The United States: A Christian nation
The_Doge
Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran <kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>Well, it looks like the alt.christnet.* folks are at it again, taking
>quotes out of context and twisting them around to try and "prove"
>that this is a "christian" nation. Who wants to refute them this
>time?
>
>In article <scd.76...@rintintin.colorado.edu>,
>Davies Stephen Clark <s...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I had convincing proof that
>>the Founding Fathers were strong Christians, and in fact favored a
>>government that actively encouraged the worship of God through orthodox
>>Christianity. So many people e-mailed me asking me for this information
>>that I have compiled it and will just post it!
>>
>> The first section contains quotes from the Founding Fathers and
>>other leaders up through the first half of the 20th century. The second
>>section contains actual excerpts from Supreme Court cases before the
>>1950's. Together, I think the facts speak for themselves.
[Carefully-chosen quotes deleted. I don't think anyone is disputing
that many of our founders believed in a God of some sort. This hardly
constitutes an argument for establishing Christianity as the Official State
Church. In order to justify that, one must deal with:]
The_Doge's Christian Nation Challenge!
(So far completely ignored)
The challange is simple, really; provide the Biblical passages from
which the following essential aspects of the American legal/governmental
system have been derived:
- government by officials elected by the governed (republican
democracy)
- separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial)
- trial by a jury of one's peers
- presumption of innocence
- freedom from cruel or unusual punishment
- freedom from involuntary self-incrimination
- freedom of speech and assembly
- prohibition of the establishemnt of religion (could be a toughie!)
- right to keep and bear arms (or establishment of a malitia; take
your pick)
- the concept (embodied in both the DOI and Constitution) that the
power to govern resides *with the governed* and is granted *by
them* to elected officials
Secular and historical models and sources for all of these are
available, some of them pre-dating your religion. Your mission, should you
decide to accept it, is to come up with Biblical ones that are *at least* as
clear. Without them, claims that the American system of government is based
on the Bible are unsupported, no matter how many quotes you post demonstrating
this or that founder's belief in a God of some sort.
Well?
---
************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) *
* "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm *
* 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio *
* "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" *
* -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" *
************************************************************
Richard E. Byer
>> - freedom from involuntary self-incrimination
>And in which amendment was this added to the Constitution?
The Fifth, last time I checked.
--
Rick Byer <rb...@netcom.com>
Stryder
by using a bunch of old quotes. By the way, the alt.atheism FAQ contains
lots of quotes that state clearly that all the "founding fathers" were NOT
in fact Christians, and considered keeping religion out of government an
extremely high priority.
WAKE UP AND LOOK AROUND YOU!!! THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICAN
CITIZENS WHO ARE _NOT_CHRISTIAN_!!!
Now, what are you going to do, scd? Deport us? Demote us to second class
citizens? Force us to pray? You sound like a Nazi talking about Jews.
I for one will fight you with every means I have at my disposal.
______________________________________________________________________________
Do not dress in those rags for me,
You know that you are not poor.
And do not love me quite so fiercely, now,
When you know that you are not sure.
Leonard Cohen
"Avalanche"
______________________________________________________________________________
A.X. Lias
: pub...@inca.gate.net (Publius) writes:
[SNIP]
: > PUBLIUS
: Hmmm.... let's see if you think THIS is progress...
: The government is already too influenced by Christianity. It may reach
: the point where the only recourse non-Christians have to defend their rights
: is violent uprising.
Hrm. Count me out of any violent uprisings. For one thing, I generally
oppose violence as a means to a political solution. For another,
atheists are a small minority. Violent uprisings have a way of being
violently repressed.
I'll just pack my bags and move to europe if it ever comes down to it.
--
Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
"Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely
survive in the face of doubt." -- Robert Lindner
William R. Stewart
Richard E. Byer <rb...@netcom.com> wrote:
>wste...@milner.mitre.org (William R. Stewart) writes:
>>> - freedom from involuntary self-incrimination
>>And in which amendment was this added to the Constitution?
>The Fifth, last time I checked.
...`twas a rhetorical question, Richard...
--
Regards,
Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
Robert Knowles
>FROM: Publius <pub...@inca.gate.net>
>
> I am encouraged to believe I have made considerable progress:
> At least you all are batting the matter around.
>
> PUBLIUS
>
Oh, right, Pubeboy, like the sun rises over the crack of your ass.
You have done absolutely nothing original in this newsgroup, so don't
flatter yourself. Both sides have had their quotes lined up on this
topic for years.
A.X. Lias
[Deletia regarding the notion of a Christian USA]
: I think the matter is how God thinks about the United States. He surely
: wanted this country to fight against the evil forces in the world based on
: Christian spirit, most likely.
In that case, god can run for president. Of course, I'm not sure he
would qualify as a citizen (he's certainly not paying any taxes).
On the other hand, if people are going to tell me how god wants the USA
to be run, they are going to need to provide me with substantial proof
that they are, in fact, communicating with god (P.S: the bible says so
ain't gonna cut it).
In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
Arturo Viso Magidin
Takahiro Hiroi <HI...@sn.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I think the matter is how God thinks about the United States. He surely
>wanted this country to fight against the evil forces in the world based on
>Christian spirit, most likely.
This sounds suspiciously like the Manifest Destiny. I hope you
realize that is one reason why Latin American (and many other) countries
hate the US so much. It is so arrogant to assume that God had a direct hand
in the creation of the country...
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@uclink.berkeley.edu
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
TREVOR HICKS
(Robert Williams) writes:
>In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
>A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
>>running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
>
>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
>
Sure there's some principles in the bible that make sense. Do you think we
should tack on the partner of the one you mention, "love god"? How about
killing homosexuals? That's biblical. Also, the next time we get in a war
with another country, we'll just lay waste to their territory and kill all
inhabitants, just the way Joshua did. And to top it off, let's start
condoning sacrificing of our virgin daughters to Yahweh the way Jepthah
did. And if we catch anyone stealing from the church, we'll be sure to
execute them just like Annanias and his wife. Frankly, this would be a
barbaric and cruel world if everyone lived by biblical principles.
Trevor H. Hicks hi...@tulsa.dowell.slb.com
Contracting for:
Schlumberger Dowell
Tulsa Research (PCN) Software Engineering Products (SEP)
Schlumberger does not necessarily endorse any opinions expressed within.
If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.
Robert Williams
TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar30.2...@seas.smu.edu>, rwil...@seas.smu.edu
>(Robert Williams) writes:
>>In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
>>A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
>>>running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
>>
>>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
>
>Sure there's some principles in the bible that make sense. Do you think we
>should tack on the partner of the one you mention, "love god"? How about
>killing homosexuals? That's biblical. Also, the next time we get in a war
>with another country, we'll just lay waste to their territory and kill all
>inhabitants, just the way Joshua did. And to top it off, let's start
>condoning sacrificing of our virgin daughters to Yahweh the way Jepthah
>did. And if we catch anyone stealing from the church, we'll be sure to
>execute them just like Annanias and his wife. Frankly, this would be a
>barbaric and cruel world if everyone lived by biblical principles.
The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
generally considered "Christian." I can explain it if you wish,
but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
Annanias and Sapphiras weren't executed. And they didn't steal from the
church. God punished them for lying to Him. They pretended to be giving
Him the whole price of some land they stole, but secretly kept some of it.
Peter asked them point blank "Is this how much you got for the land?"
They both lied. If they had said "No, we kept some" nothing would have
happened to them.
There is nothing cruel or barbaric about Christianity.
--
Robert Williams There's no place like ~/
rwil...@seas.smu.edu
<IX0YE><
Robert Williams
the New Testament, the others were Old Testament.
--
Robert Williams | Pray for Bill Clinton: Psalm 109:8 | __|__
rwil...@seas.smu.edu | "May his days be few; | |
<IX0YE>< | may another take his place of leadership."| |
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
>A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>to be run, they are going to need to provide me with substantial proof
>>that they are, in fact, communicating with god (P.S: the bible says so
>>ain't gonna cut it).
>>
>>In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
>>running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
>
>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
Sheesh. Do you think the wholly babble is the only thing that says that?
Have you never heard of the golden rule? All societies seem to have some
variant. It doesn't take your pretend friend for that.
I _know_ it would be a better world if people tolerated each others'
differences instead of forcing one particular interpretation of one
particular religion on the rest of us. Or what is worse, forcing the
consequences of that same interpretation on the rest of us.
> | Sometimes it's easier to handle the glorious suffering
>Robert Williams --|-- of the great tragedies of life than to keep faith during
> <IX0YE>< | the little inconveniences of our day to day drudgery.
> | --Chris Mussack
Chris Lee
David J Robinson
"Killing homosexuals is Biblical"
No way!
God is our judge not men. People must realize that Christians are to
follow Christ. We are to worship God, not do his job.
(how could we do his job!)
I think that the Bible shows that homosexuality is wrong,
but hating gay people is just as wrong, and much more hurtful
to everyone. Nothing good will ever come of raw hate, but
"... Love covers over a multitude of sins." If we tell people
anything about repentance we must do it in LOVE, for we are called
to preach repentance, but also to heal. Preaching "repentance" to
HURT your enemies is actually just Accusing them.
The words Satan and Devil both mean accuser. He is the one who holds
your crimes against you. "Love keeps no record of wrongs."
Christians count on God's love and mercy, not their deeds.
Jesus laid down his life so that our guilt might be taken away.
Considering the mercy shown to us how dare we Christians show
anything, but love, mercy, and forgiveness. This does not mean that
we accept evil as good, but that we love people despite their evil.
David
A.X. Lias
: In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
: A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >On the other hand, if people are going to tell me how god wants the USA
: >to be run, they are going to need to provide me with substantial proof
: >that they are, in fact, communicating with god (P.S: the bible says so
: >ain't gonna cut it).
