On Rejecting Religious Morals (long post)
-
Paul Watson wrote: I no longer believe in God(s). Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing. They aren't trying to make you feel uncomfortable or shameful, they just want you to know what they think everyone should know.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Indeed and I would be very disapointed in anyone who thought "Paul Watson does not think there is a God, so I don't either." I was just showing you were I am coming from with all of this. That my arguements are from someone who does not believe in God(s). Jason Henderson wrote: Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing I should know, my sister is very concerned. I appreciate her, and others, concern. But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I do not need anybodies concerns on the matter and have made it clear to those who are. If they continue being concerned then I get a bit annoyed, perfectly normal. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Being a Christian myself I'd like to play devil's advocate here. What many non-religious people may feel is that the line : "for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach" implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Also, in their shoes I'd find this offending as well as condescending. Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Amen! errr, I mean right on! :-D Well said.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Kevnar wrote: If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. I agree. Other religions are wrong, but then so are most 'christians'. However, freedom to choose is obviously part of God's plan or we would not have so many alternatives. Kevnar wrote: Children are no longer being taught right and wrong in schools however, in fear that they be considered religious teachings. So where will they learn it? At home, of course !!! Anyone who trusted schools ever to teach their kids values is a moron. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Kevnar wrote: It needs refinment. I am rather coarse so the essay seemed very fine to me :) However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Frankly I find that just puts me off totally. I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life and I get quite irate when religious people look down their noses at me in pity because they assume I have no morals. That I am a rutting wild beast. So if you want the essay to reach a wider audience then maybe decouple moral sense from religion.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. I agree, this is a dangerous mistake to make. There are plenty of moral athiests and plenty of amoral people who claim religion. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Kevnar wrote: They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. I would beg to differ. What you describe as religious values are largely a prescription for successful communal living. The 10 Commmandments, for example, could be viewed as a set of 10 rules necessary for peace within a society. Kevnar wrote: "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." This, I personally believe, is the ultimate morality. Go back to the 10 Commandments and you'll see that following these simple rules will keep you from harming others. Past that I seriously doubt a God that I am willing to acknowledge would proscribe more. Kevnar wrote: So where will they learn it? In the home. The task of parents (wed or otherwise) is to prepare the child for the world. Inculcating that child with a moral code is an important, if not the only important task for the parent. If the schools don't support or reinforce that morality then take the child out and find another school or teach at home. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: The 10 Commmandments, for example, could be viewed as a set of 10 rules necessary for peace within a society. Have you read the 10 Commandments? Exodus 20:1-17 1 And God spoke all these words, saying: 2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 7"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you. 13"You shall not murder. 14"You shall not commit adultery. 15"You shall not steal. 16"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." If you are going to endorse them, endorse them all. "You shall have no other gods before Me." Mike Gaskey wrote: Go back to the 10 Commandments and you'll see that following these simple rules will keep you from harming others. Why should we go back to them? If they are from a god that doesn't exist, then they are really just the musings of some man. Hitler felt a successful, peaceful society requried the extermination of all those that are not of Aryan de
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Indeed and I would be very disapointed in anyone who thought "Paul Watson does not think there is a God, so I don't either." I was just showing you were I am coming from with all of this. That my arguements are from someone who does not believe in God(s). Jason Henderson wrote: Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing I should know, my sister is very concerned. I appreciate her, and others, concern. But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I do not need anybodies concerns on the matter and have made it clear to those who are. If they continue being concerned then I get a bit annoyed, perfectly normal. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. I can see how it can become this way. I can't say whether you will be lost forever or not because I don't have that authority and neither does anyone else on this planet.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness How are these religion-based? If there were no religion, could there not still be all these things? I don't think that's the case at all. Kevnar wrote: These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end I don't disagree that these things can contribute to happiness and peacefulness, but who are you to tell all of us what will make our lives happy and peaceful? Kevnar wrote: In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. I think you need to separate morality from religious beliefs. Nobody says the teacher can't tell the children it's wrong to steal, or hurt other children, or to do "bad things". The separation here, is that the teacher isn't supposed to teach the children things to do with religion, because it's not their place. Kevnar wrote: Reject religion if you must for the sake of freedom, but please, for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach. Now, you say you don't want to shove anything down my throat, but that sentence sure seems to be doing just that. I think I can find my own reasons to teach goodness, without referring to religion. I think that saying the reason you have morals is because you are religious, is a little bit funny. Would it not be possible to be un-religious, and still have good morals, or still be a "good person"?? Or do I, being a mere person, not have enough intelligence to derive my own sense of good morals and apply that to my life? I also think you are assuming that people don't care about these good things anymore, and while it may be true for some, it's not true for all of us, so please let us all make our own decisions. