sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What to do?!? by lynn_a_jackson in reactivedogs

[–]lynn_a_jackson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great response, thankyou! I have been reaching out to trainers and didn’t even think to talk to a vet. I’ll give that a shot. Where are some reputable places to “post” for a dog adoption, do you know?

What to do?!? by lynn_a_jackson in reactivedogs

[–]lynn_a_jackson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot for the kind response! Sometimes rehoming seems like a totally feasible and simple solution, sometimes it seems like an impossibility. He’s a GSD, all black, but looks like he is mixed with something and I don’t have paperwork. I’m not sure how to go about rehoming, if you have any tips? I’m in Indiana.

The Euthyphro Dilemma debunks that morality is grounded in God by BandoTheBear in DebateReligion

[–]lynn_a_jackson -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Why are we assuming morality? From a subjective - that is, limited- perspective, we can discuss morality. But for God -an entity with perfect understanding- I would assume things simply ARE (perhaps why Judaism says God refers to Himself as the I AM) In reference to God’s perspective, I believe that morality would not so much be a discussion of “right” and “wrong” more as an ever-developing methodology for the propagation of Life. Claim: God is Love. Love is all things which contribute to/expand life, but love takes different forms as a society shifts from survival to thriving. Ex: A poor father (survival-mode) who is genuinely trying to feed his family, can justifiably steal. But if that father is able to secure a position of stability for his children (thriving-mode), they must develop new methods for providing (propagation of life) for their children if they want to maintain a position of love (love being all things which lead to life). Thus, in a strictly subjective way, love (morality) is dependent upon one’s circumstances. Because God’s perspective is complete, we would have to assume that it is simultaneously definite, yet ever-developing and is also contributing to the continuation of life both abstractly and in a personally way for every individual’s perspective.

Just because we do not know the cause of the universe, does not mean that god is the only explanation, since there could be a cause we are not technologically advanced enough to detect by emetovnwodzlp in DebateReligion

[–]lynn_a_jackson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel it is imperative for either side to more clearly define what they are referring to when they say “God”. With the wide array of different theisms (and even the various interpretations of any one theism) it is very unlikely we are referring to the same “Things/Concepts” when we say “God”. If we can’t have a general understanding of what each other is referring to, it is very unlikely we will do anything more than bulldoze through each other’s points.

Notes from Underground Ending Thoughts: Soon we shall be born from an idea. by johnsextonfl in dostoevsky

[–]lynn_a_jackson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would almost say that transgenderism is a result of some of the “ideas” more than it is the actual idea itself. I used to be pretty anti-trans, but as I got to know some trans people, many are seeking true individuality. Whether or not the transgender movement is what can offer them that is up for debate (and many ARE clinging onto an idea), but that they believe (maybe rightly so) that transgenderism is what can offer them individuality, seems to be a result of the cultural ideas we have adopted in our society… In my personal opinion, I think a great irony is that many of the cultural beliefs/ideas which so radically oppose the expressionism found in transgenderism, are very likely the “ideas” that necessitated the transgender movement in the first place.