: >
: >In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
: >running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
: Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
: to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
As long as no one is point a gun at my head in order to make me do it.
Here's a clue: the morality of the world is not the exclusive domain of
the chrsitians. I am an atheist. I am moral. Ergo, atheists can be
moral. Now that, aside, I still feel uncomfortable using a 2,000 year
old, badly translated, self-conflicting collection of events with dubious
historical accuracy as a guide to modern geo-politics.
TREVOR HICKS
(Robert Williams) writes:
>In article <2ncqlk$n...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>
>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>generally considered "Christian." I can explain it if you wish,
Why don't you christians get your stories straight? Is the OT part of the
bible or not? Did god do the things described in the OT? How are we
supposed to run this country on biblical principles if the people who
believe in it can't decide which parts to follow and which to ignore? I'm
not interested in your particular rationalization of the OT atrocities
commited by Jehovah, you'd be wasting your time. The sins of the christian
god are written down in plain text.
>but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
>in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
>
Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
>Annanias and Sapphiras weren't executed. And they didn't steal from the
>church. God punished them for lying to Him. They pretended to be giving
>Him the whole price of some land they stole, but secretly kept some of it.
>Peter asked them point blank "Is this how much you got for the land?"
>They both lied. If they had said "No, we kept some" nothing would have
>happened to them.
>
Well, the thread said that this nation should be run on biblical
principles. I was refuting this. This particular biblical principle is
that lying to members of the church about how much you gave them is a crime
worthy of death. No, the story does not have the people killing them, God
somehow does it. The result is the same. So, should we start killing
everyone who is a little short on their tithes? It seems that that is a
biblical principle. Actually, I think that little bit was put in as a
scare tactic to get the members of the church to be more generous with
their gifts. Not quite the same as offering them lodging at six flags over
jesus, but it's the same principle. Anyway, it was 'cruel and unusual
punishment' and I doubt I could be convinced otherwise.
>There is nothing cruel or barbaric about Christianity.
>
See above.
>
>Robert Williams
William R. Stewart
>>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
>Strange I don't ever remember hearing a Christian politician mention this.
>They very rarely quote anything Jesus said, the gospel ideas just arn't
>useful for there political agenda's.
I should add "conservative Christian politician", because few
moderates and liberals run on a platform that seeks to impose
their form of Christian values on the nation.
>If you really meant running the country based only on the 4 Gospels I
>suspect quite a few humanists might agree.
I find this to be particularly interesting, as I am a Christian who
has the same opinion. It seems to me that many times we hear
conservative Christian leaders draw their quotes from the OT or
sources other that Jesus. I find this to be missing the mark, so to
speak (not that I'm perfect, mind you).
Are there other humanists that share Lawrence's opinion?
Are there those that don't?
.
--
Regards,
Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"
Duane P Mantick
>In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
>A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
>>running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
If various christian sects could learn to follow their own
advice, it would be great. Unfortuately, history provides us with
far too many examples in which such is NOT the case.
Duane
Robert Beauchaine
>
>There is nothing cruel or barbaric about Christianity.
>
You don't find a religion entirely based upon a divinity willingly
sacrificing his son to be hung on a tree until dead just a tad barbaric?
That, in a nutshell, exemplifies the difference between me and
most Christians.
Bob Beauchaine
bo...@vice.ico.tek.com
Tom Albrecht
>
>"Killing homosexuals is Biblical"
>No way!
>God is our judge not men. People must realize that Christians are to
>follow Christ. We are to worship God, not do his job.
>(how could we do his job!)
What a schizophrenic god you serve. At one point in time he told his
people that they were not to tolerate abominations such as homosexual
behavior, and that such people were to be put to death, now you think he's
telling them to wink and look the other way.
Or perhaps you never read those portions of the Bible which teach that
God hates sin, and that He will not let a nation go unpunished which
rejects His holy law.
--
Tom Albrecht tc...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com
Unisys Corporation albr...@eccsa.tredydev.unisys.com
Robert Williams
>Robert Williams <rwil...@seas.smu.edu> wrote:
>>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>>>(Robert Williams) writes:
>>>>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>>>>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
>>>
>>>Sure there's some principles in the bible that make sense. Do you think we
>>>should tack on the partner of the one you mention, "love god"? How about
>>>killing homosexuals? That's biblical. Also, the next time we get in a war
>>>with another country, we'll just lay waste to their territory and kill all
>>>inhabitants, just the way Joshua did. And to top it off, let's start
>>>condoning sacrificing of our virgin daughters to Yahweh the way Jepthah
>>>did. And if we catch anyone stealing from the church, we'll be sure to
>>>execute them just like Annanias and his wife. Frankly, this would be a
>>>barbaric and cruel world if everyone lived by biblical principles.
>>
>>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>>generally considered "Christian."
>
>Bible to believe in. Yeah.
I'm not picking and choosing. Human sacrifice was practiced once in the
OT (as far as I can remeber). It is not, however, considered "Christian".
>>There is nothing cruel or barbaric about Christianity.
>
>Sig bait? Or do you really believe this?
I don't know quite what you mean by sig bait, unless you're reffering to
my "Pray for Bill Clinton" sig. In that case, IT'S A JOKE!!!!!! Paul
said to pray for all in authority, but he didn't say what we had to
pray! :-)
BTW, I don't think a nation could be run on the ideals of Christianity.
I think the US would be a better place if everyone was a Christian, but
a nation can't survive on principles such as "Do not resist an evil
person", etc.
Robert Williams
TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar31.0...@seas.smu.edu>, rwil...@seas.smu.edu
>(Robert Williams) writes:
>>In article <2ncqlk$n...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
>>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>>generally considered "Christian." I can explain it if you wish,
>
>Why don't you christians get your stories straight? Is the OT part of the
>bible or not? Did god do the things described in the OT? How are we
>supposed to run this country on biblical principles if the people who
>believe in it can't decide which parts to follow and which to ignore? I'm
>not interested in your particular rationalization of the OT atrocities
>commited by Jehovah, you'd be wasting your time. The sins of the christian
>god are written down in plain text.
I never said the OT wasn't part of the Bible. Read the second sentence of
the post you quoted. God did everything in the OT accredited to Him. It
was not a sin. God does nothing wrong.
>>but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
>>in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
>
>Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
>have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
>my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
>about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
>story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
>of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
>accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
>accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
>seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
>author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
>is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
Who are you to condemn God? Who are you to condemn anyone? It sounds
cruel and monstrous. Have you read the story ever?
Judges 11:36: "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the
LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of
your enemies, the Ammonites."
The Hebrews understood the supremacy of God in all areas of life, unlike
people today. Don't you realize what you are like compared to God? You
are not His equal. You are not even close! We are infinitely stupid,
evil, and weak compared to God.
>Well, the thread said that this nation should be run on biblical
>principles. I was refuting this. This particular biblical principle is
>that lying to members of the church about how much you gave them is a crime
>worthy of death. No, the story does not have the people killing them, God
>somehow does it. The result is the same. So, should we start killing
>everyone who is a little short on their tithes? It seems that that is a
>biblical principle. Actually, I think that little bit was put in as a
>scare tactic to get the members of the church to be more generous with
>their gifts. Not quite the same as offering them lodging at six flags over
>jesus, but it's the same principle. Anyway, it was 'cruel and unusual
>punishment' and I doubt I could be convinced otherwise.
The crime was not short-changing the Church. It was lying to God. It has
nothing at all to do with being short on one's tithes.
God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
God's actions.
Robert
Peter Walker
>In article <2nenbi$c...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>>
>>Why don't you christians get your stories straight? Is the OT part of the
>>bible or not? Did god do the things described in the OT? How are we
>>supposed to run this country on biblical principles if the people who
>>believe in it can't decide which parts to follow and which to ignore? I'm
>>not interested in your particular rationalization of the OT atrocities
>>commited by Jehovah, you'd be wasting your time. The sins of the christian
>>god are written down in plain text.
>
>I never said the OT wasn't part of the Bible. Read the second sentence of
>the post you quoted. God did everything in the OT accredited to Him. It
>was not a sin. God does nothing wrong.
Of course not. Might makes right. We can't have supreme beings actually
following the rules they will condemn us to eternal torture for obeying.
This, BTW, is the very definition of 'tyrant'. Hard to love that sort of
monster.
>>Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
>>have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
>>my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
>>about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
>>story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
>>of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
>>accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
>>accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
>>seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
>>author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
>>is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
>
>Who are you to condemn God?
Who is god to make rules for us and break them himself. Trevor's just judging
your god by your god's own standards.
>The Hebrews understood the supremacy of God in all areas of life, unlike
>people today. Don't you realize what you are like compared to God? You
>are not His equal. You are not even close! We are infinitely stupid,
>evil, and weak compared to God.
<to everyone else:> Don't attitudes like this scare you? Aristotle was
right. There are people who are natural slaves.
>God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
How about by his own standards?
>God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
>by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
>does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
>God's actions.
Spoken like a true fanatic.
>Robert
_______________________________________________________________________________
Peter Wykoff Walker II "He who wishes to succeed
Rice University in life must learn not to
Dept. of Space Physics & Astronomy heed the Bird of Prophesy."
Houston, Tx.
USA, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way,
Local Group. -Esigie, Oba of the African
p...@spacsun.rice.edu Kingdom of Benin, c.1505-c.1550
(713) 666-0684
_______________________________________________________________________________
TREVOR HICKS
(Robert Williams) writes:
>In article <2nenbi$c...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>
>I never said the OT wasn't part of the Bible. Read the second sentence of
>the post you quoted. God did everything in the OT accredited to Him. It
>was not a sin. God does nothing wrong.
>
>>>but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
>>>in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
>>
>>Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
>>have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
>>my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
>>about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
>>story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
>>of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
>>accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
>>accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
>>seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
>>author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
>>is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
>
>Who are you to condemn God? Who are you to condemn anyone? It sounds
>cruel and monstrous. Have you read the story ever?
