Easter celebration

georg jetson said:

I know the thread has moved on from this, but I'd like to add one thing. Christ's crucifixion was disrespectful to him. If someone crucified me, I'd feel disrespected. I think maybe the point of Jesus' s death is to show that we're quite a disrespectful bunch. I dunno... maybe it's just me.

Why in the world would I get offended by someone disrespecting my "reverence" of a day intended to remind me of just how disrespectful we can be. At least I'd know the offender understands one side of the issue.

Click to expand...

From another angle, I was kinda wondering where the respect was for Twoskins view? There was plenty of demand for respect from some quarters; but, none was being given to Twoskin's viewpoint from that same quarter.

Citizen said:

From another angle, I was kinda wondering where the respect was for Twoskins view? There was plenty of demand for respect from some quarters; but, none was being given to Twoskin's viewpoint from that same quarter.

Click to expand...

Already asked and answered.

Citizen said:

From another angle, I was kinda wondering where the respect was for Twoskins view? There was plenty of demand for respect from some quarters; but, none was being given to Twoskin's viewpoint from that same quarter.

Click to expand...

Folks who insult religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs (easy and popular target these days), should not be at all surprised when there is push back from multiple quarters. They should also not be surprised at the magnitude of the push back either.

When Twoskins' nonsense subject to state sanction then we all must rally around Twoskins in defense of his nonsense.

Citizen said:

I think this is a bit of a failing on the philosophers' part. A little blindness regarding perhaps finer points of human nature. For example, I would render it this way: the baker doesn't bake bread for us solely out of the goodness of his heart.

Obviously the baker has to eat, but that does not exclude him exercising concern for others or contributing to their welfare. A hint could be gleaned from the baker who donates day-old bread to charity. Now, if he were a lower sort of fellow, he'd make his donation to look good in the community. And, there are probably plenty who help others because it makes them feel good, meaning the only reason they do it is because they want to feel good for having done it. But, I'll bet there are plenty of bakers who donate simply because they don't want to see anybody hungry.

I think some philosophers can't see that it is possible for multiple interests to align. For example, the veterinarian who loves animals but got into the work because she also wanted kids to be happy with healthier pets. Income for self. Helps kids. Helps animals. Multiple interests/concerns coincide.

I consider that human nature includes the capability of being simply concerned about others. Kinda of a, "OK. Got everything in my life under control for the moment. What's next. Oh, Sam needs some help building that deck."

Click to expand...

I agree whole heartily.

I think Bastiats point was though that self interest in a free market does lead to taking care of the interests of others. There is no possible way to be totally self interested with out profiting others in a voluntary market. (removing theft and fraud of course). You are right about him maybe missing much of the whole picture. I was talking last night to others and someone brought up how John Lockes natural law doesn't take into account a lot and did things like approve of slavery. The example I could think of to counter that was that Newton the father of modern physics missed a lot too we don't throw out physics because of the imperfections of one philosopher.

OC for ME said:

Folks who insult religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs (easy and popular target these days), should not be at all surprised when there is push back from multiple quarters. They should also not be surprised at the magnitude of the push back either.

When Twoskins' nonsense subject to state sanction then we all must rally around Twoskins in defense of his nonsense.

Click to expand...

Nonsense? Hmph!
Irreverent blasphemous wit perhaps.
Anyway I was not in the least surprised to have "push back". I have lived with and loved irrational religious fanatics.
I was just surprised to see the push back supported by the site moderators.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Nonsense? Hmph!
Irreverent blasphemous wit perhaps.
Anyway I was not in the least surprised to have "push back". I have lived with and loved irrational religious fanatics.
I was just surprised to see the push back supported by the site moderators.

Click to expand...

...multiple quarters.

Irreverent blasphemous wit = nonsense...depending on your POV. It is claimed that "good" comedy contains a element of truth...depending on your POV.

OK, fellas. Lets take it to PM. This is a subject that can easily get overheated, derail the thread, and get it locked

Citizen said:

OK, fellas. Lets take it to PM. This is a subject that can easily get overheated, derail the thread, and get it locked

Click to expand...

...well, he started it...

OC for ME said:

...well, he started it...

Click to expand...

That's true.

But in all fairness, since it was deleted no one could judge for themselves if it was truly nonsense. Thus my rebuttal.

twoskinsonemanns said:

That's true.

But in all fairness, since it was deleted no one could judge for themselves if it was truly nonsense. Thus my rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Nightmare said:

Perhaps you hold unfound beliefs and superstitions.

Plato spoke for Socrates in his Apology, ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ, The unexamined life is not worth living. A fundamental to which I was introduced in my Great Books underclass college program.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the axiom in 1Peter 1:7 applies to many things not just faith.

