User Profile: zapparules


Member Since: September 24, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • September 19, 2014 at 12:50pm

    Why do you feel the need to ‘attack’ me for my comment?
    Did I say anything negative about this “Christian artist”?
    I simply posted my evaluation of how/why I think this guys music has gone up the charts.
    I have absolutely no problem with any musician singing about anything he/she/they want to.

    Curious.. Because so many who post here claiming to be ‘true’ Christians so often attack others who also are professing to be “true” Christians – all because their beliefs don’t (exactly) match – which they never can / will – and so… If someone preaches – as you say – and reaches only one – but that one ‘reached’ does not reach the same beliefs as you (want)… Is it still worth the effort?

    So why would you contest that Frank Zappa is irrelevant?
    I am certain he has had a big impact on the music industry, the lives of MANY musicians. Was he irrelevant to them?
    What do you have against Frank Zappa?

  • September 19, 2014 at 10:26am

    Who is Steven Turner? What’s the point of that post?

    But back to our other discussions…
    As I have already noted… You sure do like to ‘dress-up’ your comments.
    Like: “I have juxtaposed your comments to illustrate the logical incoherence of your position.”
    You did what?

    And then I will confess to either being stupid and/or ignorant (and I am sure some here will certainly like to agree to that!) – because you have lost me with terminology like:
    “objective transcendent moral position”
    “the transcendent objectivity of God’s character”
    “ontic referent”
    “concept of a transcendent ontic referent”

    Could you PLEASE perhaps put those comments in terms the avg person could understand?

    And for you to assess YOUR own position that: “my position is logically coherent and practical” well…
    Maybe to you fella

    Are you a professor? A scholar of some sort? Or maybe you stayed at a certain Holiday hotel last evening?

    Frankly. I think you just post like that so as to confuse and cover for your arguments’ shortcomings. But hey. Maybe I’m wrong about that. If I could actually understand what points you were trying to make…

    And it is interesting you brought up the Jim Jones tragedy.
    I and many others would argue that NO – Many of those folks did NOT voluntarily kill themselves. Many of them were children – FORCED to drink the poison by either their (mentally lost) parents or Jones’ staff.

    I will follow up all this again soon.
    Please don’t abandon this discussion

  • [-4] September 19, 2014 at 10:04am

    Good job fellow.
    Congratulations on your success

    Not sure this musician’s success implies anything other than lots of folks like his MUSIC.
    Some do indeed, I am certain, also like whatever message he may be attempting to convey with his music but… My guess is most just simply like the ‘sound’ of his music.
    Such is why I so like Frank Zappa music.

    Far too many seem to focus on Frank’s lyrics – take offense with the words he used but for Frank… It was all about the music – the ‘sound’. (Yes – with some lyrical ‘humor’ tossed in).
    And one of the reason many even did focus on his lyrics was because Frank created music where the lyrics could actually be easily discerned. I recall growing up and listing to many other rock bands and barely understanding what they were singing. I would have to read the lyrics to see what was being sung.
    I often tell folks (about Zappa music)… Don’t focus on the lyrics – focus on the sound that is gotten from singing a particular word of words.

    As Frank put it best…
    Information is not knowledge.
    Knowledge is not wisdom.
    Wisdom is not truth.
    Truth is not beauty.
    Beauty is not love.
    Love is not music.
    Music is THE BEST.

    Responses (4) +
  • [5] September 18, 2014 at 7:16pm

    I too have seen it all now.
    I actually agree with Cruz’s No vote on this matter.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 2:18pm

    If a child is explained that one choice is beneficial to them and the other is harmful… Which choice will an ‘enlightened’ child make? (And as I have already pointed out – like in too many domestic abuse cases, even an adult can have a difficult time choosing ‘harm’ or ‘benefit’ so… I know it is not all cut-n-dry.)

    To me, you seem simply offer the child the choice between A and B – whereas I seek to offer the child the ability to choose between which is ‘good’ – A OR B.

    How do you prove that if god goes away there would be no morals.
    The only thing that goes away if god goes away is god. Morals CAN remain. Morals can be taught without god.
    The discussion needs to be what / how the morals are ‘defined’.
    WHY is something moral or immoral / right or wrong / good or bad – Harmful or beneficial?

    NO. The only thing left is NOT a choice to obey or reject. One needs to be enlightened as to how to decided (yes, accept or reject) – NOT obey – but DECIDE what is ‘right’ and wrong’ and… WHY.

    I believe I have a strong grasp of the difference between god and religion. One can have a god belief and not have religious beliefs.

  • September 18, 2014 at 12:41pm

    ‘Good’ IS good because of… What?
    Because of a god belief – or what one’s god belief tells them what is good.
    It CAN be – but does it have to be?
    I say: No.

