Pyrotex Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 ...I stated that there are not 2 contradictions in the entire 1097 pages of the book. I stand by that statement.The Urantia papers are "internally consistent".....Okay, folks, stand tight. There's a Moderator on deck. I will be monitoring all posts for the foreseeable future for violations of Hypography rules, and departures from nominal courtesy. I want you guys to get these points: 1. You guys are playing in a "theology" sandbox. By its very nature, theology is primarily a rhetorical exercise, an exercise in word-games. The chief word game involved is either "my scripture is perfect" or "my scripture is better than your scripture". The only way to "win" is to be the last one standing. 2. "Internal Consistency" is the booby prize of logic and reason. It is trivial to compose massive tomes of blathering idiocy that are internally consistent. Several versions of numerology & astrology, just to name two, are internally consistent. 3. The inability or unwillingness to see a point proves nothing. Ignoring a point does NOT make it go away. Pyro the Pernicious ;) :evil: :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 My statement was that the UB does not call for radical selective breeding. Well then why do you supply a quote that says it does? The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. "human methods of adaptation and control" does not necessarily refer to selective breeding. It could refer to embryo selection, for example. Embryo selection *is* selective breeding! "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta." ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 My statement was that the UB does not call for radical selective breeding. Some very limited selective breeding should be safe though. Radical? Limited? You think it advocates something gentle and benign? Wake up and look at what you’re reading: The selective elimination of inferior human strains will tend to eradicate many mortal inequalities. Quit mincing words and figure out these things have consequences. While you are thinking long and hard about the meaning of the word radical - you’ve incidentally supported a book that advocates the elimination of whole strains of the human population. While you stop and consider what “human strain” means people in Rwanda are picking up machetes and making it happen by the millions. "human methods of adaptation and control" does not necessarily refer to selective breeding. It could refer to embryo selection, for example. Yes, I'm sure the book goes on and on about the different ways to impregnate a woman. Wait a minute - what difference is it how it happens: It's still selective breeding! You've completely lost the forest for the trees. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Well then why do you supply a quote that says it does? If you read the quote carefully, you'll note that the "radical program" is the blending of the races and examination of the fitness of all who procreate. The problem is that we don't have competent judges of biologic fitness who are anywhere near as qualified for this task as the Planetary Prince or Adam. However, we should be able to agree on limiting reproduction to some small extent. Can you see the difference between the "radical program", and minimal selective breeding? Embryo selection *is* selective breeding! I was defining selective breeding as refusing to allow certain individuals to reproduce. Embryo selection does not halt reproduction, it merely tailors the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 What I'm still having a hard time understanding is exactly who should be defined as an "inferior human strain." Perhaps the one of the UP experts would be willing to provide some clarification here. If there's inappropriate interbreeding going on here, what are some exapmples that we can identify? This notion of "selective breeding" in the UP still seems very vague. Who needs to be selected against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Radical? Limited? You think it advocates something gentle and benign? Wake up and look at what you’re reading: Quit mincing words and figure out these things have consequences. While you are thinking long and hard about the meaning of the word radical - you’ve incidentally supported a book that advocates the elimination of whole strains of the human population. While you stop and consider what “human strain” means people in Rwanda are picking up machetes and making it happen by the millions. Yes, I'm sure the book goes on and on about the different ways to impregnate a woman. Wait a minute - what difference is it how it happens: It's still selective breeding! You've completely lost the forest for the trees. ~modest See my explanation of the meaning of a "radical breeding program" in my previous post. As for selective breeding of any kind, can you honestly say that everyone on this planet is capable of parenthood? Should everyone who wants to be allowed to have children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 As for selective breeding of any kind, can you honestly say that everyone on this planet is capable of parenthood? Should everyone who wants to be allowed to have children? YES! It is an individual right. Who do you think is qualified to determine who is allowed to have children? You, maybe? What the hell are you advocating here? Think about what your saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 What I'm still having a hard time understanding is exactly who should be defined as an "inferior human strain." Perhaps the one of the UP experts would be willing to provide some clarification here. If there's inappropriate interbreeding going on here, what are some exapmples that we can identify? This notion of "selective breeding" in the UP still seems very vague. Who needs to be selected against? It isn't defined precisely...that's something we have to decide for ourselves. I would start by refusing reproductive rights to the mentally retarded and the criminally insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 That's ludicrous. That passage about free will starts with a false premise: We can not have freewill if we know the possible retribution of our actions. It seems that you are applying this to the "science" of the UB. So are you saying that the science is implicity hidden from us, or that it is wrong to trick us? This reminds me of a typical Christian reply to a questioning of god: "God is testing your faith" God wants us to choose his way, not compel us to love him. We are out of the territory of science with this sort of discussion...perhaps this site would be better off without a Theology forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 can you honestly say that everyone on this planet is capable of parenthood? Should everyone who wants to be allowed to have children? YES! I might not agree with how some parents treat/raise their children, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell them not to reproduce. I seriously doubt that omniscient celestial beings would be so inclined as well. This is futher evidence that the UB was written by humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 It isn't defined precisely...that's something we have to decide for ourselves. I would start by refusing reproductive rights to the mentally retarded and the criminally insane. Again, that'a pretty broad brush. What is mentally retarded mean to you? Or how about criminally insane? What are the measurements to make these kinds of determinations? Who makes them, President Bush maybe? I mean, he already has the power to determine who is an "enemy combatant." Do you see the trap you are setting up for yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 What I'm still having a hard time understanding is exactly who should be defined as an "inferior human strain." Perhaps the one of the UP experts would be willing to provide some clarification here. If there's inappropriate interbreeding going on here, what are some exapmples that we can identify? This notion of "selective breeding" in the UP still seems very vague. Who needs to be selected against? It's complicated. There were originally 6 races that evolved on earth. Some were more intelligent than others some were physically stronger. It talks in length about how they interacted and what not for some half a million years. I haven't gotten too deep into it and what I have read is factually wrong. The story turns on Adam and Eve coming to earth with special super racial qualities. Their job is to have kids that will mate with the best races of earth thereby creating a better overall population. It's eugenics - the whole theme is eugenics. The eugenics plan doesn't go quire right and is prematurely halted. Adam and Eve are white and they mostly bred with the white people on earth. The implication clearly is that white people are superior though I haven't seen that explicitly stated. However 1 + 1 = 2, so by implication that's what it's saying. But, like any religious texts it's complicated and open to interpretation. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I would start by refusing reproductive rights to the mentally retarded and the criminally insane. I would start with UB believers. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 YES! It is an individual right. Who do you think is qualified to determine who is allowed to have children? You, maybe? What the hell are you advocating here? Think about what your saying. Can't we agree on some minimal standards? Why should children have to suffer because some crack-whore who can't keep her legs closed wants to have her 14th kid? Drug mother has all 14 children taken into care - Times Online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 YES! I might not agree with how some parents treat/raise their children, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell them not to reproduce. I seriously doubt that omniscient celestial beings would be so inclined as well. This is futher evidence that the UB was written by humans. So a crack whore who has had 9 kids with fetal alcohol syndrome should not be stopped from having more?;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 perhaps this site would be better off without a Theology forum. Many of us feel that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Can't we agree on some minimal standards? Why should children have to suffer because some crack-whore who can't keep her legs closed wants to have her 14th kid? Drug mother has all 14 children taken into care - Times Online It's an enormous can of worms, Cali. A crack whore is an easy appeal, but boy that opens the door to to a whole lot of other unsavory situations that I'm sure someone will think needs to be regulated as well. What if instead of being a "crack whore," she's just a pot smoker. Is there a decernable legal difference here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts