The Mass Extinction is YOUR Fault...

[OULobo]

my response... The structure of time in which man invented is his attempt to control and measure a dimension in the universe. That measure is bound here according to our perimeters that we operate in. Man did not invent time but a system to measure time. We try to control events and actions by using time. Time is not constant in the universe. Time exists in the universe but it is not constant. An example: say you have two bars. There is a laser dot that bounces off the two bars. One bar is directly above the other. The light will bounce off the bar every second. The laser dot travels up and down every time that it travels between the bars is a second. Now start moving the bars faster and faster in a forward direction. No longer does the light beam travel straight, it starts to appear as if moving at an angle. It has to cover more space to ping off of the bars. The measure of time here on earth and that of the moving bars is different. The measure of time is mathematically dependent on other variables. Another example is the speed of light and recording time over the distance and the space that is created between the two bars.

You're debating relative theory and perspective. This boils down to unproven theory and semantics.

My response was that plants and animals are constantly developing and evolving to adapt to the changes in the environment. At times it might occur during the organisms life spain in others it might take thousands of our years. The factor that I am also stating is that time is only relative. True it might be unfair for a creature or organism to experience a rapid change that will not let it adapt to the environment. The stress could of been caused by man. How do we not know that was the intention. (joke) The point being made is that there is the potential to change due to environment. It is a natural process. If the organism can change or adapt in time is another topic.

Again, unlike modern man, all the "adaptations" of the rest of the earth's creatures are done by random natural mutation, not choice. While our intelligence is a mutation, it is also one that is vastly different from all other natural mutations and so defines us as unnatural, due to our ability to resist instinct, adapt extraordinarily quickly (ie by choice) and have free will. This is not a temporal issue, although it can be defined easier as such. It is a matter of choice verses random mutation. We choose to change our selves (mutate?), instead of waiting for a fortunate random mutation as the rest of the creatures on the earth.

my response..... I should of explained a little better. The point that I was trying to is to show that seed, plants and other organism do change, not to make themselves for more nutritional for man but to aid in its survival. Change to exist with new predators or changes being implemented. The point is the natural process of change. I wanted to try to keep mans interference from tapering with the environment so that we can view the human nature of change. I still do not think that I am properly explaining myself. For that I do apologize.

They don't choose to change. They mutate and then fit better into their envirionment or they perish if the mutation is not beneficial. Again man propagates species that are unnatural in that they wouldn't exist if not for us (ie seedless grapes, hybids, ect). This is illustrated even more when we examine species that we did not only pluck from the natural order and propagate, but actually create, using the building blocks of nature (genetic engineering). We destroy the naturally well adapted species and for our own purposes, propagate other unnatural species, in the interest, not of survival, but of comfort.

My point is "societal" is part of human nature. It is part of our human nature to be social creatures. Being social creatures creating societies. Now these societies do have stresses and norms that are created.

I again disagree. The opposite of societal is solitary, and there are many people that choose to be so. Even so all societies are unique and breed different combinations of traits. None of those traits are universal to the human race, so by definition they cannot be "human nature". Besides this, being societal is again often a natural instinct of many animals, not a chosen trait or trait that is only human. Moreover, often humans use free will to deny this trait. Again it is a choice.

In my opinion you are only listing the dark side of human tendencies. The motives are only extensions and derivatives of the core of what human nature is and breeds. That is why I stated too many letters ago that we are capable of such good as well as evil.

I agree some of those were negative, although they jury is still out on the clothing issue, but regardless they are still learned traits. The statement I made could be applied just the same to any positive trait, like compassion, generosity, sympathy, ect.

One side note: I have never meet my Great Grandfather. Although people that knew him told me that not only do I look exactly like him but my tendencies are the same as well. I feel that there is a combination of tendencies that we inherit. These tendencies are reinforced or can be ignored due to our upbringing. I can change because I choose to? That is what it is (in my opinion) to be Human? That core is human nature. I know you do not think it is nor will ever be persuaded. That's cool, again we disagree on fundamentals.

It's not that I can't be persuaded, I was infact pursuaded into this mind set to begin with. It's just that I haven't been shown sufficient evidence or change my opinion back.

My point exactly. Today man has again pushed the limits or boundaries that had confined him. It is in his human nature. If we did not, we might be living in the stone age not having the quality of life we have day. We would be more prone to be wiped out by occurrences that do not inflect as much damage as they do today. I am also a believer in just because we can do something does not mean we should. The results of our unnatural creations (in my opinion) do not lessen the fact that we have a human nature. It is that potential (nature) that makes us human to change and control our environment. Even creating unnatural things.

It's not human nature to push our limits. It is the learned nature of some humans. There are tribes today that exist (in New Guinea) that never learned to form metal, never ventured out of their area, that are essentially still in the stone age. This society never chose to push its bounds and so it is the proof against that trait being human nature. These people are quite happy without the modern quality of life and often reject the trappings of modern man after the initial shock of something new wears off.

