Does Almighy God view all people in the same light?

[John Cuthber]

 

That's maybe your belief (not mine), or, more likely, a rather strange attempt at a straw-man.

 

 

He won't need to know; he'll be one or the other, depending on his circumstance.

You said the Bible teaches us to be content.

So, since the baby is content, he must- by your daft idea- have been taught it by the Bible.

I grant you that he didn't need to read it, but he does need to understand it for your weird idea to hold up.

[Prometheus]

You said the Bible teaches us to be content.

So, since the baby is content, he must- by your daft idea- have been taught it by the Bible.

I grant you that he didn't need to read it, but he does need to understand it for your weird idea to hold up.

 

I don't follow this logic.

 

Say a physics text book teaches physics. By your reasoning if a person then knows physics she must have been taught it by that textbook. But there are plenty of other sources, or it could be self taught, no?

 

So why do you assume that if the Bible teaches contentment and if a baby is content then it must have been taught by the Bible? Could it not have been taught by something else. (Unless it was claimed that the Bibles is the only source teaching contentment; there's quite a lot on this thread so i might have missed it).

[Strange]

 

I don't follow this logic.

 

Say a physics text book teaches physics. By your reasoning if a person then knows physics she must have been taught it by that textbook. But there are plenty of other sources, or it could be self taught, no?

 

So why do you assume that if the Bible teaches contentment and if a baby is content then it must have been taught by the Bible? Could it not have been taught by something else. (Unless it was claimed that the Bibles is the only source teaching contentment; there's quite a lot on this thread so i might have missed it).

 

 

Because dimreeper insists it is not innate. And therefore must be learned. The only source he has mentioned for this is the Bible. Maybe there are others. But it isn't clear how babies learn this trick of contentment (as, apparently, they have to).

[Prometheus]

Personally i speculate it is the other way around: we have a general state of being content which we learn to do away with as we develop a sense of a self separate to everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if being discontent is associated with a stronger sense of self.

 

Having learned to be discontent some seek to recapture how to be content. Some people seem to have a knack for doing so, others need guidance - and sometimes that is found in religion.

 

 

I would add i don't think being content is the same as the absence of certain 'negative' emotions: anger, fear, jealousy etc... Rather i imagine that it as being able to let go of those emotions once they have run their course. So a crying baby may simply be hungry and once fed returns to sleep. But it doesn't harbour resentment for the mother for being late to feed, or smoulder about the shape of the breasts being sub=optimal for expressing...

[John Cuthber]

 

I don't follow this logic.

 

Say a physics text book teaches physics. By your reasoning if a person then knows physics she must have been taught it by that textbook. But there are plenty of other sources, or it could be self taught, no?

 

So why do you assume that if the Bible teaches contentment and if a baby is content then it must have been taught by the Bible? Could it not have been taught by something else. (Unless it was claimed that the Bibles is the only source teaching contentment; there's quite a lot on this thread so i might have missed it).

You have to go back to near the start of the thread to find the context which was Dimreepr's assertion that

" I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism.

... bible, was never intended to be taken literally, it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; "

 

He's saying that there is no secular "textbook" by which you could learn the wisdom of how to be content..

A contented baby shows that there's no requirement for "teaching" contentment in the way he suggested was only possible through the Bible. (I'm assuming that a baby's thoughts are secular and thus Dimreepr's comment on things that elude secularism must elude babies.)

Edited April 9, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Itoero]

What is the difference?

The possibility of being content or discontent is innate but external factors form that mental state.

 

The possibility of growing into a tree is 'innate' for an acorn but external factors decide if he will grow into a tree.

 

When you are born everything is uncertain...

Edited April 10, 2017 by Itoero

[DrKrettin]

The possibility of growing into a tree is 'innate' for an acorn but external factors decide if he will grow into a tree.

 

I'm guessing that gland and eikel are both masculine nouns.

[Strange]

The possibility of being content or discontent is innate but external factors form that mental state.

 

Well, duh. Thanks for that groundbreaking insight.

[dimreepr]

He's saying that there is no secular "textbook" by which you could learn the wisdom of how to be content..

 

Nope, I said there's no attempt in secularism to teach contentment; I'd ask for evidence, but what's the point?

[Itoero]

Well, duh. Thanks for that groundbreaking insight.

You're welcome!

Nope, I said there's no attempt in secularism to teach contentment; I'd ask for evidence, but what's the point?

You gave this statement a +1 : "Thinking those subjective opinions do have a scientific value is a big logical fallacy and causes countless erroneous beliefs."

Giving scientific value to subjective opinions is exactly what you do.

[dimreepr]

You gave this statement a +1

 

Did I?

 

"Thinking those subjective opinions do have a scientific value is a big logical fallacy and causes countless erroneous beliefs."

Giving scientific value to subjective opinions is exactly what you do.

 

 

I've asked, more than once, for evidence that contentment is innate; not unreasonable since there is evidence that fear and reciprocity is innate.

 

I think you need to question your belief system.

Edited April 10, 2017 by dimreepr

[Strange]

I've asked, more than once, for evidence that contentment was innate; not unreasonable since there is evidence that fear and reciprocity is innate.

 

 

Babies (and animals) do not have to be taught to be fearful, neither do they have to be taught to be content. That is the evidence it is innate. Which, obviously, you reject.

