False by Incredulity, according to atheists such as Penn Jillette

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The New Zealand gov't knew of heightened volcanic activity, but did nothing:

That might be foolishness on the part of New Zealand authorities then, but not the tourists who likely did not have that information.  Like I said, there is risk in everything we do.  Level II risk has never really deterred people from visiting the volcano in the past, and yet there haven't been any deaths on that island since 1914.  Calculated risk is exceptionally low.  Again, perhaps it is more foolish to fly in a plane, boat, or ride in a car than to visit that island briefly. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your point is wrong.

Martha: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.”

Martha acknowledged God would “even now” do what Jesus asked which is akin to her asking.. When Jesus said he would rise Martha acknowledged that he would rise at the Last Day. Jesus spoke of the Resurrection and asked her if she believed. She affirmed she did, tacitly acknowledging the miracle may not happen and she will still have faith. In a later scene Jesus called Lazarus forth. Knowing that Jesus generally only did miracles for people based on the faith of themselves or on the faith of others on their behalf it is not a stretch to imagine that Lazarus rose because Martha and later Mary passed the test of faith that God could work the miracle but stood fast that even if their request for their brother was not granted their faith would endure. Compare to the episode of Daniel’s friends and the fiery furnace.

Then the miracle came.....at what would appear to be great cost. Before this Jesus was a target of persecution and attempts to discredit him. With the miracle of Lazarus rising being seen by so many those in power decided the time for half measures was passed and Jesus must die. I wonder how much Martha, Mary, and Lazarus knew of that and wondered if that miracle was worth the death of the messiah during the faith trying days after the crucifixion. No surprise that Jesus made the decision to come to Mary first who may have blamed herself to some degree during those dark days.

 

Okay who did you copy that from?  You don't usually say good things like that so I have a hard time believing those are your words.  Meh, yeah, maybe what you are saying is a possibility, though. They still didn't say much to indicate they had faith Jesus could do that, if they did, though.

If I had been them I think I would have said something like: Oh, great!  Jesus is here!  I realize Lazarus is dead now but I'm sure Jesus can raise him back to life again so I'll just ask him to do it and then see what he says."

Edited December 12, 2019 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Humans are very emotional and death matters a great deal to most of them, but not always.  We had a great funeral about a week ago here of a great man whom everyone loved.  It was celebratory, something like an Irish wake, but Mormon style.  His children and friends got up and told some great stories, with plenty of jokes.  We ended up looking at it sub specie aeternitatis.

I did the same at the death of my grandfather. Pain and joy commingled and the odd circumstances made it poignant. He died days before the family vacation he pioneered. For several years before each year my parents would warn me that this year he would not probably be as active or vibrant due to his multiplying health problems. They were always wrong. That year his body would not let him go so he seemed to shuck it off and go anyways. Half the family were scandalized a little when many of us rushed the funeral so the vacation could go forward knowing he would not want his funeral to interfere.

Even in that though there were tears on almost everyone’s face as we laughed and smiled and told stories and honored a life well lived while still disliking and mourning the bitterness of death, the great enemy that sunders us from each other. As I said though it is a beaten enemy and its defeat is inevitable.

Edited December 13, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay who did you copy that from?  You don't usually say good things like that so I have a hard time believing those are your words.  Meh, yeah, maybe what you are saying is a possibility, though.

I came up with it just now. Does not make it original and others may have said similar things.

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They still didn't say much to indicate they had faith Jesus could do that, if they did, though.

If I had been them I think I would have said something like: Oh, great!  Jesus is here!  I realize Lazarus is dead now but I'm sure Jesus can raise him back to life again so I'll just ask him to do it and then see what he says."

Martha said that Jesus could raise Lazarus. They were talking about Lazarus as she mourned. When she said that, even after Lazarus is now dead, God would grant whatever Jesus asked of God what do you imagine she was hoping Jesus would do? That Jesus would feed the whole crowd of mourners funeral potatos?

That she does not use your verbiage does not suggest your faith is stronger. In fact it is probably hubris to even imply it by that comment.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I came up with it just now. Does not make it original and others may have said similar things.

I'd like to see you say more things like that.  I like that much better than any of your snarky comments.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Martha said that Jesus could raise Lazarus.

