There does exist a few groups who beleive that only if you beleive that that you are mortal and must one day face a supreme being, can you be trusted.
Since if you beleive that there is no rewards or penaltys for bad behavior then you can not be trusted. Since you obviously don't care about your behavior here.
If you beleive that you will one day face your creator, then you can be trusted to keep your word and to try and act within 'due-bounds'.
I belong to a few such 'groups'.
:-)
I believe in rewards and penalties, but they are of a redeeming nature, not of the unredemptive nature Def subscribes to.
People who believe in eternal torment cannot be trusted because of their perverse desire to see their enemies suffer endlessly, and not just any pain, EXCRUCIATING pain at that. Like you just said Galen, a person who doesn't care about his conduct cannot be trusted, and hell-fire damnation preachers are given to disorderly conduct.
and hell-fire damnation preachers are given to disorderly conduct.
ROFLMAO! Boy, ain't THAT the truth. Especially when they get caught in said disorderly conduct (and give a river of tears of repentence, Jimmy Swaggart style).
Then the question maybe ought to be directed in their direction, "Can they be trusted?" ;)-->
Def's Question: Why live a good life if everyone is going to be saved?
Chuck's Answer:
1. Def is an idiot.
2. Def is stupid.
3. Def is a hypocrite.
4. Def is mentally unstable because his religious beliefs are different from Chuck's.
5. Def is unforgiving.
6. Def is unloving.
7. Def should pray.
8. Def should be shot. (Just kidding. Ha. Ha.)
9. Def is evil.
10. Def is paranoid.
11. Def is full of hate.
When I opened this thread I thought I was going to read something about the relative benefits and risks of living a moral life compared to an immoral or amoral one.
How many of the godly men were so godly? Better yet, how many godless men and women have started wars?
....
Give me a decent, pragmatic atheist any day.
Oh, like Lenin, Stalin, Adolph, Fidel, Madelyn perhaps. Your argument fails George because what those people did was not Christian. They committed a great sin. But atheists have killed far more people than religionists and that was in the 20th century alone.
Interesting how when it comes to religious people doing the war/abuse starting, you make exceptions for them, or give the standard "Well, they weren't really godly people who were doing this" white-wash. Yet when it comes to an atheist doing the same thing, I notice that the response is different. Ie., you portray it as atheism as being causal and part-and-parcel to the abusive activity.
Sorry! No can do. Gotta stick with a little bit of honest consistancy here. And a couple of corrections to make:
1) Adolph wasn't an atheist. His belief system was a rather wierd morph of Catholicism and Nordic spiritualism that looks like its been put together using drugs. --> But since he did believe in some sort of spirit world, that rules him out as an atheist, as atheists believe in NO spirit world.
2) Contrary to popular Billy Graham-inspired political dogma that many people goosestep to, atheism is, at most, incidental to Communism. Ie., the reason Communist states persecuted/controlled the churches, like they persecuted any other social structure/group of significant size, was to eliminate any and all competitors to power, NOT with any specific 'atheist intent' to eradicate religion. If that were true, then there would be NO churches left in those specific countries. At all. (Just like the same thing happened in Nazi Germany. And see my aforementioned item regarding Adolph's beliefs.)
Plus, if atheism is so related/alike to Communism, please explain to me why a good number of atheists in this country are Ayn Rand Objectivists and/or Libertarians? (Neil Boortz, anyone?) If you know anything about those POVs, one thing you do NOT say about them is that they are Communist. Not to their face, anyway.
3) For whatever loud mouth she undoubtedly had, Madelyn Murray O'Hare killed ... no one. She herself was killed however, and I don't believe it was by an atheist. Hmmm?
The difference between atheism and religion isn't how many people each group might have killed or not perse, but on whether or not a god is believed in. And that is as far as it goes, regardless of whatever 'all unbelievers are vile and immoral trash' propaganda you have been spoon fed.
Oh, and as to your point on where atheists have learned their morals, and to the strong undercurrent of your argument that, without God, they can learn no morals? Morals can be determined by realizing/learning of such activities that bring no harm to people and/or bring the most benefit to people.