>
Hey, no fair. Yes, I have read the story, and, in fact, it was the final
impetus for me in giving up the christian religion.
>Judges 11:36: "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the
>LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of
>your enemies, the Ammonites."
>
So she was either as stupid as Jepthah or the story was romanticized a bit.
>The Hebrews understood the supremacy of God in all areas of life, unlike
>people today. Don't you realize what you are like compared to God? You
>are not His equal. You are not even close! We are infinitely stupid,
>evil, and weak compared to God.
>
I pity your self esteem problem. Please try to avoid projecting your lack
of self worth on to me.
[blather by me about Annanias deleted]
>
>The crime was not short-changing the Church. It was lying to God. It has
>nothing at all to do with being short on one's tithes.
>
OK, I'm going to lie to God just to see if he applies his punishment
consistently and fairly. Mind you, this is no small undertaking because I
would appear to be risking my life. -----
<me>
God? God? H-H-Hello?? Anyone there?
<god>
[deafening silence]
<me>
Well, um, I was wanting to try something here. In 30 seconds, I'm going to
call a local church and give them my credit card number so that they can
charge it for $1000 to help feed poor people, OK??
[30 seconds pass and I call a church and give them a big raspberry over the
phone]
<me>
Aaack! Oof, gasp! -- Just kidding, I'm still here. You see, this is one
of the problems with your religion, one person can do something to god that
seems relatively minor and pay for it with his life. While I do the exact
same thing and am in no way affected. I'd expect a little better from an
omnipotent, omniscient god.
>God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
>God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
>by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
>does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
>God's actions.
>
OK, I see that we're not talking on the same level here. You are talking
from the dogmatic position that God exists and he is described by the
Bible. I take the pragmatic position that I don't really know what's out
there so I won't assume anything until I get more information. I'd like
you to try to see things the way I do for a second, it's fair, I spent many
years believing in your religion so I've done my part. Anyway, I'm going
to figuratively hand you a pair of atheist spectacles that will help you to
see things from my point of view. Yes, just slip them on there right over
your nose, they won't hurt. Whoa, Whoa, try not to let yourself get too
disoriented from your new found clarity of vision, you may want to hang on
to something until you get more used to them.
Now what do we see? We haven't assumed any gods and we have a bunch of
people telling us all kinds of things about god, many of them
contradictory. To speed things up, let's look at the christian god first.
Hmmm, we've got this god here whose followers claims is described in this
Bible book. They say that god is perfectly moral, and, in fact, defines
morality. Well, since we've got our atheist specs on we have our own idea
about what is moral and it doesn't include human sacrifice, killing people
for a lie, genocide (promised land or not), flooding people who disagree
with us, destroying cities because people like kinky sex, or many other
things described in this book that were done by this god (respectively-
Jepthah's daughter and Jesus, Anannias and his wife, Noah's flood, Sodom
and Gomorrah). So, do we conclude that this god does exist and that those
things really are moral and that we have a warped sense of morality or do
we reject this notion of god? The answer is left as an exercise for the
student.
>Robert
PS you can keep the specs, they may come in handy.
A.X. Lias
: In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
: A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >: Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
: >: to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
: >As long as no one is point a gun at my head in order to make me do it.
: >Here's a clue: the morality of the world is not the exclusive domain of
: >the chrsitians. I am an atheist. I am moral.
: For the purposes of discussion, would it be too personal to tell us
: what your morals are?
Be glad to.
: And could you tell us what you base them on?
Sure.
: This may give insights to theists who have a hard time understanding
: what atheists believe is the right way (for them) to interact with
: others.
: If it's personal, then I'll understand.
I try to avoid hypocrisy. This one was my fathers. He was a terrible
hypocrite, and I saw how badly this could make a person look, as well as
how painful it could be to others. Ergo, a bad thing.
I do not take things that do not belong to me. I realize that if I were
to do so, I would be tacitly condoning theft by others (unless I were to
be a hypocrit). If I steal, others would have the right to steal and,
thus, society would fail. Call this the Reflexive Moral.
(as an aside, I believe that society is a good thing. Not quite a moral
statement, but one that indirectly touches on the issue)
I do not hurt others, kill others, rape other, tell harmful lies to
others, endanger others, plagerize from others, etc (the list is a LONG
one. If you wish to know whether I have a particular set of morals, I
would be glad to expand further). These are all derivitives of the
Reflexive Moral.
Now, I have a set of meta-morals that can be roughly phrased, "I shall
actively try to improve my society (locally or otherwise) to the
reasonable best of my abilities". These come from a variation on the
Reflexive Moral. I base these meta-morals on the notion that if I try to
improve society, I can reasonably expect for others to do so as well
(without being hypocritical). Call this the Reflective Moral.
Under the tenents of these two morals, anything that I do which in anyway
harms others or society, can equally be done by others to myself and
society. By the same token, anything that I do that improves on others
or society as a whole, I can reasonably hope to expect in return by
others and society as a whole.
I realize that these look like embellishments on the Golden Rule, but
that's because I always found that particular rule to be a very
*rational* view. My adoption of it had nothing to do with theistic
teachings. I didn't even know that it was supposed to be a religious
rule until long after I had adopted it.
Also, bear in mind, that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I'm not sure
that I *can* outline the entire set of my moral convictions, because they
are always under constant improvement, and because I allow for moderate
adjustment (depending on the situation), but I am willing to answer or
clarify the breif outline of the reasoning behind a signifigant
portion of my moral values.
BTW, don't try to force your point of views on others falls directly
under my Reflexive Moral code.
Dave Batchelor
>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>
RW>>>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>>
>>supposed to run this country on biblical principles if the people who
>>believe in it can't decide which parts to follow and which to ignore? I'm
>>not interested in your particular rationalization of the OT atrocities
>>commited by Jehovah, you'd be wasting your time. The sins of the christian
>>god are written down in plain text.
>
>the post you quoted. God did everything in the OT accredited to Him. It
>was not a sin. God does nothing wrong.
That's a value judgment which I used to agree with, but the counter-vailing
evidence is just too voluminous. I don't buy "original sin" and I see lots
of torture and murder of innocents in the OT. It's beyond me to
rationalize and accept; the OT God is a demon.
RW>>>but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
>>>in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
>>
TH>>Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
>>have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
>>my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
>>about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
>>story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
>>of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
>>accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
>>accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
>>seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
>>author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
>>is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
>
RW>Who are you to condemn God? Who are you to condemn anyone? It sounds
>cruel and monstrous. Have you read the story ever?
Yes. It contains all of the most contemptible failings of patriarchal
societies, such as labeling women as property. As if she was her father's
to sacrifice like a goat! Absolutely contemptible, as contemptible as
slavery, which the Bible also never condemns. I condemn God because, yes,
He is cruel and monstrous, and if called to defend my choice, I will do so
by condemning God to His face. I would not want to spend eternity in the
presence of such a twisted soul collector.
[snip]
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Robert Williams <rwil...@seas.smu.edu> wrote:
>Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran <kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
[About how if we are going to be a Christian nation, we have to kill
homosexuals]
>>>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>>>generally considered "Christian."
>>
>>Yet another lunatic who wants to pick and choose what parts of the
>>Bible to believe in. Yeah.
>
>I'm not picking and choosing. Human sacrifice was practiced once in the
>OT (as far as I can remeber). It is not, however, considered "Christian".
The Word of God, as passed down in the Law:
"If a man lies with another man as a man lies with a woman, it is an
abomination. Surely they shall be put to death." (paraphrase. It's
in Leviticus).
Are you claiming that the Word of God is not "Christian"?
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=I'm sure that Vicki Robinson would never let Kibo engage in genocide against =
=Armenians in Turkey. =
SteveyP
>In article <HIROI.174...@sn.jsc.nasa.gov>,
>Takahiro Hiroi <HI...@sn.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>I think the matter is how God thinks about the United States. He surely
>>wanted this country to fight against the evil forces in the world based on
>>Christian spirit, most likely.
>
>This sounds suspiciously like the Manifest Destiny. I hope you
>realize that is one reason why Latin American (and many other) countries
>hate the US so much. It is so arrogant to assume that God had a direct hand
>in the creation of the country...
Relativist bunk.
Who did the Latino's take the country from?
Quit your handwringing. The world is not in stasis, and any number of years
from now someone will march in and take this country "back", annex it or
claim it as their destiny.
Some win and some lose. We won. We are not expansionist bastards now--
but whose to say in 20 years? Who would have concluded the events in
1939 would arise out of the results of 1917?
It so ignorant to view the world from its inception in 1776. Ye must live
in the liberal's idyll to assume today's "values" are directly applicable
to the decisions of foregone years. May I blame Genghis for my socio-economic
plight today? Thank the stars none of "Lucy's" siblings survived... can
you imagine the class-action suit we'd have on our hands today? "It is
in the eyes of the State that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are directly responsible
for the demise of Austropithecanus Blah blah..."
--
The tree of liberty must be refreshed | If a due participation of office is
from time to time with the blood | a matter of right, how are vacancies
of patriots and tyrants. It is its | to be obtained? Those by death are
natural manure. -Jefferson | few; by resignation none. -Jefferson
Duane P Mantick
>God does nothing wrong.
I'll be the judge of that. :-)
>Who are you to condemn God? Who are you to condemn anyone? It sounds
>cruel and monstrous. Have you read the story ever?
Condemning God sounds cruel and monstrous? Poor god that
he cannot defend himself.
>The Hebrews understood the supremacy of God in all areas of life, unlike
That's why they murdered his son, right?
>people today. Don't you realize what you are like compared to God? You
>are not His equal. You are not even close! We are infinitely stupid,
>evil, and weak compared to God.
Which is why he needs you to defend him, right?