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Being a Christian myself I'd like to play devil's advocate here. What many non-religious people may feel is that the line : "for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach" implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Also, in their shoes I'd find this offending as well as condescending. Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles. As I said with Paul, we are likely to not come to an agreement here and I have no hard feelings with that. I just do not believe it is possible. Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. I do not believe I said that they were. Just not a static or absolute base. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: The 10 Commmandments, for example, could be viewed as a set of 10 rules necessary for peace within a society. Have you read the 10 Commandments? Exodus 20:1-17 1 And God spoke all these words, saying: 2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 7"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you. 13"You shall not murder. 14"You shall not commit adultery. 15"You shall not steal. 16"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." If you are going to endorse them, endorse them all. "You shall have no other gods before Me." Mike Gaskey wrote: Go back to the 10 Commandments and you'll see that following these simple rules will keep you from harming others. Why should we go back to them? If they are from a god that doesn't exist, then they are really just the musings of some man. Hitler felt a successful, peaceful society requried the extermination of all those that are not of Aryan de
Jason Gerard wrote: If you are going to endorse them, endorse them all. "You shall have no other gods before Me." Jason - I do but learned the Catholic version. See the 2nd set @ http://www.ainglkiss.com/10com/[^] Mike
-
Chris Austin wrote: implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles. As I said with Paul, we are likely to not come to an agreement here and I have no hard feelings with that. I just do not believe it is possible. Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. I do not believe I said that they were. Just not a static or absolute base. "I will find a new sig someday."
Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. There are way too many variants, so [edit]greatest[/edit] common denominator of all of them is probably very close to zero. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
-
Paul Watson wrote: Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Assuming there is a God, we need to believe him. God is a moral compass and without him, we will not make it to the final destination. If there were no God, I understand your point.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: we will not make it to the final destination. nothing will stop me from reaching my hole in the ground. :) -c
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If this was at all easy to accomplish (or learn) we would not have "evil regime" after "evil regime" popping up. Just look at the 20th century alone Indeed I agree it is not easy and from the looks of things the 20th and present centuries are humans taking some terrible blind alleys in their exploration of for one thing morals. Because I do not believe in God(s) I do not have a heirarchacal view of humanity. I see it driving itself forward with a multitude of forks. The forks represent everything from the USA to North Korea to China to Europe to Africa. Each one is a subset of humanity exploring, probing and defining paths. Many of our current forks are quite scary and seemingly dead ends. Hopefully they will merge with the better forks or divert to an entirely new, and better, direction. To me, this is a more rewarding and ultimately better model than being led by a greater power. It is like the difference between being told the results of an expirement in school, or finding out yourself. The latter being more beneficial, instilling better things in oneself. Those experiments I did myself in school have stuck with me far longer than the ones only the teacher told us the results of. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We are very unlikely to sway one another here but it is the basis for my disagreement with what I take to be "your view". On the whole religious theme I am very open as I often envy people with faith. So any logical, well thought out and provable (though I don't need physical evidence) part you can explain to me I will be more than happy to accept.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: I see it driving itself forward with a multitude of forks. The forks represent everything from the USA to North Korea to China to Europe to Africa. Each one is a subset of humanity exploring, probing and defining paths. Many of our current forks are quite scary and seemingly dead ends. Hopefully they will merge with the better forks or divert to an entirely new, and better, direction. I believe this can be agreed upon independantly of any religious convictions. Paul Watson wrote: So any logical, well thought out and provable And back to our impass. What I call faith, what ever I consider logical and well thought out will at some point not meet your provable claus. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. There are way too many variants, so [edit]greatest[/edit] common denominator of all of them is probably very close to zero. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
Chris Richardson wrote: Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. It is pretty obvious that we disagree with that statement. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Chris Richardson wrote: Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. It is pretty obvious that we disagree with that statement. "I will find a new sig someday."