    TO ME… Good IS good because it brings ‘benefit’ TO OTHERS. Most certainly NOT just to me – but much more so to others. (Its great when it brings good to me and others – REALLY great when it brings benefit to ALL!)
    And again – Does that benefit somehow REQUIRE a god or god belief?

    Far, FAR too often in my life I have directly witnessed the harm god-belief-supported views have brought upon others. THAT is WHY I am so jaded towards such beliefs. Because far, far too many times those beliefs are USED to justify harm.

    Harm is harm – as interpreted by another – regardless or void of any of god belief.
    WHY can’t ‘good’ stand on the merits of the good itself?
    Why must some TRY and say such must come from something / somewhere else?

    Its like when I receive those emails that tell a great, enlightening ‘story’ – and then, for me, the person somewhat ruins it by adding something like: ‘Pass this along to 10 others and God will bless you’ – or anything like that.
    NO. I don’t need blessed to see the value of passing along something that others might benefit from.
    Let the ‘good’ itself stand on the merits of itself – on the benefit it brings.

    I have no problem if one wants to be of god belief. That is fine. There often IS / CAN BE great, GREAT benefit in that.
    It is just NOT REQUIRED.
    That’s all I say.

  • September 18, 2014 at 12:31pm

    Seems you REQUIRE others to “bear the image of God” so as to warrant your ‘consideration of them.
    I do not hold such a requirement – nor do I think others need to hold such a belief to justify (wanting to) treat others to THEIR benefit.

    SO WHAT IF “we are all just products of time, chance and matter through random processes.”
    Does that mean we can’t or shouldn’t behave towards others in a beneficial (to them – and in turn ourselves) manner?

    Do you truly believe Christ was the first one to think / speak of the golden rule? Even if he was… Does that mean I / others have to accept / hold a god belief to hold such a belief? (No. It does not.) I can teach that ‘rule’ to any child and NOT say who or where it came from.Why does the source matter? All I see too often is MAN corrupting and using such sources to their own benefit. Because then the too often say.. ‘Well HE ALSO SAID we need to this and do it this way or that way – and you can’t do this because he also said this or that.’
    I don’t care WHO said it. All I care is that it defines something I have come to feel is true and dear and near infallible in my heart and mind.

    You say you have often argued that if there is no god, and this life is all that is, why should you want to treat others with any dignity? I believe that is a good ‘argument’ for one to have with oneself.
    But you still have not identified WHY one cannot hold beliefs about ‘all that is good’ WITHOUT a god belief.
    I believe it is possible.

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 12:19pm

    Unacceptable – to me.
    Because MY Ruler of of the universe and MY true force of good says otherwise.

    Such is pointless to discuss such matters with someone who can only base the justification of their beliefs and actions using a: ‘MY god says its so’ argument.
    Especially when I know that within that book (the bible) which you appear to follow so intently / use as your guide tells you OTHER things that you do not do or believe. (You know what those things are – I do not – so don’t ask me to identify them. And you know I am correct on that. NO ONE follows the bible to the letter and/or NO TWO interpret it the same way.)

    The bible justifies ‘harm’ to others. It restricts and limits freedoms and liberties very often without explaining WHY.
    I want to know WHY.
    WHY be intolerant and ‘harmful’ to others who do no harm to you (or others)?
    Identify the harm others are doing to you or others and THEN, for me, one will have justification to limit / restrict / condemn other’s actions. Otherwise… You simply put forth a ‘My god belief is better than your god belief’ position as justification for such harm.

  • September 18, 2014 at 12:07pm

    I just sincerely wanted to know if you had the credentials to question such studies. Sounds like you do.
    Perhaps then – based on your being ‘bonafied’ you might consider reaching out to one or all of those who conducted this study. This story gives you the links to do just that.
    If you – as a researcher yourself – are going to call this study “meaningless’ and, in essence, attack the producers of this report… You might want to show them the respect they probably deserve and confront them directly.
    Here is the email address of one of the authors – Wilhelm Hofmann – at:
    Personally I think you owe it to them to at least see what they say about your comments about their work.
    Would you like if someone attacked your work – questioned its meaning / value? Was there always a ‘purpose’ – slant to your studies? I thought a truly valid study was to be unbiased by such ‘purposes’.

    So you are going to use the circle argument that the bible itself defines its own morality? How does that logic work?
    So what makes our American society the correct or best determiner as to biblical morality?

  • [2] September 18, 2014 at 11:55am

    WHY are you offended by pot smoking and wild naked drinking parties?

    Yes indeed we are taught such things from our parents and others – and that in and of itself is a very deep subject – but what brings it all around for me, I guess, is perhaps this…

    What is the impact of MY actions ON ANOTHER?
    Are my actions harmful or beneficial to another. And very similarly related but perhaps somewhat conversely… How or WHY might the actions of another ‘harm’ or ‘benefit’ me (and others I care about – which should be all others).

