Why does man, need a agreement?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8702
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm Sorry if this blows your bubble.
It shouldn't. It depends on a very straightforward fallacy.

It's the same as the old joke about the girl who goes to her doctor, and says, "Doc, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."
The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

Just because two things coincide does not mean one is the source or cause of the other. There are actually three possibilities:

1. That Egyptians created the later stories of the Israelites. (Your theory, basically.)

2. That the Israelites influenced the Egyptians, and thus shaped the Egyptian stories. (Possible if the Egyptian stories morphed after the captivity.)

3. That a third, common source created both -- the truth. But one got it more right than others. (I'll go with this one.)

This is just like the joke: it wasn't the tea that was the cause of the pain, even though it was quite true to say that the pain always came with the tea. It was the spoon that did it. The joke is an illustration of the axiom "coincidence is not causality."

And what would that common root of truth be? It would be the truth known in common to all mankind, and diffused among various cultures. Not just the previous historical truth only, but also the truth written in human conscience and by revelation. Both the Israelite and the Egyptian stories would reflect elements of truth (but one more than the other, which is quite to be expected, since two cultures have never had exactly the same proportions of truth in them since the dawn of time).

You'll be interested to know that the Chinese also have many overt elements of Biblical story (including the sacrifice principle) encoded in their ancient writings. Does this mean the Chinese wrote the Bible? No. More likely it means that both the Israelites and the early Chinese scribes were responding to a third, common source: the facts, the revealed truth.
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:23 am No, modern as synonymous to the contemporary time of the story of Isaac. The story was a pivoting novelty because before then sacrifice WAS normally carried out. For the secular interpretation. "(Nature == God) normally sacrificed literally BEFORE that time. So it was letting the reader know there was a time prior to then that normalized literal sacrifice (to Nature, as the heavens, as it is being burnt). They used to likely be between people but then became a new 'covenant' by Nature and to people in general. It was an evolution most likely about the capacity to hold people accountable in a more 'civil' non-destructive way.

na, in the case of Isaac (though its true that there were many different versions of the meaning of offering or sacrifice through out the world) it was an offering also in this case the offering was complete according to the One who requested it.

FYI
Isaac was the beloved son of the father (Abraham) who was offered by the father that is chosen of God. and Jacob Isaac's son was renamed by the Lord his God according to Jacob and had twelve sons, through which the Children of Israel are called by the Lord their God. ( in the words of some, a shadow of things to come). how the rest of the world wants to interpret those events is on them.


there is also (biblically speaking) the case where Adam and Eve were clothed by God with skins, hence the covering of their nakedness because of their fear or shame or guilt. which is honored that it would be God's will that man live not in shame in His Presence. disobedience isn't tolerated in the Presence of God. so the infraction is covered until its removed. Through out man's history their becomes many different gods and many different interpretations of Abel's accepted offering, to many different interpretations of what and who a god is.
Ab(ba) ra ohem == father who sees (over) them......the Aten, originally from Egypt, the original 'promised land'.

Ra == the where we get "ray" from as well as "are" etc. The "Ra" , from Egypt again, was the rays of the sun and likely got its name from the mimicking of the lion's roar.

Ja-cob == "I cobble" (I walk and/or stumble), originally from the Achille's heal story or another earlier source than both of them.
God == "good" (a shorthand assignment for the source cause assumed to have favor for us, and thus, we saw that it was "good"

Elohem == El- ohem == "the them", the general sources collectively or plural of a collection of all people's different beliefs about sources, including possibly ancestors.

El == the, or it, or she (feminine concept means the feel versus adam, which represented mankind or men in context [now Al or el, la, il, le, or il]

Is-ra-el == I or we saw, felt, or knew him. When Egypt's last dynasties fell the remnants of the Akenaten (akin or same as the best or perfect one [aten] as the sun's shape in the heavens).