>God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
>God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
>by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
>does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
>God's actions.
The fact is, *you* cannot judge gods actions. Part of the principle
foundation of virtually all christianity is this infallibility thing. But
*you* refuse to accept that not everyone believes it. Consequently,
many people *can* and *do* judge god based upon the bible, upon which
christianity leans so heavily. And many judge the whole thing, "god",
the bible and christianity in general to be a load of hypocritical
malarkey.
*I* believe that god created man's free will to be that, free.
Not subservient to some other humans interpretation of ancient history.
YOU can live by the bible as YOU choose. Do NOT tell the rest of us that
we must.
Duane
William R. Stewart
TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar31.0...@seas.smu.edu>, rwil...@seas.smu.edu
>(Robert Williams) writes:
>>In article <2ncqlk$n...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
>>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
>>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
>>generally considered "Christian." I can explain it if you wish,
>Why don't you christians get your stories straight? Is the OT part of the
>bible or not? Did god do the things described in the OT?
I can understand your confusion. If you talk to me, and then talk to
a conservative, its as if we were from different planets. You almost
have to know the beliefs of the person responding to you,
understandably a difficult task. The only reason I post is to give a
moderating viewpoint, because all I see on here are evangelical
conservatives.
>How are we
>supposed to run this country on biblical principles if the people who
>believe in it can't decide which parts to follow and which to ignore?
In a sense, some Biblical principles are already in the Constitution,
though they can be considered common societal mores (don't murder,
don't steal,...). If one wants to start adding in other laws from the
Mosaic law, then obviously this would be unconstitutional.
>I'm
>not interested in your particular rationalization of the OT atrocities
>commited by Jehovah, you'd be wasting your time. The sins of the christian
>god are written down in plain text.
At least allegations of these acts. There are Christian literalists
and then there are the rest of us. Not all of us believe everything
in the OT took place, at least at the behest of a Supreme Being.
>>but it will not be a short post. Jepthah had to sacrifice his daughter
>>in order to learn more respect for God so he wouldn't take rash vows.
>Hmmm, seems like an appropriate way to teach a lesson to me. "Sorry you
>have to be killed, honey, but I have to learn my lesson. Just to show you
>my heart's in the right place, I'll give you a couple of months to worry
>about it first." I don't think that I could ever be convinced that this
>story describes anything but a horribly cruel and monstrous act on the part
>of Jepthah. He should have had the guts to break his vow to Jehovah and
>accept whatever consequences there were. Also I would condemn Jehovah for
>accepting the sacrifice and not striking down Jepthah. He sure doesn't
>seem shy about that in other places. We can also throw some blame on the
>author of Hebrews for making Jepthah one of the "heroes of faith". That
>is, of course, assuming the event ever happened at all.
*Precisely*
>>Annanias and Sapphiras weren't executed. And they didn't steal from the
>>church. God punished them for lying to Him. They pretended to be giving
>>Him the whole price of some land they stole, but secretly kept some of it.
>>Peter asked them point blank "Is this how much you got for the land?"
>>They both lied. If they had said "No, we kept some" nothing would have
>>happened to them.
>Well, the thread said that this nation should be run on biblical
>principles. I was refuting this. This particular biblical principle is
>that lying to members of the church about how much you gave them is a crime
>worthy of death. No, the story does not have the people killing them, God
>somehow does it.
That is not explicit, and would have to be considered one possible
interpretation.
>The result is the same. So, should we start killing
>everyone who is a little short on their tithes? It seems that that is a
>biblical principle.
I visited one church that used this chapter as a means of increasing
everyone's fear level. Needless to say, I did not go back.
Again, I can understand the confusion that takes place when Christians
of varying viewpoints enter the same thread.
john d.
: In article <1994Mar31.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
: Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran <kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
: >In article <1994Mar31.0...@seas.smu.edu>,
: >Robert Williams <rwil...@seas.smu.edu> wrote:
: >>TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
: >>>(Robert Williams) writes:
: >>>>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
: >>>>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
: >>>Sure there's some principles in the bible that make sense. Do you think we
: >>>should tack on the partner of the one you mention, "love god"? How about
: >>>killing homosexuals? That's biblical. Also, the next time we get in a war
: >>>with another country, we'll just lay waste to their territory and kill all
: >>>inhabitants, just the way Joshua did. And to top it off, let's start
: >>>condoning sacrificing of our virgin daughters to Yahweh the way Jepthah
: >>>did. And if we catch anyone stealing from the church, we'll be sure to
: >>>execute them just like Annanias and his wife. Frankly, this would be a
: >>>barbaric and cruel world if everyone lived by biblical principles.
: >>The things you mentioned were OT. That is Biblical, but it is not
: >>generally considered "Christian."
: >Yet another lunatic who wants to pick and choose what parts of the
: >Bible to believe in. Yeah.
: I'm not picking and choosing. Human sacrifice was practiced once in the
: OT (as far as I can remeber). It is not, however, considered "Christian".
Killing of blasphemers and witches was practiced for centuries,
and was church policy.
: >>There is nothing cruel or barbaric about Christianity.
: >Sig bait? Or do you really believe this?
: I don't know quite what you mean by sig bait, unless you're reffering to
: my "Pray for Bill Clinton" sig. In that case, IT'S A JOKE!!!!!! Paul
: said to pray for all in authority, but he didn't say what we had to
: pray! :-)
: BTW, I don't think a nation could be run on the ideals of Christianity.
: I think the US would be a better place if everyone was a Christian, but
I think the USA would be a better place if there were no christians,
all bibles were shredded and used for compost, and all christian
churches, cathedrals and other edifices were razed, and native
vegetation planted on the sites.
: a nation can't survive on principles such as "Do not resist an evil
: person", etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dobbs / The biological son of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and "Connie" \
\ and sole heir to all of their wealth. /
Steve Zobell
|In article <2nenbi$c...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com>,
TREVOR HICKS <hi...@dsnvx1.tulsa.dowell.slb.com> wrote:
|> testament god]
|
|Who are you to condemn God? Who are you to condemn anyone? It sounds
|cruel and monstrous. Have you read the story ever?
Duh, I think the evidence strongly suggests that he did. I did too, it
made me sick.
[...]
|God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
|God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
|by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
|does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
|God's actions.
I hear this all the time, despite the fact that it is one of the
stupidest arguments ever invented. First it ignores two obvious
facts:
1. We don't believe in this god.
2. There are many different and conflicting god beliefs around.
Even if we stay inside of Christian mythology, there is an obvious
answer to the question: "Who made you the judge of God?". The answer
is: "GOD DID!". Who else but each of us has to sift through all these
conflicting religious beliefs in the search for the true one? Didn't
god create this situation by giving us free will and not clearly
revealing himself to us (excepting if you already believe and on rare
occasions to a few unbelievers in the distant past)?
And we will never be able to find the true religion unless we can
reject false religions, right? Otherwise we may end up just following
the religion of our parents (gasp!) or falling into whatever cult
happens along first. And, in order to evaluate religions to determine
which one is true and reject false religions, we must study them with
an open but questioning and rational mind, and we need intelligent
criteria for determining what is true and what is not.
A good criteria for evaluating religions would be to evaluate any human
behavior that the god(s) of the religion have requested (or demanded)
of people. Ask yourself if these divine requests appear to come from
supremely intelligent beings, or whether the requested behaviors could
more easily be explained as the actions of primitive, superstitious, greedy,
short-sighted, domineering men claiming their own cruel and selfish
actions are the will of god. Wouldn't you consider this a valid
question if you were evaluating a religion?
What is reported in the Bible fails miserably as the acts of a
supremely intelligent being(s), but scores extremely high as the acts
of primitive, superstitious, cruel, and selfish men. We can see this
all too clearly, and use this (and other information) to reject Bible
based religions.
Your argument that god cannot be judged is also hypocritical. You, and
other Christians, judge the gods of other religions all the time, and
declare them to be false. In addition, most Christians make the worst
kinds of judges here. They are biased in the worst way (religious
bias). They tend to have little or no knowledge about other religions,
and much of the knowledge they think they have is misinformation.
Atheists, on the other hand, are often knowledgeable about various
religions, and tend not to have undue bias for one religion over
another. Atheists also realize that much of the information going
around about a religion, even information from true believers, can be
misinformation. For example, Christians don't always seem to know
their Bible very well. You are one of the first Christians I've
encountered who knows about Jepthah, but you're rationalization makes
me cringe. Would you kill a child of yours if you thought god wanted
you to? What would you think if a follower of a different god said
that they would kill their children if they thought god wanted them
to?
-- Steve
The_Doge
Peter Walker <p...@spacsun.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar31.2...@seas.smu.edu> rwil...@seas.smu.edu (Robert Williams) writes:
>
>>The Hebrews understood the supremacy of God in all areas of life, unlike
>>people today. Don't you realize what you are like compared to God? You
>>are not His equal. You are not even close! We are infinitely stupid,
>>evil, and weak compared to God.
>
><to everyone else:> Don't attitudes like this scare you? Aristotle was
>right. There are people who are natural slaves.
>
of the reasons separation of Church and State is such a good idea.
>>God is supreme. He cannot be judged, especially by human standards.
>
>How about by his own standards?
>
You're just human scum, so you're not allowed to apply them, I
guess.
>>God does nothing without a reason. He does not sin. In fact, He cannot
>>by definition. Sin is doing something outside of God's will. If God
>>does it, it is in His will and consequently not sin. We cannot judge
>>God's actions.
>
>Spoken like a true fanatic.
>
Scary, ain't it? This mind set could not possibly be more foreign
and incomprehensible to me. It does, however, nicely illustrate how
people who probably think of themselves as decent and moral can be
persuaded to commit the most barbarous acts of violence anc cruelty if
they're convinced they're doing the will of their God. Sin is outside
God's will, therfore if God wills me to torture heretics and burn them,
it's not a sin. I expect similar logic is used to justify the kind of
terrorist acts commited by other religions.