I'm confused. Did you mean that you and I disagree on that point or somebody else does? Or did you mean that I was just stating the obvious? If the latter, then sorry. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
-
I'm confused. Did you mean that you and I disagree on that point or somebody else does? Or did you mean that I was just stating the obvious? If the latter, then sorry. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
Sorry, The we is just you and me. I should have said I. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) That AND clause is just infuriating. Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? It should be: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone, Those who do well Have their reward with themselves. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Be true to yourself.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? You don't need to fear anything to do well. We're given the conscience to do good and stay away from the evil. Will we get any reward for doing good in the life hereafter even if we don’t believe in God? I don’t have the authority to set the fate of someone in that part of our lives, but only thing I can say for sure that God almighty is merciful. Please read the following saying of Muhammad (sorry, it’s a bit long). "While a man was walking along a road, he became very thirsty and found a well. He lowered himself into the well, drank, and came out. Then [he saw] a dog protruding its tongue out with thirst. The man said: 'This dog has become exhausted from thirst in the same way as I.' He lowered himself into the well again and filled his shoe with water. He gave the dog some water to drink. He thanked God, and [his sins were] forgiven.' The Prophet was then asked: 'Is there a reward for us in our animals?' He said: 'There is a reward in every living thing.' " Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol. 3 #104.
-
Chris Austin wrote: implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles. As I said with Paul, we are likely to not come to an agreement here and I have no hard feelings with that. I just do not believe it is possible. Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. I do not believe I said that they were. Just not a static or absolute base. "I will find a new sig someday."
Sorry for the late reply...just got back from the smeggin dentist. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles Sure.... How about all of Fables we learn as children to teach us morality...The three wolves. The Boy how cried wolf. The little prince....The princess and the pee....I can name several more. Not to mention some heavier stuff like Shakesphere: Hamlet, McBeth, Othello, The Tempest...alll of these were tales of morality..or the lack there of. I am assuming that you won't see it the same as I do :). But, we should also look at how non-static the chrurch has been over time. For example: The church (Protestant and Catholic) used to allow slavery. Now it has changed it's view. The Church used to say women can't be Ministers or Preachers, Now they can. The Church used to say people can't get divorced, now they can. Some Churches used to allow bigimoy, now most don't. .... I can go on and on. These are examples of the church Changing with / due to social pressues. One could argue that this is man's flawed implementation of religion. And of course there are lots of counters to that. But hey, life is too short to figt over it....we can keep beliving that the other is wrong and no one gets hurt. Best Regards Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Indeed and I would be very disapointed in anyone who thought "Paul Watson does not think there is a God, so I don't either." I was just showing you were I am coming from with all of this. That my arguements are from someone who does not believe in God(s). Jason Henderson wrote: Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing I should know, my sister is very concerned. I appreciate her, and others, concern. But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I do not need anybodies concerns on the matter and have made it clear to those who are. If they continue being concerned then I get a bit annoyed, perfectly normal. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I freely admit my ignorance on the existance of God. I cannot deny the (im)possibility of the existance of a singular Creator (or group of them for that matter). I am quite happy with my ignorance, as I fully understand it can be no different until I have undeniable evidence (in my mind) one way or the other. I say all that for no apparent reason... I used to be offended at anyone who stated their beliefs as fact, and believed that I was wrong. But I have come to understand it cannot be otherwise. If I believe something with all my heart and mind, I cannot discuss the point with anyone who feels differently without coming across as though I believe they are wrong. If I didn't believe they were wrong, then I really wouldn't have strong beliefs. I suppose we could all be courteous and accept our differences and not argue our positions with conviction, but how boring would that be? BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Well I believe that its not something that is forced apon everyone.. Yes it is well known. I don't see any problem with Christ/Christian themes in Christmas, yes I am a Christian, but what would be in place of it? A Godless celebration.. supporting atheism, which would be supporting one religion over another. Kevnar wrote: Doing right by one another usually requires self-denial. People are lazy and ignorant. There are many youth that are taught religious teachings in one demnomination in NC (United Methodist), this past youth event Pilgrimage there was an attendance of 5770 youth. -Steven
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com -
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups ?? you mean the NRA, ACLU, NOW ? you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. this is a mistake. it implies that 3/4 of the world is immoral; but it's easy to find people who are "moral" who aren't Christian; morality can come from a non-christian source, too. to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), or that morality itself is independent of religion. i'm betting on the latter. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. Maybe you should re-read the thing. You missed the point entirely. My point was that people sometimes reject *universal* laws of morality just because they are endorsed by certain religions. I believe that God created man with an inate sense of right and wrong, a conscience. This would constitute these universal laws of morality, regardless of what faith one attests to.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips