my, my, my, widdle garfy-warfy is sure a judgemental lil agnostic/atheist/whatever... I guess I nailed it with the Star Trek reference since you obviously must be some kind of mind-reader with your Vulcan-like dismissal of my questions. Not so fast, Garth -- I mentioned nothing about Communists at all. I asked you if they are to provide us with the example and leadership of Einstein's philosophy and you come back with that tired, bogus krap????
Garth, you are a cheap-shot hack...time to step up your game, bud...or maybe this is your A game...
Usually when one hears of rantings re: the U.N., Peace societies, Hillary's 'It Take a Village', and the like, the undercurrent of 'Commie plot' usually isn't that far off.
But even if it had nothing to do with Communism, what kind of mindless rant was that about anyway? And you call me a cheap-shot hack? Or is it you can dish it out, but can't take it?
Read what you posted again, and see if you don't find some irritation towards Einstein's comment in there. I mean, what is it about what Einstein said that pi**es you off like that? Believe me guy, you didn't just post a question, ... not with how its written.
Or can't you give credit to atheists/agnostics/whatever with bringing up valid point about a good life 'cause its leaving out God. Is that what pi**es you off?
nice try, Garth, better than your last post. I want you to tell me, since you have dismissed the fear of the Lord, where and how Einstein's philosophy, which you apparently espouse, is being implemented,ie, being lived and promoted. I just named some of today's leading proponents of same. Are they, Garth? Where is the GREAT result of all this "Sympathy, education, and social ties", Garth? Of course you detect something, Garth --you are a bright boy!! Now try answering the question-- can ya handle that??
And the king of polemic is lecturing me about rants??!! wow, a compliment in there somewhere, I'm sure...
Hey! If I'm the King of Polemics, then yeah, it oughtta be done right! ;)-->
Basically all I'm trying to get across, is the idea of determining whats right and wrong, to live a good life, by what has been shown to be right or wrong intrinsically, ie., in and of itself, ... rather than this appeal to authority that says "Do something because (my) god says so," or "because some authority says so".
For example, look at it this way. Who would you trust more? Somebody who won't steal because he is afraid of punishment for stealing/will get a reward for not stealing, or someone who won't steal because he realizes that stealing hurts people, and stains himself?
Or how about people who do moral things only because they will get a reward in heaven, as opposed to someone doing the moral thing because of the intrinsic value of the moral act itself? See what I mean?
How about people who are browbeaten with hellfire and damnation preachings? Ohh sure, they'll act morally, as long as they think someone (God or anyone else) is watching. But how about that old phrase about when someone does that which is right even when no one is watching, hmmm? Or expects any reward.
Look at what Einstein said again. And try thinking about it. What's your rational take on all this? ... And would you respect someone from a culture that deals with verbal offense by killing the offender? Would that be an American value that you would respect?
And yeah, I think that there are people who endeavor to live what Einstein said. Altho' many times they are dismissed as atheists, agnostics and a lot of other names specifically reserved for them darn unbelievers.
The kind of group that I'm more and more feeling akin to.
I trust the Africans I know, particularly the Masai I know, more than Americans. It isn't even close. Case made.
And you don't even want to know how regimented & authoritarian Masai society is. Nor how serene and, in a very real sense, free.
You sure ascribed lots of things to me, Garth. As alfa pointed out, a reeeel champeeeen mahnd reeeder. Of course they are as false as your bankrupt ahhhdeeers.
Just curious chief. How many people in that 'regimented and authoritarian Masai society' ever wish that they could come to America, hmmm?
And how many are able to make it?
So they know you and you trust and feel safe with them. ... Yippee! Charles Lindburgh when he was a guest of Hitler felt safe, and even identified with his society. And, like any regimented and authoritarian society, you are indeed safe, ..... until you cross them or deviate from the path they set for you.
Then see how safe you are. :-
Nahh, I prefer the freedom here to the 'safe' regimented (read goosestepping) society over there, thank you very much. But hey, if you prefer it over there, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you.
That's the nice thing about the freedom here (including the freedom from blind appeal to authority). You can leave it if you want.