Not explicitly.  I do like your suggestion, though, that maybe she might have meant it in that way.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They were talking about Lazarus as she mourned. When she said that, even after Lazarus is now dead, God would grant whatever Jesus asked of God what do you imagine she was hoping Jesus would do? That Jesus would feed the whole crowd of mourners funeral potatos?

Maybe she just didn't know what Jesus could do or what she wanted Jesus to do.  Raising someone from the dead isn't something she had seen Jesus do before, so there is no reason to suppose she MUST have known he could.do that then.  I thinks' it's fairly obvious that she did have some faith in Jesus, himself, but without knowing what he could do.  I do like the idea you seem to be raising here, though.  Maybe that tear from Jesus, after he asked her if she believed what Jesus had said about him being the resurrection and the life, was a tear of joy rather than a tear of sadness.  I just hadn't thought of it that way before. 

Maybe he was like: Wow! She has such incredible faith in me!  She believes I can raise him from the dead now! She really believes that! I feel so incredibly and deeply touched!  She has faith I can do it, so I am going to go raise him from the dead now.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That she does not use your verbiage does not suggest your faith is stronger. In fact it is probably hubris to even imply it by that comment.

Maybe.  Possibly.  Probably, no.  My idea is just as valid as yours is.  I don't think we can really say at this point, based only on the scriptural text.  I'm going to ponder that idea some more, though.  It is at least possible that is a more accurate reflection of what really happened.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That might be foolishness on the part of New Zealand authorities then, but not the tourists who likely did not have that information.  Like I said, there is risk in everything we do.  Level II risk has never really deterred people from visiting the volcano in the past, and yet there haven't been any deaths on that island since 1914.  Calculated risk is exceptionally low.  Again, perhaps it is more foolish to fly in a plane, boat, or ride in a car than to visit that island briefly. 

I never take risks for a lark, although others regularly do so.  When there is true purpose in such dangerous activities, then I agree to go along with them.  I spent 4 years on active duty with the USMC and did a lot of very dangerous things for my country, without qualm.  I have been in the midst of war on the front line, again without qualm.  It had to be done. 

It is utterly foolish to take risks with no serious purpose.  Just gawking and sightseeing is not a worthy purpose.  It makes me very nervous to be around people who regularly take high risks.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never take risks for a lark, although others regularly do so.  When there is true purpose in such dangerous activities, then I agree to go along with them.  I spent 4 years on active duty with the USMC and did a lot of very dangerous things for my country, without qualm.  I have been in the midst of war on the front line, again without qualm.  It had to be done. 

It is utterly foolish to take risks with no serious purpose.  Just gawking and sightseeing is not a worthy purpose.  It makes me very nervous to be around people who regularly take high risks.

Have you ever taken a road trip for fun?  Taken a plane over seas on vacation?  Gone skiing?  Rock climbing with scouts?  Walked outside without mosquito repellent (West Nile in Utah, other more deadly things elsewhere) or sunscreen?  Backpacking?  Hiking alone? Riding your bicycle for fun?  All of these things are statistically higher risk than visiting White Island volcano at any random moment once in your life. 

 I would argue that human well-being requires leisure activities that interest you and do serve a serious purpose. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

You said we are finite and I asked you to explain what you meant while I said in response that we are eternal.  Now you are saying we are eternal but you're still saying we're finite so I'm now asking you again to explain that.  In what way do you think we are finite? 

I''m still going to say that we are eternal and I don't agree that we are finite.  

You need to understand the true nature of infinity as part of set theory, Ahab.  It is filled with paradoxes:

Quote

A portion of the plane is finite, if it's contained in a ball - however big. In other words, a portion of the plane is finite if the set of all distances from its points to a fixed point (say, origin) is bounded. A figure lying in a finite portion of the plane is said to be bounded. A segment is a bounded - also and frequently finite - portion of an infinite line. This is so, even if a segment contains an infinite number of points. ..... The set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 belongs to a finite segment but, in itself, is infinite......  N + 1 is a counting number as much as N itself. Therefore, the augmented set is also of finite cardinality, i.e., is finite.  Removing an element from an infinite set leaves an infinite set.  Indeed, if we remove an element from an infinite set, the remaining set is bound to be infinite; for, otherwise, putting that element back in we would get a finite set......  Indeed, this is true of N which is equivalent to the set of odd numbers, the set of even numbers, the set of squares - and what not. For what follows one example is especially handy. The 1-1 correspondence n→n+1 shows that N and {2, 3, ...} have the same cardinality.  https://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsFinite.shtml .