You do not need a god to do that. ... No, you don't.
Sure it is easy to blame Christians for the crusades, those committing crimes like that are deserving of scorn.
What I was trying to point out is that no belief system is without sin. Every philosophy has adherents (or those claiming to be one) who take it to an extreme which allows them to commit atrocities in the name of their philosophy.
Atheism isn't pure. There are many people who claim to be ones who are intolerant, hate-filled war mongers. So I tire of people who bring up all of the church's sins as if that mutes the message.
The church is not about being perfect, nor offering endless pleasure or a hedonistic lifestyle. It is about a relationship with a living and loving God.
I did not say all atheists are immoral or war-mongers. But thanks to the rejection of the sacred, our society values are shaped more by popular opinion than by a code of ethics.
We see atheism's effects in STDs, euthanasia, abortion, sex abuse and pornography. We see a culture adrift, because we are told our old mooring were an illusion and there's nothing really to grab onto.
Into such a vaccuum, oppression steps in and takes over.
As for churches surviving in Communist regimes, maybe there is more to it than your explanation.
We in the church know it grows best when persecuted.
But thanks to the rejection of the sacred, our society values are shaped more by popular opinion than by a code of ethics.
We see atheism's effects in STDs, euthanasia, abortion, sex abuse and pornography. We see a culture adrift, because we are told our old mooring were an illusion and there's nothing really to grab onto.
Into such a vaccuum, oppression steps in and takes over.
"We see atheism's effects ...". And that, my dear man, is where your premise is flawed. You presume (and I would be willing to bet based upon church teachings, rather than on *actual* and conclusive evidence) that atheism is causally linked with the lack of ethics. Pure and unadulterated garbage! As you know, ethics and morals are what drives human behaviors as regards right and wrong. But what you fail to realize is that ethics and morals can be determined independent of a belief in God.
For example, does one need a belief in a higher power to realize that murder is wrong? Does one need a 'personal relationship' with God to realize that simply having sex with someone and then dropping them like a bad habit in such a selfish manner winds up hurting those involved? And here is something else you might want to keep in mind. If you do something moral because you are afraid that God would 'send you to hell' (or some other like punishment) if you don't, how does that compare with doing something moral because you knew that it was the right thing to do irrelevant of the Wrath (or Rewards for that matter) of God? Since moral atheists don't believe in the 'do something or else God shalt smite thee' song-and-dance (read extortion!), then that means that they must be doing it for some other motivation. And usually that motivation is the 2nd one I mentioned: ie., doing it because it's the right thing to do, irrelevant of any existance of a diety.
Remember that atheism deals with not believing in a god or spiritual world. And that is ALL it deals with, depite whatever anti-atheist propaganda you've been spoon fed. It does not address whether or not there should be ethics or what those ethics should be, with this one exception (IMHO anyway). They take a 'test things out and see what works for the best of those concerned' tactic in determining what ethics are, rather than the blind appeal to authority ("Thus saith the Lord") approach that many theists take. And undoubtedly there will be mistakes and miscalls (as well as calling it right) along the way.
But at least that way, they can see for themselves what is right or wrong.
As for churches surviving in Communist regimes, maybe there is more to it than your explanation.
We in the church know it grows best when persecuted.
I believe it was Lincoln who spoke of how most men (people) can withstand difficulty and persecution. But if you really want to judge a man's character, give him power.
Seems to me that *wasn't* when the church was 'growing best', hmmmm?
Oh, like Lenin, Stalin, Adolph, Fidel, Madelyn perhaps. Your argument fails George because what those people did was not Christian. They committed a great sin. But atheists have killed far more people than religionists and that was in the 20th century alone.
Or a sun-worshipper, maybe a Wiccan, anything but a good, Godly fundamentalist...
Rome had its sun-worshipers and they committed great evil. Wiccans commit evil acts too. All this proves is we are people in need of a Savior.
Actually, it proves nothing of the sort. What is tells us is not what we need, but what we don't need and that is a dictator...absolute rule, and we especially don't need some psudo-science to prop it up. That goes for your god too.