And hey, I call it like I see it (or read it, as the case may be). And so far you haven't given me anything else solid to go on. And if you think that my 'mahnd reeeder' skills are off, then why not give me the correct 'reeeding'?
Oh yeah, that's right. You have to be 'spiritual' to get it. ... Yeah well, I've given up on that con game quite some time ago.
I agree with Einstien, but he didn't need to throw in social ties. That is covered by sympathy and education. Those two also inspire empathy.
I don't mean education to as in getting your BS in BS, but as in learning of the world around you and those in it. Evan could not have approached his African friends without that type of education. Education to learn of other people's cultures and how not to insult them. Not out of fear of being murdered for a rediculous reason, but because you know how it feels to be insulted and don't want to cause others the same pain and discomfort and maybe rage. You know sympathy. Sympathy would in turn keep you from continuing to insult them in the name of being free. Education would inform you of the penalty of death and sympathy would inform your sense of responsibility. Eventually, the mutual respect may educate them and inspire sympathy invoking change. For example changing an idiotic classification of capital crimes.
I don't doubt these people's truthworthiness. I don't do that of anyone without cause. What I do is educate myself of each situation to the best of my ability. I will determine trust by way of that education. Speaking too quickly can cause that proccess to fail. I know I don't always get it right. I know nun of us do.
I don't feel fear is needed until you are in the situation where your head is the one about to be on a stick. That is not to say that fear does not work. Many times fear is the thing that causes us to realise we need to learn. It can cause one to begin the education proccess, questioning. "What is going on here?" "Why are these people chasing me with knives?" "How can I change my situation?" "How might I do this differently next time if I survive?"
A shot gun in tow next time with the intent on killing those bastards might work for you, but that is not opperating out of sympathy, that is education inspiring fear and ending with fear, stopping the proccess. On the other hand, a gun might not be a bad idea especially if a show of force inspires respect in that culture. There is only one way to learn that. Sympathy on the other hand, would lead to treating others with respect and compassion.
It is exactly what I was talking about before. Sympathy is selfish and that is OK. Say it with me.
Fear is selfish as well, but it can be a show stopper. It can be what I call short-sighted selfishness. It stops the proccess. Fear of God has been known throughout history to do this. One could argue they weren't properly educated about God. Then again you don't need a god to come to many of the same conclusions those with a god come to. Why? Because it was all born out of selfishness and God became an image of the inforcer.
Inforcement IS needed because we don't always operate out of education and sympathy. Inforcement is a sympathetic act. Although, many times punishment excedes an educated response. Sometimes is falls short.
Garth, now I remember why I quit sparring with you long ago. Your style of communication is, well, not communication.
1. You know nothing of the Masai. But that doesn't stop you from ascribing to them all sorts of wishes, traits, etc.
2. Now you've somehow divined that I somehow imply you must be spurchul to get my posts. I think you need to work on your divination, dude. Carnac you're not.
Greek said it best. Man is altogether vanity. In fact our freedoms are based in part on the recognition of man's depravity. One could, I suppose, call this a fear. Then, based on this "fear", our forefathers put in place a system of oppositions that we call checks & balances. And to bring this semi-circle, the doctrine of man's depravity is (sharp intake of breath here) calvinist.
Of course, I don't consider it Calvin's doctrine; I consider it the Bible's take on man.
Greek said it best. Man is altogether vanity. In fact our freedoms are based in part on the recognition of man's depravity.
I do not think that it was so general as "man's depravity" that they were afraid of. Some of the forefathers were more optimistic about humanity in that they man was gerneally good, while others were pessimistic thinking that man is generally bad. What I believe they were more concerned about was how absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have the freedoms we have today. To protect us from those types of people...kings, dictators, you could say those thinking that they are gods.
I think it is interesting how so many times us agnostics and atheists are often condemned as the morbid pessimists. Yet here we see how so many think that man on our own is depraved and worthless without God. Well, I beg to differ.
As I look at the back and forth here, there seems to be two sides. One side thinks that internal moral moderation is best, while the other side thinks that is impossible and an external moral law is necessary. I think they are both needed, but only because the first is not used by many and so the second must be there as a fail-safe.