Quote

Note “the 1924 Banach-Tarski paradox, which says that if you break a sphere into pieces, each composed of an infinitely dense scattering of points, you can put the pieces together in a different way to create two spheres that are the same size as the original. * * * 

...the Austrian-American mathematician Kurt Gödel showed in 1931 that, in fact, we won’t. In a shocking result, Gödel proved that no system of logical axioms (or starting assumptions) can ever prove its own consistency; to prove that a system of logic is consistent, you always need another axiom outside of the system. This means there is no ultimate set of axioms — no theory of everything — in mathematics. When looking for a set of axioms that yield all true mathematical statements and never contradict themselves, you always need another axiom. Gödel’s theorem meant that Hilbert’s program was doomed: The axioms of finitistic mathematics cannot even prove their own consistency, let alone the consistency of set theory and the mathematics of the infinite.”  https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-bridge-finite-infinite-divide-20160524/ .

If you don't understand set theory, then you won't understand infinity or eternity or God.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to understand the true nature of infinity as part of set theory, Ahab.  It is filled with paradoxes:

If you don't understand set theory, then you won't understand infinity or eternity or God.

i understand infinity and eternity just fine. Your own understanding of it just seems to be different than mine.

We are eternal in the sense that what we are has always existed and will always exist.  If you meant we are finite in that we have finite powers at this particular moment in time, then I can agree with that.  But to just say "we" are finite is not sufficient and as it is thus stated is false.

Or at least that is my perspective and I am sticking with it.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

Have you ever taken a road trip for fun?  Taken a plane over seas on vacation?  Gone skiing?  Rock climbing with scouts?  Walked outside without mosquito repellent (West Nile in Utah, other more deadly things elsewhere) or sunscreen?  Backpacking?  Hiking alone? Riding your bicycle for fun?  All of these things are statistically higher risk than visiting White Island volcano at any random moment once in your life. 

 I would argue that human well-being requires leisure activities that interest you and do serve a serious purpose. 

Your argument would be well taken if, and only if, you held to your own notion of risk.  I was raised in the high Sierras and took many foolish risks as a child.  Not being a city-slicker, I viewed many endeavors as simple and easy, and it stood me in good stead later.  It certainly reduced my levels of fear in difficult situations.  However, I have long since left the truly risky stuff to Hollyweird and to the self-indulgent or suicidal set.  I'll admit to having gone on a roller-coaster or two at Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm, just for the sake of the children there with me, but I always recommend that people go with a friend on any run or hike.  No rock or cliff climbing, no bunji-jumping, no cruising without serious purpose, no planes, trains, or automobiles without a serious purpose.

I spent over 20 years in the martial arts and suffered a number of injuries (didn't get injured while a member of the BYU Judo Club).  I considered it worthwhile because it gave me the ability to protect myself in tough situations, and to remain calm when physically confronted by idiots.  I didn't do it as a lark or because it was fun.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your argument would be well taken if, and only if, you held to your own notion of risk. 

I do all of those things and more.  I am aware of risks but find the benefits of not confining myself to a bubble to be well worth the risk and do not consider myself foolish for taking those risks as they do serve a “serious purpose” for me personally.

If a close relative of yours was hit and killed by a drunk driver while driving to Saint George for leisure, would you be offended if someone called her a “foolish person” for taking unnecessary risks and being killed by a drunk driver?

Edited December 13, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I do all of those things and more.  I am aware of risks but find the benefits of not confining myself to a bubble to be well worth the risk and do not consider myself foolish for taking those risks as they do serve a “serious purpose” for me personally.

If a close relative of yours was hit and killed by a drunk driver while driving to Saint George for leisure, would you be offended if someone called her a “foolish person” for taking unnecessary risks and being killed by a drunk driver?

Sounds to me like you take having fun seriously.

Would you consider any risk to be a foolish risk if you were serious about having some fun?  Or would the fact that what you did for fun was meant to be for your entertainment, and you felt you seriously needed that form of entertainment, be enough to justify that risk?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sounds to me like you take having fun seriously.

Would you consider any risk to be a foolish risk if you were serious about having some fun?  Or would the fact that what you did for fun was meant to be for your entertainment, and you felt you seriously needed that form of entertainment, be enough to justify that risk?

