How do you differ from your political label?

[H8tank]

That's less of an issue if we develop alternative forms of energy. Solar and wind are no-brainers and need to be used where efficient. They are not the answer to the bulk of our needs. Hydrogen is a possibility, but needs to be made safer and less expensive to produce. I'm interested in bio-fuels but don't think they're the long term answer. There are an ever-increasing number of mouths to feed in the world, and food will eventually take priority over bio-fuels. Nuclear is a large part of the answer, but people are afraid of it and need to be educated.

 

Dude, I know you mean well, but that is some bad info.

 

Solar and wind are no brainers? You know how little electricity we get from that crap?

 

Hydrogen? It's dirtier than oil, maybe in 100 years.

 

Run out of food? Again, get some perspective, there are more dead fields in the world cause of no demand that could feed the world 5 times over.

 

There is NO shortage of oil, just a limited availability to go get it, blame the communists.

 

 

how i differ from the republican label..

- strongly oppose the death penalty

 

F you butthole, go suck foreskins dirty sac.

 

 

if we put wind mills from the dakotas to texas, we would have enough energy to supply the whole U.S.

 

 

yeah, and if I ground muslim children into chili I could feed all of africa!

 

 

I do believe that Jesus would probably align himself more as a Democrat,

 

You are a crack smokin weetodd. Go read the parable of talents momo.

 

 

Fathers noted: the key to our constitutional republican form of government is an informed and participating citizenry.

 

Of white men and no women. Come on faggo, this is weak.

 

I love to hunt, fish, and am really a redneck at heart.

 

Through my BSometer, "I'm gay, I love anal and I love castro"

 

Oh, and 10g smacked yo beech up nuetron.

[bushwacked]

I'm gay, I love anal and I love castro

871138[/snapback]

 

Enjoy your white rats and slug fish and incessant humidity. Lesser intelligent people gotta have recreation too.

[Dr. Love]

I agree with the quote (or at least the sentiment of the quote).  I think it is impossible to write enough laws to make society function properly if laws are the only thing that constrains human behavior. 

 

Furthermore, I see no reason to think that educated people will behave any more morally than uneducated ones.

 

I have asked the question repeatedly here and never received a satisfactory answer as to why an athiest would behave "morally" in a situation in which they could legally get away with doing something "immoral". 

 

In the absence of an extralegal constraint their behavior, it just makes no sense for a person to not do what they consider best for themselves even if it may not be what is best for humanity overall. 

 

Some of you have tried to argue that people will behave "morally" even if they don't believe in some extra-worldly reward/punishment because you would want people to treat you the same in return.  This might work in a small community were you have repeated interactions.  But in a larger community were one's reputation of being a cheat won't spread that far, quickly a few people will start to take advantage of others.  And then these others will get sick of getting screwed over and start to do the screwing themselves (and why not?  If they think they can get away with it and their is no supreme force to punish them, what's to stop them?)

 

Eventually trust falls apart in the society.  And the society will cease to function on any grand level.

 

870906[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, if you're point is that people need to fear retribution in order for society to function correctly, then Protestant Christianity obviously isn't the way to go. Isn't faith in Christ the only item that affects one's ticket into heaven there? Who cares if you steal something or cheat on your spouse. If you say you're sorry and really believe in the divinity of Jesus, you're hunky dorey.

[Savage Beatings]

anyway, the reason i replied to this is, i'm wondering how you'd apply this line of thought, as you've laid it out, to an issue like abortion.  i know you've said you're pro-life, but i'm wondering if your reasoning here wouldn't lead to a more pro-choice position.

 

870796[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I can see how that would be possible, but not likely... especially for someone (like myself) who believes that protection of innocent life has to begin at conception since that is the first possible moment that life could begin (even if it does actually begin later in development I have to assume the earliest possible moment until we know for certain... which is likely never). In my view, abortion is the ultimate in taking away freedom... the freedom of an innocent's ability to continue to live.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

There is NO shortage of oil, just a limited availability to go get it, blame the communists.