There will always be a small percentage of people that are sociopaths. 4% is what I heard recently. Then there are the psychopaths and numerous other mental defects that take up another small percent. Then there are those that just fail to realise their abilities. That makes up a larger number. Of course this is all just anecdotal.
I heard recently testimony of a number of artists and other popular figures that used drugs to create and perform at the level they did. At the time they feel that it is the drug that is giving those levels of creative juices. Once the stop using drugs and start thier lives over they realise it is actually thier ability. It may be the same with many believers IMO.
Just a thought. We humans are capable of many a great thing, with or without a god. IMHO
Your post was one of the best you have had in awhile IMHO.
I have not heard atheists and agnostics accused of being morbid pessimists. I think they are blinded to reality and look within or to science for the answers. But that is like looking at a fractured mirror with broken glasses.
Because we are created in the image of God, we are capable of doing many wonderful things. But since we have a sin nature, we can turn those achievements into utter evil.
People who believe in God are not perfect, and never will be. What they are are pilgrims on a journey who seek others who may want to join them.
As for this thread's topic and initial article. It is not the fear of hell that keeps people in line, it the fear of the law.
The example that a neighbor who wants to rape his neighbor's wife and family and who does not because of hell, is weak.
First, even with the consequence of eternal punishment, people commit heinous crimes all the the time.
Second, many people will obey the law and not attack their neighbors and still live an otherwise ungodly life.
Third, God loves us enough to be honest with us. He waits for us to find him and then welcomes us into his house. He will dote and nurture us as we grow, forgiving us when we stumble and raise the accountability standard as we mature.
But, he also tells us what will happen to those who reject him and spurn his love. He is not Santa Claus. He does drown us in gifts, but he also is able and willing to discipline us.
He is the ultimate parent. He is forgiving and restoring like the father in the prodigal son parable, but he has his limits.
Yes, we worship him because of our love for him after he has shown his love to us, but we also warn those who would spit in his face, what the reward is for such a life.
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
GarthP2000
The Gospel according to Alfakat: Sympathy, education, and social ties = U.N. sponsered Communist plot!!
I'm not even going to digify that 5 second propaganda sound bite with anything further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
my, my, my, widdle garfy-warfy is sure a judgemental lil agnostic/atheist/whatever... I guess I nailed it with the Star Trek reference since you obviously must be some kind of mind-reader with your Vulcan-like dismissal of my questions. Not so fast, Garth -- I mentioned nothing about Communists at all. I asked you if they are to provide us with the example and leadership of Einstein's philosophy and you come back with that tired, bogus krap????
Garth, you are a cheap-shot hack...time to step up your game, bud...or maybe this is your A game...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Alfakat,
Usually when one hears of rantings re: the U.N., Peace societies, Hillary's 'It Take a Village', and the like, the undercurrent of 'Commie plot' usually isn't that far off.
But even if it had nothing to do with Communism, what kind of mindless rant was that about anyway? And you call me a cheap-shot hack? Or is it you can dish it out, but can't take it?
Read what you posted again, and see if you don't find some irritation towards Einstein's comment in there. I mean, what is it about what Einstein said that pi**es you off like that? Believe me guy, you didn't just post a question, ... not with how its written.
Or can't you give credit to atheists/agnostics/whatever with bringing up valid point about a good life 'cause its leaving out God. Is that what pi**es you off?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
nice try, Garth, better than your last post. I want you to tell me, since you have dismissed the fear of the Lord, where and how Einstein's philosophy, which you apparently espouse, is being implemented,ie, being lived and promoted. I just named some of today's leading proponents of same. Are they, Garth? Where is the GREAT result of all this "Sympathy, education, and social ties", Garth? Of course you detect something, Garth --you are a bright boy!! Now try answering the question-- can ya handle that??
And the king of polemic is lecturing me about rants??!! wow, a compliment in there somewhere, I'm sure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hey! If I'm the King of Polemics, then yeah, it oughtta be done right!
;)-->
Basically all I'm trying to get across, is the idea of determining whats right and wrong, to live a good life, by what has been shown to be right or wrong intrinsically, ie., in and of itself, ... rather than this appeal to authority that says "Do something because (my) god says so," or "because some authority says so".
