We make comparisons constantly. Most of the time, we choose between something better (in our view) and favor that over something worse. But, there is no choice if ALL is equal. There is no good. There is no bad.
To illustrate: Food tastes good when we are hungry. If we have stuffed ourselves to the point of discomfort, no food looks good then. People so malnourished or at the point of starvation cannot eat. They lack the strength to eat. If they survive, they must take on nourishment very slowly and with help.
The notion that there ever was a world with no alternative but good and equally good, is a notion that never was nor will be.
Some imagine a world of eternal bliss. How could that be? What is there for comparison? In addition, it would be a world without challenge. What is there to do? What is there to think?
I should conclude such a world would be what some would call “hell.” A world with no challenge, with nothing that needs to be done, with no opportunity to make choice seems a worst world possible.
As marg point out, how could anything be appreciated absent recognized contrast with what is not good, or what is inferior? What would be the basis for recognizing anything was “good”?
Eternal bliss sounds like very bad news.
JAK
-
_marg
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
JAK wrote: [
Eternal bliss sounds like very bad news.
Yes that's what the Book of Mormon in that chapter Gaz is interested in was pointing out..but the storyline of the Book of Mormon is that Adan & Eve's Fall was purposeful set-up by God for mankind's benefit so that along with hardship they could experience joy.
But I was attempting to point out, that we have no evidence that "pre-Fall" state ever existed. And one doesn't need a God belief to appreciate conceptually that without contrast one would have little or no appreciation of joy. So I'm failing to see why I should think this is a useful belief to have in Mormonism. I don't see Gaz as being further ahead or benefitting from this story as an atheist's perspective who lacks a God belief.
With regards to wine, I like all good tasting reds. There is only one white I like but without looking it up I can't spell it, I can only say it.
-
_Paul Osborne
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
Marge,
The whole Garden of Eden story with Adam and Eve takes on some major concepts that perhaps you might like to further explore. This is where religion becomes the foundation of everything. Try looking at these questions from a religious point of view and see what you come up with:
Is it possible to discern the difference between good & evil without having a knowledge of right & wrong?
[ ] yes [ ] no
The Bible says Adam & Eve learned they were naked after they partook of the forbidden fruit. Is there any other way they could have learned they were naked without having knowledge of good and evil? [ ] yes [ ] no (If yes, HOW?)
Did God intend to raise a population of naked humans who had no knowledge of good and evil?
[ ] yes [ ] no [ ]
If Adam had refused to partake of the forbidden fruit; would God have given him another wife to replace fallen Eve? [ ] yes [ ] no
Paul O
The whole Garden of Eden story with Adam and Eve takes on some major concepts that perhaps you might like to further explore. This is where religion becomes the foundation of everything. Try looking at these questions from a religious point of view and see what you come up with:
Is it possible to discern the difference between good & evil without having a knowledge of right & wrong?
[ ] yes [ ] no
The Bible says Adam & Eve learned they were naked after they partook of the forbidden fruit. Is there any other way they could have learned they were naked without having knowledge of good and evil? [ ] yes [ ] no (If yes, HOW?)
Did God intend to raise a population of naked humans who had no knowledge of good and evil?
[ ] yes [ ] no [ ]
If Adam had refused to partake of the forbidden fruit; would God have given him another wife to replace fallen Eve? [ ] yes [ ] no
Paul O
-
_AlmaBound
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:19 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
I've always thought this verse was a bit odd:
2 Nephi 2:23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
Why would they have not been able to have children? They had all the right parts, didn't they? Is sex in itself a sin?
And secondly, the connotation of "doing no good, for they knew no sin" is that sin is the root cause of "joy."
2 Nephi 2:23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
Why would they have not been able to have children? They had all the right parts, didn't they? Is sex in itself a sin?
And secondly, the connotation of "doing no good, for they knew no sin" is that sin is the root cause of "joy."
-
_marg
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
Paul Osborne wrote:Marge,
Try looking at these questions from a religious point of view and see what you come up with:
Is it possible to discern the difference between good & evil without having a knowledge of right & wrong?