871138[/snapback]

 

I know you don't believe in science H8, but what about peak oil?

[seminoles]

yeah, and if I ground muslim children into chili I could feed all of africa!

You are a crack smokin weetodd. Go read the parable of talents momo.

 

871138[/snapback]

 

 

 

just getting it from the history channel

[Ursa Majoris]

I'll throw down on this. I usually stay out of political discussions on here because I use the Huddle for purpose it was intended, FF. But here goes.

 

- I am a registered Republican and have been since I was 18. I bought into the program on promises of less goverment, fewer taxes and a strong military.

 

- I am as anti-religion as they come. I don't care what you or you or you believe in. Heck you can believe that a vacum cleaner is God, just don't shove it down my throat or make my kid pray to your god in class. Let him get his quadratic equations down pat thank you.

 

- I think most drug laws aren't just silly, they actually are stupid which as I get older I see that most laws are stupid or at least outdated. I cannot understand why a kid can get 4 years in prision for possesion and another guy can get 4 years as well for battery. Our prisions are busting at the seams and a good chunk of them are drug related offenses. If they want to make something illeagal, make tequila illeagal. Trust me.

 

- I am pro-gun and a card carrying member of the NRA. I have a concealed weapons permitt and I believe I have the right to defend myself and my family by whatever force neccessary.

 

-While I am not "pro-abortion" I do not believe we need the goverment telling us what to do and making laws against abortion. Most pro-lifers are religous wackos anyway. Trust me, we are a country full of unwanted kids walking the streets , commiting crimes, costing us billions of dollars in leagal, medical and other expenses. While it is sad, if there wasn't abortions just how many more of them would there be. And don't give me that adoption crap. There are 10's of thousands of kids waiting to be adopted. It just aint happening.

 

-I am anti-censorship on all forms especially media. Don't tell me what I can't watch or listen to. I'm 40 years old and if I want to watch something you find disgusting or crude, GFY. This FCC crap is friggin scary. If you don't want too see/hear it, turn it off. If you don't want your kids to do the same, talk to them, earn their trust, influence them on your beliefs but leave me and my vulgarity alone.

 

-I think immigration in this country is a joke. Sure let 10 million Mexicans in free of charge Dubya. I mean we have so many social services we can't find enough of our own to spread it out too.

 

-Not a big fan of social services. Get up, get out, get a job and support yourself.

 

-I could care less what gays do or do not do. Go ahead let them get married. Why should us straight people be the only ones miserable. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. I'm more worried about the increase of weirdo's taking away our kids. Those are the people who we need to find and kill.

 

-I am pro death penalty. But please lets make sure all the ducks are lined up before we off someone.

 

-I'm a big fan of the space program. I mean have you checked out some of the stuff the Hubble has found? Amazing.

 

-I'm a big opponent of foreign aid. We ship off billions and billions to other countries yet we had to raise money so my son's school could get new computers for his classes. Go figure.

 

-Pro enviornment. I'm not a nut job who thinks we should go back to the Flintstone days, but some of the stuff we do is way beyond resonable. I mean we let cruise ships dump all their crap in the ocean as soon as they get far enough out to sea. It's the only Earth we've got people.

 

-The war is  Iraq is stupid. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. Let's get the real people responseable for 911. Lets invade Saudi Arabia.  And while were there, some oil would be nice.

 

Whew, I could go on.............

 

870951[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

When you post good $hit like this, there is no need to post often.

[Ursa Majoris]

Some of you have tried to argue that people will behave "morally" even if they don't believe in some extra-worldly reward/punishment because you would want people to treat you the same in return.  This might work in a small community were you have repeated interactions.  But in a larger community were one's reputation of being a cheat won't spread that far, quickly a few people will start to take advantage of others.  And then these others will get sick of getting screwed over and start to do the screwing themselves (and why not?  If they think they can get away with it and their is no supreme force to punish them, what's to stop them?)

 

 

870906[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You assume that the prevailing mentality should logically be "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". But we can beat 'em, and we do. It is a question of survival - if an entire society goes bad, the result is anarchy and a swift reduction in life expectancy for all.