 

So, can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain WHY you think contentment is not innate. Just repeatedly saying "it isn't" doesn't get us anywhere. If you say why you think it isn't then maybe I (or someone else) can explain why we disagree.

[dimreepr]

 

 

Babies (and animals) do not have to be taught to be fearful, neither do they have to be taught to be content.

 

Some fears are innate and some depend on circumstance, so some are taught/gained through circumstance and some are innate.

 

A sudden loud noise will illicit a fear response despite the circumstance, while a fear of spiders is entirely dependent on circumstance.

 

I contend that contentment is an emergent quality of being.

[Strange]

I contend that contentment is an emergent quality of being.

 

 

Which sounds like it is innate.

 

I am trying to understand the difference between (your definition of) "innate" and "emergent quality of being", "not needing to be taught", etc.

 

I just don't understand how, if a baby can be content without being taught, that it is not innate.

 

 

Babies will be scared by scary things because fear is innate

 

Babies will be hungry if not fed, because hunger is innate.

 

Babies will not start speaking unless taught because language is not innate. (I know that one is slightly controversial.)

 

Babies will start swimming if thrown in water because swimming is innate.

 

Babies will not start writing unless taught because written language is not innate.

 

Babies will laugh if you play games with them because laughter (and, perhaps, play) is innate.

 

But: Babies will be content if well fed and warm because contentment is not innate? Really?

 

I just don't understand the logic here. Why is contentment different from other innate things?

Edited April 10, 2017 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

 

Some fears are innate and some depend on circumstance, so some are taught/gained through circumstance and some are innate.

 

A sudden loud noise will illicit a fear response despite the circumstance, while a fear of spiders is entirely dependent on circumstance.

 

I contend that contentment is an emergent quality of being.

Are you trolling, or do you somehow think that talking about fear answers a question about contentment?

It might- if fear were the only cause of discontentment.

It's not.

Now, why don't you just own up to being utterly wrong?

[Bender]

Nope, I said there's no attempt in secularism to teach contentment; I'd ask for evidence, but what's the point?

I attempt to teach my children contentment.

 

There, I have proven your claim wrong.

 

Edit: more correctly: I try to teach them to be content more often.

If your claim is to be taken litteraly, you might be right, as I agree there is no reason.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Bender

[John Cuthber]

 

Nope, I said there's no attempt in secularism to teach contentment; I'd ask for evidence, but what's the point?

No, you did not.

And, if you had done so, people would simply have pointed out that you are wrong- just as Bender has done.

[Itoero]

Did I?

Yes, #83

 

 

I've asked, more than once, for evidence that contentment is innate; not unreasonable since there is evidence that fear and reciprocity is innate.

 

I think you need to question your belief system.

Use your head.

The possibility of being in fear and being content are innate but being content or being in fear are not innate...don't you understand this?

The only certainty (except for the properties of your body at the time of your birth) when you are born, is that you will die.

 

I'm not going to look for evidence for something that obvious.

[Prometheus]

You have to go back to near the start of the thread to find the context which was Dimreepr's assertion that...

 

He's saying that there is no secular "textbook" by which you could learn the wisdom of how to be content..

 

Too much for me to try to pick through...

 

But i would say that the capitalist mindset, which dominates secular societies, seems geared towards convincing people that they are discontent and they need more more and more to be content. Product x, y and z should do it - for a while.

[Bender]

Too much for me to try to pick through...

 

But i would say that the capitalist mindset, which dominates secular societies, seems geared towards convincing people that they are discontent and they need more more and more to be content. Product x, y and z should do it - for a while.

But isn't the US the pinacle of capitalism, while also very religious?

[Prometheus]

But isn't the US the pinacle of capitalism, while also very religious?

 

Perhaps, but i don't know the country well at all. The religion America has seems to fit in with the Capitalist mindset though - buy into heaven and you will be content... later. Both promise the world, do either deliver?

 

I've also heard of the TV Evangelists who perfectly combine capitalism and religion to make themselves a pretty penny.

[John Cuthber]

 

Too much for me to try to pick through...

 

But i would say that the capitalist mindset, which dominates secular societies, seems geared towards convincing people that they are discontent and they need more more and more to be content. Product x, y and z should do it - for a while.

If I realise that contentment does not stem from owning the latest 'phone then, given my secular nature, I have shown that Dimreepr is wrong.

He won't accept this.

[Itoero]

But i would say that the capitalist mindset, which dominates secular societies, seems geared towards convincing people that they are discontent and they need more more and more to be content. Product x, y and z should do it - for a while.

Why do you think that?

[zapatos]

Why do you think that?

For me, it's watching the launch of a new iPhone. Car commercials show couples watching through their windows with envy as their neighbor drives up with their new car. It's all around us.

[Itoero]

For me, it's watching the launch of a new iPhone. Car commercials show couples watching through their windows with envy as their neighbor drives up with their new car. It's all around us.

True. But is that linked to secularty? I think education has a big role in this.

 

When I travelled in Canada and Alaska I noted how important people find it to get your driver license asap. In Alberta you can get a learner's Permit at 14 years old....

Someone ones asked me, "Don't you have a truck?"

When I was in Alaska they never asked for my identity card but my driver license....

Edited April 12, 2017 by Itoero