[ ] yes [ ] no
No
The Bible says Adam & Eve learned they were naked after they partook of the forbidden fruit. Is there any other way they could have learned they were naked without having knowledge of good and evil? [ ] yes [ ] no (If yes, HOW?)
Yes, God is superpower and can make anything possible.
Did God intend to raise a population of naked humans who had no knowledge of good and evil?
[ ] yes [ ] no [ ]
If I'm pretending to be Mormon .. no.
If Adam had refused to partake of the forbidden fruit; would God have given him another wife to replace fallen Eve? [ ] yes [ ] no
If I'm Mormon ..no. No point in another wife if he's not going to eat the fruit. Eve would need another husband who will.
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
marg,
My son’s mother-in-law likes White Zinfandel.
I also like most red wines. A dry martini is far from a sweet red. On the other hand a martini made with sweet vermouth (with a little Meriscino cherry juice and of course the cherry) is quite good.
I think it was Paul O who asked you the following post reference:
Is it possible to discern the difference between good & evil without having a knowledge of right & wrong?
Even children have a sense of better and worse in that when they fall and skin their knee (or anything else), they know that hurts. They know that is worse than having avoided it. It’s not necessarily a contrast between “good & evil” or “right & wrong.”
Rather it’s a recognition of contrasts in which certain alternatives are better than others. Most of adult life (in the Western World) is a contrast between better results or poorer results, better conditions or poorer conditions. If one needs employment, not having it is worse. It’s not a contrast of “good & evil.” Subjectively, the person might think evil. But it’s a perception. Loosing a job might offer the way to a better job. It’ won’t necessarily do that, of course. But what may seen a negative circumstance might turn out to be an opportunity.
Categorical divisions such as those posed in Paul’s question are relative to time, place, situation, etc.
As for “…discern the difference…,” we may recognize relative differences in specific situations as we encounter them. The religious notion of “good & evil” fails to take into account relative merits of a host of interactive situations and conditions. And “right & wrong” are notions connected with particular cultures, situations, law, etc. in a given situation. Slavery was regarded as both “right” and “good” by some at one point in the not too distant past. Today, we regard slavery as “wrong.” But, at the time of transition in the US, there were many debates and conflicting perspectives about slavery. Moreover, some slave owners treated their slaves very well. The slaves had a place to sleep and a life of their own (social).
That is not to defend slavery. Without question some or many slave owners did not treat their slaves well nor give them much sympathy or kindness. The slave trafficking from Africa was bad for virtually all who were shipped on boats to the US. However, once they got here, found a place of work, some found better treatment than others.
The notion of “good & evil” is as if there were no continuum in between is a false choice. Equally a false choice is tne notion of “right & wrong.” Most situations make something, some choice, some decision better than another or worse than another. And what that is depends largely on the circumstances surrounding an event, a choice, a circumstance forced upon a person.
JAK
My son’s mother-in-law likes White Zinfandel.
I also like most red wines. A dry martini is far from a sweet red. On the other hand a martini made with sweet vermouth (with a little Meriscino cherry juice and of course the cherry) is quite good.
I think it was Paul O who asked you the following post reference:
Is it possible to discern the difference between good & evil without having a knowledge of right & wrong?
Even children have a sense of better and worse in that when they fall and skin their knee (or anything else), they know that hurts. They know that is worse than having avoided it. It’s not necessarily a contrast between “good & evil” or “right & wrong.”
Rather it’s a recognition of contrasts in which certain alternatives are better than others. Most of adult life (in the Western World) is a contrast between better results or poorer results, better conditions or poorer conditions. If one needs employment, not having it is worse. It’s not a contrast of “good & evil.” Subjectively, the person might think evil. But it’s a perception. Loosing a job might offer the way to a better job. It’ won’t necessarily do that, of course. But what may seen a negative circumstance might turn out to be an opportunity.
Categorical divisions such as those posed in Paul’s question are relative to time, place, situation, etc.