What has brought us out of barbarianism is not God either. He was there all along, commanding it at times. What has brought from those cold bararisms to this state of limited enlightenment is education. Education regarding the world around us, the beings that live on it and good old trial and error. The more you learn about other people, the more a non-sociopath realises how similar we are and how human we all are and how powerful we are and how incredibly weak we are. You then funnel that knoledge thru a good filter of sympathy and empathy you come out the other end with a little more respect and compassion than you started with.
IMO, an absolute, always right, resently converted to "all benevolence all the time (except when he says so)", God has not helped that process much.
Whoa! I know you're Def and I may sometimes be blind but lets not be dumb.
You just said:
quote:
Sure it is easy to blame Christians for the crusades, those committing crimes like that are deserving of scorn.
What I was trying to point out is that no belief system is without sin. Every philosophy has adherents (or those claiming to be one) who take it to an extreme which allows them to commit atrocities in the name of their philosophy.
then before closeing said
quote:
We see atheism's effects in STDs, euthanasia, abortion, sex abuse and pornography. We see a culture adrift, because we are told our old mooring were an illusion and there's nothing really to grab onto.
Lets see, if anyone is responsable for STDs I think that would have to be the creator of all things who also commanded be fruitful and multiply. Euthanasia...oh yeah that is God's job. Sex abuse...I seem to remember a virgin Mary, looked a little like abuse of power. And pornography, I was just watching the Bible on TV, and that part about Lot and his daughters.....why I never! I had to fast forward thru the part where David is watching Bathsheba getting bathed by another girl! I can't lie, I peeked in on a little of all the "knowing" that was going on.
:D--> ;)-->
OK I'm having a little fun, but don't miss the point. Lets not say one thing and then turn around and do the exact same thing.
STDs were around long before that evil sexual revolution. There are many Christians that are both for euthaasia and are pro-choice. Sex abuse has been around as long as the cell block for abusive priests and ministers is long. And pornography has been keeping many a believer straight and narrow ever since the advent of clothes.
Lets not make silly baseless claims. Lets talk about how it is in your world, that from your personal experience tells you that non-believers are nothing more than moralless animals. Or take up my original challenge of coming up with ideas of why it could possibly be a good idea to live a good life without a god looking over your shoulder.
You stated that I could edit your posts if I wanted to do so. How generous! Why don't you discuss, instead of harass?
Pawtucket,
I have just one question. What do you call some who desires to see people get hurt and gets enjoyment from it?
Answer: A Sadist
I'm just calling a spade a spade
I had contacted you privately a while back and asked you to close this thread because it's Def who is the one who doing the provoking. Now I'm making that suggesstion to you publicly. You should do just that and I'll take this matter with Def privately. Or maybe not at all.
I try to live peacefully with all men as the bible suggests, but what do you do when you are being deliberately provoked?
Maybe we should all be thankfull this is only an electronic forum and not a live stage. Otherwise we would have had another Geraldo ( a long time ago and people would have ended up in the hosptial.
I came across this quote by Albert Einstein that might make for a good answer to the question posed by the title of this thread:
quote:
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Compare and contrast the two ideas, both by Einstein and Proverbs, and actually, your example helps illustrate my point. ;)-->
Someone behaving wisely/morally because they 'fear the Lord' as it were (with the inbuilt fear of punishment/hope of heavenly reward), and someone behaving wisely/morally because of sympathy, education, and social ties. Because of the intrinsic value and results of behaving wisely/morally in and of itself.
Who would act more honestly/freely in regards to their morality, hmmm?
Seems kind of childish to be asking paw to break up a fight. It takes 2 to fight. Why not just drop it rather than continue and escalate into name calling which makes you both look foolish.
Why are buttons being pushed? You could both ask yourselves that question.
History has proved that the outcome cannot be predicted.
That said, stats also show that religious people, taken as whole, tend to live longer, healthier & crime free lives. FWIW.
Hehehehehe .... Really?
Then please explain to me why nearly ALL of those (if not ALL) on death row are/were religious or brought up religious?
And you're point on religious people being way more generous is backed up ... how? If you are using the sheer monetary amount as your basis, keep in mind that its almost always that as a whole, religious people have more money and resources than that of non-believers.
