GeorgeW

Both. There is way too much violence and the risk is exaggerated. We also tend to have a wild-west mind set. An example of our mindset is the 'stand-your-ground' law is some states. These essentially say that one has no obligation to avoid danger. If threatened, one can 'legally stand their ground' and kill the person threatening them. This is an issue in a recent incident in Florida in which a self-appointed vigilante stalked an unarmed stranger (an African-American teenager) in his neighborhood, then was involved in a confrontation and shot the teenager and killed him. He is claiming a 'stand-your-ground' defense. George

Yes. George

A few years ago, the chance of someone being killed accidentally by a gun in the home was 22 times more likely than it being used to save a life. I don't know what the statistics are currently. I know that incidents do occur in which a family is threatened in their home. But, in all my years of life and that of my parents and siblings, this has never occurred to any of us nor any of my close friends. So, I would say the odds are pretty good. And, the presence of a gun would not guarantee our safety. But, if you and others get a sense of safely with a gun at home, I would accept it with good licensing and background checking procedures. The Aurora kid was bright enough and diabolical and sick enough to have devised other means of mass murder. But, in cases of disturbed teenagers (like Columbine) it would be less likely. In any event, I don't think we should make WMD easily available because someone might devise something else to use. IMO, we should make it as difficult as possible. George

John, Welcome. George

Joseph, I differ with you on this issue. I don't think doing something about gun deaths precludes dealing with auto deaths. We deal with both cancer and heart disease at the same time. And, I would revise the slogan you quoted to say, 'guns don't kill people, people with guns do.' I see no plausible legal or moral right for people to own assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. I see no legal or moral impediment to licensing gun ownership and require background checks, maybe psychological testing, demonstration of knowledge about gun safety, etc. George

I am not familiar with these books. Sorry. George

Nino, First, it would be helpful if you introduced yourself in the section titled (appropriately) "Introduce Yourself." As to your point, I don't think one must accept everything that we think Jesus believed in order to identify as a Christian and participate in a church community. However, like you, I abstain from certain practices like taking communion because it may misrepresent my personal beliefs (or doubts). The pastor (also a friend) asked me about this several years ago. I explained and it has never been an issue. But, I have no objection to those who do. George

There is no doubt in my mind that this guy had mental problems whether officially registered or not. I don't think sane, sober people go into a theatre and begin shooting strangers including children. Also, I would expect that a number of people firing weapons in a dark theatre would have resulted in more, not fewer deaths. The scene, from what I have heard, was one of chaos and that was with one shooter. George

Too many damn guns easily available to people with mental problems. George

I don't think either of these are relevant to the issue. There was no concept of gay marriage at the time as an alternative to heterosexual marriage and, although I know almost nothing about eunuch-ism, it is my impression that they were asexual, not homosexual. I think the most we can say about Jesus is that same-sex relations were not a serious concern of his; He had no concept of sexual orientation; And, he did have a high tolerance for those who were socially ostracised. George

Myron, good point. This is a much more nuanced issue than it may have been in the past although Spinoza in the 17th century, may have been close to a 'modern' Ground of Being idea (if I understand either one correctly). George

I think that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Christian is a Christian. This would almost certainly entail a theology or philosophy that centers on Jesus and recognition of the Bible as the primary religious text. I don't think an analogy with Judaism is useful. Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. People can not only be atheists but anti-religious as well and remain Jewish. And, the ethnicity has a genetic basis. This is not the case for Christians. Some years ago, I had a friend (a professor of Hebrew) who was Israeli, Jewish (genetically) and an atheist. She was active in a synagogue primarily for social reasons and for maintaining her culture. She practiced certain aspects of Judaism but based on a cultural motivation, not religious. She had respect for the Tanakh, but as historic Jewish writings, not divine revelation. Her identity was strongly Jewish which she supported through religious practices and synagogue involvement. George

Yvonne, I don't disagree with what you say. I guess when I wrote about "a church," I meant it in the broader sense to include the membership. I think there can be benefits from community, but not if that community is as you describe "elitist, homophobic, misogynistic." I certainly would not want to be associated with that kind of group. George

I generally agree with this, but finding 100% compatibility may not be possible without just accepting the doctrine of a particular church. And, I would not advocate that. But, to set the bar too high may preclude the benefits of community. I think as long as there are positive aspects of the church and nothing objectionable (like racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism, etc.), it would be acceptable. Obviously, the more positive aspects the better. George

I would like to think that the mind goes on indefinitely (i.e. the soul), but my inclination is the eyeball analogy. I think the mind is a function of the electrical impulses that go on in the brain. When the brain dies, I suspect the mind does as well. But, I wouldn't pretend to propose this as the answer. George

Eclectic, Welcome. I hope you will join in and contribute to the discussions here. George

Trust, I have been gone a couple of weeks and see that this conversation continues on. Without taking the time to review all the seven pages and 125 posts, have you defined "natural evil" and "moral evil?" If so, can you point to the post. If not, I would appreciate your definition without which it is hard to agree or disagree. George

Paul, I know this must be a stressful time. I hope that things work out even for the better - this is often the case in these situations. It seems that you have a positive attitude which will help immensely. George

These are, as you suggest, overlapping but somewhat different things. I think the soul is more a religious construct in that it has eternal life where the idea of the mind may or may not depending on the theology of the person. The mind, I think, as someone has already suggested, is related to sentience and self awareness. As a result, it feels like something separate and independent of the physical brain. Did it evolve? I can think of no other plausible explanation for its existence. Is it still evolving? IMO, yes genetically as a species and individually as we mature and experience the world. George

Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.' George

To the extent we may be responsible (say through global warming), we should focus attention on that. But, even then, I would not consider these to be evil because there is no intent to do harm. There may be ignorance and there may be knowledge but with other priorities. George

Myron, I don't disagree with this except for many instances of 'natural evil' (which, again, I don't consider to be evil). Human responsibility for tornadoes is highly indirect (if there is any at all) and difficult to ascertain. I do consider ethnic cleansing to be evil and responsibility can be determined. In discussing evil, I think we should define what we consider to be evil (which I have done earlier). Otherwise the conversation keeps going in circles. George

Malevolent would be the intention to do harm to another living being. Who determines? It depends. George

Are these things "evil?" Not in my opinion stated in #6 above, "I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist. George

We perceive extremes of color, of behavior, of whatever. It is within our perception that we see blacks, whites and greys. The only way we understand the world is through our perceptions. If we were to exclude everything that is perceptual from description, we would be unable to communicate. We could argue all day about whether my black shoes are really truly black. But, for purposes of communication, it is useful just to operate on the basis that they are black. George