Salma Hayek breast-feeds an African baby

[Scott & Lai 12]

Oh, believe me, I'm in full agreement on the importance of charity, reaching out to others, etc. My problem is with the idea of "brother's keeper" as such. Words mean things. A "keeper" is one who "keeps" or controls another "for their own good." It is not a relationship of equals, but is paternalistic. It is the justification for things like the Drug War, Prohibition in the last century, "sin taxes," determining what people can do in their bedrooms, etc. If we mean we should help each other in times of need, then we should just say that.

It is helpful to consider where the phrase, "My brother's keeper" comes from: In Genesis, when Cain murdered his brother Abel, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain said, "I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?" in an attempt to hide the fact that he had murdered Abel, and actually did know where Abel was. God didn't punish Cain for not being his brother's "keeper" (Abel was an adult, and didn't need a "keeper"), but for murdering him.

Interesting. In my high school religion class, we were taught that Cain was his brother's keeper. When God asks Cain, "Where is your brother?" He is saying that Cain should be concerned about his brother's well being. Cain callously disregards that familial obligation. Killing his brother is the opposite of caring for him.

I know that has been a common Christian teaching, but I don't think it is correct. God asked Cain "Where is your brother" to give Cain the opportunity to confess his crime. Caring for one another's well being (which we certainly are to do) is not equivalent to "keeping" someone, as a parent does with a child. There is no place in the Bible where we are told to be our brother's keeper, or where the word "keeper" is used to refer to equals. Sheep have keepers, prisons have keepers, temples have keepers, vineyards have keepers, but no one is said to be a keeper of his equals. A lot of harm has been done in the name of religious paternalism, which was often justified as being our "brother's keeper."

[Teacher Mark 53]

It is touching, but I gotta' be me.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/39809/the-office...-breast-feeding

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10930/family-guy-breast-feeding

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is touching, but I gotta' be me.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/39809/the-office...-breast-feeding

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10930/family-guy-breast-feeding

[slim 1,525]

Oh, believe me, I'm in full agreement on the importance of charity, reaching out to others, etc. My problem is with the idea of "brother's keeper" as such. Words mean things. A "keeper" is one who "keeps" or controls another "for their own good." It is not a relationship of equals, but is paternalistic. It is the justification for things like the Drug War, Prohibition in the last century, "sin taxes," determining what people can do in their bedrooms, etc. If we mean we should help each other in times of need, then we should just say that.

It is helpful to consider where the phrase, "My brother's keeper" comes from: In Genesis, when Cain murdered his brother Abel, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain said, "I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?" in an attempt to hide the fact that he had murdered Abel, and actually did know where Abel was. God didn't punish Cain for not being his brother's "keeper" (Abel was an adult, and didn't need a "keeper"), but for murdering him.

Interesting. In my high school religion class, we were taught that Cain was his brother's keeper. When God asks Cain, "Where is your brother?" He is saying that Cain should be concerned about his brother's well being. Cain callously disregards that familial obligation. Killing his brother is the opposite of caring for him.

I know that has been a common Christian teaching, but I don't think it is correct. God asked Cain "Where is your brother" to give Cain the opportunity to confess his crime. Caring for one another's well being (which we certainly are to do) is not equivalent to "keeping" someone, as a parent does with a child. There is no place in the Bible where we are told to be our brother's keeper, or where the word "keeper" is used to refer to equals. Sheep have keepers, prisons have keepers, temples have keepers, vineyards have keepers, but no one is said to be a keeper of his equals. A lot of harm has been done in the name of religious paternalism, which was often justified as being our "brother's keeper."

This is what I love about religion.

Two people can read the exact same thing but yet have two very different takes on it. You can then justify your position by citing another reference that you feel "proves" it. So here we have the "official word" spelled out for us in black and white but yet we still can't agree on what's right or wrong because we still have opinions of men mixed into the message. And the other guy is always wrong because he "doesn't get it" or my personal favorite "doesn't know the scriptures like you do."

Folks.... you know when you see those polls and they say there's an error rating of +/- 3%? if you have a "faith-based" system, you can NEVER say that you are 100% right because you just don't know. No one does.......... Waiting for the "Well, God does. And through His teachings we can learn. Yep. You're right. We can. Now prove it!

Look, I'm not saying all this to get you fired up over religion, all I'm saying is before you call down the hellfire and damnation, at least "consider" that the other guy's position "could" be right. Matter of fact, he could be "just as right" as you!

Didn't copy the quote from before, but why is the "natural selection" that's going on right now with humans not truly "Darwinian?"

[amberdima 6]

It is touching, but I gotta' be me.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/39809/the-office...-breast-feeding

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10930/family-guy-breast-feeding

ohhhhhhhhh....i'm sooooo maaaaddd riiight now!!!!

just kidding. that's totally hilarious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, believe me, I'm in full agreement on the importance of charity, reaching out to others, etc. My problem is with the idea of "brother's keeper" as such. Words mean things. A "keeper" is one who "keeps" or controls another "for their own good." It is not a relationship of equals, but is paternalistic. It is the justification for things like the Drug War, Prohibition in the last century, "sin taxes," determining what people can do in their bedrooms, etc. If we mean we should help each other in times of need, then we should just say that.