That argument seems to me to be almost as ludicrous as the one saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. Yah!
The Fear of Lord is such a misunderstood subject. Just ask Ananias and Saphira... oops, guess we can't. Whether it is believed or not doesn't change the veracity of the truth.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." Anything else, is so much crap. Man in his best state, is vanity.
The Fear of Lord is such a misunderstood subject. Just ask Ananias and Saphira... oops, guess we can't.
Thanks for helping me illustrate my point. Ie., the 'God shalt strike thee dead' routine if you don't do that which is right, rather than doing the right thing because of its own merits.
quote:
Whether it is believed or not doesn't change the veracity of the truth.
Ohhh, like make sure the apostles get ALL of the loot, and not to fudge on the amount? ;)-->
Okay, so you don't like that portion of the Bible, Garth. Fine.
Nevertheless, fear of consequence is a moderating behavior for everybody.
The fear of the Lord is a higher thing. I think it's difficult for Americans to grasp, never having had a sovereign, and having lost, to a great extent, the elements of respect I see so prevalent in other societies.
For example, in africa, your conversational style would be considered so rude as to likely get you killed. I predict you would moderate your style in the interest of self-preservation. After awhile, you may see the beauty of a subtler and more respectful communication style and actually begin adopting it.
I love it when my debate opponents help me make my case for me. Kinda reminds me of that old saying "Give a man enough rope, he'll hang himself with it." hmmmm?
For example, ;)-->
quote:
For example, in africa, your conversational style would be considered so rude as to likely get you killed. I predict you would moderate your style in the interest of self-preservation.
Perhaps I would moderate my style, but that 'tradition' in those African countries would do NOTHING to inspire any respect for these people nor their 'culture'. ... Then again, maybe the perps would be looking down the barrel of a loaded .44, with me behind it going "I'm sorry, but would you like to *tell* me why you are angry at me?" :)--> Now they would be the ones 'moderating' their behavior, no? ;)--> And I would be justified in that example of 'using fear' to persuade them, because in that instance, ... well, there is something sensible to be said about self-defense.
quote:
After awhile, you may see the beauty of a subtler and more respectful communication style and actually begin adopting it.
Then again, maybe not.
'Maybe not' would be the correct choice. You win a Kewpie doll.
It's one thing to show due respect towards people, mainly due to their humanity and appropriate positions of authority. Ahem, notice I put the emphasis on due. As opposed to that respect which is undue. And I guess the debate then would be on determining which from which.
It's totally something else to have appeal to fear and/or appeal to authority as a standard core of the means of living a good life, rather than utilizing the 'proving all things, hold fast to that which is good' means of determining how to live a good life.
Heh! So the loss of a sovereign here in America has somehow contributed to our supposed loss of godly respect for authority huh? Hmmmm, Nazi Germany, while not having royalty to be sovereign over them, did have Hitler. Tell me something, did that form of *solid* appeal to authority do anything to move that country closer to godly respect for authority? ... Didn't think so.
And considering the whole of your post, I find it odd, coming from an American who places such a high premium on freedom and intelligent thought to be posting what you do. It seems (to me anyway) to boil down to (endeavoring to put on my best Louisiana accent) "Shut yo' mouth, boy! If'n you know what's good for ya." basis for behavior.
And chief, I never have, nor will EVER have, any respect for that 'white trash' mentality. I've gone thru *enough* of that .... when I lived in Alabama! No more! And I don't think that that is the kind of mentality that made this country so great and free.
Pal, you can have your appeal to authority. I, like millions of us 'morally questionable' Americans, would rather have freedom instead, thank you very much. AND please note that many of those selfsame Africans you speak of seem to want the same thing when they come by the boatload over here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
7
14
8
Popular Days
Mar 15
20
Mar 9
18
Mar 8
11
Mar 10
4
Top Posters In This Topic
def59 9 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
GarthP2000 14 posts
CKnapp3 8 posts
Popular Days
Mar 15 2005
20 posts
Mar 9 2005
18 posts
Mar 8 2005
11 posts
Mar 10 2005
4 posts
CKnapp3
I believe in rewards and penalties, but they are of a redeeming nature, not of the unredemptive nature Def subscribes to.