 

I still argue that the prevailing mindset is based on the golden rule, therefore societies of whatever size tend to excise that which they perceive as bad rather than all go bad.

[Ursa Majoris]

You're a well read man.  How long has it been since you read 'Lord of the Flies?'  It's a story about what happens to a community when our human nature runs unchecked.

 

The default of no religion is not automatically immoral behavior

in the same way that

the default of no light is not automatically darkness.

 

871060[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Lord of the Flies is about children, not adults. While Golding's book is supposed to be a metaphor for society, I am not convinced a group of adults placed in the same situation would behave in the same way.

 

To say religion is the sole barrier between moral and immoral behavior is utterly laughable. By that logic, all atheists - or even agnostics - should be in prison. While this might be a desirable state of affairs to the religious brigade, it ain't the case.

[Ursa Majoris]

how i differ from the republican label..

- strongly oppose the death penalty

- favor legalized abortions (though it should be legislated at the state level) even though it's morally difficult for me to do so, simply because i think the pregnant woman herself is in the best position to weigh her own moral dilemma.

- get really disgusted with all the gay-bashing, can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry

- vehemently oppose the way so-called "religious conervatives" typically bring their "faith" to bear in their politics

- still think white-on-minority racism is a major problem, one that dwarfs any "reverse" racism.  but i do think that more institutionalized discriminition under the umbrella of affirmative action is absolutely the wrong way to address it, and that racial hucksters like jese jackson make the problem much worse.

- not at all comfortable with "compassionate conservatism", which as far as i can tell is basically just warmed-over big-government liberalism with a more socially conservative face.

- don't believe in some mythical "ideal" that we need to return to, the way conervatives (especally social cons) seem to

- believe at least Josh Gordon should be legalized, as well as prostitution and some other stuff like that

- believe environmental issues need to be taken seriously, even if the other side is even more guilty of politicizing it and using it to advance a socialist agenda. 

- not willing to jump on board with all the anti-immigrant bluster the way most republicans do (excluding the prez, though, to his credit IMO)

- i'm sure there are plenty more, but that mostly covers it

 

 

870779[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

With the exception of the compassionate conservatism thing, which IMO was just a handy-dandy slogan with no meaning or intent, and a question about the immigrant thing, I'm completely on board with this entire list.

[Selly]

I'll throw down on this. I usually stay out of political discussions on here because I use the Huddle for purpose it was intended, FF. But here goes.

 

- I am a registered Republican and have been since I was 18. I bought into the program on promises of less goverment, fewer taxes and a strong military.

 

- I am as anti-religion as they come. I don't care what you or you or you believe in. Heck you can believe that a vacum cleaner is God, just don't shove it down my throat or make my kid pray to your god in class. Let him get his quadratic equations down pat thank you.

 

- I think most drug laws aren't just silly, they actually are stupid which as I get older I see that most laws are stupid or at least outdated. I cannot understand why a kid can get 4 years in prision for possesion and another guy can get 4 years as well for battery. Our prisions are busting at the seams and a good chunk of them are drug related offenses. If they want to make something illeagal, make tequila illeagal. Trust me.

 

- I am pro-gun and a card carrying member of the NRA. I have a concealed weapons permitt and I believe I have the right to defend myself and my family by whatever force neccessary.

 

-While I am not "pro-abortion" I do not believe we need the goverment telling us what to do and making laws against abortion. Most pro-lifers are religous wackos anyway. Trust me, we are a country full of unwanted kids walking the streets , commiting crimes, costing us billions of dollars in leagal, medical and other expenses. While it is sad, if there wasn't abortions just how many more of them would there be. And don't give me that adoption crap. There are 10's of thousands of kids waiting to be adopted. It just aint happening.

 

-I am anti-censorship on all forms especially media. Don't tell me what I can't watch or listen to. I'm 40 years old and if I want to watch something you find disgusting or crude, GFY. This FCC crap is friggin scary. If you don't want too see/hear it, turn it off. If you don't want your kids to do the same, talk to them, earn their trust, influence them on your beliefs but leave me and my vulgarity alone.