For example, look at it this way. Who would you trust more? Somebody who won't steal because he is afraid of punishment for stealing/will get a reward for not stealing, or someone who won't steal because he realizes that stealing hurts people, and stains himself?
Or how about people who do moral things only because they will get a reward in heaven, as opposed to someone doing the moral thing because of the intrinsic value of the moral act itself? See what I mean?
How about people who are browbeaten with hellfire and damnation preachings? Ohh sure, they'll act morally, as long as they think someone (God or anyone else) is watching. But how about that old phrase about when someone does that which is right even when no one is watching, hmmm? Or expects any reward.
Look at what Einstein said again. And try thinking about it. What's your rational take on all this? ... And would you respect someone from a culture that deals with verbal offense by killing the offender? Would that be an American value that you would respect?
And yeah, I think that there are people who endeavor to live what Einstein said. Altho' many times they are dismissed as atheists, agnostics and a lot of other names specifically reserved for them darn unbelievers.
The kind of group that I'm more and more feeling akin to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I trust the Africans I know, particularly the Masai I know, more than Americans. It isn't even close. Case made.
And you don't even want to know how regimented & authoritarian Masai society is. Nor how serene and, in a very real sense, free.
You sure ascribed lots of things to me, Garth. As alfa pointed out, a reeeel champeeeen mahnd reeeder. Of course they are as false as your bankrupt ahhhdeeers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Just curious chief. How many people in that 'regimented and authoritarian Masai society' ever wish that they could come to America, hmmm?
And how many are able to make it?
So they know you and you trust and feel safe with them. ... Yippee! Charles Lindburgh when he was a guest of Hitler felt safe, and even identified with his society. And, like any regimented and authoritarian society, you are indeed safe, ..... until you cross them or deviate from the path they set for you.
Then see how safe you are. :-
Nahh, I prefer the freedom here to the 'safe' regimented (read goosestepping) society over there, thank you very much. But hey, if you prefer it over there, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you.
That's the nice thing about the freedom here (including the freedom from blind appeal to authority). You can leave it if you want.
And hey, I call it like I see it (or read it, as the case may be). And so far you haven't given me anything else solid to go on. And if you think that my 'mahnd reeeder' skills are off, then why not give me the correct 'reeeding'?
Oh yeah, that's right. You have to be 'spiritual' to get it. ... Yeah well, I've given up on that con game quite some time ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I agree with Einstien, but he didn't need to throw in social ties. That is covered by sympathy and education. Those two also inspire empathy.
I don't mean education to as in getting your BS in BS, but as in learning of the world around you and those in it. Evan could not have approached his African friends without that type of education. Education to learn of other people's cultures and how not to insult them. Not out of fear of being murdered for a rediculous reason, but because you know how it feels to be insulted and don't want to cause others the same pain and discomfort and maybe rage. You know sympathy. Sympathy would in turn keep you from continuing to insult them in the name of being free. Education would inform you of the penalty of death and sympathy would inform your sense of responsibility. Eventually, the mutual respect may educate them and inspire sympathy invoking change. For example changing an idiotic classification of capital crimes.
I don't doubt these people's truthworthiness. I don't do that of anyone without cause. What I do is educate myself of each situation to the best of my ability. I will determine trust by way of that education. Speaking too quickly can cause that proccess to fail. I know I don't always get it right. I know nun of us do.
I don't feel fear is needed until you are in the situation where your head is the one about to be on a stick. That is not to say that fear does not work. Many times fear is the thing that causes us to realise we need to learn. It can cause one to begin the education proccess, questioning. "What is going on here?" "Why are these people chasing me with knives?" "How can I change my situation?" "How might I do this differently next time if I survive?"
A shot gun in tow next time with the intent on killing those bastards might work for you, but that is not opperating out of sympathy, that is education inspiring fear and ending with fear, stopping the proccess. On the other hand, a gun might not be a bad idea especially if a show of force inspires respect in that culture. There is only one way to learn that. Sympathy on the other hand, would lead to treating others with respect and compassion.
It is exactly what I was talking about before. Sympathy is selfish and that is OK. Say it with me.