Rusty Young Man said:

In my limited experience, you can tell the first apart for their propensity to have an audience or make it widely known they are donating bread.
You can tell the second apart for their giving only what they can easily spare in time and resources (feel goods without the inconveniences).
The last is most difficult to tell apart because they do not plan for an audience to see them give, nor do they let on about how much they give and how far out of their way they go to give.

Back on topic: A measure of "selfishness" is what we would call self-interest. As I build myself up, I can help more people or provide a greater assistance to a few. The baker who can expand his business will be able to provide for his family and have coin left over, not to mention the number of unsold loaves left over each day.

Click to expand...

On reading this, immediately those who originally made national news for being arrested for feeding the homeless came to mind. I doubt they were feeding the homeless for the pay, and at least the original actors were probably not planning on getting national attention from it, either.

Rusty Young Man said:

This may be the best explanation/example I've heard. Thank you.

Click to expand...

This reminded me of a quote on my desktop from Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises - "Every step by which an individual substitutes concerted action for isolated action results in an immediate and recognizable improvement in his conditions. The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal."

I don't know how to put it, but... I think... that self-interest should be tempered, to be used as a vehicle for production. Meaning, I think that properly tempered self-interest is not to be condemned as selfishness.

Was the carpenter from Nazereth a Keynesian?

He was able to make more bread and fish by simply dividing it........lol......

stealthyeliminator said:

On reading this, immediately those who originally made national news for being arrested for feeding the homeless came to mind. I doubt they were feeding the homeless for the pay, and at least the original actors were probably not planning on getting national attention from it, either.



This reminded me of a quote on my desktop from Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises - "Every step by which an individual substitutes concerted action for isolated action results in an immediate and recognizable improvement in his conditions. The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal."

I don't know how to put it, but... I think... that self-interest should be tempered, to be used as a vehicle for production. Meaning, I think that properly tempered self-interest is not to be condemned as selfishness.

Click to expand...

"properly tempered self-interest" is a good thing and coupled with freedom, opportunity, reward, created a great country with a good standard of living for the masses, that's until the masses decided to travel the road socialism with more government interference and regulations in every facet of our lives.

I really don't see any distinction between someone feeding the hungry because it feels good to help others, or feeding the hungry because you don't want to see anyone go hungry. Or feeding the hungry in a way to ensure others see you feeding them for that matter.

The only thing that matters is that you fed them, not why.

OC Freedom said:

"properly tempered self-interest" is a good thing and coupled with freedom, opportunity, reward, created a great country with a good standard of living for the masses, that's until the masses decided to travel the road socialism with more government interference and regulations in every facet of our lives.

Click to expand...

Socialism works great...in theory. It is just in practice that it fails. Seems we've never quite found the right people to run it.

Free Market Capitalism looks brutal in theory. But when practiced in a society tempered by Judeo-Christian (or similar) teachings and beliefs about caring for the poor, being honest & ethical, and having some thought for posterity and neighbors, works better than any other system in recorded, secular history. It can also work very well in a diverse society with much diversity of religious beliefs so long as the social values of integrity, charity, and regard for society are in place.

There are those who want to plunder what others have earned, no doubt.

But I think there are also those who are desperately trying to fix some things that seem to be broken. Even ignoring what has gone wrong with public education the last 40 years or so, the best of schools cannot fix widespread familial breakdown or disfunction. Government can punish crimes, but in a free society will never have enough power to correct for a general lack of ethics, integrity, and decency.

As an example, I'm the first to argue that a CEO who can successfully navigate a company to financial success while providing good employment to 100,000 workers is very hard to find and worth a mint. But somewhere along the way, too many execs seem to have started treated publicly traded companies as their personal piggy banks and the workers as liabilities rather than as a trust. When execs are paid handsomely even while driving companies into the ground there is a sense that something is wrong. And it is. It is natural to look to government to fix such things as appear to be "failings" in the free market. Some regulations, reporting requirements, etc can help create an environment that encourages integrity. But government cannot replace the pulpit and the culture that emanates from it.

Put into entirely secular terms ignoring what was likely the root cause of the culture, I recommend this wonderfully nostalgic essay by Fred Reed, "When We Were America".

A short excerpt:

Fred Reed "When We Were America" said:

...

We had one cop in the country, Jay Powell, a state trooper, and he had little to do. The high school did not have metal detectors or police patrolling the halls. We had none of the behavior that now makes these things necessary. It wasn’t in the culture. We could have raped, killed, robbed, fathered countless illegitimate children like barnyard animals. We didn’t.

