While I am not UU, I have a great respect for the ideals, and I believe a site like this would be a great resource. Get that word out! Thanks, Christine

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

The items on hedonism offer some food for thought. The statement that the purpose of our actions is the seeking of pleasure seems to have an element of truth about it. Of course, we can find exceptions, such that the statement must become more complicated.

For example, we know that short-term forgoing of pleasure can lead to greater pleasure, such as saving our money for a later and larger purpose, for example. And a moment's displeasure can lead to greater pleasure, so we go to the doctor or dentist, even if the experience will be unpleasant at the time.

And there is the fact that if every person looked only after his own pleasure, the community would suffer. With fewer benefits from the community, we would suffer as individuals. So we pay our taxes, help other people, and possibly somebody will help us when we need it, and we will drive on good streets and our children will attend good schools.

Ayn Rand, in her "objectivism," advocated a rather extreme hedonism, in which she said that if one had to choose between a career or taking care of his aged mother, he should choose the career. If this were the case with most people, we would all suffer from the decisions of others, and overall pleasure in life would be reduced.

Further, we are created to feel such things as sympathy, love, shame and guilt. Neglecting our loved ones would produce negative feelings, such that our selfish choices would actually add to our misery, unless we happen to be sociopaths.

The person who sacrifices to care for their children experiences less displeasure in life than had he chosen not to do so. His inner sense of decency would otherwise nag at him and ruin the selfish pleasure he was trying to grab for himself.

All these factors must be considered when suggesting that the purpose of our activity is the finding of pleasure. Then the statement has a greater ring of truth about it.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

The entry on the Catholic Bible by Cathtruth.com says that Catholics don't interpret the Bible, because they wrote it, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They only explain it. Only protestants must interpret the Bible, attempting to determine the real intentions of the authors, because they didn't write it themselves.

There are some logical problems with this. One is the fact that when the first manuscripts of the Bible were written, an organized Catholic church didn't exist. Another being that the original writers are long since dead, and modern Catholics are new guys, just like modern Protestants. None living today were around at the time. The writer of that statement seems to be guilty of arrogance, or at least exaggerated smugness.

Of course there's another element. Since the original writing, there has been the task of selecting which writings to include, which was a human endeavor. There is no claim or evidence for supernatural guidance by the people making those decisions. There is also evidence of changes in the manuscripts since the first copies were written. I doubt the Catholic church wants to take credit for that.

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply

To see all threads, go to the bottom and click the link for that.

To see all of a thread, don't click on "last reply," or it will just give you the very last one. Instead, just click on the title to the thread, and the whole thing will appear befor your eyes.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

The Catholic Encyclopedia uses the proliferation of flood legends around the world as evidence of the reality of the Noah's Ark story. However, the same story says that everybody except the passengers of the ark died. So how did people all around the world survive to tell those stories?

Or are they saying that Noah's Ark passengers were the ancestors of all people, including Chinese, North and South American Indians, Australian Aboriginese, and Africans?

One statement is that "Earth" really meant "land." So not everybody in the world was involved. In that case, why do they cite flood stories all over the world as evidence of the literal truth of the Noah story?

The Bible states that Noah grew grapes after the flood. However, if the land were submerged for a year, would that not have killed all of the plants in the world, too?

The story says that a dove came back with the branch of an olive tree, with its leaves. Supposing that meant a twig, how would the dove have had the strength to pull the twig from the tree?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a state agency remain neutral on the subject of evolution vs intelligent design as an explanation for life on earth. However, this is a question of science.

If somebody were to assert, with all of his friends, that there is no law of gravity, and that what appears to be gravity is really a magic trick by the god Baal, should an education department remain neutral? The Baalists have their opinion, and scientists have their opinion and both opinions are equal to one another, and deserve equal treatment.

One does this with politics. One does that with religion. But science doesn't work that way. If we want to settle a question of science, one does it with science. If he wants to teach something else, he should do that in his church, not through government. Deciding on a scientific issue is not like deciding to be a Baptist or a Methodist, a Republican or a Democrat, and we should not allow it to become like that.

So an elected official wants to satisfy a segment of his constituency, and tells the agency to hunker down and keep a low profile. Problem is, the department doesn't belong to him. He is merely entrusted with its operation, in a legal and constitutional manner. Catering to religious extremists is not a legal nor constitutional part of his duties.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

The Catholic Church has said that Jesus did not want women to be priests, as evidenced by the fact that all of his apostles were male, indicating His belief that all priests must also be male. However, there are writings suggesting that Mary Magdalene was a 13th apostle. Would that negate that argument?

See: W Index -- Women

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

It may seem odd that a comment on warrentless wiretapping, or government or politics might appear on a religious website. However, this involves issues of right and wrong. Violation of the rights of citizens, in the name of practically anything, poses serious dangers, and the potential of serious wrongs being done is great. In other words, issues of good and evil are in the purview of religion, and persons concerned with such matters should be concerned with wrong being done by government, as well as by individuals.

The wording of the above satire is intended to remind us that totalitarian governments have used these techniques, and though the original excuse was to protect the country from communists or foreign enemies, they were also used for petty political purposes as well, and resulted in governments keeping the general citizenry under their thumb.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.html

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Hagee: Hitler was doing God's will. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56857&sectionid=3510203

Audio: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892.html

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?