Eve == follows, that which follows in time, space or number, Where Adam represents the earthly solids that are less perfect, Aten was "the one" perfect thing and source, and Eve was all that follows after one. Note "Oden" from the Norse (north) mythology is Aten. From 'eve' we get the following: evening, ever, and even ...versus (g)od(d) or (g)oden

I could go on but thought to throw this at you given you appear to be a believer who doesn't know the secular source meanings. The bible was a secular collection of the various peoples (tribes) and had derived originally from Akenaten's reign. The whole people were a takeover of Assyrians, who represent the original Jews (or 'wanders'...those not settled or denied a place to settle by "lords", land owners.

Sorry if this blows your bubble.
nope no bubbles secular views are that, secular, and have nothing to do with what is understood as the bible or the intent of what was documented therein. you don't believe it fine, but that doesn't make one an expert at what you're not familiar with. only in looking for or spotting alternatives. besides I wasn't the one who mentioned Isaac and the offering of his life. FYI most of what you've posted sounds like hogwash anyway.

for example:
Jacob son of Isaac named Israel is much older than Greek history or mythology or culture. you should get you're miss information straight.
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:59 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:49 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:44 pm

We don't. We are no superior nor inferior to bacteria.

we do or there's no distinction known as human nature, that is separate from animal nature. but there is a distinction from human and animal nature isn't there? seeing the activity exercised here.

flesh may be flesh but the spirit within is quite different isn't it?
Your belief would require trying to define 'spirit' that is earthly versus begging it as 'a spiritual thing', and then prove that animals lack a 'spirit'.

The concept of "spirit" for the ancients was the literal air and anything that floated UP towards the sky. The mystery of it was that no one could 'see' this type of fluid (the biblical 'waters' of above was actually a word for fluids and "adam" the word for the earthly solids with "aten" the solid form or perfect shape of the sun.) The 'spirit' is the magic nature of this fluid from above versus the fluids of below (the air versus the water), is that they noticed if your nose and mouth were plugged, you'd panic and die. Thus it was a "good" thing to have this yet unable to determine for its invisibility. Scents and smoke were also considered spirits because the mystery of things burning to go up to the 'heavens' and that dead things smelled. The loss of matter as the body decayed or burned was understood to 'go to heaven' meaning literally, the sky.

Humans are only animals that have evolved with extreme flexibility to adapt to unpredictable environments. Other animals are conscious, feel, and reason too. They just lack a NEED to where the environment still favors them without.
nope and nope

man is distinct because he comes into agreements its not even a concept in the animal kingdom. besides I didn't ask if amoebas need agreements.

its apparent you might not get out much, go to a celebrated sporting event, such as football or soccer, go to a rock or cw concert, go witness a riot, then you will see the manifestation of spirit in mankind.


all that mystical jazz you just spewed out is a pack of lies, one shouldn't put any weight to it.
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm
DPMartin wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.

Think of it this way: if you were the only human being on earth (and if God, animals and nature don't get to count as ethical concerns), you would never have a need to ask yourself "Am I ethical?" at all. You would simply do whatever you wanted to do, and that would not be either "ethical" nor "unethical," because the concept would have absolutely no referent.

So there's no such thing as ethicality or morality that is a completely individualistic issue. If I'm the only one who counts, then who is there to give me a reason to ask the question?
not bad, but why the need in the first place?> Surly man is a beast, and can continue as a beast, just as any other beast.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Of course animals do. Cooperation is evidence of agreement. Agreement on a common goal/purpose.

It's all over the animal kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8361
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

I'm thinkin' 'cooperation' among bioautomota is different than the agreements crafted by men.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re:

Post by Logik »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:18 am I'm thinkin' 'cooperation' among bioautomota is different than the agreements crafted by men.
Different in what way? Contracts among men are mostly about the proper conduct between parties WHILE cooperating.

Besides, most men who haven't yet claimed their own free will are nothing more than bioautomata. Doing things on autopilot for reasons they don't understand.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8361
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Different in what way? Contracts among men are mostly about the proper conduct between parties WHILE cooperating."