It is a personal decision.  Each person has a different level of risk tolerance.  There is risk in just about everything we do.  There are no objective boundaries.  In general, I think we should do all we can to be aware of risk and to mitigate those risks by wearing a seat belt, getting vaccinated etc. , avoiding behaviors that are generally considered high risk, but it is unrealistic to try and eliminate all risk.  But I think it is insensitive to call people “foolish” for being killed on a relatively safe leisure activity.  Safer than driving to Saint George for a weekend.

Edited December 13, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is a personal decision.  Each person has a different level of risk tolerance.  There is risk in just about everything we do.  There are no objective boundaries.  In general, I think we should do all we can to be aware of risk and to mitigate those risks, but it is unrealistic to try and eliminate all risk.  But I think it is insensitive to call people “foolish” for being killed on a relatively safe leisure activity.  Safer than driving to Saint George for a weekend.

Do  you consult some type of guide to see what the risks are before determining whether or not you should do something?  How do you know what the risks of driving to St. George for a weekend are?

My 2 sisters have gone sky diving before but that is something I would not do because I would not want to take the risk of my parachute not opening or me not landing safely.  And I am a little bit afraid of doing that, too.  The actual risk, as a number or percentage, is not something I need to find out or compare other things to before determining that I would rather not take that risk.  I don't really feel a need to sky dive and I would rather just not take the risk that something bad could happen.  

I do like to ride roller coasters, though.  Or actually I like the fact that I am willing and able to do it.  The rides usually go by so fast and I am usually just tense the whole time that I do not get much pleasure from it, other than the fact that I did it!

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I do all of those things and more.  I am aware of risks but find the benefits of not confining myself to a bubble to be well worth the risk and do not consider myself foolish for taking those risks as they do serve a “serious purpose” for me personally.

If a close relative of yours was hit and killed by a drunk driver while driving to Saint George for leisure, would you be offended if someone called her a “foolish person” for taking unnecessary risks and being killed by a drunk driver?

The answer to your question is that driving wisely with seat-belt attached is not likely to result in death.  It is a very safe endeavor.  Occasionally a drunk does kill people.  That is not a valid reason to avoid driving.  In fact one would have to be very foolish to abstain from driving out of fear of drunk drivers.

It may be a cultural thing, pogi.  I consider those who take unnecessary risks as foolish.  You do not.  When a special forces team goes into action at great risk, it may be necessary.  Funny thing, though, my extended family has always been willing to take great risks for a truly serious purpose (not including fun and leisure), and all of us die of old age.  Others die by accident during devil-may-care pursuits.  That is not as it should be, pogi.  There is such a thing as good and bad judgment.

I have an uncle who died at age 94.  He was a restrained and civilized man, but during WW II he flew bombing raids over Germany.  He saw many fellow pilots and crew die, and he helped pack their gear for shipment to their loved ones back stateside.  The most dangerous thing he did after that was to be a high school principal.  He didn't drink booze or use drugs.  He didn't hang out with dangerous people in dangerous places.  He didn't explore active volcanoes, but he did like to body-surf.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'd like to see you say more things like that.  I like that much better than any of your snarky comments.

My idea is just as valid as yours is.

I have multiple talents and I wish to exercise both.

And to your second statement: No.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I consider those who take unnecessary risks as foolish. 

Is it just physical risks or all risks?  Having children after all is very risky in terms of being hurt badly emotionally (and physically if a woman).  I wonder with this type of attitude if accepted early in life if at the end there will be a feeling of growth and accomplishment or more of simply "I am glad that is over, that was rather boring, hope eternity has more zip in it".

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Do  you consult some type of guide to see what the risks are before determining whether or not you should do something?  How do you know what the risks of driving to St. George for a weekend are?

You can rarely determine exact risk, but you can get an idea of how risky something is with a little research.  Automobile accidents are consistently one of the leading causes of death in America year after year.  Despite seat-belt use.   It is one of the most dangerous behaviors we engage in day after day, yet we all likely know someone who has been seriously injured or killed in an accident.  

So a weekend to Saint George has pretty dang good odds of being safe, but over a year, and over a lifetime, that risk gets pretty dang high, but it is still higher risk than visiting that volcano for an hour at any random time once in your life.  That is my only point.  While we don’t know exact risk fro driving to Saint George, zero tourist fatalities have every been reported on that volcano before this incident.   This one eruption killed less people than the number of people killed daily in the US in automobiles. So it is completely irrational to freak out and call people foolish for visiting this volcano. Not to mention  these were human beings - a little respect. (Not aimed at you Ahab).