I was referring to his "Death of God" and "Superman" theories. Did he go nuts, yeah. Think it was the stress of living with all those sisters????? But there is a hint of prediction of human nature in those writings. His philosophy was used and twisted by the Nazi's. He died I believe a good 40 some years before the Nazi party was formulated. It is like saying that the Hindus that still have the swastika in their homes are Nazi's. (just my opinion)

I know, it was a joke, he pre-empted the Nazi regime, but he was quite unstable for all of his life and his theories and philosophies are the epitome of egocentricity.

That is human nature. It is human nature to be social to form groups to progress and change. Now those changes define that group.

Again social behavior is a natural/instictual characheristic and it is also arguable that, in humans, it is a learned behavior. Either way human can choose to deny to live in society.

An example of this in nature :
Look at the same species of monkeys in either Africa or Japan. They are divided by geography and have different norms by which the community operates. They are the same species. They have some of the same qualities and habits but their behaviors and motivations are different. They are formed by the environment? Some of it yes, but at the heart it is the nature of the creature to change and progress and also forming social groups. To learn and change from advances made by members of that social group.

This can't be an example of human nature as human nature is supposed to be unique to humans. This is an example of instinctual behaviour tempered by environmental interaction.

You know what am going to say.... He breaks those natural limitations because it is in his nature to do so.

Not always, as shown in certain primitive tribes, and so it is the disprover that this is an example of human nature.

Yes Free will, "This is the thing that makes us different, free from instinct, unnatural"

That is why I put the example of the proverbial Garden of Eden and us not being there anymore. The greatest thing (in my opinion) about being human is Free Will. That is part of Human Nature. We all have it.

Here we have an agreement. In my opinion, if human nature exists, it has only one component, Free Will. In such an occurance, why bother calling it human nature, which implies less control, and just call it choice.

I think that we can agree that the processes we see we define as a natural process. The nature of an organism is what we do not agree on if it is unnatural or natural.

Just one organism, humans.

The Judeo-Christian would state that the world was made for us and we were to subdue it and dominate it. I believe it is in Chapter 1 and 2 in Genesis. God created the world and then Man (after his own image). I have no problem living harmoniously with nature. I believe that all life is precious and essential. That man has a great responsibility and I can agree with you that he does not regard or understand the matters at hand. That being stated, I do not believe that a type of bird or butterfly has greater importance than man. With that I also do not condone wanton destruction of a species or nature at the whim of an individual.

Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator.
[/QUOTE]

I still hold that humans are unnatural in that we exhibit free will and intelligence; intelligence to adapt by choice instead of by random mutation and free will in our ability to deny instinct and natural characteristics and tendancies.

I will say that I can change my opinion to one of two things;

-Human nature can be described as the list of natural/instictual characteristics common to humans, though this definition is easily broken by the use of free will, and again I refuse to include things like passion, jealousy, greed, sympathy, ect. Essentially, I refute that virtue and sin are part of the natural/instinctual part of human mentality and instead say they are learned traits of some common societies, and manifestations of an individuals choices and actions, as such are not part of the universal human psyche.

-Human nature has only one ingredient, free will. This is the only trait universal to all humans as a species.

Either way the actions of corporations that destroy the environment are products of greed and are not part of human nature. I believe that if they made the choice to overcome the learned behaviors of greed, they and the rest of the world would be able to abide by a lifestyle that allows living in concentual custodial cooperation with nature. Turning all the innovation and intelligence toward finding solutions and progress that allow the tangental and incorporated growth of nature within our societies is the key to stopping the excessive and unnatural extinction of further species.

Turning all that back to the original topic was a bit of a rabbit from the hat wouldn't you say?

 

[Bushigokoro9]

Have not had time to read your reply thoroughly. Will do when more time allows. Wanted to mention if you caught the Ben & Teller show. They discussed some of what we have been bantering about. The show "********" on Showtime. Saw some rabbits!!!!!!!

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro

 

[Bushigokoro9]

sorry for the back to back posts but wanted to respond to at least one section of your reply at this time.

"Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator."


In Genesis, Chapter One verse 26 through Chapter two.

26. Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

(Footnote: Man is presented here as the climax of God’s creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation)

27. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

28. God blessed them, saying “ Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”

29. God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

30. and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

31. God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed – the sixth day.


If you are referring to the verse in Chapter two????:

15. The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

This is in reference to the Garden not the world. What is in the garden?

The tree of knowledge and the tree of life among other things.

Chapter Three, verse 22.

22 Then the Lord God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take the fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

After this man is banished from the garden. He is to exist in the world no longer in comfort from the garden of Eden.

There is a difference between the garden and the rest of God's creation (referring to the world).



Best Regards,
Bushigokoro

 

[OULobo]

sorry for the back to back posts but wanted to respond to at least one section of your reply at this time.

"Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator."


In Genesis, Chapter One verse 26 through Chapter two.

26. Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

(Footnote: Man is presented here as the climax of God’s creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation)

27. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

28. God blessed them, saying “ Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”

29. God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

30. and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

31. God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed – the sixth day.


Best Regards,
Bushigokoro

I am mistaken in my statement. You are correct about the biblical quote although in the Douay-Rheims Version it is ch1 : 26-31. While this is the word of the book I have yet to meet a priest that agrees with the meaning that you draw from the wording. My intention was and statement should have that my religion doesn't view it that way.