C'mon, L: ain't no way you're gonna get me to believe you believe there's no difference between (for example) members of a wolf pack 'cooperating' (just instinct) and men arriving at volitional agreement (an exercise of reason).

#

"Besides, most men who haven't yet claimed their own free will are nothing more than bioautomata. Doing things on autopilot for reasons they don't understand."

No one 'claims' free will...you are one...choose to go against the grain or with the grain: you still choose (courage or cowardice).
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re:

Post by Logik »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:12 pm C'mon, L: ain't no way you're gonna get me to believe you believe there's no difference between (for example) members of a wolf pack 'cooperating' (just instinct) and men arriving at volitional agreement (an exercise of reason).
Any difference is immaterial in practice. Cooperation towards a common goal is the end result.

The transnational stuff in between is just uninteresting details.
henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:12 pm No one 'claims' free will...you are one...choose to go against the grain or with the grain: you still choose (courage or cowardice).
Till you learn to think for yourself you sure don't ACT like a free will. You react to your instincts, more than act any actual decisions.

Surely you are familar with the psychological phenomena of groupthink/conformity/bandwagon effect, bystander effect etc. etc. etc.

Individuals behave differently in groups.
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin »

Logik wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:40 pm
DPMartin wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Of course animals do. Cooperation is evidence of agreement. Agreement on a common goal/purpose.

It's all over the animal kingdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality
the mutual destruction or ability to cause each other harm is not an agreement. and dominance by force over the weaker is also not an agreement. to give life and protect the life that is of one's own life is not an agreement, its the nature of the flesh to procreate and continue species.

animals don't create agreements, negotiate terms, and hold participants to the trems.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Logik »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:14 pm the mutual destruction or ability to cause each other harm is not an agreement. and dominance by force over the weaker is also not an agreement. to give life and protect the life that is of one's own life is not an agreement, its the nature of the flesh to procreate and continue species.
You over-state the problem leading me to think you are overly cynical. That which you point out is the exception, not the norm.
Majority of people are perfectly happy to NOT dominate each other and interact with each other at the threat of force.

Murder is on a continuous downward trend: https://ourworldindata.org/homicides
Child abuse is on a downward trend: https://ourworldindata.org/violence-aga ... r-children
The mortality caused by war is negligible (bar for the world wars in the last 100 years): https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Cooperation is the norm. As is clearly indicated by continued, exponential economic growth.

https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:14 pm animals don't create agreements, negotiate terms, and hold participants to the trems.
Chimpanzees do. They retaliate when they have been wronged e.g when the no-harm agreement is breached.

There is plenty other evidence that animals adhere to some moral code or another towards achieving social homeostasis.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8361
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"The transnational stuff in between is just uninteresting details."

'transnational' or 'transactional'?

If you mean 'transactional', then I can't disagree more.

#

"Till you learn to think for yourself you sure don't ACT like a free will. You react to your instincts, more than act any actual decisions."

Again: choosing to go along is still a choice, still an exercise of one's self. Simply: the coward chooses cowardice.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

That title is a disgrace.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:37 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm Sorry if this blows your bubble.
It shouldn't. It depends on a very straightforward fallacy.

It's the same as the old joke about the girl who goes to her doctor, and says, "Doc, every time I drink tea, my right eye hurts."
The doctor says, "Take the spoon out of the cup."

Just because two things coincide does not mean one is the source or cause of the other. There are actually three possibilities:

1. That Egyptians created the later stories of the Israelites. (Your theory, basically.)

2. That the Israelites influenced the Egyptians, and thus shaped the Egyptian stories. (Possible if the Egyptian stories morphed after the captivity.)

3. That a third, common source created both -- the truth. But one got it more right than others. (I'll go with this one.)

This is just like the joke: it wasn't the tea that was the cause of the pain, even though it was quite true to say that the pain always came with the tea. It was the spoon that did it. The joke is an illustration of the axiom "coincidence is not causality."