Its funny people keep bringing up roller coasters - that is one of the safest things you can do. It just goes to show how illogical our fears are and are not based in statistics or actual risk.  You don’t think twice about getting in a car but your heart starts pounding while getting on a roller coaster.

Edited December 13, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The answer to your question is that driving wisely with seat-belt attached is not likely to result in death.  It is a very safe endeavor.  Occasionally a drunk does kill people.  That is not a valid reason to avoid driving. 

I agree.  My point is that WAY more people die in automobile accidents EVERY SINGLE DAY (90 people) in the US then the number of people who have died on White Island volcano in the last 100 years (13 people), despite it being a very popular tourist destination.  You tell me which is more dangerous. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.  My point is that WAY more people die in automobile accidents EVERY SINGLE DAY (90 people) in the US then the number of people who have died on White Island volcano in the last 100 years (13 people), despite it being a very popular tourist destination.  You tell me which is more dangerous. 

I suggest that you calculate death rates on a per capita basis and miles driven or flown for various types of transportation.  Then ask yourself whether it is valid to compare transportation used for frivolous pursuits are the same as required pursuits (such as education, business, job, shopping, etc.).  Women frequently declare that they should be able to walk or run alone without being molested, and I agree.  However, in the real world, it is wise to estimate risk based on actual occurrences, rather that on what should be.  People rightly feel that they should be able to go to a bar and visit any neighborhood without threat of any kind.  Those are childish assumptions, however.  Different lifestyles bring with them inherent risks.  Risk-management is important.  New Zealand authorities will no doubt now reassess their risk-management procedures for all of their volcanoes.  And rightly so.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it just physical risks or all risks?  Having children after all is very risky in terms of being hurt badly emotionally (and physically if a woman).  I wonder with this type of attitude if accepted early in life if at the end there will be a feeling of growth and accomplishment or more of simply "I am glad that is over, that was rather boring, hope eternity has more zip in it".

A survey of parents revealed that the primary emotion they felt when their children had grown up and left home was relief.  It is a difficult and expensive job raising kids, and it is true that it can result in tremendous growth for the selfless parents.  We humans reflect on such pursuits.  A wolf-pack simply does it.

At no time in history has there been a lower rate of marriage and reproduction.  We have discussed that on this board already, but it bears thinking about.  Whatever else we do, we need to reduce the overall risk.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Ahab said:

You said we are finite and I asked you to explain what you meant while I said in response that we are eternal.  Now you are saying we are eternal but you're still saying we're finite so I'm now asking you again to explain that.  In what way do you think we are finite? 

I''m still going to say that we are eternal and I don't agree that we are finite.  

There is a conflation of definitions here of "immanent" with "infinite", and then also conflating "infinite "with "transcendent". 

 Perhaps in ordinary speech these terms mean about the same thing, but in a philosophical and theological context, they all have distinct meanings.

"Infinite" means unmeasurable- as in perhaps a numerical sequence.  What's the highest number?  Can we add one more to the highest number?   No because the set of real numbers is infinite.   There is no end to it- it is immeasurable, and therefore infinite.  

"Immanent" means "existing and operating in this world or this universe" - an object or person who is "immanent" is here with us in this universe as "one of us", as Heavenly Father and Christ are, because they are in some sense Human, they have physical bodies yet of course they are infinitely  above us in progression, knowledge and power.   

"Eternal" is kind of like "infinite" but refers to time- eternal is an infinite amount of time, never ending.  We know from scriptures that "matter is eternal" which is also a scientific presumption found in the idea of "conservation of matter".   So the matter within our bodies is also eternal and we postulate on faith that spirit is also eternal because we know that even what we call "spirit" IS itself matter- but "more refined" as it says in D&C.

"Transcendent" is kind of the opposite of "immanent" and means, according to the dictionary,  "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."   Many Christians believe that God is transcendent- but think about it- if God is above the range of human experience- how can he communicate with we little insiginficant wormy humans?? (compared to God)     How could He appear to Joseph if He is "beyond human experience"?

So we MUST believe that WE, and our spirits and the spirit of God himself are all "immanent" and part of all that exists and that they are all able to be experienced by humans. otherwise we could not experience them or their existence, and God could hardly be a "Father"   to us if he is above the ability of humans to experience!  