As for “…discern the difference…,” we may recognize relative differences in specific situations as we encounter them. The religious notion of “good & evil” fails to take into account relative merits of a host of interactive situations and conditions. And “right & wrong” are notions connected with particular cultures, situations, law, etc. in a given situation. Slavery was regarded as both “right” and “good” by some at one point in the not too distant past. Today, we regard slavery as “wrong.” But, at the time of transition in the US, there were many debates and conflicting perspectives about slavery. Moreover, some slave owners treated their slaves very well. The slaves had a place to sleep and a life of their own (social).
That is not to defend slavery. Without question some or many slave owners did not treat their slaves well nor give them much sympathy or kindness. The slave trafficking from Africa was bad for virtually all who were shipped on boats to the US. However, once they got here, found a place of work, some found better treatment than others.
The notion of “good & evil” is as if there were no continuum in between is a false choice. Equally a false choice is tne notion of “right & wrong.” Most situations make something, some choice, some decision better than another or worse than another. And what that is depends largely on the circumstances surrounding an event, a choice, a circumstance forced upon a person.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
AB,
Let me address one part of your post in which you state:
Why would they have not been able to have children? They had all the right parts, didn't they? Is sex in itself a sin?
If you will read This about the Shakers, you will find that that Christian group did not believe in procreation. They did think that sex was a sin. So they relied on converts from other groups to replenish their culture.
“The Shakers did not believe in procreation so therefore had to adopt a child if they wanted one. Another way they could expand their community's population was to allow converts into the Shaker society to live and function as one. When Shaker boys reached the age of twenty-one, they were given the choice to leave the Shaker religion and go their own separate way or to continue on as a Shaker. The Shakers lived in "families" sharing a large house with separate entrances for each family within the "family"; thus the families were exclusively male or female — the sexes were segregated into separate living areas.”
Of course they had their biblical texts which they interpreted to mean what I’ve quoted above.
What is interesting about various religious groups following the Protestant Reformation (1517) is that each group picked up on particular biblical texts, amplified them, and distinguished themselves among all other Christian groups.
Christians today have various notions about sex which they regard as biblically certain. Of course, with the divorce rate at 50% in the US today, lots of these Christians either don’t talk much about their notions of proper sexual relationships or they practice what they do not preach.
JAK
Let me address one part of your post in which you state:
Why would they have not been able to have children? They had all the right parts, didn't they? Is sex in itself a sin?
If you will read This about the Shakers, you will find that that Christian group did not believe in procreation. They did think that sex was a sin. So they relied on converts from other groups to replenish their culture.
“The Shakers did not believe in procreation so therefore had to adopt a child if they wanted one. Another way they could expand their community's population was to allow converts into the Shaker society to live and function as one. When Shaker boys reached the age of twenty-one, they were given the choice to leave the Shaker religion and go their own separate way or to continue on as a Shaker. The Shakers lived in "families" sharing a large house with separate entrances for each family within the "family"; thus the families were exclusively male or female — the sexes were segregated into separate living areas.”
Of course they had their biblical texts which they interpreted to mean what I’ve quoted above.
What is interesting about various religious groups following the Protestant Reformation (1517) is that each group picked up on particular biblical texts, amplified them, and distinguished themselves among all other Christian groups.
Christians today have various notions about sex which they regard as biblically certain. Of course, with the divorce rate at 50% in the US today, lots of these Christians either don’t talk much about their notions of proper sexual relationships or they practice what they do not preach.
JAK
-
_AlmaBound
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:19 pm
Re: BoM-(for Gaz)
JAK wrote:AB,
Let me address one part of your post in which you state:
Why would they have not been able to have children? They had all the right parts, didn't they? Is sex in itself a sin?
If you will read This about the Shakers, you will find that that Christian group did not believe in procreation. They did think that sex was a sin.
Interesting, thanks JAK. This makes sense and fits with a 19th century Book of Mormon production standpoint.
Of course, with the divorce rate at 50% in the US today, lots of these Christians either don’t talk much about their notions of proper sexual relationships or they practice what they do not preach.
Yes, unfortunately it would seem so.