Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next »

Posts:175
Registered: 1/20/03
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:50 PM (reply 450 of 635)



 
Replace "homosexual" in the above with
any term for a person of a race different
than your own.

And then go back about 50 years (or
perhaps even less) in the US and
count how many people would have
said the exact same thing using
almost the same wording

20 years from now someone is going to say the following:

Replace "fig tree" in the above with "homosexual". And then go back about 20 years (perhaps even less) in the US and count how many people would have said the exact same thing using almost the same wording.

40 years from now...

Replace "mosquito" in the above with "fig tree". And then go back about 20 years (perhaps even less) in the US and count how many people would have said the exact same thing using almost the same wording.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:52 PM (reply 451 of 635)



 
I wasn't talking about either of those things.

Yes, but are you unfamilary with the term 'analogy' or
are you just diliberately ignoring it?

Neither. I thought it would be helpful to stick with
one example rather than wandering about.

Still sounds to me like you are ignoring the analogy.

The self-deception part comes about in my analogy to
multi-racial marriages and slavery where the peoples
of those eras were absolutely sure that their
interpretation was correct. And yet given that
history people now still ignore that lesson.

So, you're saying that being wrong is the same as
self-deception?

Huh?

The previous beliefs were incorrect - right?
The people of those periods thought the beliefs were correct - right?

And yet time has proven both wrong - right?

Yet given that history, people now still assume completely that their interpretation is correct.

If that isn't self-deception then tell me what is.

The bigoted part....


bigotry: "The attitude, state of mind, or behavior
characteristic of a bigot; intolerance."
bigot 1: "One who is strongly partial to one's own
group, religion, race, or politics and is
intolerant
of those who differ."

So are you saying that condemnation of a practice
implies intolerance of those who disagree? If so,
why? Is it not possible to belive that X is against's
God's laws and to also love and accept friends who
practice X? If you're saying something else, then
what?

I suspect that the majority of the people in the US, and most definitely the majority in the world do not "love and accept" it.

The studies/surveys that I have seen do not suggest that.

If you can find one that does then please educate me.

And given that most religions teach only acceptance by way of accepting that it is "sin" does not lend itself to "acceptance." An adulter might be forgiven by the congregation but that person is going to have to work long and hard to convince the congregation that it will not happen again - and that is not "acceptance" in my book.



By definition 1, obviously this is moralistic, but I
don't think that fits with the definition of
self-righteous. Rather, I think that definition is
referring more to definition 2 of moralistic, which
does not necessarily apply, unless perhaps
narrow-minded == strict.

Then I guess will have to leave it as a disagreement as to the definition.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:54 PM (reply 452 of 635)



 

Just this last part, simple as that. If you feel that
to not use the word everyone would have
obscured your point, then your point must be weak.

Sorry but to me your minor quibble seems weak.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:00 PM (reply 453 of 635)



 
Just this last part, simple as that. If you feel that to not use the word everyone would
have obscured your point, then your point must be weak.

Sorry but to me your minor quibble seems weak.

No real need to be sorry, but I accept, thank you. ;o)
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:04 PM (reply 454 of 635)



 

To me the above suggests several possibilities for the
bible....
1. God wanted to condemn everyone for the last 2000
years, since obviously he made it so hard until now to
get it right.
2. God wants to condemn everyone for 3000 years
because we still don't have it right.
3. God made it a mucked up mess in the first place
just to make us squirm, and either everyone is
condemned or eveyone has a free pass regardless of
what they do.
4. The bible has nothing to do with God.
or 5. God made it clear in the Bible, but many people
will use the Bible to defend whatever position they
hold anyway.

Clearly, this means that anytime someone holds any
position, and says the Bible supports it, they could
be doing this. This is obviously your point, but it
doesn't mean that everyone who uses the Bible to
support a position is doing this. To decide for
yourself if someone is, of course, you'd have to do a
fairly extensive study of the Bible, which is probably
not worth your time if you just want to show that the
Bible is unreliable.

Hopefully that last sentence doesn't come across as
offensive, but I can't think of a better way to word
it. The point is that determining whether something
is truly supported by the Bible requires a
time-consuming study, and pointing to examples of
scripture mis-used to support a position doesn't mean
that you can dismiss someone's claim that another
position is supported by scripture.

Ok but none of that has anything to do with what I said.

Clearly a lot of people thought that the bible prohibited multi-racial marriages.

Presumably you believe that is incorrect - right?

And thus all of those people were wrong.

Do you think that people now are arriving at their conclusions about homosexuality in any substantial way that is different than those that arrived at their understanding of multi-racial marriages? Do you think more people now studiously study the bible than did 100 years ago? Do you think the current translations are better than those of 100 years ago in some way that impacts either of these?

What exactly (be specific) makes you think that people now can better understand what the bible has to offer than those of 100 years ago?