Until now, I didn't really realize that there were still medieval
minds in the world.
---
************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) *
* "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm *
* 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio *
* "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" *
* -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" *
************************************************************
Stryder
[snip]
> Scary, ain't it? This mind set could not possibly be more foreign
>and incomprehensible to me. It does, however, nicely illustrate how
>people who probably think of themselves as decent and moral can be
>persuaded to commit the most barbarous acts of violence anc cruelty if
>they're convinced they're doing the will of their God. Sin is outside
>God's will, therfore if God wills me to torture heretics and burn them,
>it's not a sin. I expect similar logic is used to justify the kind of
>terrorist acts commited by other religions.
> Until now, I didn't really realize that there were still medieval
>minds in the world.
>---
"Balkan Ghosts" is an interesting book on the subject. It is chock full
of accounts of acts of brutal violence perpertrated not against individuals
but against POPULATIONS in the name of one God(tm) or another.
The most frightening account, to me anyway, is the Christian "Legion of
the Archangel Michael", in Romania, who, in the name of Jesus, killed over
a hundred thousand people in the most brutal manners imagineable, all in a
three day period. This included taking two hundred people to the local
abatoire, or slaughterhouse, in the dead of night, placing them on conveyor
belts and slaughtering them in a way normally reserved for cattle.
Afterwards, they hung the carcasses on meat hooks. The victims included
children, by the way.
All in the name of God(tm). This particular attrocity occurred a few days
after an earth quake rocked Romania, and the Legion saw the earthquake as
a sign from God(tm) to do what they did.
These attrocities were committed not in the middle ages, but in 1941.
To paraphrase another guy on this newsgroup, the world would be a better
place if we all looked to secular humanism for our morality. Slim chance,
though, since superstition and hate is so deeply rooted in people's minds.
These are a few of the reasons why I continue to support the separation of
church and state.
> ************************************************************
> * The_Doge of South St. Louis clav...@nyx.cs.du.edu *
> * Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) *
> * "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm *
> * 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio *
> * "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" *
> * -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" *
> ************************************************************
The stryde of Washington DC
______________________________________________________________________________
Do not dress in those rags for me,
You know that you are not poor.
And do not love me quite so fiercely, now,
When you know that you are not sure.
Leonard Cohen
"Avalanche"
______________________________________________________________________________
Stryder
[snip]
>: Considering the mercy shown to us how dare we Christians show
>: anything, but love, mercy, and forgiveness. This does not mean that
>: we accept evil as good, but that we love people despite their evil.
>I would view the showing of mercy and forgiveness toward me as
>patronizing in the extreme. Perhaps if you could view others as
>"NOT evil", you could begin to _really_ love.
This is a point I've made over and over again - the role of other people
is not to be tollerant of me, or to love me, or to forgive me, or to accept
me. It is to mind their own business unless their opinion is invited.
Minding their own business is of course something most Xians(tm) and other
believers are incapable of, since their truth is the One Truth(tm) declared
by the Creator of the Universe(tm). This is what makes religious people
obnoxious, and often dangerous.
>This discussion group exists for the discussion of idea relevant to
>atheism. Please present your evidence for the existence of God(tm)
>and Satan(tm).
>: David
> _
>|_) |_|
>|_)ill | |aygood
Jason F. McBrayer
>
>I think the USA would be a better place if there were no christians,
>all bibles were shredded and used for compost, and all christian
>churches, cathedrals and other edifices were razed, and native
>vegetation planted on the sites.
>
time some Native Americans kicked out the Spanish, they built kivas
under the churches. This is much nicer than razing them and planting
crabgrass.
Jason F. McBrayer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew C. Werling
since I used this particular news program. Forgive me if my previous
post already made it! Also, because I am new to this thread, forgive
me if I am being redundant...just skip ahead. Appreciate it!
A definition of a Christian nation could be many things. Which is
being proposed here?
1. A Christian dictatorship?
a. Mandatory church attendance every Sunday...
b. Non-christian religious practice outlawed...
c. Non-christian religious books and
articles burned publically
d. etc.
2. Governmental privileges?
a. Christian churches given extra money...
b. Schools must teach "creationism" as a viable
scientific theory...
c. A political party with tax breaks...
3. Or just the declaration of "official religion"?
If so, either one, which denomination will we follow? Roman Catholic?
Seventh-Day Adventist? Some branch of the "non-denominationals"?
We can talk about our roots all we want, and what our forefathers
somehow "intended," but the implications are always going to be hazy.
The phrase "Christian nation" has no meaning, really, if we only wish
to speak of our roots. Our Christian roots affect us because they are
traditionally there, because we are often raised Christian, because
it's embedded in our "culture." Of course, that doesn't make
Christianity "right" or "best" or even "practical."
Again, I'm sorry if I've been redundant.
--
Andrew Werling awer...@nmsu.edu y...@acca.nmsu.edu
"Without the wind, the sea would grow lazy." --Russian proverb
Todd Johnston
>In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>,
>A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
>>running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
>Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It you think the above is typical of the sentiments expressed in the NT
than you obviously have not read it very carefully. For example, you
might want to take a look at Matthew 10:34-37
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come
to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his
father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law, and a man's foes will be those of his own household."
Oh, yeah - those are great principles the live by. I believe the world
would be a better place if we followed sentiments like that - *not*.
--
Todd Johnston
to...@iglou.com
Andrew C. Werling
-In article <anrwliasC...@netcom.com>, A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
-
->In the meantime, all of us non-christians don't groove to the notion of
->running the country on biblical auto-pilot.
-
-Why not? Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
-to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
Of course this is not the only message of the Bible, is it? Paul's
letters address a community of early Christians, paranoid (justifiably
so) of the surrounding communities of people with more power than them
and prone to persecution. There are many of us who would prefer not
to have Paul's teachings imposed upon us.
The Bible also has all sorts of inapplicable-to-our-society views of
fruitful multiplication of offspring, not allowing yourself to lust in
your heart, and a fullfledged implication of heaven and hell, as if
everyone in this country prefers to view the universe in a
black-and-white dichotomy. In fact, the open rejection of such a
dichotomy is what is guaranteed by free speech provisions, making this
a decidedly UNChristian nation.
The Bible, and many Christians, do not merely focus on the Golden
Rule. Hence, you're arguing for a very different kind of society than
a "Christian" one.
Merlyn LeRoy
>In article <2ndhbr$9...@netnews.upenn.edu> dav...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David J Robinson) writes:
>>
>>"Killing homosexuals is Biblical"
>>No way!
>>God is our judge not men. People must realize that Christians are to
>>follow Christ. We are to worship God, not do his job.
>>(how could we do his job!)
>What a schizophrenic god you serve. At one point in time he told his
>people that they were not to tolerate abominations such as homosexual
>behavior, and that such people were to be put to death, now you think he's
>telling them to wink and look the other way.
>Or perhaps you never read those portions of the Bible which teach that
>God hates sin, and that He will not let a nation go unpunished which
>rejects His holy law.
Yeah! You should serve the bloodthirsty god that Albrecht serves!
The one that demands killing large numbers of people!
Tom, why not buy an AK-47 and start doing the Lord's work?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
William R. Stewart
A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Will Stewart (wste...@milner.mitre.org) wrote:
>: A.X. Lias <anrw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >Robert Williams (rwil...@seas.smu.edu) wrote:
>: >: Don't you think this would be a better world if we lived according
>: >: to principles such as "Love your neighbor as yourself", etc?
>: >As long as no one is point a gun at my head in order to make me do it.
>: >Here's a clue: the morality of the world is not the exclusive domain of
>: >the chrsitians. I am an atheist. I am moral.
>: For the purposes of discussion, would it be too personal to tell us
>: what your morals are?
>: And could you tell us what you base them on?
I'll try to summarize your post here, to save bandwidth;
Your position is based on the Reflexive Moral.
Meta-moral - Try to improve society
Morals - Do not hurt others (or kill, rape, plagiarize, endanger,etc)
- Avoid hypocrisy
- Do not steal
- Do not force views on others
>Under the tenents of these ... morals, anything that I do which in anyway
>harms others or society, can equally be done by others to myself and
>society.
Not unlike "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".
>By the same token, anything that I do that improves on others
>or society as a whole, I can reasonably hope to expect in return by
>others and society as a whole.
I've had the same opinion before. Now I don't expect it, and if
something is returned in like, then so much the better. Do you
envision a system that records the positive contributions you make, in
order to establish a basis for return?
>I realize that these look like embellishments on the Golden Rule, but
>that's because I always found that particular rule to be a very
>*rational* view.
This is an interesting observation. Is there a logical basis for
desiring to improve society, in an Aristotlean (or other) sense?
>My adoption of it had nothing to do with theistic
>teachings. I didn't even know that it was supposed to be a religious
>rule until long after I had adopted it.
Perhaps it may not have had the prominence, hence your exposure,
without a strong theistic backing. How did you hear about it?
>Also, bear in mind, that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I'm not sure
>that I *can* outline the entire set of my moral convictions, because they
>are always under constant improvement, and because I allow for moderate
>adjustment (depending on the situation), but I am willing to answer or
>clarify the breif outline of the reasoning behind a signifigant
>portion of my moral values.
Ok, there are three more points that I request your refinement on;
1. Perhaps you could embellish on the basis for your
selection/elaboration of the Reflexive Method. Did it make logical
sense? Did it *feel* right, in some intangible sense? Is there any
way of testing the veracity of this method, whether quantitatively or
qualitatively? Where there any other "methods" that caught your
attention?
2. What constitutes "improving society"?
3. Are there situational morals for things such as;
- Personal relations
- Work ethics
- Community involvement
- World involvement
Do other atheists have similar value systems, and if so, is this type
of ethical framework predominant?
