(March 15, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 15, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Tonus Wrote: "Do not harm those who do you no harm" or "do good to those who deserve it" is a much better ideal to start from, in that it allows us freedom to help those we choose and is more likely to lead to helping those who deserve it while avoiding those whose actions harm us.

''Give what you get,'' is a pretty minimalist way to live, though. I think that if I'm only kind to those who are kind to me, what might that say about me?

The ideals I quoted leave a person free to be as generous as he pleases. You can decide to be nice to everyone and not violate the ideal. It gives you the freedom to prioritize who benefits from your generosity. It rewards good behavior (those who deserve generosity are more likely to get it) and it penalizes bad behavior (those who harm others are more likely to be harmed in turn, though the ideal does not require that one do so).

My entire life I've been a push over, because that's what I thought god wanted from me. Turn the other cheek, never standing up for myself. I was bullied, but always thought reacting in love would be the best punishment for them. Turns out, not so. Now that I've come into my own and learned to stand up for myself and be assertive (within reason of course), I have a better self esteem and lots of truly great close friends. So that "turn the other cheek" isn't always for the best. Yes, there are moments when it's the best course of action, but I like being free to decide when that is.

(March 16, 2014 at 5:24 am)DarkHorse Wrote: My entire life I've been a push over, because that's what I thought god wanted from me. Turn the other cheek, never standing up for myself. I was bullied, but always thought reacting in love would be the best punishment for them. Turns out, not so. Now that I've come into my own and learned to stand up for myself and be assertive (within reason of course), I have a better self esteem and lots of truly great close friends. So that "turn the other cheek" isn't always for the best. Yes, there are moments when it's the best course of action, but I like being free to decide when that is.

From the Wikipedia:
"Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma."

But it is possible that when playing that strategy, you can get into a stable interchange of 'tat' 'tat' 'tat' 'tat.' At some point one of the players has to play 'tit' (turn their cheek) and the system falls into 'tit' 'tit' 'tit' 'tit.' Which we all recognize as better.
Clergy who can convince the players to play 'tit' when the clergy is playing 'tat' win. That's why they do it.

"It helps if you think of it as a game." Robocop

(March 17, 2014 at 10:43 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 5:24 am)DarkHorse Wrote: My entire life I've been a push over, because that's what I thought god wanted from me. Turn the other cheek, never standing up for myself. I was bullied, but always thought reacting in love would be the best punishment for them. Turns out, not so. Now that I've come into my own and learned to stand up for myself and be assertive (within reason of course), I have a better self esteem and lots of truly great close friends. So that "turn the other cheek" isn't always for the best. Yes, there are moments when it's the best course of action, but I like being free to decide when that is.

From the Wikipedia:
"Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma."

But it is possible that when playing that strategy, you can get into a stable interchange of 'tat' 'tat' 'tat' 'tat.' At some point one of the players has to play 'tit' (turn their cheek) and the system falls into 'tit' 'tit' 'tit' 'tit.' Which we all recognize as better.
Clergy who can convince the players to play 'tit' when the clergy is playing 'tat' win. That's why they do it.

"It helps if you think of it as a game." Robocop

I've never read or heard it explained quite like this, very interesting.

Totally.

(March 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

Actually Red is purple. Rather Purple is a mixture of two primary colors blue and RED.

More over the color being described is what we now call tyrian purple (As it was the only known source for that color in the region durning that time.) Tryian purple would be considered a majenta which is a cross between light red and purple. and depending on how long one's eyes were exposed to direct sun light will determine how that particular person would ultimatly see or identify this color.
The Link below gives to color ranges for tyrian purple. and one looks scarlet and the other maybe a magenta which I would identify as purple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

So both are correct from their own POVs.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:57 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

Actually Red is purple. Rather Purple is a mixture of two primary colors blue and RED.

I don't think being a mixture means that purple IS red. It has red hues in it, but that doesn't make it red. It is something new, now. This is like if someone handed me a glass of saltwater and told me to drink it, saying "it's okay, it's water. It has water in it." Nope.

Quote:More over the color being described is what we now call tyrian purple (As it was the only known source for that color in the region durning that time.) Tryian purple would be considered a majenta which is a cross between light red and purple. and depending on how long one's eyes were exposed to direct sun light will determine how that particular person would ultimatly see or identify this color.
The Link below gives to color ranges for tyrian purple. and one looks scarlet and the other maybe a magenta which I would identify as purple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

This is a good answer, though.

Quote:So both are correct from their own POVs.

That's the whole problem

Quote:Actually Red is purple

Fuck me.

I remember a time.... when all colors looked like this:




Then our eyes evolved...

EGA graphics... good lord...