Is God to blame for all the evil in the World?

Who rules on a sinking ship?

Will the queen have to do the Kings bidding or vice versa?

I think that in that case the King has the last word be it to men or women.

Do you think women should have the last word against men in such an instance.

Regards
DL

The captain rules the ship. He has to be last one off and/or has to go down with the ship. The women and children get to get off first. This is how men of the past thought.

This was called chauvinistic, by the feminists, who taught their boys, that men and women are the same and this is all cultural conditioned. The new generation of men, will now push and shove to get onto the lifeboat, with the women complaining men are such cavemen.

Men were made unnatural by women. The old model was based on the protector male staying behind to fight, until all escape. At that point, he will catch up.
 
The captain rules the ship. He has to be last one off and/or has to go down with the ship. The women and children get to get off first. This is how men of the past thought.

This was called chauvinistic, by the feminists, who taught their boys, that men and women are the same and this is all cultural conditioned. The new generation of men, will now push and shove to get onto the lifeboat, with the women complaining men are such cavemen.

Men were made unnatural by women. The old model was based on the protector male staying behind to fight, until all escape. At that point, he will catch up.

This garbage is not worth speaking to.

Regards
DL
 
I meant mankind is not fit to rule itself. Man does need need to be ruled by other men. Nor anything else either.

Man has always sought order by making rules.

Your view that we should or could live without rules is unfounded and no one likes chaos.

Imagine the carnage on our streets without rules.

Do you think you would get far?

Remember the Iceman. He had an arrow in him. Was he a victim or were victims retaliating? Either way, chaos would not be better than a world of rules.

Regards
DL
 
Homo sapiens is a social species, like our closest relatives, the gorillas and chimpanzees. Members of social species are born with a few rules (instincts) programmed into their brains. You understand that an individual by himself will have a hard time surviving, so you instinctively care for and cooperate with the people you've lived with since birth.

That worked fine in the early stone age--the Paleolithic Era. But as we discovered agriculture and other technologies, the size of our communities grew, and before long we were living among people whom we didn't know very well--if at all. At this point in our social evolution (about 12,000 years ago) we had to develop artificial rules to keep the communities working smoothly. We understood that larger communities are more prosperous than small ones (division of labor and economies of scale, for instance, increase the productivity of every member and therefore of the whole tribe), so it seemed worth the trouble to learn to live by artificial rules.

Technology kept increasing the size of our communities, until the average member only knew a small percentage of the population personally. Today we live in nations with populations in the hundreds of millions, having to treat people we've never met, whose names we don't know, and who are essentially nothing more than abstractions to us, as members of our community.

This is not easy because it conflicts with our instincts. So we invent and enforce more and more rules to keep the peace. Most of the time it works, but not always. Religion, in particular, seems to be a tremendous force for suspicion, hatred and conflict. Religion as we know it was invented in the Bronze Age, and, if you ask me, it has no place in a modern society.
 
Well put F R.

I agree with all but your last. It I would ament to ancient religions have no place in modern society.

The only reason I would change your word and opt for a modern religion is that, as atheists are finding out, people need a place to assuage their groupish or hivish genes and find fellowship. That is why atheists are starting their own churches. It is that or lose their children to a religion.

I have chosen to push Gnostic Christianity because of it's superior moral tenets as compared to the mainstream but would not mind seeing all religions take a nose dive into obscurity. None have proven to be worthy of man.

Regards
DL
 
Man has always sought order by making rules.

Your view that we should or could live without rules is unfounded and no one likes chaos.

Imagine the carnage on our streets without rules.

Do you think you would get far?

Remember the Iceman. He had an arrow in him. Was he a victim or were victims retaliating? Either way, chaos would not be better than a world of rules.

Regards
DL

Rules and Ruling are two different things.
A communal group may arrive at a set of rules to live by, without the need the some to Rule over others.

(I wonder if you deliberately misconstrue what I write?)
 
Homo sapiens is a social species, like our closest relatives, the gorillas and chimpanzees. Members of social species are born with a few rules (instincts) programmed into their brains. You understand that an individual by himself will have a hard time surviving, so you instinctively care for and cooperate with the people you've lived with since birth.

That worked fine in the early stone age--the Paleolithic Era. But as we discovered agriculture and other technologies, the size of our communities grew, and before long we were living among people whom we didn't know very well--if at all. At this point in our social evolution (about 12,000 years ago) we had to develop artificial rules to keep the communities working smoothly. We understood that larger communities are more prosperous than small ones (division of labor and economies of scale, for instance, increase the productivity of every member and therefore of the whole tribe), so it seemed worth the trouble to learn to live by artificial rules.

Technology kept increasing the size of our communities, until the average member only knew a small percentage of the population personally. Today we live in nations with populations in the hundreds of millions, having to treat people we've never met, whose names we don't know, and who are essentially nothing more than abstractions to us, as members of our community.

This is not easy because it conflicts with our instincts. So we invent and enforce more and more rules to keep the peace. Most of the time it works, but not always. Religion, in particular, seems to be a tremendous force for suspicion, hatred and conflict. Religion as we know it was invented in the Bronze Age, and, if you ask me, it has no place in a modern society.

very long winded way of paraphrasing what I already said in one sentence.

"Men don't need to be ruled by other men, or anything else either."
 
Rules and Ruling are two different things.
A communal group may arrive at a set of rules to live by, without the need the some to Rule over others.

(I wonder if you deliberately misconstrue what I write?)

Rules and laws, without enforcement, are not useful. A tribe always has a chief.

What you propose never was and never will be.

Regards
DL
 
Rules and laws, without enforcement, are not useful. A tribe always has a chief.

What you propose never was and never will be.

Regards
DL
You don't need a ruler for enforcement.

In fact our rules are enforced by judges and the police. But these are not our rulers.
Our rulers are politicians, oligarchs and monarchs. And these do not enforce the laws.

Wars are started by politicians or by religious leaders. But not by judges or policemen
 
You don't need a ruler for enforcement.

In fact our rules are enforced by judges and the police. But these are not our rulers.
Our rulers are politicians, oligarchs and monarchs. And these do not enforce the laws.

Wars are started by politicians or by religious leaders. But not by judges or policemen

The point is that you have to have a hierarch of some kind when you have judges and police.

Who will appoint the judges if not the politicians?

If the people elect them as in the U.S., without the political framework it would not work.

Whoever is at the top of our control system are our rulers be thy a judge or a king.

Without someone with power over the masses, all you would have is chaos and anarchy. Only a fool would promote either.

We are a hierarchical animal and must have an alpha to rule us.

Regards
DL
 
Never was ..maybe. but could be in the future

If the science of social manipulation and control ever reaches to a point of thought control, you will see what you want but then we would be slaves to our own science.

I cannot see people rejecting natural selection and going with human selection of the traits of a natural man or woman.

Regards
DL
 
We are a hierarchical animal and must have an alpha to rule us.

Regards
DL

You could be saying mankind needs religion then... or it least will always have it even if it is not needed. Or indeed wanted.

As according to you man is always seeking that alpha. And of course the concept of God is the ultimate conceivable alpha
 
You could be saying mankind needs religion then... or it least will always have it even if it is not needed. Or indeed wanted.

As according to you man is always seeking that alpha. And of course the concept of God is the ultimate conceivable alpha

Exactly. Freud dubbed that the Father Complex. I expand it a bit to our instincts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

The control or alpha is not necessarily religion, as that is in large part under political control. It could be political right down to the smallest tribe.

On the religious side though.


Regards
DL
 
Back
Top