 

-I think immigration in this country is a joke. Sure let 10 million Mexicans in free of charge Dubya. I mean we have so many social services we can't find enough of our own to spread it out too.

 

-Not a big fan of social services. Get up, get out, get a job and support yourself.

 

-I could care less what gays do or do not do. Go ahead let them get married. Why should us straight people be the only ones miserable. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. I'm more worried about the increase of weirdo's taking away our kids. Those are the people who we need to find and kill.

 

-I am pro death penalty. But please lets make sure all the ducks are lined up before we off someone.

 

-I'm a big fan of the space program. I mean have you checked out some of the stuff the Hubble has found? Amazing.

 

-I'm a big opponent of foreign aid. We ship off billions and billions to other countries yet we had to raise money so my son's school could get new computers for his classes. Go figure.

 

-Pro enviornment. I'm not a nut job who thinks we should go back to the Flintstone days, but some of the stuff we do is way beyond resonable. I mean we let cruise ships dump all their crap in the ocean as soon as they get far enough out to sea. It's the only Earth we've got people.

 

-The war is  Iraq is stupid. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. Let's get the real people responseable for 911. Lets invade Saudi Arabia.  And while were there, some oil would be nice.

 

Whew, I could go on.............

 

870951[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

D@mn 'canes that's almost me to a "T". The only difference is I don't have my concealed carry permit yet and if they outlaw tequila, you may have to use yours.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Selly

[skins]

I am a Canes Republican.

 

Except for the death penalty part--dont like the government having the power to kill citizens so easily.

 

How is this reconciled with being a Typical Republican? I am scared.

Edited July 11, 2005 by skins

[Jimmy Neutron]

Dude, I know you mean well, but that is some bad info.

 

Solar and wind are no brainers?    You know how little electricity we get from that crap?

 

Hydrogen?  It's dirtier than oil, maybe in 100 years. 

 

Run out of food?  Again, get some perspective, there are more dead fields in the world cause of no demand that could feed the world 5 times over.

 

There is NO shortage of oil, just a limited availability to go get it, blame the communists.

 

871138[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Solar and wind are clean, renewable resources. While they represent a very small percentage of the electricity generated today, they hold great potential. Variable-pitch bladed windmills are pretty cool. All we need to do is design better batteries to take advantage of solar energy.

 

You don't think food will become a challenge? The exponential population growth projections would argue. Yeah, we have plenty of land now and there are still hungry people in out own communities, let alone the foreign countries where tens of thousands starve every day.

 

There is no shortage of oil right now - only enough demand to increase prices to an all-time high. The availability will never catch up to the increasing demand. It is projected that in 20 years, oil will cost $420 a barrel. Makes $60 look like a bargain, eh?

 

This is not the time for immediate concern or panic, but it is time for action. If we sit on out collective laurels for another 10 years, it will be cataustrophic.

[Azazello1313]

With the exception of the compassionate conservatism thing, which IMO was just a handy-dandy slogan with no meaning or intent, and a question about the immigrant thing, I'm completely on board with this entire list.   

 

872367[/snapback]

 

 

 

why is it surprising that you (or grunge, skins, or whoever), as someone who disagrees with republican and libertarian political ideology, would find little to disagree with on my list of complaints against those parties? seems logical that you would agree with me there.

[Azazello1313]

I agree with the quote (or at least the sentiment of the quote).  I think it is impossible to write enough laws to make society function properly if laws are the only thing that constrains human behavior. 

 

Furthermore, I see no reason to think that educated people will behave any more morally than uneducated ones.

 

I have asked the question repeatedly here and never received a satisfactory answer as to why an athiest would behave "morally" in a situation in which they could legally get away with doing something "immoral". 

 

In the absence of an extralegal constraint their behavior, it just makes no sense for a person to not do what they consider best for themselves even if it may not be what is best for humanity overall. 

