I've seen in the past few weeks a telling amount of hatred from people, to others, based on their political viewpoints. This goes well beyond reasonable debate and into personal attacks, threats, and the types of demonizing behavior that you would normally associate with enemies in a time of war.
Apparently, the people doing this are willing to threaten and harass half of whom they see on a daily basis, which would include half of their family, friends, and coworkers. The level of vitriol is disturbing, and I often fear that it will turn into true violence in the near future.
Online there's no barries to the hate. There's no fear of repudiation for such behavior. There's a plentiful amount of 'internet courage' where people kind behind their monitors and assumed names and feel free to engage in this behavior wherever the like. Would-be cowards are turned into 'keyboard warriors' who are determined to make life miserable for those are not one-hundred percent behind their viewpoints.
Unfortuntaely it's not enough to bow out of just 'general topics' forums, since a number of people feel it neccessary to drag the hatred and venom into other topics at any opportunity. There's honestly just no escaping the worst of behavior, and the sense of entitlement that the perpetrators have in doing it simply ruins the enjoyment for everyone.
At the end of the day, we're voting for the President of the United States. That's the executive position of the most powerful government on the planet, and whose primary job it is to safeguard the lives of 400,000,000 people. Those people include the 'other side' as well. The President looks over everyone, and doesn't get to choose which states he cares about, and which he wants revenge on. He doesn't get to say "I'll only benefit Democrats" or "I'll punish all Republicans". Our Constitution does not allow for that, nor should it ever.
Our system is designed around the debate, the honest exchange of opinions and ideas between honest and equal men. No man is entitled to win such a debate, and the vote, as no man is required to lose it, or the vote. Our democracy, and our Republic, will fail the moment people forget this basic truth.
So, come November, if you can, vote. Vote for who you believe best reflects your views and will best run the country. But keep in mind that all those people voting differently than you are not your enemies, no matter what you may be reading on the internet. They're your countrymen, and they deserve that basic respect.
See you...in December!
See you...when the votings through!
Here we are
(bye buddy goodbye!)
saying goodbye from the forums
(bye buddy goodbye!)
this whole election,
it takin' you away!
(bye buddy goodbye!)
Have a good time,
but remember!
There is danger,
in the campaign slogans that they run!
Will we see you,
in December?
Or loose you,
to a GURPS BBSsssssssssss?
Oh, and Off-Topic Tavern has been taken over by Canada recently, so it's not that bad.
Disagreeing with you is not hatred, personal attacks, threats, demonizing behavior, vitriol, venom, or a sense of entitlement.
more often then not the above statement is false.
The problem is that there are so many lies that few if any can see the truth... and those few most likely want no part in it.
Woe be us who live in the age of fools
to every man the wealth of the ancient king
but none the wisdom to use it
to every man the knowledge of all mankind
but none the will to use it
to every man the power to take action
and none the thought to act
To think without acting is decadence.
To act without thinking is chaos.
But neither come to men or this age.
Disagreeing with you is not hatred, personal attacks, threats, demonizing behavior, vitriol, venom, or a sense of entitlement.
There are, however, many people who do engage in some or all of that in the process of disagreeing.
There are, however, many people who do engage in some or all of that in the process of disagreeing.
True enough. One of them made a thread to tell us he's getting out before it gets uglier.
True enough. One of them made a thread to tell us he's getting out before it gets uglier.
Ouch!
So, come November, if you can, vote. Vote for who you believe best reflects your views and will best run the country.
Unfortunately very few people will do this. Most people will vote Republican or Democrat, instead.
Unfortunately very few people will do this. Most people will vote Republican or Democrat, instead.
yes, the mindless cattle, far lower than slave. Their vote comes to them like their name.
The parties, liars above, have too few real people who play the game.
the soulless liars, some even who believe their lies know the game.
And behold how they receive the worship of the masses.
Loved by many, but giving no love; they take all but deserve none.
Unfortunately very few people will do this. Most people will vote Republican or Democrat, instead.
What if, of the options presented, one of those fits best?
Does that still make me a mindless punchick in the machine?
I always vote, but I never consider it a win.
Win? how can I win. I get either a Liberal or a PC Prime Minister. Oh like that's a success.
One week after the election, the US likes their President about as much as we like our Prime Minister. Not one bit.
Enjoying democracy?
Disagreeing with you is not hatred, personal attacks, threats, demonizing behavior, vitriol, venom, or a sense of entitlement.
Disagreeing is not these things. However, strong disagreement can lead to them, and on the internet people tend to disagree very strongly.