    Does someone else smoking pot ‘harm’ you? Directly? Indirectly?
    This can go very deep so… I will try to remain ‘upper level’ so…
    Can you justify ‘asking’ or forcing others to stop smoking pot because of the (supposed) harm you think it is causing you?
    Can you justify asking / forcing others to stop their wild naked drinking parties – based on some harm to you or others?

    I do not seek to condemn you for having the belief that you WANT others to not smoke pot / have wild parties – RATHER – I want to know WHY you seek such. I want to know your ‘justification’ for stopping / limiting the Freedoms and Liberties of others.

    And I am sorry but… When that ‘justification’ comes in the form of: ‘Because my god beliefs tell me it is to be this way’ – well.. I simply cannot accept that. Because as I have pointed out, someone else can just as easily then say; “Well MY god tell me its ok – so…’
    So where does that leave the ‘dispute’?

  • September 18, 2014 at 11:38am

    Let me ask you…
    Is a god belief REQUIRED for one to determine if they have been ‘harmed’ or benefited’?

    The reason I ask is because you seem to be TRYING to justify what is moral based not on a ‘human condition’ belief but rather the having of a god belief. You are trying to justify YOUR morality on a supposed necessary god belief.
    By doing so, one could then justify any ‘type’ of morality – be that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – or more importantly… ‘harmful’ or ‘beneficial’ TO ANOTHER person based on that particular god belief. And so… One could justify harming another because of their god belief.

    That is WHY – to me – whether something is harmful or beneficial TO ANOTHER is what is perhaps MOST determining for me if that ‘act’ is moral or immoral / good or bad / right or wrong.

    It appears to me SLEAZY… That YOUR god beliefs empower you / justify YOUR morality beliefs and such can then justify ‘harm’ to another.

    Perhaps this is why I see things like… Intolerance (and much worse) towards gays, to be such an immoral act – and why I condemn the ‘Because my god tells me its a sin’ argument.
    Identify for me the harm of a same sex love – and remember, such love does NOT have to include physical intimacy – and THEN I may reconsider my position. But until then.. All I see is some USING their god beliefs to justify ‘harm’ to others who they themselves are not harming any one else.

  • [3] September 18, 2014 at 11:27am

    The scrutiny of who?
    Millions would say it does NOT hold up to such scrutiny.
    Sure. It holds up to such for YOU. That gives YOU the justification to believe it.

    My key questions remain…
    WHY is something considered moral or immoral?
    WHY is something considered ‘right’ or ‘wrong’?
    What are the ‘elements’ that go into determining such?

  • [5] September 18, 2014 at 11:23am

    SLEAZYHIPPOs: “True morality begins with the character and essence of who God is, … the only true living God.”

    What is “true” morality?
    Who / what / how / why defines the character and essence of who (their) god is?
    Who / what / how / why defines the “only true living God.”

    A child can be raised – free from ANY reference to any particular god belief – and still be taught ‘morality’. Can still be taught what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. What is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
    The question remains then.. WHAT and HOW are such determinations arrived at?
    WHY is something considered ‘good’? WHY is something considered ‘bad’.
    For me a BIG part of that is… IS there ‘harm’ involved? Is there ‘benefit’ involved. And such is NOT to be determined by ‘me’ but by that person being effected by my actions.
    If I think it is to my benefit to kill another does that make it moral, just, ‘good’?
    NO. Because it is the OTHER person who determines such.

    THAT is why – I believe – one of the most powerful messages is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    You really do present a very ‘dressed up’ argument SLEAZY.
    It is NOT Satan calling into question the character of God. It is MAN!
    ONLY man asks these types of questions.
    ONLY man challenges his own beliefs.
    ONLY man personally and individually interprets what he is presented – by others – about any god – about anything.

    YOUR personal and individual interpretation of god / ALL is how YOU determine such. Just as that is for everyone else.

  • [2] September 18, 2014 at 11:04am

    I am sorry for not being as enlightened as you. Could you please explain your comment: “Without transcendent objectivity there is no right or wrong to your questions.”
    Just what is “transcendent objectivity”?
    And: “ontic referent”
    Again – sorry for my ignorance.
    Are you trying to use such terms to suggest that without a god or god belief right or wrong cannot be identified?

    What assumptions do you believe I am making?

    Just to ask – since I also do not know this…
    Do you know what the ‘killing per capita’ rate is for our various centuries?
    Just what are you basing “bloodiest” on? War? Violent crime? Terrorism? Natural disasters?
    Most certainly as the global population has DRAMATICALLY – somewhat even exponentially – risen over the last couple/few centuries.. The ‘total’ death toll would also rise. So… That is why the ‘per capita’ percentage rate is important, I believe, to substantiate your claim about “bloodiest”.