People who believe in eternal torment cannot be trusted because of their perverse desire to see their enemies suffer endlessly, and not just any pain, EXCRUCIATING pain at that. Like you just said Galen, a person who doesn't care about his conduct cannot be trusted, and hell-fire damnation preachers are given to disorderly conduct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
ROFLMAO! Boy, ain't THAT the truth. Especially when they get caught in said disorderly conduct (and give a river of tears of repentence, Jimmy Swaggart style).
Then the question maybe ought to be directed in their direction, "Can they be trusted?"
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Def's Question: Why live a good life if everyone is going to be saved?
Chuck's Answer:
1. Def is an idiot.
2. Def is stupid.
3. Def is a hypocrite.
4. Def is mentally unstable because his religious beliefs are different from Chuck's.
5. Def is unforgiving.
6. Def is unloving.
7. Def should pray.
8. Def should be shot. (Just kidding. Ha. Ha.)
9. Def is evil.
10. Def is paranoid.
11. Def is full of hate.
When I opened this thread I thought I was going to read something about the relative benefits and risks of living a moral life compared to an immoral or amoral one.
This isn't a discussion. It is harassment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Chuck,
I think that laleo stated it well.
You stated that I could edit your posts if I wanted to do so. How generous! Why don't you discuss, instead of harass?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sure it is easy to blame Christians for the crusades, those committing crimes like that are deserving of scorn.
What I was trying to point out is that no belief system is without sin. Every philosophy has adherents (or those claiming to be one) who take it to an extreme which allows them to commit atrocities in the name of their philosophy.
Atheism isn't pure. There are many people who claim to be ones who are intolerant, hate-filled war mongers. So I tire of people who bring up all of the church's sins as if that mutes the message.
The church is not about being perfect, nor offering endless pleasure or a hedonistic lifestyle. It is about a relationship with a living and loving God.
I did not say all atheists are immoral or war-mongers. But thanks to the rejection of the sacred, our society values are shaped more by popular opinion than by a code of ethics.
We see atheism's effects in STDs, euthanasia, abortion, sex abuse and pornography. We see a culture adrift, because we are told our old mooring were an illusion and there's nothing really to grab onto.
Into such a vaccuum, oppression steps in and takes over.
As for churches surviving in Communist regimes, maybe there is more to it than your explanation.
We in the church know it grows best when persecuted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"We see atheism's effects ...". And that, my dear man, is where your premise is flawed. You presume (and I would be willing to bet based upon church teachings, rather than on *actual* and conclusive evidence) that atheism is causally linked with the lack of ethics. Pure and unadulterated garbage! As you know, ethics and morals are what drives human behaviors as regards right and wrong. But what you fail to realize is that ethics and morals can be determined independent of a belief in God.
For example, does one need a belief in a higher power to realize that murder is wrong? Does one need a 'personal relationship' with God to realize that simply having sex with someone and then dropping them like a bad habit in such a selfish manner winds up hurting those involved? And here is something else you might want to keep in mind. If you do something moral because you are afraid that God would 'send you to hell' (or some other like punishment) if you don't, how does that compare with doing something moral because you knew that it was the right thing to do irrelevant of the Wrath (or Rewards for that matter) of God? Since moral atheists don't believe in the 'do something or else God shalt smite thee' song-and-dance (read extortion!), then that means that they must be doing it for some other motivation. And usually that motivation is the 2nd one I mentioned: ie., doing it because it's the right thing to do, irrelevant of any existance of a diety.
Remember that atheism deals with not believing in a god or spiritual world. And that is ALL it deals with, depite whatever anti-atheist propaganda you've been spoon fed. It does not address whether or not there should be ethics or what those ethics should be, with this one exception (IMHO anyway). They take a 'test things out and see what works for the best of those concerned' tactic in determining what ethics are, rather than the blind appeal to authority ("Thus saith the Lord") approach that many theists take. And undoubtedly there will be mistakes and miscalls (as well as calling it right) along the way.