"Flounce-Delete"
I leave you to all interpret the phraze, and why I choose to share
A dollar in the bribes is likely more important than you and your family.
If it ever gets real bad, I'll vote in the only way that is guaranteed to work
RESNOVAE
yes, the mindless cattle, far lower than slave. Their vote comes to them like their name.
The parties, liars above, have too few real people who play the game.
the soulless liars, some even who believe their lies know the game.
And behold how they receive the worship of the masses.
Loved by many, but giving no love; they take all but deserve none.
If only we had the resistance. With all of their slandering, lying and mindless speeches, only one lie really burns me to the core. Telling us they will give this, that or the other back to the people.
Cattle, yes!
But I wish they would give up trying to entice us with an idea we gave up understanding when we started to define communism. As soon as we started to see red, people have started to lose rights and freedoms left and right. No, I am not here to start a conspiracy theory about the future, just stating the facts about our past and present. We will never get these freedoms back, and as long as we keep allowing this pseudo-democracy to be controlled by only two Trust Parties, we will keep losing more freedoms. Enjoy it, BUT GOD BLESS AMERICA!
So now they have learned, they have named the shackles freedom, in gold letter.
And called freedom insanity and anarchy and threat.
Liberty is to those who defend it, and so the second is for the sake of the rest.
What if, of the options presented, one of those fits best?
Does that still make me a mindless punchick in the machine?
...I was joking around. Sure, there was some seriousness behind it, but I didn't expect anyone to take me so seriously. It was really just a shot at the two-party system, which I despise so very much so.
I even made a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOXTiP-Dkt8
...I was joking around. Sure, there was some seriousness behind it, but I didn't expect anyone to take me so seriously. It was really just a shot at the two-party system, which I despise so very much so.
I figured, but thought it was worth checking. I was on a bit of a short fuse yesterday, sorry if I came off angry.
As for third parties; I'll vote for them when they have platforms that a) represent my views, and b) that are more than two issues long.
Well, I've made a decision today. I'm going to be bowing out of the forums for a long while, likely until after the United States Presidential election.
I've seen in the past few weeks a telling amount of hatred from people, to others, based on their political viewpoints. This goes well beyond reasonable debate and into personal attacks, threats, and the types of demonizing behavior that you would normally associate with enemies in a time of war.
Apparently, the people doing this are willing to threaten and harass half of whom they see on a daily basis, which would include half of their family, friends, and coworkers. The level of vitriol is disturbing, and I often fear that it will turn into true violence in the near future.
Online there's no barries to the hate. There's no fear of repudiation for such behavior. There's a plentiful amount of 'internet courage' where people kind behind their monitors and assumed names and feel free to engage in this behavior wherever the like. Would-be cowards are turned into 'keyboard warriors' who are determined to make life miserable for those are not one-hundred percent behind their viewpoints.
Unfortuntaely it's not enough to bow out of just 'general topics' forums, since a number of people feel it neccessary to drag the hatred and venom into other topics at any opportunity. There's honestly just no escaping the worst of behavior, and the sense of entitlement that the perpetrators have in doing it simply ruins the enjoyment for everyone.
At the end of the day, we're voting for the President of the United States. That's the executive position of the most powerful government on the planet, and whose primary job it is to safeguard the lives of 400,000,000 people. Those people include the 'other side' as well. The President looks over everyone, and doesn't get to choose which states he cares about, and which he wants revenge on. He doesn't get to say "I'll only benefit Democrats" or "I'll punish all Republicans". Our Constitution does not allow for that, nor should it ever.
Our system is designed around the debate, the honest exchange of opinions and ideas between honest and equal men. No man is entitled to win such a debate, and the vote, as no man is required to lose it, or the vote. Our democracy, and our Republic, will fail the moment people forget this basic truth.
So, come November, if you can, vote. Vote for who you believe best reflects your views and will best run the country. But keep in mind that all those people voting differently than you are not your enemies, no matter what you may be reading on the internet. They're your countrymen, and they deserve that basic respect.
I wonder why so many Neo-Cons turn tail and run when asked to use logic and present facts?
I wonder why so many Neo-Cons turn tail and run when asked to use logic and present facts?
Obama is a Neo-Con?
it doesnt matter who is in office. they both profise reform, and like all the presidents of the past...
NOTHING CHANGES!
i assure you that all the candidates have good honest intentions. And they are all what you would call "Good People"
The only problem is that MAN was not intended to rule MAN.
I dont believe any of the candidates represent by beliefs enough to entitle a vote.
unless jesus runs for president....im not voting.