 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:07 PM (reply 455 of 635)



 
Still sounds to me like you are ignoring the analogy.

Fine - we can talk about slavery and interracial marriage.

Yet given that history, people now still assume
completely that their interpretation is correct.
If that isn't self-deception then tell me what is.

Ah, I see. Your point sounds good but isn't quite right. Just because people have been wrong before doesn't mean they are wrong now. And just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're just as wrong now. I'll take an example from The Relativity of Wrong which is I think by Isaac Asimov. People used to think the world is flat, then they thought it was a sphere. Both views are wrong. The earth is not a sphere, it's an assymetrical ellipsoid. Now we may find another refinement to our view that shows we were wrong, but we'll be less wrong than before. The same principle applies to anything else. Now, if people think they are necessarily right, then that's different. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but personally I have certain views on moral issues, and they are informed by my religious beliefs. But I don't think that my views are ironclad, rather they're correct only insofar as I've correctly aligned myself with God. Could others be more self-righteous than that? Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone who condemns something is, which if I understand you correctly is what you are saying.

I suspect that the majority of the people in the US,
and most definitely the majority in the world do not
"love and accept" it.

You said that most western churches have bigotry as part of their established doctrine (did you not?), so that's what I wanted to know about. If you want to talk about the personal feelings of the majority of Christians in the US, that's a totally different topic.

And given that most religions teach only acceptance by
way of accepting that it is "sin" does not lend itself
to "acceptance."

Pardon a crude turn of phrase, but I think you're talking out of your butt. This sounds to me like an impression that has been formed at a distance rather than one born from significant exposure to the teachings of a variety of religions. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

An adulter might be forgiven by the
congregation but that person is going to have to work
long and hard to convince the congregation that it
will not happen again - and that is not "acceptance"
in my book.

Hm, it sounds to me (maybe I'm mistaken) that you're muddying the distinction between acceptance and trust. A congregation could accept someone back to "the fold" by including them in activities, treating them just like everyone else, etc without immediately trusting them not to sin again. Either way, that is again not a doctrinal issue unless you think most churches teach to turn away those who have sinned in the past. My impression is that most Christian churches teach that we ought to love everyone while recognizing that some things are condemned by God. Whether the followers actually do that is extremely important, but it is not doctrine.

By definition 1, obviously this is moralistic, but I
don't think that fits with the definition of
self-righteous. Rather, I think that definition is
referring more to definition 2 of moralistic, which
does not necessarily apply, unless perhaps
narrow-minded == strict.

Then I guess will have to leave it as a disagreement
as to the definition.

OK.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:14 PM (reply 456 of 635)



 
Not speaking about any particular teaching, law, principal of the Bible ... what makes you think that everyone got it wrong 100 years ago, and what makes you think that everyone has it right now?

Don't tell me that you are lumping - or attempting to lump - all sincerely religious persons together in one big group of hypocrates now are you? Why do you think I took exception to your use of the word everyone before?

So should we now understand that you'd bundle all religious persons together and have them outlawed, persecuted? No need to ... that's been happening for a long time now ... and yes, sometimes, nay oftentimes by other religious persons ... and now by whom ... libertarians perhaps? hmmmm
 

Posts:36
Registered: 9/21/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:21 PM (reply 457 of 635)



 
Do you think that people now are arriving at their
conclusions about homosexuality in any substantial way
that is different than those that arrived at their
understanding of multi-racial marriages? Do you think
more people now studiously study the bible than did
100 years ago? Do you think the current translations
are better than those of 100 years ago in some way
that impacts either of these?

What exactly (be specific) makes you think that
people now can better understand what the bible has to
offer than those of 100 years ago?

I need to leave for the day, and can't respond with much thought, so here's a quick comment:

I think there are, and always have been, two types of people that 'use' the Bible to support their view.
1) Those that have studied it, and believe they have carefully and thoughtfully drawn a conclusion
2) Those that feel people not like them are icky, so they decide they don't like them, and look for a way to justify it. Since religion and the Bible are firmly rooted in their social environment, they use this as their justification. If they surround themselves with people who are like them, no one will question the conclusions they have drawn.

In terms of my statement that homosexuality is a sin (in the same way that lying, stealing, hate... are sing), but that we are called to love and appreciate all people in their sin, I consider myself to be in the 1st category on this issue. I think the fact that I am not condescending or unkind is evidence of that.

At the same time, there are people today who approach homosexuality from the 2nd type I described. These people are wrong, as evidenced by their expression of hate and repulsion.

I very much believe the same was true of slavery. I believe (but admitedly don't have handy examples to show) that there were people in category 1 who at the time felt slavery was wrong, but did not have the power to change society.

I will agree that most people are not thoughtful about what they believe, an opionion I believe is supported by the existence of the lottery and the Spice Girls.