Fear is selfish as well, but it can be a show stopper. It can be what I call short-sighted selfishness. It stops the proccess. Fear of God has been known throughout history to do this. One could argue they weren't properly educated about God. Then again you don't need a god to come to many of the same conclusions those with a god come to. Why? Because it was all born out of selfishness and God became an image of the inforcer.
Inforcement IS needed because we don't always operate out of education and sympathy. Inforcement is a sympathetic act. Although, many times punishment excedes an educated response. Sometimes is falls short.
I'll stop there for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Thanks for making my point Garth.
As a matter of fact, I think it says... "Man in his best state is altogether, vanity."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Garth, now I remember why I quit sparring with you long ago. Your style of communication is, well, not communication.
1. You know nothing of the Masai. But that doesn't stop you from ascribing to them all sorts of wishes, traits, etc.
2. Now you've somehow divined that I somehow imply you must be spurchul to get my posts. I think you need to work on your divination, dude. Carnac you're not.
Greek said it best. Man is altogether vanity. In fact our freedoms are based in part on the recognition of man's depravity. One could, I suppose, call this a fear. Then, based on this "fear", our forefathers put in place a system of oppositions that we call checks & balances. And to bring this semi-circle, the doctrine of man's depravity is (sharp intake of breath here) calvinist.
Of course, I don't consider it Calvin's doctrine; I consider it the Bible's take on man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I do not think that it was so general as "man's depravity" that they were afraid of. Some of the forefathers were more optimistic about humanity in that they man was gerneally good, while others were pessimistic thinking that man is generally bad. What I believe they were more concerned about was how absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have the freedoms we have today. To protect us from those types of people...kings, dictators, you could say those thinking that they are gods.
I think it is interesting how so many times us agnostics and atheists are often condemned as the morbid pessimists. Yet here we see how so many think that man on our own is depraved and worthless without God. Well, I beg to differ.
As I look at the back and forth here, there seems to be two sides. One side thinks that internal moral moderation is best, while the other side thinks that is impossible and an external moral law is necessary. I think they are both needed, but only because the first is not used by many and so the second must be there as a fail-safe.
There will always be a small percentage of people that are sociopaths. 4% is what I heard recently. Then there are the psychopaths and numerous other mental defects that take up another small percent. Then there are those that just fail to realise their abilities. That makes up a larger number. Of course this is all just anecdotal.
I heard recently testimony of a number of artists and other popular figures that used drugs to create and perform at the level they did. At the time they feel that it is the drug that is giving those levels of creative juices. Once the stop using drugs and start thier lives over they realise it is actually thier ability. It may be the same with many believers IMO.
Just a thought. We humans are capable of many a great thing, with or without a god. IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Lindy
Your post was one of the best you have had in awhile IMHO.
I have not heard atheists and agnostics accused of being morbid pessimists. I think they are blinded to reality and look within or to science for the answers. But that is like looking at a fractured mirror with broken glasses.
Because we are created in the image of God, we are capable of doing many wonderful things. But since we have a sin nature, we can turn those achievements into utter evil.
People who believe in God are not perfect, and never will be. What they are are pilgrims on a journey who seek others who may want to join them.
As for this thread's topic and initial article. It is not the fear of hell that keeps people in line, it the fear of the law.
The example that a neighbor who wants to rape his neighbor's wife and family and who does not because of hell, is weak.
First, even with the consequence of eternal punishment, people commit heinous crimes all the the time.
Second, many people will obey the law and not attack their neighbors and still live an otherwise ungodly life.
Third, God loves us enough to be honest with us. He waits for us to find him and then welcomes us into his house. He will dote and nurture us as we grow, forgiving us when we stumble and raise the accountability standard as we mature.
But, he also tells us what will happen to those who reject him and spurn his love. He is not Santa Claus. He does drown us in gifts, but he also is able and willing to discipline us.
He is the ultimate parent. He is forgiving and restoring like the father in the prodigal son parable, but he has his limits.
Yes, we worship him because of our love for him after he has shown his love to us, but we also warn those who would spit in his face, what the reward is for such a life.
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.