David J Robinson
claiming to do the work of God, it is interesting that they most often
if not always believe in something other than the TRUE message in
scripture. People forget that in Eastern Block countries People were
often forbidden to Read the Bible. In the middle ages most people
couldn't read, and even in the early Church (in the first 100 years)
it was apparent that some people were not truly in Christ, but trying
to use the Church. The Church tried to ensure that the correctness of
doctrine was preserved, as seen in the collection of letters to
the Churches found in the New Testament.
Unfortunately there are countless cults today. They range in
teachings from teaching that Jesus didn't rise from the dead,
to teaching that all men are God (pantheism) to teaching that
all men are gods (polytheism) to teaching we don't truly exist
outside of our minds.... Some of the scariest cults are headed by
those who claim to be Christ returning. The easily ensnare new
Christians with much faith, but lacking in knowledge.
( We are told that Jesus will return in GLORY, and he will return
not to lead a small group, but to Judge the Nations.).
If we desire then to know what Jesus teaches, the best way is to
carefully study a main-stream interpretation of the Bible with a
group of people who are also studying it, and trying to learn also.
We also need to ask God that we would grow near to him.
Our interpretation must be consistent, and full. Cults often
parade one interpretation of a (small) set of verses. Often the
Critics of Christianity do the same. One sentence out of anything
is always ambiguous. We must check new teachings against the Bible
to see if they are consistent. They may seem to be from the text,
and the speaker may be gifted, but if they contradict the rest of the
Bible then you know that the interpretation is wrong.
True Christianity is found in the Bible. We can not look at
history and simply at those who have claimed to be Christians, or to
do things in the name of God. They may in fact be acting on their
own desires. Such teachers give the world a false impression of
Christianity which it loves to hang on to and use as an excuse
for not truly attempting to understand the message presented in the
whole Bible.
Christianity is following the way set before us by Jesus himself.
There is no other "Christianity".
This way is set before us in the Bible, the whole Bible.
So to those of you who are Christians I hope that you truly seek God,
as those who love him, and as doers not just hearers of the word.
For those of you who are not Christians, I encourage you to try to
understand the actual message of the Bible.
I wish everyone to know that while even real Christians have done
evil that will go down in history, Christianity is not defined by
such acts, but is defined by the acknowledgement of the evil of
man kind, and God's provision of a Saviour, Jesus.
LLOYD BAKER
Than you for the worn out rehashing of Christian faith....
+=======================+
| Jamie Lloyd |
| bak...@augustana.edu |
+=======================+
A.X. Lias
: >: For the purposes of discussion, would it be too personal to tell us
: >: what your morals are?
: >: And could you tell us what you base them on?
: I'll try to summarize your post here, to save bandwidth;
: Your position is based on the Reflexive Moral.
: Meta-moral - Try to improve society
: Morals - Do not hurt others (or kill, rape, plagiarize, endanger,etc)
: - Avoid hypocrisy
: - Do not steal
: - Do not force views on others
: >Under the tenents of these ... morals, anything that I do which in anyway
: >harms others or society, can equally be done by others to myself and
: >society.
: Not unlike "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".
Similar, but somewhat inverted. If I poke someone's eye out, I can
reasonably expect for them to try and poke my eye out.
: >By the same token, anything that I do that improves on others
: >or society as a whole, I can reasonably hope to expect in return by
: >others and society as a whole.
: I've had the same opinion before. Now I don't expect it, and if
: something is returned in like, then so much the better. Do you
: envision a system that records the positive contributions you make, in
: order to establish a basis for return?
Unfortunately, I can't envision a system that would force people to make
the same contributions I make. I can only show, by example, that my
contributions improve society and hope that others adopt them too. Nor
would I be hypocritial if I were to promote said contributions.
: >I realize that these look like embellishments on the Golden Rule, but
: >that's because I always found that particular rule to be a very
: >*rational* view.
: This is an interesting observation. Is there a logical basis for
: desiring to improve society, in an Aristotlean (or other) sense?
I am honestly not sure. It seems a rational thing to do, however, since
I am a member of society and would therefore benifit by any improvements
to society.
: >My adoption of it had nothing to do with theistic
: >teachings. I didn't even know that it was supposed to be a religious
: >rule until long after I had adopted it.
: Perhaps it may not have had the prominence, hence your exposure,
: without a strong theistic backing. How did you hear about it?
In school, around the third grade. It was phrased more along the lines
of, "Don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do
to you."
I've found it interesting that Confusious came up with a similar
statement independently.
: >Also, bear in mind, that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I'm not sure
: >that I *can* outline the entire set of my moral convictions, because they
: >are always under constant improvement, and because I allow for moderate
: >adjustment (depending on the situation), but I am willing to answer or
: >clarify the breif outline of the reasoning behind a signifigant
: >portion of my moral values.
: Ok, there are three more points that I request your refinement on;
: 1. Perhaps you could embellish on the basis for your
: selection/elaboration of the Reflexive Method. Did it make logical
: sense? Did it *feel* right, in some intangible sense? Is there any
: way of testing the veracity of this method, whether quantitatively or
: qualitatively? Where there any other "methods" that caught your
: attention?
I'll try and answer this to the best of my abilities. The Reflexive
model was developed over time. I've surveyed a wide range of oppinions
and rationales for various moral models and have tried to retain the best
elements of all of them. I suppose that intuitive feelings played a part
in my selective criteria, but I have also made a point of debateing my
positions with myself. I have tried to develope a moral model that is
self-consistent, realistic, rational and (I admit) relatively
comfortable. To this end, I am still working on improving my system of
values. It is my goal that every decade I can claim to have improved my
ethical behavior.
As for my current one, if I take the avoidance of hypocrisy as
an axiom (which I have), it developes as a rational corollary. I don't
see any way to mistreat another and expect for them not to be able to
mistreat me without being hypocritical in my actions. This is the
rationale beehind it. I also feel that it is a realistic,
self-consistent system. I will admit that it is also a system that I am
relatively comfortable following.
I'm not sure that there is an objective way to put this model to the
test. In fact, I am not sure that this is the *best* moral model
available. Like I said, I am always trying to improve and refine my ethical
position. I can say that it has worked well, so far.
: 2. What constitutes "improving society"?
I'll have to pleade the fifth and say that this is relatively
subjective. Subjectively, I would say that anything which increases the
general happiness of society and generally decreases the unhappiness of
society can be considered an improvement. I also believe that any action
which extends the knowledge of society (individually or collectively) is
usually an improvement. There are, of course, exceptions.
: 3. Are there situational morals for things such as;
: - Personal relations
: - Work ethics
: - Community involvement
: - World involvement
Personal relations: I usually fine tune these to the particular
individual. Generally, anything that causes unnecessary unhappiness to
an individual I qualify as bad. Of course, this begs the question of
what is considered unnecessary. Taking a bottle of whisky away from an
alcoholic would cause unhappiness, but I would not qualify that as bad.
Work ethics: If an entity is doing me good (paying my bills), I consider
it fair that I should return an equal good. If I am competing with an
entity (a rival company), I will not engage in any practices that I would
not wish to have employed against myself. I will qualify this by saying
that if a rival is using unfair tactics against me, I will be less
inclined to play fairly. I will, however, admit that I am not always
guilt free on this matter. I have a bad habit of taking longer coffee
breaks than are strictly necessary. :)
Community involvement: I believe that it is hypocritical to critisize
others for inaction if I am also inactive. On the other hand, I believe
that it is logical to improve ones community to the best of ones ability,
simply because each person is a part of their community. If I improve
the environment of my community, I benifit from that improvement.
Similarly, if I damage my community, I am indirectly damaging myself. Of
course, "damage" and "improvement" are also relatively subjective.
World involvement: I, personally, do not make a large distinction between
my local community and the world community.
: Do other atheists have similar value systems, and if so, is this type
: of ethical framework predominant?
: --
: Regards,
: Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
s...@uno.edu
[deletia]
>: This is an interesting observation. Is there a logical basis for
>: desiring to improve society, in an Aristotlean (or other) sense?
>
>I am honestly not sure. It seems a rational thing to do, however, since
>I am a member of society and would therefore benifit by any improvements
>to society.
Terrific, this gets at my personal bugaboo with pure Scientism/Rationalism as
a foundation for human behavior, it's seemingly all to easy to leave oneself
out of the equation. I call it the "objectivist fallacy": that I can remove
myself from the system. It typically appears in society as apathy or
know-nothing attitudes ("It's not MY problem, mon."). My position is that
we're all in this together and that it's counter-productive to put a lot of
energy into fault-finding, recriminations, and idealistic squabbles.
[son of deletia]
>: >My adoption of it had nothing to do with theistic
>: >teachings. I didn't even know that it was supposed to be a religious
>: >rule until long after I had adopted it.
>
>: Perhaps it may not have had the prominence, hence your exposure,
>: without a strong theistic backing. How did you hear about it?
>
>In school, around the third grade. It was phrased more along the lines
>of, "Don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do
>to you."
>
>I've found it interesting that Confusious came up with a similar
>statement independently.
It's also the foundation of Kant's non-theistic morality; I don't call it
"atheistic" because Kant didn't rule out God, he was just looking for a way to
support moral behavior on something else. In simple terms his position (what
he called the "categorical imperative") was something like "Act in such a way
that you would be willing for your behavior to become a universal standard for
action." This, of course, includes the special case that the action might be
directed at oneself, which collapses to the "Golden Rule".
[bride of deletia]
>: Regards,
>
>: Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
>--
>Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com
>*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
>"Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely
>survive in the face of doubt." -- Robert Lindner
-* Stephen *-
Stephen Posey
S...@uno.edu
University of New Orleans
James Felder
>
>: I'll try to summarize your post here, to save bandwidth;
>
>: Your position is based on the Reflexive Moral.
