All good but - I do not see any breaking of the GR ? you keep giving examples that do not compute. Wall / Blockage - Well you never spelled it out that way previously .. and you have been arguing against my premise which is that it does work on an individual basis .. but, OK ... Good - we agree. Communication required - Yup .. But- we are far away from a religious belief here - your training has just begun ! It took awhile to get you to agree with a basic premise ... but you have arrived - Level 1 achieved. Care to try for Level 2 ?
At least in the US you can't use the fact that your religion requires something as a license allowing you to break the secular law. State and Church are separate, remember that? (Oh and even in the ME you can't just haul off and stone your daughter, no questions asked. It is, in fact, a fairly involved and complicated process. So called "honor killings" are very much against the law over there and it's only over HERE that religious expatriates sometimes try what most recognize as a rather transparent ploy to get rid of an estranged family member.)
Maybe you don't understand the Golden Rule. Define "religious belief". I must warn you that I don't believe in absolute truth, absolute morality, and immutable laws. What's level 2?
Honor killings are widespread in the ME and beyond. Pakistan and India (Hindus practice honor killings too) share an infamous first place, with Jordan hot on their heels. It's a matter of mentality. Secular laws are optional, tradition dictates behavior.
He said "Absolute" truth or certainty, not just truth or certainty. Maybe he doesn't believe in bowdlerizing language either.
I didn't say they didn't happen. I said they were very involved and complicated. I should have added that just about all of them I've ever heard of them seem very, VERY illegal even in those countries as well. Murderers kill their victims for all sort of strange and very egregious "reasons" It's amazing how many women are killed in the US every year for not having their abusive husband's dinner ready, does that mean that the USA has theocratic rules that "allow" it?
Using the word “Absolute” in front of the words truth and certainty is a redundancy. Or are redundancies part of the whole nihilist thing.
Semantic quibbling. Not all truth is absolutely true for all people, nor especially is it a certainty. I know many people who are immutably certain of the undeniable truth that God exists and as many who deny those things with as much assurance.
Certainty and truth are not fundamental entities surfing the space on photon streams. They are concepts in our brains, and their content depends on many subjective factors. Morality is an emergent property of social systems, not an objective reality stalking us from behind clouds. There can be no certainty, truth, or morality, without an intelligent observer. Should the Universe be devoid of any intelligent life, these concepts would cease to exist. That's why I said they're not absolute.
She said, and you're right, I don't believe in bowdlerizing language. Not when important messages would be lost, but that's not the only reason. Neutering our ability to communicate is a form of violence, generously used by dictators everywhere. Direct insults are also a form of violence, by the way, this is the only instance of offensive language worth bowdlerizing.
Yes, honor killings are illegal in the Middle East (not sure about Saudi Arabia and Yemen). They're also illegal in Pakistan, but there are big loopholes in the law. There's a difference between abuse by jealous or psychopathic spouses in advanced societies, and abuse at the hands of an entire culture. While women abused in the US have the right to demand justice, those trapped in abusive cultures can't do a damn thing about it. Yes, there's still a lot to improve in the US regarding the status of women and their objectification, but a least women can fight back.
Either something is true or it isn’t. Either certainty is possible or it isn’t. The semantics are on your end. Truth and reality are not dependent on consciousness. The denial or assurance of reality or truth are of no consequence of reality itself.
Truth and reality are entirely dependent on consciousness. If there was no consciousness to perceive them there is no way you could prove that any truth or reality existed at all
So by divorcing human consciousness from the equation you’re able to deny reality. So what’s the point? Humans that have observed reality have in fact died yet the same universe remains. Doesn’t this prove to you that existence trumps consciousness?
If truth and reality were dependent on consciousness then reality would cease to exist when the observer dies. The earth continues to revolve around the sun
OK - Do tell - what is it that I do not understand - the student now trying to switch roles with the teacher ? To achieve level 2 you first must obtain level 1 -and it seems we have had a regression .. so back to the drawing board.
I mentioned that I'm not talking about objective reality. My post was about certainty, truth, and morality. About perceptions. Yes, when someone dies, that person's particular model of reality ceases to exist, because it never existed outside that person's brain.
why does someone who dislikes religion start a new one... . I watched an interview with Billy Graham’s granddaughter. Jerusha? She nailed it. There is this fear of anything liberal is wrong. She seems to get what’s really going on. evangelicals won’t even address the lies republicans put out and especially trumps (divide and conquer) “But now, I feel homeless. Like so many others, I feel disoriented as I watch the church I have always served turn their eyes away from everything it teaches. I hear from Christian women on a daily basis who all describe the same thing: a tug at their spirit.”
There are numerous issue but, agree that Evangelicals are a very bad example of what a Christian is supposed to be, Christians should not be engaged in Political Activism which forces religious belief on others through physical violence (Law). As a far as political lies - neither side will acknowledge lies so I won't harp to hard on the Evangelicals for this People seem to need Religion - and we need a movement to change our system. Starting a new religion seems one way to get the movement going
You seem to be a bit conflicted. In one post you had wished that religion would effect social change as it once did (paraphrasing), and in another, you say religion should NOT be engaged in political activism. How can you have social change without political activism?