 

[Bushigokoro9]

Had to edit reply.

wording came from "The New American Bible"

Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources.

Approved by

The Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference.

Have a great weekend! Gotta go, the wife is calling.

Bushigokoro

 

[Bushigokoro9]

On the Creation, Nature and Fall of man. Cut and pasted from EWTN website.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...mp;ampTest=1&remove_url=http://www.ewtn.com%2

If you have time to read? Being Catholic myself, the Roman Catholic view of the Creation of Man, Human Nature and the Fall of Man. Please note that I did not include the entire Q and A but (as stated above) cut and paste what I thought might best describe my views and ideals.




3. Why did God make us?



(c) The happiness of heaven consists in the direct vision, love, and enjoyment of God. This reward so far exceeds man's nature that without the supernatural help of God it could not possibly be attained. In heaven God gives us the light of glory, which enables us to see Him face to face. During our life on earth God gives us His grace, which enables us to live a supernatural life and to perform the actions that can earn this reward.



48. What is man?



Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

(a) The soul and the body are not loosely connected parts of man, they are united in a substantial union to form one complete human nature. The soul is not located in any particular member of the body but is whole and entire in each part.



49. Is this likeness to God in the body or in the soul?



This likeness to God is chiefly in the soul.

(a) All creatures bear some resemblance to God inasmuch as they exist. Plants and animals resemble Him insofar as they have life, but none of these creatures is made to the image and likeness of God. Plants and animals do not have a rational soul, such as man has, by which they might know and love God.



50. How is the soul like God?



The soul is like God because it is a spirit having understanding and free will, and is destined to live forever.

(a) Men are especially like God when they know and love Him:

first, in a merely natural way without the aid of grace;
second, in a supernatural way here on earth, with the aid of grace;
third, in a perfect way in heaven, with the aid of the special] light God gives to the souls of the blessed.

(b) Understanding is the power of the soul to apprehend, to judge, and to reason, and thus to know right and wrong.

(c) Conscience is that judgment by which we decide here and now what we should do as good or avoid as evil.

(d) Free will is that power of the soul to choose either to act or not to act.

(e) Human souls live forever because they are spirits.

(f) The never-ending life of the soul is called immortality.



52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?



The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.

(a) Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift which is a sharing in the nature of God Himself and which raises men to the supernatural order, conferring on them powers entirely above those proper to human nature.

(b) Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.


53. What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?



The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

(a) These gifts are not supernatural or above all created natures, but they are preternatural, that is, beyond the powers of human nature, though not above all created natures.

(b) If Adam had not sinned, these gifts would have been transmitted to all men as the possession of human nature.



60. What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin?



The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

(a) The fact of original sin explains why man is so often tempted to evil and why he so easily turns from God.

(b) Because of the ignorance resulting from original sin, the mind of man has difficulty in knowing many necessary truths, easily falls into error, and is more inclined to consider temporal than eternal things.

(c) The penalties of original sin--death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin--remain after Baptism, even though original sin is taken away.

(d) Although we have a strong inclination to evil as a result of original sin, our nature is not evil in itself; it can perform some good actions in the natural order without the aid of grace.


Just another view point that human nature exists. I tend to agree with them.

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro

 

[OULobo]

I was raised Roman Catholic, and in a twisted sort of way I am still Catholic, but I have never taken the words of the Vatican or the Church in general as fact. This doen't mean I discount them, just that I don't take them on faith. While stating their opinon is both interesting and a little enlightening and I thank you for the information, it isn't the best method to convince me personally. Without getting into a full theological discussion, I don't think that the bible is to be taken literally. It is in tone and substance a sybolic book and in so being, needs a degree of translation and interpretation. There in lies the problem of opinion. Overlooking the difficulties of translation of dead languages, transposition of theory by personal motivation of translators and cultural influence in printed tone, we still have the fundamental problem of artistic interpretation. What I see in picasso is very different from what you see in Picasso. The bible is no different. While the twisted image of a bull in Guernica is generally decernable as a bull to most people, what the bull stands for, or why it is there, is different for everyone who veiws the painting.

 

[Bushigokoro9]

"it isn't the best method to convince me personally"

Not trying to convince or persuade you. If you change your opinion that is your choice based on info that you see relevant. I was just looking for the right way of letting you know my thoughts on human Nature and it's existence. There are three things that I need to say...

First, wanted to apologize one last time for the first email sent. Did not want nor intend to attack you. My post, after re-reading it, gave that impression. For that and any hurt feelings I do apologize.

Second, enjoyed the conversations, I still don't agree with you but you gave me a hint at what your views are.

Third, wanted to thank you. From this conversation I have re-affirmed several ideals and you made me think about stuff that I have not really looked into to. Although we have different opinions and probably always will, I look forward to crossing paths again.

Best of luck and regards
Bushigokoro

 

[OULobo]

Ditto. . . .no hard feelings from the first post and I'm glad it was such a good conversation. Now I just have to convince my fiance' that arguing can be fun.