So like matter itself- which is spirit we know scripturally- God is also "eternal" - he exists forever, and so do we as beings made of spirit matter.  So we can be BOTH "immanent" AND "eternal"- existing forever in an unmeasurable amount of time, as matter itself is.

We believe that God creates - not ex nihilo- from nothing- but from existing material that he "organizes" rather than "creates".

We are also "finite" in our ability to know things.  We are finite in what we can experience.  We are finite in strength and power.   God is infinite in all these things- yet like Him we will live forever and are co-eternal with God.

So none of these things are "transcendent" if they are "real" to us.   People who say they believe in a "transcendent" God believe that they cannot know the true nature of God- yet we believe we know that to some extent-  but we also know that our knowledge about God at this point in our spiritual journey is finite.

So I hope that helps get the terminology straight.  Semantic conflict is our biggest enemy in discussing this stuff!

Edited December 13, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never take risks for a lark, although others regularly do so.  When there is true purpose in such dangerous activities, then I agree to go along with them.  I spent 4 years on active duty with the USMC and did a lot of very dangerous things for my country, without qualm.  I have been in the midst of war on the front line, again without qualm.  It had to be done. 

It is utterly foolish to take risks with no serious purpose.  Just gawking and sightseeing is not a worthy purpose.  It makes me very nervous to be around people who regularly take high risks.

I can't even watch those silly shows on tv with clips of stupid people doing stupid things, and then falling or getting injured and then everyone finds if funny.   I just don't "get" it.

I just have to look away at the ignorance of the person doing it, and then find the audience reaction reprehensible and totally beyond my ability to understand- to me it is alien humor.   I think once you have faced real physical pain or been close to death yourself, your perspective changes forever.   You can face the necessity of both square on, but these things are not to be trifled with.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't even watch those silly shows on tv with clips of stupid people doing stupid things, and then falling or getting injured and then everyone finds if funny.   I just don't "get" it.

I just have to look away at the ignorance of the person doing it, and then find the audience reaction reprehensible and totally beyond my ability to understand- to me it is alien humor.   I think once you have faced real physical pain or been close to death yourself, your perspective changes forever.   You can face the necessity of both square on, but these things are not to be trifled with.

But there is a difference between stupidly approaching risks and taking significant risks, but minimizing them through training such as building up one's physical strength and taking classes before rock climbing.  There are people who get great satisfaction pushing themselves to their limits.  It seems contrary to the idea of exaltation to limit oneself to only necessary things.  Is God God because he took the safe, least painful, least suffering path?

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suggest that you calculate death rates on a per capita basis and miles driven or flown for various types of transportation.  Then ask yourself whether it is valid to compare transportation used for frivolous pursuits are the same as required pursuits (such as education, business, job, shopping, etc.).  Women frequently declare that they should be able to walk or run alone without being molested, and I agree.  However, in the real world, it is wise to estimate risk based on actual occurrences, rather that on what should be.  People rightly feel that they should be able to go to a bar and visit any neighborhood without threat of any kind.  Those are childish assumptions, however.  Different lifestyles bring with them inherent risks.  Risk-management is important.  New Zealand authorities will no doubt now reassess their risk-management procedures for all of their volcanoes.  And rightly so.

This is avoiding the real comparison of risk I am talking about though.  You should be comparing deaths/serious injuries per capita between frivolous driving and visiting that volcano over the last 100 years.  Driving will no doubt be the greater risk by far.  If you have ever driven to dinner and a movie, then that is more foolish and risky behavior than what these people did.  More people have died simply from food borne illness eating out than from visiting this volcano.  It would be totally inappropriate to call you foolish for dying in an accident while driving to a movie.  Surely you see that.  These were human beings who probably accomplished a lot of good in their life times and had loved ones who cared for them.  Mothers and fathers, children.  This is about respecting their lives instead of mocking their last moments, especially considered how relatively safe it was.  Honestly, simply visiting New Zealand in general is more dangerous than what they did, but you probably wouldn't mock someone who was murdered, or who died from typhoid fever or dengue fever, etc. while on vacation in New Zealand.   That is just so distasteful. If I was a friend/family member, I would be so incredibility incensed at your comment.  I'm really not trying to throw you under the bus, but you keep trying to justify what you said.  A simple acknowledgement that it could have been said better would go a long way.  

Edited December 13, 2019 by pogi