 

Some of you have tried to argue that people will behave "morally" even if they don't believe in some extra-worldly reward/punishment because you would want people to treat you the same in return.  This might work in a small community were you have repeated interactions.  But in a larger community were one's reputation of being a cheat won't spread that far, quickly a few people will start to take advantage of others.  And then these others will get sick of getting screwed over and start to do the screwing themselves (and why not?  If they think they can get away with it and their is no supreme force to punish them, what's to stop them?)

 

Eventually trust falls apart in the society.  And the society will cease to function on any grand level.

 

870906[/snapback]

 

 

 

wedgie, as ever, puts it too...economically.

 

but we've had this discussion ad nauseum, and i'd have to fall back on my previous answer -- which is, basically, that people invoking "the golden rule" are being more religious than they would care to admit.

[Dr. Love]

Solar and wind are clean, renewable resources.  While they represent a very small percentage of the electricity generated today, they hold great potential.  Variable-pitch bladed windmills are pretty cool.  All we need to do is design better batteries to take advantage of solar energy.

 

You don't think food will become a challenge?  The exponential population growth projections would argue.  Yeah, we have plenty of land now and there are still hungry people in out own communities, let alone the foreign countries where tens of thousands starve every day.

 

There is no shortage of oil right now - only enough demand to increase prices to an all-time high.  The availability will never catch up to the increasing demand.  It is projected that in 20 years, oil will cost $420 a barrel.  Makes $60 look like a bargain, eh?

 

This is not the time for immediate concern or panic, but it is time for action.  If we sit on out collective laurels for another 10 years, it will be cataustrophic.

 

872800[/snapback]

 

 

 

You're right on most counts, but the reality is that the availability of food to the hungry is more of an economic / social issue than it is a lack of supply issue.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I think you've confused acid and pot.  Or you've got some really good $hit.  In which case you need to call me.  I can be there in a couple of hours.

 

870008[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

send me some

I think we should repeal the 17th amendment.

 

I think soft drugs like pot, shrooms and mdma should not be illegal.

 

I think the fed should get out of education, taxation and healthcare.

 

Give the states the choice for things like abortion, education, marriage, death penalty, etc.

 

Remove the IRS.

 

Close borders.

 

Remove Property taxes.

 

The list goes on...

 

870077[/snapback]

 

 

 

holly odin im more like tank than i want to admit.... we are different on the woman's clothing and renewable energy

 

Let me be crystal clear on this topic. Eternal death awaits us all.

 

870288[/snapback]

 

 

 

he he i wont see you there

[Azazello1313]

Az,

Are worldly experiences and self-evident principles the basis for law?  If my experience differs from yours am I exempt?  Which principles are self-evident?  It seems to me, that if they were obvious, there would be no debate (or no tailgate).  How is the self-evident distinguished from the preferential?

 

well, you're correct that there's always conflicting views, but you can't escape that fact no matter what view you take of the basis for law. if you take the "god-given" angle, you're prone to even MORE conflict, as history has shown us time and again.

 

in any case, wordly experience has ALWAYS formed the fundamental basis for prevailing ethics and law. society ceases to function if you allow people to kill each other, therefore murder is "illegal" in every society that has ever existed. the ancient hebrews forbade intermarrying with moabites and canaanites because the very worldly effect it had eroding the insular bonds of their society. likewise, all of the leviticus rules (many of which seem nonsensical today, and have therefore been shrugged off by modern christians and jews) have their basis in practical issues the hebrews faced at the time they were written down and imposed as law.

 

the founding fathers of this country created the sort of government they did precisely out of their experience. they were the ultimate pragmatists, really. they hated the tyrrany of kings, state churches, taxes, centrallized governmental power...all because of their direct experiences with mother england. the government they formed reflects those experiences to a T.

 

Also, it seems that only recently have people been issuing warnings against codifying our own moral judgments about others in the name of God."  Just about every legislature and court has an image or a display of the 10 Commandments.  Why do you think these reminders were put in the halls of justice?

 

wow. i have a hard time believing you're actually serious. ever hear of a guy named jesus? "judge not lest ye be judged"? "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone"? you don't read these as warnings against codifying our own moral judgments? well then how about paul, who says that the law is born of sin and death?