    OK. You seem to want to use Hitler/Stalin and their belief in Nietzsche and Darwinian evolution as justification for their actions.
    Frankly you kind-of prove my point. ANY belief can be used for justification of EITHER ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions.
    The question remains… WHY do the majority of humans believe actions like those of Hitler and Stalin are ‘bad’? NOT why / what justified such to those two but rather… Why do (most) OTHERS see such as ‘bad’?
    One can have a Darwinian belief and NOT believe like Hitler.

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 10:47am

    Just FYO for you Proverbs…
    From the Study’s Editor’s Summary: “Individuals who witnessed a moral deed are more likely than nonwitnesses to perform a moral deed themselves and are also more likely to allow themselves to act immorally. Hofmann et al. asked smartphone users to report their encounters with morality (see the Perspective by Graham). Most moral judgment experiments are lab-based and don’t allow for conclusions based on what people experience in their daily lives. This field experiment revealed that people experience moral events frequently in daily life. A respondent’s ideology influenced the kind of event reported and the frequency, which is consistent with moral foundations theory.”

    Note the final line: “A respondent’s ideology influenced the kind of event reported and the frequency, which is consistent with moral foundations theory.”
    It appears these researchers took such religious belief variations into consideration.
    The study, I believe, was not about the ‘variation’ in the many varying specific ‘values’ of the varying religions – but rather “To study everyday morality …”

    Feel free to find out more at:

  • September 18, 2014 at 10:39am

    And you know that… HOW?

    According to the paper’s abstract it was authored by folks with affiliations to: Department of Psychology,University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. / Department of Psychology, University of Illinois / Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

    Also… You can reach one of the authors – Wilhelm Hofmann – at:
    Feel free to contact him and ask him directly if he considers himself a religious or non-religious person.

    [And just to note Cosmos102. I did respond to two of your previous post responses - one to one of my previous posts - at: Thanks for considering]

  • [-1] September 18, 2014 at 10:33am

    What credentials do you have to judge research design?

    What was identified in this story that has led you to believe that “what they are really trying to prove is …” ???

    Who defines biblical morality / immorality?
    (Hint: Every individual them-self who ever considers such. No two people define it the exact same way.)

    Frankly, I’m not quite certain there was a “purpose’ for the study. Rather it was ‘just’ a study. From the study abstract:
    “To study everyday morality, we repeatedly assessed moral or immoral acts and experiences in a large (N = 1252) sample using ecological momentary assessment. Moral experiences were surprisingly frequent and manifold. Liberals and conservatives emphasized somewhat different moral dimensions. Religious and nonreligious participants did not differ in the likelihood or quality of committed moral and immoral acts. Being the target of moral or immoral deeds had the strongest impact on happiness, whereas committing moral or immoral deeds had the strongest impact on sense of purpose. Analyses of daily dynamics revealed evidence for both moral contagion and moral licensing. In sum, morality science may benefit from a closer look at the antecedents, dynamics, and consequences of everyday moral experience.”

    Note: They did not say: ‘To study biblical morality …’ Rather it was identified as: “To study everyday morality …”

    Whether or not you think that is “meaningful”…
    But I too would like to see results of what you suggested

  • [2] September 18, 2014 at 10:25am

    Sounds like you are trying to use an argument where your justify the evaluation of morality by those who SUPPOSEDLY are the only ones able to properly evaluate such morality.
    How does that logic work?
    A true believer?
    Just what / how / by who is that determined?

    “Some of the behavior other religions do may be considered immoral ”
    You are correct sir.
    So just what is it / How is it / WHY is it deemed moral or immoral.
    What makes it so?
    WHY is something moral or immoral – ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
    What defines THAT – for you / others? And how and WHY does one come to those conclusions?

  • [-1] September 18, 2014 at 10:20am

    What’s your point?
    Is any (reasonable and responsible) person suggesting we should have society where everyone does what is ‘right’ in their own eyes?

    Interesting thought though because… Do not many on the Right argue for (total) Freedom and Liberty – where govt has but the MOST LIMITED of powers and ability to tell one what they can or cannot do?
    So what / who sets the ‘moral direction’ for such a country?
    Would not reasonable and responsible and respectful determinations – by the majority – of what is ‘right’ – be in order?

  • [2] September 18, 2014 at 10:11am

    Care to be more specific?
    What do you think this study is presenting that somehow doesn’t reflect what YOU see in society?

    It is but a very limited study of really very few people so… Indeed it may not properly reflect ‘society’ as a whole – and most certainly does not reflect the ‘society’ in which you exist.

123 To page: Go