Glen
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:36 PM (reply 458 of 635)



 
Yes I'm tuning out too. Interesting conversation. I've been enjoying the participation of others. and I am glad Sun did not shut this down yet. Maybe because we've acted 'civilized' ... I think anyway. If I've appeared a bit sharp to anyone at anytime, you have my apology. Have a pleasant evening all.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 1:38 PM (reply 459 of 635)



 
Theoretically, the thread will survive as long as no one reports it for abuse. Given that everyone has been cool-headed that hasn't happened. I guess it's possible an admin will notice it getting really big and delete it for being off-topic, though.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 3:04 PM (reply 460 of 635)



 
Still sounds to me like you are ignoring the
analogy.

Fine - we can talk about slavery and interracial
marriage.

Yet given that history, people now still assume
completely that their interpretation is correct.
If that isn't self-deception then tell me what is.

Ah, I see. Your point sounds good but isn't quite
right. Just because people have been wrong before
doesn't mean they are wrong now.

True. But neither does it mean that they are right either.

And just because
they were wrong before doesn't mean they're just as
wrong
now. I'll take an example from The
Relativity of Wrong
which is I think by Isaac
Asimov. People used to think the world is flat, then
they thought it was a sphere. Both views are wrong.
The earth is not a sphere, it's an assymetrical
ellipsoid. Now we may find another refinement to our
view that shows we were wrong, but we'll be less
wrong than before. The same principle applies to
anything else.

Yes. But the same argument applies 100 years ago, when they knew that slavery was wrong but the banning multi-racial marriages was right.

And I haven't seen a lot of people claiming that they are "pretty sure" they have it right now. They seem to be pretty adamant that they really do think they have it finally figured out all the way.

Now, if people think they are
necessarily right, then that's different.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but personally I have
e certain views on moral issues, and they are informed
by my religious beliefs. But I don't think that my
views are ironclad, rather they're correct only
insofar as I've correctly aligned myself with God.
Could others be more self-righteous than that? Sure,
but that doesn't mean everyone who condemns something
is, which if I understand you correctly is what you
are saying.

So you are claiming that most people think that they might be wrong or at least could be wrong when they condemn homosexuality based on religious reasons?

You must be reading something different than what I have seen in the popular press even in the US.

From what I have seen a large percentage of people consider homosexuality to be just flat out wrong and use religion as nothing more than a crutch to justify that belief.

Given that I am sure that a significant, although probably not a majority would agree with "homosexuals will burn in the fires of hell" it certainly seems likely that more than a couple are self-righteous.


I suspect that the majority of the people in the US,
and most definitely the majority in the world do not
"love and accept" it.

You said that most western churches have bigotry as
part of their established doctrine (did you not?), so
that's what I wanted to know about. If you want to
talk about the personal feelings of the majority of
Christians in the US, that's a totally different
topic.

Again you are kidding right?

It has everything to do with it. Almost without exception when asked to justify an animosity against homosexuality people will provide religious reasons. And the official church positions supports that not only with repeated public announcements but with repeated teachings, sermons, publications, etc throughout the years.

And given that most religions teach only acceptance by
way of accepting that it is "sin" does not lend itself
to "acceptance."

Pardon a crude turn of phrase, but I think you're
talking out of your butt. This sounds to me like an
impression that has been formed at a distance rather
than one born from significant exposure to the
teachings of a variety of religions. Please correct
me if I'm mistaken.

The catholic stance, search for "while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law" and read from there...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The Baptist news....search for "the Bible emphatically condemns all forms of homosexual behavior."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1412

Some parts of Judaism seems almost accepting compared to the above....however note that the conservative movement although recognizing homosexuality still treats the acts as 'wrong' (as comparable to other minor violations but still a violation)....

http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/judaism-homo.html

Seventh day Adventists....search for homosexuality....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm

So who did I miss?


An adulter might be forgiven by the
congregation but that person is going to have to
work
long and hard to convince the congregation that it
will not happen again - and that is not "acceptance"
in my book.

Hm, it sounds to me (maybe I'm mistaken) that you're
muddying the distinction between acceptance and trust.
A congregation could accept someone back to "the
fold" by including them in activities, treating them
just like everyone else, etc without immediately
trusting them not to sin again.

Most congregations will not accept a homosexual unless that person has renounced homosexuality.

That is not "accepting" to me.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 3:09 PM (reply 461 of 635)



 

What exactly (be specific) makes you think that
people now can better understand what the bible has to
offer than those of 100 years ago?

I need to leave for the day, and can't respond with
much thought, so here's a quick comment:

I think there are, and always have been, two types of
people that 'use' the Bible to support their view.
1) Those that have studied it, and believe they have
carefully and thoughtfully drawn a conclusion

There were extensive studies that demonstrated that multi-racial marriages are wrong and that slavery is right. Or perhaps you thought the clergy a 100 years ago did nothing but party all the time?