 

i'm not sure you're correct that "just about every legislature and court" has a display of the 10 commandments. i think that is just blatantly false. and to the extent it's true, there are probably nearly as many displays of or references to, say, hammurabi's code. which could only lead to the conclusion that our lawgivers and institutions are looking to the practical and experiential history of lawmaking and justice.

 

Thanks guys. Look forward to an intelligent, or at least respectful, discussion.

 

Here are a couple quotes.  What does everybody think?

"From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless -- little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless -- little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are, in fact, different sides of the same coin."

--Mark Alexander

 

he's just quotin' paul for the most part. but i don't think paul is saying what you think he's saying. because implicit in what paul's distinction is saying is that the law itself is essentially just a worldly husk. i agree with that. it's a wordly husk essential to the functioning of worldly affairs, and it cannot ever be more or less than that. but what you're selling is basically the law AS grace, and/or grace AS the law. that is incorrect. they are eternally separate, even if both are in some way necessary.

 

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

--John Adams

 

870885[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i agree with that quote entirely, but it's important to dissect the terms we're using a bit. morality and religion aren't the same thing -- to relate it to what i just said above, morality and law are closely related, as are religion and grace. it's really essential to realize that. please read the second speech on religion by the 17th century theologian schleiermacher for a compelling breakdown on this point.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Virtually all societies across the globe have the same sense of right and wrong. Morality is, as you pointed out, universal. We're hardwired with knowledge of natural law. How do you explain that?[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You're not going to get an arguement from me that a part of this is not inborn. I will argue that the ideals of right and wrong, like everything else, is part nature, part nurture. Clearly, there are individuals in all societies that do not have this understanding, it is utterly missing from their composition.

 

Evolution can offer no explanation for the origin of human consciousness. In fact, it runs contrary - killing off the competition and taking resources for yourself is what survival of the fittest is all about. Yet, the generally accepted norms of right and wrong in every society say it's wrong to kill and it's wrong to steal.[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The theory of evolution does not purport that an active role is taken in the competition you mention. The theory argues that the continued genes of slightly more adaptive individuals x hundreds of generations is what ensures survival of the fittest.

 

I am not a proponent of the theory, but believe it is the best explanation science has for our existence.

 

Where did our spirit of morality come from? Who or what wove this into the fabric of our being?[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Again, you and I are sort of on the same page here. I do believe that a part of the human spirit contains a basic understanding of right and wrong. I also believe that unless those understandings are nurtured properly, they twisted into something evil or even eliminated.

 

Perhaps there is some confusion around the meaning of this excerpt. The Pharisees were looking for an excuse to arrest and discredit Jesus. They tried to trap Him into saying something against Rome so they could hang Him for treason.

He simply said obey God and obey the governmental rulers. This passage does not say anything about imposing our will on others. Perhaps, they're not the best verses to prove your point because they actually instruct us to submit to authority and pay our taxes.[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

They left Him alone cuz they couldn't get Him to say something that could be used against Him.[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You are right, of course, in the strictest sense. The pharisees were doing anything they could to get Christ our of their hair and were trying to get him in trouble with Rome. I won't dispute that.My appreciation for these verses expounds beyond these boundries.

 

Think about the teachings of Christ. He continually taught that we are to be of service to others (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.) and to work on their own salvation. To my knowledge, Christ never taught that Christians are to force others to live by their standards. The idea that Christians should subject their ideas upon their neighbors is an entirely a man-made supposition and leads to the very worst associations non-believers have with religion. Did God's hand bless the Crusades, or was it a less than holy venture?

 

It's not readily apparent to me why this verse was included with your post. Let's get a contemporary translation and add some context.

Galatians 6:1-10

 

Doing Good to All

 

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5for each one should carry his own load.

 

6Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.

 

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.[/b][/size]

 

871124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I included this verse only as a reminder that only our own works lead to salvation. Look at verses 7-10. How can people make the choices that will condemn or save them if a Christian morality is legislated upon them? Agency is the very crux of Christianity. Chose God or chose the devil.