But at least that way, they can see for themselves what is right or wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I believe it was Lincoln who spoke of how most men (people) can withstand difficulty and persecution. But if you really want to judge a man's character, give him power.
Seems to me that *wasn't* when the church was 'growing best', hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Actually, it proves nothing of the sort. What is tells us is not what we need, but what we don't need and that is a dictator...absolute rule, and we especially don't need some psudo-science to prop it up. That goes for your god too.
What has brought us out of barbarianism is not God either. He was there all along, commanding it at times. What has brought from those cold bararisms to this state of limited enlightenment is education. Education regarding the world around us, the beings that live on it and good old trial and error. The more you learn about other people, the more a non-sociopath realises how similar we are and how human we all are and how powerful we are and how incredibly weak we are. You then funnel that knoledge thru a good filter of sympathy and empathy you come out the other end with a little more respect and compassion than you started with.
IMO, an absolute, always right, resently converted to "all benevolence all the time (except when he says so)", God has not helped that process much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Whoa! I know you're Def and I may sometimes be blind but lets not be dumb.
You just said:
then before closeing said
Lets see, if anyone is responsable for STDs I think that would have to be the creator of all things who also commanded be fruitful and multiply. Euthanasia...oh yeah that is God's job. Sex abuse...I seem to remember a virgin Mary, looked a little like abuse of power. And pornography, I was just watching the Bible on TV, and that part about Lot and his daughters.....why I never! I had to fast forward thru the part where David is watching Bathsheba getting bathed by another girl! I can't lie, I peeked in on a little of all the "knowing" that was going on.
OK I'm having a little fun, but don't miss the point. Lets not say one thing and then turn around and do the exact same thing.
STDs were around long before that evil sexual revolution. There are many Christians that are both for euthaasia and are pro-choice. Sex abuse has been around as long as the cell block for abusive priests and ministers is long. And pornography has been keeping many a believer straight and narrow ever since the advent of clothes.
Lets not make silly baseless claims. Lets talk about how it is in your world, that from your personal experience tells you that non-believers are nothing more than moralless animals. Or take up my original challenge of coming up with ideas of why it could possibly be a good idea to live a good life without a god looking over your shoulder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
BTW,
the sexual revolution and many sexual abuses are many times a result of religious sexual supression and oppression.
and
I liked TheEvan's answer
always gotta love a good agnostic Christian.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Pawtucket,
I have just one question. What do you call some who desires to see people get hurt and gets enjoyment from it?
Answer: A Sadist
I'm just calling a spade a spade
I had contacted you privately a while back and asked you to close this thread because it's Def who is the one who doing the provoking. Now I'm making that suggesstion to you publicly. You should do just that and I'll take this matter with Def privately. Or maybe not at all.
I try to live peacefully with all men as the bible suggests, but what do you do when you are being deliberately provoked?
Maybe we should all be thankfull this is only an electronic forum and not a live stage. Otherwise we would have had another Geraldo ( a long time ago and people would have ended up in the hosptial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I came across this quote by Albert Einstein that might make for a good answer to the question posed by the title of this thread:
Think about that one, ehh?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Does that apply?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
Compare and contrast the two ideas, both by Einstein and Proverbs, and actually, your example helps illustrate my point.
;)-->
Someone behaving wisely/morally because they 'fear the Lord' as it were (with the inbuilt fear of punishment/hope of heavenly reward), and someone behaving wisely/morally because of sympathy, education, and social ties. Because of the intrinsic value and results of behaving wisely/morally in and of itself.
Who would act more honestly/freely in regards to their morality, hmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"Because of the intrinsic value and results of behaving wisely/morally in and of itself."
Within that is the fear of punishment. Meaning that you will not get the value and results desired if you do not behave wisely/morally.
Fear of punishment is religion for sure. But I don't believe that is or should be the motivating factor behind godly men or those that seek god.
Same factor applies in both-value and results.
To fear God is not saying fear punishment.
It's not saying to be afraid of God.
Fear missing the value and results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
History has proved that the outcome cannot be predicted.