>
>: Meta-moral - Try to improve society
>
>: Morals - Do not hurt others (or kill, rape, plagiarize, endanger,etc)
>: - Avoid hypocrisy
>: - Do not steal
>: - Do not force views on others
I would only add
- Do what is right regardless what others do.
I don't really go to much further. Instead I try to use these as a yard stick
against which I measure all my actions. Its a lot of work to do this. I can
understand that appeal of a turnkey set of detailed morals like that contained
in most Christian sects, you don't have to do as much independent thinking.
Note I don't say none.
>
>: >Under the tenents of these ... morals, anything that I do which in anyway
>: >harms others or society, can equally be done by others to myself and
>: >society.
>
>: Not unlike "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".
>
>Similar, but somewhat inverted. If I poke someone's eye out, I can
>reasonably expect for them to try and poke my eye out.
I think that Andrew has it right here.
[...]
>
>: >By the same token, anything that I do that improves on others
>: >or society as a whole, I can reasonably hope to expect in return by
>: >others and society as a whole.
>
>: I've had the same opinion before. Now I don't expect it, and if
>: something is returned in like, then so much the better. Do you
>: envision a system that records the positive contributions you make, in
>: order to establish a basis for return?
Based on the additional Moral above, I don't envision such a system.
[...]
>: >I realize that these look like embellishments on the Golden Rule, but
>: >that's because I always found that particular rule to be a very
>: >*rational* view.
[...]
>: >My adoption of it had nothing to do with theistic
>: >teachings. I didn't even know that it was supposed to be a religious
>: >rule until long after I had adopted it.
>
>: Perhaps it may not have had the prominence, hence your exposure,
>: without a strong theistic backing. How did you hear about it?
>
>In school, around the third grade. It was phrased more along the lines
>of, "Don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do
>to you."
It is one of my earliest memories, besides falling down that stairs at
18 months :-). It was phrased as "Well don't hit your brother/sister with
a toy/stick/fist/foot/anything handy if you don't want them to hit you
back." If it wasn't that it was the empathy rule stated as "How would
you like it if someone took your toys away from you".
From these two things parents universially teach children, all morality
flows, IMNHO.
>It is my goal that every decade I can claim to have improved my
>ethical behavior.
A truely admirable goal.
[...]
>World involvement: I, personally, do not make a large distinction between
>my local community and the world community.
Me neither. Humanity is my tribe, the world is our nation.
We all treat our fellow tribesmen with respect and dignity. The problem is
that so many people's tribes are so tiny :-(
>
>: Do other atheists have similar value systems, and if so, is this type
>: of ethical framework predominant?
Well, I don't speak for any but me, but it is mine.
>
>: Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
>Andrew Lias | anrw...@netcom.com
Jim
--
James L. Felder jfe...@lerc.nasa.gov
NYMA-SETAR Team (216) 977-7080
NASA Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio, 44135
William R. Stewart
James Felder <spb...@lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>William R. Stewart (wste...@milner.mitre.org) wrote:
>>: I'll try to summarize your post here, to save bandwidth;
>>: Your position is based on the Reflexive Moral.
>>: Meta-moral - Try to improve society
>>: Morals - Do not hurt others (or kill, rape, plagiarize, endanger,etc)
>>: - Avoid hypocrisy
>>: - Do not steal
>>: - Do not force views on others
>I would only add
> - Do what is right regardless what others do.
What is "right"? Many fundamentalist Christians think it is right to
blockade abortion clinics.
>>: >I realize that these look like embellishments on the Golden Rule, but
>>: >that's because I always found that particular rule to be a very
>>: >*rational* view.
--
James Felder
William R. Stewart <wste...@milner.mitre.org> wrote:
>
>James Felder <spb...@lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>>>William R. Stewart (wste...@milner.mitre.org) wrote:
>
>>>: I'll try to summarize your post here, to save bandwidth;
>
>>>: Your position is based on the Reflexive Moral.
>
>>>: Meta-moral - Try to improve society
>
>>>: Morals - Do not hurt others (or kill, rape, plagiarize, endanger,etc)
>>>: - Avoid hypocrisy
>>>: - Do not steal
>>>: - Do not force views on others
>
>>I would only add
>> - Do what is right regardless what others do.
>
>What is "right"? Many fundamentalist Christians think it is right to
>blockade abortion clinics.
Thanks for pointing this out. I guess I need to be a little clearer here. What
I meant was in the context of "don't wait for other people to be moral before
being moral yourself". Its really is just sub-moral off "avoid hypocrisy"
So I could never use the excuse of "well everyone else does it" or "Well those
are my ideals, but its not an ideal world".
As with regards to abortion blockers, they couldn't blockade a clinic if they
followed the first four. That would involve forcing their views on others. Now I
would expect them to speak up an speak up loudly over abortion. That is called
discussion and dialog. But physically barring the door is force.
Eliminating "Do not force views on others" still wouldn't help them, I don't
think, because I really doubt they would accept other people forcing views down
their throats. If that is the case, then forcing their views on other people
would be hypocrisy.
To be moral then abortion blockers would have to be hypocrits that don't mind
forcing their viewpoints on other people.
>Will Stewart -- My own thoughts, questions, requests, ....
Jim
Scott Banister
In response to the question at the bottom of this post (Do other atheists
operate on a similar set of morals?), I can answer for myself (I'm
agnostic--but that's close enough). I do operate on a set of morals much
the same as outlined here, based on the "Reflexive Moral" as you call
it. An agnostic friend of mine would also agree, I believe.
Anyone else with a vote on this?
Scott Banister sban...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Kent Sandvik
(Andrew C. Werling) wrote:
> A definition of a Christian nation could be many things. Which is
> being proposed here?
Here's an example of a real Christian nation, Finland, I was born
and raised there, and the constitution indeed justifies Christianity
as the state religion:
1. Obligatory Christian teaching in school (exceptions granted on demand),
started at grade 1. Psalms and Christian church masses part of the
school activity.
2. Church keeps track of the population (exceptions exist), including
marriages, born children, and civil status.
3. As part of the obligatory military service the servicemen swear
to protect the country under the name of God (exceptions granted),
obligatory Christian teaching as part of the military service (!),
yet again church masses and psalms as part of the military
ceremonies.
4. The President and the Congress swear by God when they take
mandate, and Christian church is involved in the ceremonies.
5. Persons pay a smaller church tax (exceptions granted).
...anyway, I could go on and on. However it's very, very evident
that United States is in no way a Christian nation, and anyone
who tries to state this has a personal agenda to rewrite history
and the constitution, and in this sense are deliberately lying.
--Kent
--
Kent Sandvik
san...@apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
Kent Sandvik
(Takahiro Hiroi) wrote:
> I think the matter is how God thinks about the United States. He surely
> wanted this country to fight against the evil forces in the world based on
> Christian spirit, most likely.
I'm sure many other Gods also think that United States are with them
when fighting the opposite -- and this is the beauty of a Constitution
that allows the people living under the constitution the freedom to
believe in such things.
Imagine if you lived in an Islamic nation, and the idea that a
Christian God would help you would put you in jail?
Steve Price
> anrw...@netcom.com (A.X. Lias) writes:
>
> In response to the question at the bottom of this post (Do other atheists
> operate on a similar set of morals?), I can answer for myself (I'm
> agnostic--but that's close enough). I do operate on a set of morals much
> the same as outlined here, based on the "Reflexive Moral" as you call
> it. An agnostic friend of mine would also agree, I believe.
>
> Anyone else with a vote on this?
I'm an agnostic as well, and I also pretty much agree with the
"Reflexive Moral". I never had a name for it, but I've pretty much
kept my life by the same 'rules'.
_________
|Steve Price | \ 0 \/|
|/\/\ Raven /\/\ | <GISH>< /_DARWIN__/\|
|ra...@kaiwan.com | L L
Andrew J. Gray
>>Much Golden Rule discussion deleted<<
>: Do other atheists have similar value systems,
Yep.
> and if so, is this type
>: of ethical framework predominant?
We could only wish it were so. You could have a legal system that looked at
individual cases to see if some wrong occurred, and take action if necessary,
rather than the current system based on the idea of Justice we are taught in
grade school. That is, the idea that corrective action has to be applied to
all members of the group in order to be fair (like, Little Johnny played his
pocket radio too loud at recess, so now no one is allowed to bring a radio to
class. Or, consider a real-world example: In California, many industrial
businesses have to get hazardous materials permits even though they don't
handle hazardous materials, because other businesses in their industrial
category have been busted in the past for illegal dumping.)
Instead, our schools teach us this twisted concept of fairness, as well as
other gems like "it's not illegal if you don't get caught", "do unto others,
then split", etc. All of this is implicit, and of course the explicit moral
training we get is contradictory, yet hardly better ("Caring is sharing",
"Sacrifice builds character", "The needs/rights of society outweigh the
needs/rights of the individual" and other socialist formulae)
When: 1) Everyone is willing - no, proud - to take responsibility for their
own actions (failures and successes)
2) Children are taught *why* the Golden Rule is a moral absolute, by
people who practice it consistently
and 3) Everyone realizes that socialism in any form is wrong ("Work or
starve" is the greatest, most moral work ethic I can imagine [shields UP!])
Cheers,
Andy Gray
#include <disclaimer.h>
Dan L Schechter
: When: 1) Everyone is willing - no, proud - to take responsibility for their
: own actions (failures and successes)
: 2) Children are taught *why* the Golden Rule is a moral absolute, by
: people who practice it consistently
: and 3) Everyone realizes that socialism in any form is wrong ("Work or
: starve" is the greatest, most moral work ethic I can imagine [shields UP!])
No quarrel with numbers 1 and 2.
Number 3 is just plain silly and demonstrates either an extreme bias
or ignorance of the concept of socialism. Socialism does NOT mean
some sort of un-democratic system of government. Quite the contrary.