[Azazello1313]

So then knowledge is the source of morals?  The more one knows, the better one behaves?

 

I know a high school dropout to whom I would entrust my life.

 

Ever hear the phase, "Evil Genius?"

 

870900[/snapback]

 

 

 

Nothing is absolute, but generally yes. And yes, I am something of an elitist, but not of education as measured by degrees. I am an elitist of knowledge. So yer high school dropout friend could be very "educated" and "informed" to me. One of my very best buddies--I am godfather to his second son--only has two years of college and is an entrepeneur who owns his own printing company. But he has an inquisitive mind. Thats the key.

 

Morals come from an understanding of right and wrong and an empathy for others, in my opinion. Those things can come from religion, upbringing, environment, education and learning and other sources.

 

870904[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i think i'm with 10geebus on this point. saying that education/knowledge lead inevitably to a more moral society is way too simplistic and utopian.

[Ursa Majoris]

i think i'm with 10geebus on this point.  saying that education/knowledge lead inevitably to a more moral society is way too simplistic and utopian.

 

872903[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If education leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to enlightenment, then skins is right, since enlightenment leads to tolerance and order. However, it is necessary to define "moral". One could say that Iran is a moral society in one sense, but it wouldn't be described as enlightened. It could be said that Iran is highly immoral - it very much depends on the perception of morality.

[Azazello1313]

If education leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to enlightenment, then skins is right, since enlightenment leads to tolerance and order.  However, it is necessary to define "moral".  One could say that Iran is a moral society in one sense, but it wouldn't be described as enlightened.  It could be said that Iran is highly immoral - it very much depends on the perception of morality.

 

873037[/snapback]

 

 

 

you're making all sorts of assumptions about enlightenment, knowledge, morality, righteousness, and what they mean. who says enlightenment leads to tolerance? haven't some of the most successful societies in human history been the least tolerant? i think, in a way, you're betraying the fundamental weakness of the humanist argument -- it posits all sorts of absolutes, either without recongnizing its doing so, or without offering any real basis for accepting those posited absolutes as absolutes.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

you're making all sorts of assumptions about enlightenment, knowledge, morality, righteousness, and what they mean.  who says enlightenment leads to tolerance?  haven't some of the most successful societies in human history been the least tolerant?  i think, in a way, you're betraying the fundamental weakness of the humanist argument -- it posits all sorts of absolutes, either without recongnizing its doing so, or without offering any real basis for accepting those posited absolutes as absolutes.

 

873064[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Depends on how you define success, doesn't it?

[Azazello1313]

Depends on how you define success, doesn't it? 

 

873082[/snapback]

 

 

 

yup. which again just bolsters my point. it's another assumption implicit in the skins/ursa model of "progress".

[Ursa Majoris]

you're making all sorts of assumptions about enlightenment, knowledge, morality, righteousness, and what they mean.

 

Well, I'm not assuming anything about morality - on the contrary, I'm pointing out that one societies morality may be another's anathema.

 

 

who says enlightenment leads to tolerance?  haven't some of the most successful societies in human history been the least tolerant? 

 

Enlightenment does usually lead to tolerance, perhaps because it leads away from blind religion. As for successful intolerant societies, I think it's necessary to define success. Longevity? Military conquest? Legacy in art, literature, architecture, systems? You could call the Aztecs successful - until they came into contact with another society. So was that success?

 

i think, in a way, you're betraying the fundamental weakness of the humanist argument -- it posits all sorts of absolutes, either without recongnizing its doing so, or without offering any real basis for accepting those posited absolutes as absolutes.

 

873064[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't believe there are many absolutes, really. While you can make a case that "morals" came from religion and must always refer back to religion, that doesn't have to be the case. Religion may have developed from the basic realization of morality, rather than the other way around. Further, even if it's true that religion was the fount from which came morality (and with it, order), those values can now stand alone without having to refer back to religion per se. Like a baby that becomes independent of it's parent, morality can become independent of religion.