And what would that common root of truth be? It would be the truth known in common to all mankind, and diffused among various cultures. Not just the previous historical truth only, but also the truth written in human conscience and by revelation. Both the Israelite and the Egyptian stories would reflect elements of truth (but one more than the other, which is quite to be expected, since two cultures have never had exactly the same proportions of truth in them since the dawn of time).

You'll be interested to know that the Chinese also have many overt elements of Biblical story (including the sacrifice principle) encoded in their ancient writings. Does this mean the Chinese wrote the Bible? No. More likely it means that both the Israelites and the early Chinese scribes were responding to a third, common source: the facts, the revealed truth.
Oh God, I hold the third option. ...with the exception that who were "Jews" then were more likely the generic non-settled, transient, rejects of many societies. The Assyrians were the people who went into Egypt at the beginning of that last kingdom and was the explanation of why the Northern Africans weren't of the older racial and cultural lines. Most of the stories ARE generic of many different groups as the Bible was likely just a collection of what they all thought they new. It was also not likely a religion and as I believe I've mentioned and very secular in interpretation, not how we impose them to be by either the religious who DO NOT WELCOME this fact and to the non-religious who would rather not speculate. I AM speculating here but they are appropriate connections. There are too many coincidental links.

LINGUISTICS has it own evolutionary 'DNA' and is culturally/environmentally mutated by the same processes. But unlike DNA, it is more easier for 'winning' societies to annihilate the history AND WE STILL do! Your mistake is more likely that you don't like to hear it.

Adam and Eve was a human-caricature used precisely to aid in the memory (writing, paper, magnetic recording tape, etc, did not exist as they do today). The story was about asking the particular question of how mankind had come to rule the planet intellectually over all other creatures, how and why we are CURSED to struggle with coinciding other factors involved. ...like how the 'Adam's rib' was used to make women. ??!! That's highly likely a post-edit to hide that this "BONE" was the male penis. Why and how would the initial people evolved to have different sexes, for instance was Nature's (now God's) way of our 'cause', whatever that may be.

I assure you that I know that people borrowed from each other just and mutations, like how the 'J' and 'i' got mixed up FROM different interpretations of WRITTEN works represented the accidental separation of original pronunciation.

My purpose for listing some of those words were because the person responding to me was using language that tells me (s)he is not cognitive of how his/her religious language had derived from. I can present an even stronger set of words used in scriptures, expand them to show they are able to be interpreted SECULARLY. Temples also were not actual places of worship they came later to connote.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers »

DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:20 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Ab(ba) ra ohem == father who sees (over) them......the Aten, originally from Egypt, the original 'promised land'.

Ra == the where we get "ray" from as well as "are" etc. The "Ra" , from Egypt again, was the rays of the sun and likely got its name from the mimicking of the lion's roar.

Ja-cob == "I cobble" (I walk and/or stumble), originally from the Achille's heal story or another earlier source than both of them.
God == "good" (a shorthand assignment for the source cause assumed to have favor for us, and thus, we saw that it was "good"

Elohem == El- ohem == "the them", the general sources collectively or plural of a collection of all people's different beliefs about sources, including possibly ancestors.

El == the, or it, or she (feminine concept means the feel versus adam, which represented mankind or men in context [now Al or el, la, il, le, or il]

Is-ra-el == I or we saw, felt, or knew him. When Egypt's last dynasties fell the remnants of the Akenaten (akin or same as the best or perfect one [aten] as the sun's shape in the heavens).

Eve == follows, that which follows in time, space or number, Where Adam represents the earthly solids that are less perfect, Aten was "the one" perfect thing and source, and Eve was all that follows after one. Note "Oden" from the Norse (north) mythology is Aten. From 'eve' we get the following: evening, ever, and even ...versus (g)od(d) or (g)oden

I could go on but thought to throw this at you given you appear to be a believer who doesn't know the secular source meanings. The bible was a secular collection of the various peoples (tribes) and had derived originally from Akenaten's reign. The whole people were a takeover of Assyrians, who represent the original Jews (or 'wanders'...those not settled or denied a place to settle by "lords", land owners.