That said, stats also show that religious people, taken as whole, tend to live longer, healthier & crime free lives. FWIW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
CKnapp3
Seems kind of childish to be asking paw to break up a fight. It takes 2 to fight. Why not just drop it rather than continue and escalate into name calling which makes you both look foolish.
Why are buttons being pushed? You could both ask yourselves that question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Oh, and theyr'e way more generous, both in volunteering & giving. Way more
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hehehehehe .... Really?
Then please explain to me why nearly ALL of those (if not ALL) on death row are/were religious or brought up religious?
And you're point on religious people being way more generous is backed up ... how? If you are using the sheer monetary amount as your basis, keep in mind that its almost always that as a whole, religious people have more money and resources than that of non-believers.
That argument seems to me to be almost as ludicrous as the one saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. Yah!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
The Fear of Lord is such a misunderstood subject. Just ask Ananias and Saphira... oops, guess we can't. Whether it is believed or not doesn't change the veracity of the truth.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." Anything else, is so much crap. Man in his best state, is vanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol Greek2me....agreed, without God, ain't much there huh. But I believe he is there within each of us.
I'd like to redo Garth's signature to-
Rational Logic will lead to Faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Thanks for helping me illustrate my point. Ie., the 'God shalt strike thee dead' routine if you don't do that which is right, rather than doing the right thing because of its own merits.
Ohhh, like make sure the apostles get ALL of the loot, and not to fudge on the amount?
;)-->
CM,
You wish.
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Okay, so you don't like that portion of the Bible, Garth. Fine.
Nevertheless, fear of consequence is a moderating behavior for everybody.
The fear of the Lord is a higher thing. I think it's difficult for Americans to grasp, never having had a sovereign, and having lost, to a great extent, the elements of respect I see so prevalent in other societies.
For example, in africa, your conversational style would be considered so rude as to likely get you killed. I predict you would moderate your style in the interest of self-preservation. After awhile, you may see the beauty of a subtler and more respectful communication style and actually begin adopting it.
Then again, maybe not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I love it when my debate opponents help me make my case for me. Kinda reminds me of that old saying "Give a man enough rope, he'll hang himself with it." hmmmm?
For example,
;)-->
Perhaps I would moderate my style, but that 'tradition' in those African countries would do NOTHING to inspire any respect for these people nor their 'culture'. ... Then again, maybe the perps would be looking down the barrel of a loaded .44, with me behind it going "I'm sorry, but would you like to *tell* me why you are angry at me?"
:)--> Now they would be the ones 'moderating' their behavior, no? 
;)--> And I would be justified in that example of 'using fear' to persuade them, because in that instance, ... well, there is something sensible to be said about self-defense.
'Maybe not' would be the correct choice. You win a Kewpie doll.
It's one thing to show due respect towards people, mainly due to their humanity and appropriate positions of authority. Ahem, notice I put the emphasis on due. As opposed to that respect which is undue. And I guess the debate then would be on determining which from which.
It's totally something else to have appeal to fear and/or appeal to authority as a standard core of the means of living a good life, rather than utilizing the 'proving all things, hold fast to that which is good' means of determining how to live a good life.
Heh! So the loss of a sovereign here in America has somehow contributed to our supposed loss of godly respect for authority huh? Hmmmm, Nazi Germany, while not having royalty to be sovereign over them, did have Hitler. Tell me something, did that form of *solid* appeal to authority do anything to move that country closer to godly respect for authority? ... Didn't think so.
And considering the whole of your post, I find it odd, coming from an American who places such a high premium on freedom and intelligent thought to be posting what you do. It seems (to me anyway) to boil down to (endeavoring to put on my best Louisiana accent) "Shut yo' mouth, boy! If'n you know what's good for ya." basis for behavior.
And chief, I never have, nor will EVER have, any respect for that 'white trash' mentality. I've gone thru *enough* of that .... when I lived in Alabama! No more! And I don't think that that is the kind of mentality that made this country so great and free.
Pal, you can have your appeal to authority. I, like millions of us 'morally questionable' Americans, would rather have freedom instead, thank you very much. AND please note that many of those selfsame Africans you speak of seem to want the same thing when they come by the boatload over here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.