It is helpful to consider where the phrase, "My brother's keeper" comes from: In Genesis, when Cain murdered his brother Abel, God asked Cain where his brother was. Cain said, "I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?" in an attempt to hide the fact that he had murdered Abel, and actually did know where Abel was. God didn't punish Cain for not being his brother's "keeper" (Abel was an adult, and didn't need a "keeper"), but for murdering him.

Interesting. In my high school religion class, we were taught that Cain was his brother's keeper. When God asks Cain, "Where is your brother?" He is saying that Cain should be concerned about his brother's well being. Cain callously disregards that familial obligation. Killing his brother is the opposite of caring for him.

I know that has been a common Christian teaching, but I don't think it is correct. God asked Cain "Where is your brother" to give Cain the opportunity to confess his crime. Caring for one another's well being (which we certainly are to do) is not equivalent to "keeping" someone, as a parent does with a child. There is no place in the Bible where we are told to be our brother's keeper, or where the word "keeper" is used to refer to equals. Sheep have keepers, prisons have keepers, temples have keepers, vineyards have keepers, but no one is said to be a keeper of his equals. A lot of harm has been done in the name of religious paternalism, which was often justified as being our "brother's keeper."

This is what I love about religion.

Two people can read the exact same thing but yet have two very different takes on it. You can then justify your position by citing another reference that you feel "proves" it. So here we have the "official word" spelled out for us in black and white but yet we still can't agree on what's right or wrong because we still have opinions of men mixed into the message. And the other guy is always wrong because he "doesn't get it" or my personal favorite "doesn't know the scriptures like you do."

Folks.... you know when you see those polls and they say there's an error rating of +/- 3%? if you have a "faith-based" system, you can NEVER say that you are 100% right because you just don't know. No one does.......... Waiting for the "Well, God does. And through His teachings we can learn. Yep. You're right. We can. Now prove it!

Look, I'm not saying all this to get you fired up over religion, all I'm saying is before you call down the hellfire and damnation, at least "consider" that the other guy's position "could" be right. Matter of fact, he could be "just as right" as you!

Didn't copy the quote from before, but why is the "natural selection" that's going on right now with humans not truly "Darwinian?"

Firstly what "natural selection" is going on right now with humans? Let's have a few specific real world examples.

Secondly natural selection refers to changes in hereditary genetic characteristics.

The Superman is so 1940s...

[justashooter 430]

this is natural selection, in the sense that it is cultural selection. like it or not, culture is partly determined by natural and inheritable characteristics, which vary by ethnicity. certain ethnicities have been "refined" through natural selection in the specific environment of industrialised society for long periods of time, and certain ethnicities have not. because of this, certain cultures have different potential in terms of acclimation to a civilised world.

[LaL 418]

this is natural selection, in the sense that it is cultural selection. like it or not, culture is partly determined by natural and inheritable characteristics, which vary by ethnicity. certain ethnicities have been "refined" through natural selection in the specific environment of industrialised society for long periods of time, and certain ethnicities have not. because of this, certain cultures have different potential in terms of acclimation to a civilised world.

oh yes with ever expanding globalization, its just this ^^ simple!

for real, dude - you certainly appear to love putting people in little tiny boxes.

Edited February 12, 2009 by LaL

[justashooter 430]

this is natural selection, in the sense that it is cultural selection. like it or not, culture is partly determined by natural and inheritable characteristics, which vary by ethnicity. certain ethnicities have been "refined" through natural selection in the specific environment of industrialised society for long periods of time, and certain ethnicities have not. because of this, certain cultures have different potential in terms of acclimation to a civilised world.

oh yes with ever expanding globalization, its just this ^^ simple!

for real, dude - you certainly appear to love putting people in little tiny boxes.

actually, globalisation is exacerbating the problem. placing too many choices in front of a child will always result in waste and destruction. giving a child tools beyond their maturity level is inherently dangerous. giving automatic weapons to tribal leaders in africa is giving tools beyond the maturity level. never give a complex tool to someone who isn't sophisticated enough to make it, and understand it's capabilities.

do you want the chocolate cookie, or not?

OK you don't want the chocolate, do your want the vanilla, or not? ok you don't like vanilla cookies, do you want a piece of chocolate cake, or not?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't knwo about you LaL but I put (metaphorically speaking) justashooter in a little box of mine a long time ago.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Bring out the gimp!

[LaL 418]

I don't knwo about you LaL but I put (metaphorically speaking) justashooter in a little box of mine a long time ago.

Surely - and after earning my bachelor's in behavior sciences, putting characteristics in boxes makes sense to me. I feel my education was sound as I can recognize many things simply cannot be explained away by compartmentalizing and stereotyping.

But hey - if thats where insight stops, poor boxed up individual.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't knwo about you LaL but I put (metaphorically speaking) justashooter in a little box of mine a long time ago.

Surely - and after earning my bachelor's in behavior sciences, putting characteristics in boxes makes sense to me. I feel my education was sound as I can recognize many things simply cannot be explained away by compartmentalizing and stereotyping.

But hey - if thats where insight stops, poor boxed up individual.

As a man married to a mental health professional, I can certainly relate to the fact that what gets classified into neat little boxes is not a view of the world but rather the view within and all its little idiosyncratic tendencies to be... biased to stereotype.

[LaL 418]

*head explodey*

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

HAL your language parser subroutine is malfunctioning. I recommend an immediate heap dump.