Over on another website there is a term that get's used, which i choose to share with you all
"Flounce-Delete"
I leave you to all interpret the phraze, and why I choose to share
i think i get it....since he said he is leaving,,,,and we have this other brand new user who joined last night....that TemukaALietchfield IS the same person as the OP!!!!
thats clever....
it is kinda odd that a brand new profile has 24 posts and its his first day....almost like he has been here before.
Obama is a Neo-Con?
Oh look, there's the other Neo-Con response, snarky insults.
well anyone interested can take a lead and NOT VOTE AT ALL!
You show 'em, kid. Nevermind that someone who is currently running will wind up the leader of the free world whether or not you pull any lever at all. I'm sure the message you and the other 36-40% of the non-voting populace is sending will ring loud and clear; "Don't listen to us or worry about what we want, we're not impacting elections in the slightest."
More power to ya.
I have a jaded view on politics sure, but can you blame me after what happened the past 8 years?
Then vote third party. Hell, vote Bugs Bunny. Just fracking vote.
If you don't, you don't get counted. If you don't get counted, you help send the message that politicians just need to play harder to their base than the other guy to win, because the bases always vote. By not voting, you're helping foster the polarized, ineffective politics that you just spent 30 seconds on an internet forum typing a diatribe against.
Good luck with that whole self-defeating stand on principle that nobody cares about, though. I'm sure that's going places.
Oh look, there's the other Neo-Con response, snarky insults.
No, just astute observations...
You show 'em, kid. Nevermind that someone who is currently running will wind up the leader of the free world whether or not you pull any lever at all. I'm sure the message you and the other 36-40% of the non-voting populace is sending will ring loud and clear; "Don't listen to us or worry about what we want, we're not impacting elections in the slightest."
More power to ya.
Then vote third party. Hell, vote Bugs Bunny. Just fracking vote.
If you don't, you don't get counted. If you don't get counted, you help send the message that politicians just need to play harder to their base than the other guy to win, because the bases always vote. By not voting, you're helping foster the polarized, ineffective politics that you just spent 30 seconds on an internet forum typing a diatribe against.
Good luck with that whole self-defeating stand on principle that nobody cares about, though. I'm sure that's going places.
true. never thought about it that way.
Oh look, there's the other Neo-Con response, snarky insults.
To be fair, you started it with this:
I wonder why so many Neo-Cons turn tail and run when asked to use logic and present facts?
That is a snarky insult, no? So does that make you a Neo-Con? ;)
Look, I don't have a problem with ya'. Just keep the partisan name calling out of this stuff, please. It does nothing beyond undermining your credibility. And you know that.
Now that that fun is over, I must say that if Jesus was on the ballot I'd surely be voting (though I will be anyway). But it would be for the other guy. If Jesus was elected I'd surely end up in prison. And so would most of America, I fear. Even the people that voted for him. Especially some of the people that would vote for him. ;)
To be fair, you started it with this:
That is a snarky insult, no? So does that make you a Neo-Con? ;)
No worries, I don't take anything JWT posts seriously.
true. never thought about it that way.
Well, it's like Duke always says at the end of the episode; Knowing is half the battle. (TM)
It's something that just doesn't enter most people's thought processes; if you don't vote, it's assumed that you're going to keep not voting. If you're not going to vote, no one whose career depends on gaining votes should care what you think/want/say. It's a pretty simple equation.
I'll let my buddy Craig take it from here (long, but 100% worth watching);
Part 1
Part 2
Well, it's like Duke always says at the end of the episode; Knowing is half the battle. (TM)
It's something that just doesn't enter most people's thought processes; if you don't vote, it's assumed that you're going to keep not voting. If you're not going to vote, no one whose career depends on gaining votes should care what you think/want/say. It's a pretty simple equation.
I'll let my buddy Craig take it from here (long, but 100% worth watching);
Part 1
Part 2
unfortunately, I can't watch videos. If I exceed my fair access policy threshold thingy I can't get online for another 24 hours. Can you give me the basics of what's said?
You show 'em, kid. Nevermind that someone who is currently running will wind up the leader of the free world whether or not you pull any lever at all. I'm sure the message you and the other 36-40% of the non-voting populace is sending will ring loud and clear; "Don't listen to us or worry about what we want, we're not impacting elections in the slightest."
More power to ya.
Then vote third party. Hell, vote Bugs Bunny. Just fracking vote.
If you don't, you don't get counted. If you don't get counted, you help send the message that politicians just need to play harder to their base than the other guy to win, because the bases always vote. By not voting, you're helping foster the polarized, ineffective politics that you just spent 30 seconds on an internet forum typing a diatribe against.