It wasn’t in the culture.

...

So with our kinship with guns. The boys had them. They were mostly shotguns for deer hunting, .410s, over-and-unders, twelve gauges, and maybe a .22 Hornet for shooting varmints. If you have a field of soybeans, you don’t want whistle pigs eating them.

We were free in those days. I could walk out the main gate of Dahlgren with my Marlin .22 lever-action over my shoulder, and nobody blinked. The country store sold long-rifles (for the frightened epicenes of today, that’s ammunition) with no questions asked. There was no reason to ask questions. We didn’t shoot each other. Only savages unfit for civilization would do such a thing.

And we weren’t. It wasn’t in the culture. You don't have to police people to keep them from doing what they aren't going to do anyway.
...

Click to expand...

What is it that makes culture, that either sustains or undermines it? Laws can both reflect and shape culture. What is preached from the pulpit, what is celebrated in media, what is taught in the schools, what is expected, what is looked down upon all have an effect. Our very language has an effect as it shapes how we think of things.

Alexander Pope surmised correctly some things that undermine when he wrote, "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace”

Charles

twoskinsonemanns said:

...

The only thing that matters is that you fed them, not why.

Click to expand...

To the hungry, to a first order, it probably matters not at all, assuming all else is equal.

And yet Jesus made a pretty big deal out of the difference. Why?

To borrow from C.S. Lewis, it is what effect the feeding of the poor has on the person doing the feeding. If feeding the poor is a matter of pride, then the man simply becomes more prideful. He did a good thing today because of his pride. But what will his pride compel him to do tomorrow? Along with all the obviously horrible things he might do, he might do a subtle evil which is to keep the poor dependent on him for food rather than helping them to gain independence such that they can feed themselves, and then in turn, help feed other poor.

On the other hand, if a man feeds the poor because of sincere concern for the welfare of his fellow man, then he will be guided by that sincere concern and will do good even when nobody is watching and when there is no personal gain to be had. He will do the very best good for his fellow man that he can including encouraging them to gain independence. He doesn't want personal accolades and so doesn't need anyone to be dependent on him for their food.

The religious implications of this difference are obvious. But I hope the social implications are also clear.

Society is better off with men who do good for the right reasons than we are with men who do good for the wrong reasons.

Charles

Citizen said:

*I consider this another very important aspect of His demonstration (the Resurrection). Among other things, He was proving by personal demonstration that people are a unit of self-awareness independent of the body. This, in and of itself, is monumental. It is one thing to suggest that some part of you can continue to exist after your body dies, and exist better; it is something else to imply you exist independent of the body. This would touch to the very nature of a man. What is he?

Click to expand...

For something which has been "proved", the body of evidence supporting this view is remarkably thin.

Personally, I find it improbable. I do not fall into the camp which believes that human intellect is mere computational power, soon to be replicated artificially. Nor, however, do I buy into mysticism which claims there is an extra-physical component, without offering evidence or even a plausible mechanism how this might work.

marshaul said:

For something which has been "proved", the body of evidence supporting this view is remarkably thin.

Personally, I find it improbable. I do not fall into the camp which believes that human intellect is mere computational power, soon to be replicated artificially. Nor, however, do I buy into mysticism which claims there is an extra-physical component, without offering evidence or even a plausible mechanism how this might work.

Click to expand...

I understand. A fella has to rely on his own observations and the conclusions arising therefrom. You'll get no hard feelings from me.

sudden valley gunner said:

Was the carpenter from Nazereth a Keynesian?

He was able to make more bread and fish by simply dividing it........lol......

Click to expand...

No. Christ miraculously created more actual loaves and fishes. Keynsians* create vast numbers of little pieces of paper with pictures of loaves and fishes, then pretend the pieces of paper are the actual loaves and fishes. Of course, the pretend pictures of loaves and fishes steal their perceived value from real loaves and fishes. Worse, they print so many of these little pieces of paper, they are constantly diluting the value of the little pieces of paper already in the system. So, last month's pieces of paper are worth less. And, just to make sure nobody easily escapes, they force everybody to accept these pretend pictures of loaves and fishes.

The Keynsian's scheme of pretend loaves and fishes does smell fishy; I'll give them that.


*John Maynard Keynes (pronounced kaynes), a British economist in the early and mid-20th century. For some inexplicable reason his theories always just happened to validate what government wanted to do in the first place. Government, including the US, loves his theories and uses them to justify its economic policies. Heck, today, they don't even bother to mention Keynes to justify their actions, they just treat it as an assumption that what they're doing is "the correct solution." Today, you almost have to know Keyne's work a little bit to recognize when government is using it.