Prioritizing One's Gods

When people were monotheistic, everyone's gods were just fine--they were all regional and/or tied to a specific group of some kind (tribe, kingdom, etc.) and accepted and even honored when traveling. It's why the first commandment of the pre-monotheistic Hebrews talks about having "no other god before me"--it's simply a command to not let any of the others knock Yahweh from the top spot, not that there aren't any other gods. It's an assurance that the prioritization of gods was always done with Yahweh as the Hebrews' primary deity.

When the monotheistic beliefs arrived on the scene, along with that came the problem of non-uniqueness. If there is only one god, all of the other gods must be fakes. To have anything in common with them would be to destroy the one-god idea. It's a problem that hasn't gone away, as people still argue and kill each other over who's god is real.

Humans suck sometimes.

Unvirtuous Gift

We often treat as a good thing the situation where a person has some sort of innate talent and is able to live on it. Believers call it a "god-given gift" or something similar. Because of this, some people look for this "gift" in hopes of being able to use it to their own benefit in order to "glorify god" or just make life easier.

Whether this idea of in-born talent has some basis in fact or not, to me this type of thinking is similar to wanting to win the lottery in the sense that we want a large reward without any real work being offered. If someone is "naturally" able to do something well, it doesn't strengthen the character when doing it. It's not a bad thing to do so, but it should not be associated with some sort of noble character trait. (It would be like applauding a left-handed person for throwing with their left hand.)

If someone really wants to be applauded for accomplishing something, it should be difficult. A person who develops a skill that is not innate is the one who should be seen as having an improved character.

One-Breath Debate

How much sense does it really make that so many of us heavily consider live debates to make determinations? Do we really want to support the performance of people who are forced to answer questions quickly with no ability to verify anything first?

To me, this seems odd. I would more easily support someone who gave a reasoned and researched answer, meaning it would take some extra time. I don't like the idea that we choose "winners" based on the ability to answer quickly briefly. Thinking something over and checking facts is automatically discarded as part of the process.

A debate worth considering would be one where the questions were sent ahead of time--even to the general public. Then, the debaters would come together with answers and reference material and challenge each other directly. They should even have access to data via computer that can be used during the debate.

It might not be pretty, but the results would be more likely to be meaningful, I think. IMO, what we have now is useless, other than to shore up the support of those who only want quick answers that can be spouted in a single breath.