In terms of my statement that homosexuality is a sin
(in the same way that lying, stealing, hate... are
sing), but that we are called to love and appreciate
all people in their sin, I consider myself to be in
the 1st category on this issue. I think the fact that
I am not condescending or unkind is evidence of that.

At the same time, there are people today who approach
homosexuality from the 2nd type I described. These
people are wrong, as evidenced by their expression of
hate and repulsion.

And yet both groups think it is wrong.

So who was more wrong the Nazis for killing the Jews or the Catholics who just didn't care?

I very much believe the same was true of slavery. I
believe (but admitedly don't have handy examples to
show) that there were people in category 1 who at the
time felt slavery was wrong, but did not have the
power to change society.

Of course there were people who thought slavery was wrong.

But then there are people who think that the present religious position on homosexuality is wrong as well.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 3:16 PM (reply 462 of 635)



 
Not speaking about any particular teaching, law,
principal of the Bible ... what makes you think that
everyone got it wrong 100 years ago, and what
makes you think that everyone has it right now?

Don't tell me that you are lumping - or attempting to
lump - all sincerely religious persons together in one
big group of hypocrates now are you? Why do you think
I took exception to your use of the word
everyone before?

So should we now understand that you'd bundle all
religious persons together and have them outlawed,
persecuted? No need to ... that's been happening for a
long time now ... and yes, sometimes, nay
oftentimes by other religious persons ... and now by
whom ... libertarians perhaps? hmmmm

Given that I believe religious positions on homosexuality are nothing more than flat out straight bigotry and that there are some religious congregations that actually do accept homosexuals (and not in the terms that I have seen used here)....

....then yes some people do get it right, even if the majority are getting it wrong.

And I already pointed out how I was using the word everyone. Did you not understand my previous explaination?
 

Posts:175
Registered: 1/20/03
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 3:39 PM (reply 463 of 635)



 
Most congregations will not accept a homosexual unless
that person has renounced homosexuality.

That is not "accepting" to me.

According to your logic it is impossible to be accepting of sinners. This seems to be dangerous thinking -- the kind of stuff that leads to bigotry and worse. I think, on the other hand, that it is possible to accept sinners and not accept sin.

Or maybe you are just defining "accept" in such a way that it would be possible to love a person profoundly and yet not accept them. For instance, I can love my wife and yet note that she has flaws. But clearly I cannot accept anyone or anything that has a flaw, (according to your logic).

Note that I am just commenting on your logic. I do not in fact think that it is a sin to be a homosexual. As for homosexual sex, I put it in the same category in terms of its sinfulness as heterosexual sex.

Side note: Tolerance is the virtue that is given the highest prominence in today's popular culture. But it is a weak broth indeed when considered next to other virtues that have reigned supreme in the past. Today it is considered bad form to be "intolerant" of anything. So what are we supposed to do? Tolerate it, of course. But can you imagine saying to someone "I tolerate you"? Not very heart-warming, is it. Sort of like saying "You smell terrible, but I'm just going to be polite and put up with it". Love, on the other hand, is a much higher virtue than tolerance. Christians are called to "love one another" and also "love your enemies". To say to someone "I love you" means a real commitment. Sort of like saying "I will embrace you and appreciate you no matter what you smell like". In other words, love requires action, while tolerance does not require action. You cannot passively love someone, but you can passively tolerate someone.

Now back to homosexuality. I am sure that many people would again say that you cannot love a homosexual person unless you also approve of them engaging in homosexual sex. But that is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the fact that we are able to love people in many other walks of life while being able to draw distinctions between the person and what the person does. Love, in fact, is almost defined in terms of drawing distinctions between the person who is loved and what that person does. What kind of love would it be if I said to someone "I will love you, but, since I can't draw distinctions between who you are and what you do, I will only love you if you change this thing about yourself and do that thing and don't do this other thing," etc? Love that is conditional is not love at all. Love, in its most inspiring form, is unconditional. But it is not all accepting. If you think uncondional love for someone means approving of everything that person does, then you don't understand love correctly. As proof, consider that it is clearly possible for people (and for God) to love people who are "bad". In fact, given that everyone is "bad" (even if you subscibe to the notion that people are inherently good, which I don't, you are unlikely to claim that there are people who have never in their lives ever done a bad thing) and love exists, it must be possible for bad people to be loved. I suppose you could get out of this argument by claiming that there is no such thing as love, but that would be biting a rather big bullet.

To end I will quote two passages from the Bible:

1) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

2) God is love.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 4:02 PM (reply 464 of 635)



 
jschell, gotta run so I don't have time to look into all that. But I'll respond tomorrow.

superiorlobe: thanks, that was great.
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next »