Sorry if this blows your bubble.
nope no bubbles secular views are that, secular, and have nothing to do with what is understood as the bible or the intent of what was documented therein. you don't believe it fine, but that doesn't make one an expert at what you're not familiar with. only in looking for or spotting alternatives. besides I wasn't the one who mentioned Isaac and the offering of his life. FYI most of what you've posted sounds like hogwash anyway.

for example:
Jacob son of Isaac named Israel is much older than Greek history or mythology or culture. you should get you're miss information straight.
Are you suggesting that what you NOW interpret religiously couldn't possibly have been affected by politics as we see happening all the time? When one people take over another in war, they do what they can to destroy any remnants of past that grants the last peoples reason to compensation for its theft. The bible was a cannonized collection of different works and to understand what was meant, you have to go back and put yourself in their shoes. Your religious beliefs interfere with your will to look.

"Jesus" == "I am" == French's "je suis";

The "j' is actually FROM the Greek language reinterpreting aramaic, and certain practices that evolved a distinction between capitalizing versus small letters. The "J" was actually a legal 'hook' to indicate a financial transaction, like a check when we place lines before and/or after to prevent others from turning $10 into $100 or $1010, for examples.

"Jesus Christ" was a general shorthand way of referencing those who preached soap box style to the poor, telling them that they TOO are as 'equal' in significance to the emperor.

But I'll stick to this. The thread is about agreements and my two cents is only to mention the point about HOW and WHY we used what appears like cruel measures in the past to formalize agreement between two or more parties. Though it may be odd to you or others, the ancients were neither stupid NOR beholden under the curse of some actual magical world of literal Gods. And the original works had to be relatively NEUTRAL and inclusive in an area that was relatively multicultural. The story also addresses the stories in a forcefully cohesive way to hide the original distinctions of the different peoples and sources. Egypt WAS the promised land but when fallen had its last post at the temple of the 'divide' [ie David] where the last of those who honored the sun as a true perfect source of all, the 'sol amen' [ie Solomon] There are too many coinciding factors and hints at a lot of northern influence from a prior era as we would spread out of African and back in like tides.

The Temples were literally from "temporal" meets of the tribes AS they were transitioning to settled land. They needed a means to officiate "idols", which were literal tribal formal signatures to prove the tribes or individual of them to lands they only used to meet up seasonally to sow and harvest prior to land claims. These were places used of priests that were mere official representatives in the way we have the United Nations conventions.

You're welcome to NOW disagree to what was real in its day. But the original foundation of religion was the past's secular means of civilizing from a transient lifestyle to the settled ones. And in times when people DID begin to turn it into the religious interpretations with unusual extremes, new leaders, like Akhen-aten, a 'moses' (==leader) would also attempt to destroy the old interpretations that devolved into the stupid people's minds, that often become extremists justification to act bad in times of environmental upheavals, like the plagues, that first caused threats to whole farm lands, as the Irish potato famine in more recent times had occurred....due to not understanding a need to diversify crops, for instance.

We need agreements only conditionally if we want settled society to be civil. Unfortunately, those who want to conserve their power of 'own'-ership and greed for accumulation, they tend towards a more authoritative non-negotiable means of 'settling' things. And they then start thinking, "why" do we need agreements? If Nature (or the Go(o)d Nature) has granted ME such fortune but I have no justification to prove I actually earned it indifferent to a thief -- then you/we might tend to prefer an 'anarchic' non-democratic system that prevents power to the masses, keeps them in desperation and weak, and act to serve and keep the kings on their thrones. ....kinda how that "Je suis christos" claimed to try to serve the poor by empowering them as a collective. (Jesus Christ == short for "I am anointed a Caesar" or "I am as equal as the kings or powerful" by Nature (God) alone.
Post Reply