Socialism, in the form that I advocate it, simply means that people
who perform labor own and control their own means of production.
The former Soviet Union PRETENDED to be socialist by the transparent
ploy of CLAIMING that the Party represented the workers, thus they
indirectly controled their means of production.
But the REAL difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that
under Capitalism ALL business decisions and ALL profits belong to
the people who provide the capital for an enterprise, whereas in a
Socialist economy the decisions and profits belong to the people who
perform the labor.
Is this really "wrong in any form"????
Note that a hybrid is possible, where workers and investors share
responsibility and profit. But it is Capitalism in its absolute form
(e.g. as we practice it in the U.S.A.) that is truly evil, as it is
based entirely on the (very un-Christian) practice of GREED.
Dan
Laurence Mailaender
>Andrew J. Gray (andy...@inetlink.berksys.com) wrote:
>: When: 1) Everyone is willing to take responsibility for their
>: own actions (failures and successes)
>: 2) Children taught *why* the Golden Rule a moral absolute, by
>: people who practice it consistently
>: and 3) Everyone realizes that socialism in any form is wrong
>("Work or
>: starve" is the greatest, most moral work ethic I can imagine
[shields UP!])
Andrew, that was said like a true Rand/Objectivist. Nice !
>Number 3 is just plain silly and demonstrates either an extreme bias
>or ignorance of the concept of socialism. Socialism does NOT mean
>some sort of un-democratic system of government. Quite the contrary.
>Socialism, in the form that I advocate it, simply means that people
Whoa! Everyone knows what socialism is, don't give us _your brand_
of socialism as "the" definition! Socialism is government ownership
of the means of production. Period. The political system it runs
under could be Communist, Democratic, or something else. YOU seem
to be the one who does not understand Socialism, because there is
nothing Democratic or un-Democratic about it.
>But the REAL difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that
>under Capitalism ALL business decisions and ALL profits belong to
>the people who provide the capital for an enterprise, whereas in a
>Socialist economy the decisions and profits belong to the people who
>perform the labor.
Oh, I see. We workers get _no share_ of the profits at all? I wonder
what I'm doing at work??? Let me ask you, who exactly do you think
owns the "means of production" in our country? It IS "the people".
Anyone with sufficient capital and a good idea can start a business.
Why would I start a business with my money and then put the workers
in charge? That's hopelessly naive, and points to why it will
_always_ be the State that stands in for "the people" under Socialism.
The laborers in our economy are paid for their efforts, and the rate
of pay is the fairest possible- the market rate. Those with special
in-demand skills are paid more. Under socialism, with state control
of the economy, you'd never get to start your business unless
you had government contacts, and cut them in for a share. Even
then, you'd produce the wrong goods, because a state controlled
economy can not adequately respond to the demands of the
marketplace.
>But it is Capitalism in its absolute form
>(e.g. as we practice it in the U.S.A.) that is truly evil, as it is
>based entirely on the (very un-Christian) practice of GREED.
Many would argue that our country is not capitalist enough. If you
think this is a _pure_ Capitalist system, then open your eyes to:
Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security, etc. That is, all the
things which are bankrupting this country.
Under capitalism, workers can become owners if they have sufficient
capital. They also become part owners under employee stock ownership
plans.
If you think this system is "un-Christian", why don't you just leave?
This country was founded on free-market principles, and it is not
likely to change. It was Christians who gave up their version
of communal-living/socialism.
Dan, you really need to do some soul-searching on this topic, and
give up your naive Utopianism. Try reading Ann Rand, or Ludwig von
Mises.
-Laurence
Xian the Desk Lizard
\ >Andrew J. Gray (andy...@inetlink.berksys.com) wrote:
\ >: When: 1) Everyone is willing to take responsibility for their
\ >: own actions (failures and successes)
\ >: 2) Children taught *why* the Golden Rule a moral absolute, by
\ >: people who practice it consistently
\ >: and 3) Everyone realizes that socialism in any form is wrong
\ >("Work or
\ >: starve" is the greatest, most moral work ethic I can imagine
\ [shields UP!])
\ Andrew, that was said like a true Rand/Objectivist. Nice !
Or not, depending on your perspective.
\ >But the REAL difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that
\ >under Capitalism ALL business decisions and ALL profits belong to
\ >the people who provide the capital for an enterprise, whereas in a
\ >Socialist economy the decisions and profits belong to the people who
\ >perform the labor.
\ Oh, I see. We workers get _no share_ of the profits at all?
Well, no. Labour costs are not normally counted as profits. Of
course, most forward-thinking firms have introduced some form of
profit sharing or performance related pay - although I'd say the
former was far preferable, because there aren't going to be any
personal grudges involved - and the point is purely statistical,
but... there it is.
\ I wonder
\ what I'm doing at work??? Let me ask you, who exactly do you think
\ owns the "means of production" in our country? It IS "the people".
No, it's "some people".
\ Anyone with sufficient capital and a good idea can start a business.
\ Why would I start a business with my money and then put the workers
\ in charge?
True - and if you're far-sighted you will recruit the best workers and
then pay them like they're the best. They will then pretty much run
the company for you, because when you give out a directive, they'll
know what you want. So, effectively, you are "putting the workers
in charge". It's businesses who do so in an incompetent manner that
go to the wall; nothing to do with whether they're state-owned or
private. Except that the state-owned ones have a tendency to get
themselves subsidised by the taxpayers... but there is no theoretical
reason why a state-owned facility is necessarily run worse than a
private one.
\ The laborers in our economy are paid for their efforts, and the rate
\ of pay is the fairest possible- the market rate. Those with special
\ in-demand skills are paid more. Under socialism, with state control
\ of the economy, you'd never get to start your business unless
\ you had government contacts, and cut them in for a share. Even
\ then, you'd produce the wrong goods, because a state controlled
\ economy can not adequately respond to the demands of the
\ marketplace.
Are you implying that state control of the economy is a necessary part
of socialism, or are you saying that when these two facilities asre
combined together they would be damaging. Personally, I think the
latter has far more chance of being true. That's what happens when
you elect someone to run a company.
\ >But it is Capitalism in its absolute form
\ >(e.g. as we practice it in the U.S.A.) that is truly evil, as it is
\ >based entirely on the (very un-Christian) practice of GREED.
\ Many would argue that our country is not capitalist enough. If you
Many?
\ think this is a _pure_ Capitalist system, then open your eyes to:
\ Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security, etc. That is, all the
\ things which are bankrupting this country.
Oh, the things that stop people from dying of starvation and littering
up the streets with their moulding corpses? Oh, I see... yes,
libertaria will be so much better, in between the stench of
decomposing flesh and the huge variety of new insect life it would
generate? Yes, the housefly would do very nicely out of Objectivism.
\ Under capitalism, workers can become owners if they have sufficient
\ capital. They also become part owners under employee stock ownership
\ plans.
That is GOOD?
\ Dan, you really need to do some soul-searching on this topic, and
\ give up your naive Utopianism. Try reading Ann Rand, or Ludwig von
\ Mises.
Ann Rand? As in Carole Ann Rand, the journo? Surely you don't mean
your heroin Ayn Rand? (Spelling intentional.)
--
Xian the Desk Lizard |"It's all down from here..." - Into Paradise
Occasional thinker, | Email: c.d.a....@brad.ac.uk \ Phone 0274 579659
part-time depressive,| finger cdah...@muser.brad.ac.uk|more \ for Christian
full-time dosser | My function in life is to care, so let me do it well.
William R. Stewart
Andrew J. Gray <andy...@inetlink.berksys.com> wrote:
>Will Stewart wrote;
>>>Much Golden Rule discussion deleted<<
>>: Do other atheists have similar value systems,
>Yep.
>> and if so, is this type of ethical framework predominant?
>We could only wish it were so. You could have a legal system that looked at
>individual cases to see if some wrong occurred, and take action if necessary,
>rather than the current system based on the idea of Justice we are taught in
>grade school. That is, the idea that corrective action has to be applied to
>all members of the group in order to be fair (like, Little Johnny played his
>pocket radio too loud at recess, so now no one is allowed to bring a radio to
>class. Or, consider a real-world example: In California, many industrial
>businesses have to get hazardous materials permits even though they don't
>handle hazardous materials, because other businesses in their industrial
>category have been busted in the past for illegal dumping.)
In a small community, the 'individual case' concept might actually be
the optimum. In larger communities, this might pose many problems;
1. How does one decide if something is actually wrong?
Does one decide upon judge or jury? What if the
person happens to have the one judge (or a jury
combination) that opposes his concept of right or wrong?
2. The details and nuances of the situation at the time
of the 'crime' are either lost or subject to the
testimonies of the opponents. How would it be
possible to identify if a wrong occurred?
3. How would someone from another state or country
now what was quasi-legal and what was not?
>Instead, our schools teach us this twisted concept of fairness, as well as
>other gems like "it's not illegal if you don't get caught", "do unto others,
>then split", etc.
Where did you go to school?
>All of this is implicit, and of course the explicit moral
>training we get is contradictory, yet hardly better ("Caring is sharing",
>"Sacrifice builds character", "The needs/rights of society outweigh the
>needs/rights of the individual" and other socialist formulae)
Some could be considered socialist, though it basic to most
cooperative systems.
>When: 1) Everyone is willing - no, proud - to take responsibility for their
>own actions (failures and successes)
Concur.
> 2) Children are taught *why* the Golden Rule is a moral absolute, by
>people who practice it consistently
Instruction by example.
>and 3) Everyone realizes that socialism in any form is wrong ("Work or
>starve" is the greatest, most moral work ethic I can imagine [shields UP!])
Government imposed Golden Rule I believe leads to abuse of the system.
A one-on-one relationship with a person in need is the only kind that
allows the givee to empathize, mentor (if asked), and decide if
further giving will help or hinder.
Regards,
--