Good luck with that whole self-defeating stand on principle that nobody cares about, though. I'm sure that's going places.
whos leader?....by not voting i am not acknowledging any of them as my leader....
do you acknowledge the last man you voted for as your leader? did you vote for bush? he certainly is not my leader even though i live in this country.
I was born here into this world in the U.S. but i am not a part of this world...if that makes sense to you. and by not voting i am showing that i want no part in this... none of those men (or women) i believe are qualified for that position. and i wont choose someone who i know can't fit the bill.
unfortunately, I can't watch videos. If I exceed my fair access policy threshold thingy I can't get online for another 24 hours. Can you give me the basics of what's said?
It's basically a rant by newly nationalized American citizen Craig Ferguson about media coverage of the election, voter turnout numbers and the need to sell voting to the public. It's a quality rant.
whos leader?....by not voting i am not acknowledging any of them as my leader....
do you acknowledge the last man you voted for as your leader? did you vote for bush? he certainly is not my leader even though i live in this country.
I was born here into this world in the U.S. but i am not a part of this world...if that makes sense to you. and by not voting i am showing that i want no part in this... none of those men (or women) i believe are qualified for that position. and i wont choose someone who i know can't fit the bill.
By not voting, you're hurting no one but yourself. If you ever want things to change, you've got to make your voice heard, even if that voice is raised in support of Daffy Duck. By not voting, you're reinforcing the idea that your views aren't to be taken into account in the grand scheme of things. Not voting doesn't prove a point to anyone but you, and you're deluding yourself if you think that point is anything other than "I don't care enough about my future to take the effort to pull a lever once every two/four years."
It's basically a rant by newly nationalized American citizen Craig Ferguson about media coverage of the election, voter turnout numbers and the need to sell voting to the public. It's a quality rant.
By not voting, you're hurting no one but yourself. If you ever want things to change, you've got to make your voice heard, even if that voice is raised in support of Daffy Duck. By not voting, you're reinforcing the idea that your views aren't to be taken into account in the grand scheme of things. Not voting doesn't prove a point to anyone but you, and you're deluding yourself if you think that point is anything other than "I don't care enough about my future to take the effort to pull a lever once every two/four years."
you are making a lot of assumptions about me....
not voting does not hurt me...lol it shows my opinion... in a way NOT voting is kinda LIKE voting.
you can take it 2 ways...
1). i dont care or
2). i dont think either candidate is suitable.
either one proves a point.
i dont believe that it is my choice to make decisions in the 'grand scheme of things ' as you put it.
an oxymoron is that people who are too ambitious should not be politicians,,,but you have to be extremely ambitious to get the position....
The fact that politicians believe they are good enough to make decisions, and rule over others tells me something about them... They view themselves as superior to us.
i am a pious person so i will quote supporting scripture of my beliefs...
Eccl. 8:9 "man has dominated man to his injury."
Jer. 10:23 'to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.'
and
Gen. 8:21 "The inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up."
now look at EVERY government in history....i think it is obvious than man cant rule himself.
now look at EVERY government in history....i think it is obvious than man cant rule himself.
Like it or not, you live in a society where decisions are made via ballot. You can throw up your hands and put your faith in some divine being to solve it all, but that just means that the people who are actually making decisions aren't going to be paying attention to you like they are the hordes of non-believers who do vote. That means that by not voicing your opinion via voting booth, you're lessening your impact on the process, and by extension you're lessening the level of impact your deity is having on the process itself.
If that's the call you want to make, fine. But don't claim you're doing it out of some higher calling. If your god wants you to do anything, he/she wants you to vote. I seem to recall a couple passages in that book about the people of god taking responsibility for their own state of affairs. It's probably time to step up and do that.
1. You genuinely don't care.
2. You're that indecisive.
3. You don't trust your own judgment.
And possibly other reasons I'm leaving out. However, if you do care who is President and you don't like either of the major-party candidates, you are sending the WRONG message if you choose to abstain from voting; you're working against yourself. Your opinion, assuming you have one, will not make one BIT of difference if you do not vote. You don't have to vote for a major-party candidate, but if you don't vote at all, you're telling everyone that you just don't care. Vote for a third party, vote for an independent, or vote for a fictional write-in. Hell, if you're legally eligible, vote for yourself! But not voting is the worst thing you can do if you really do care at all and you simply don't like either of the major party's candidates.
Your opinion, assuming you have one, will not make one BIT of difference if you do not vote.
Not necessarily true. I got the ways & means committee to change the law on business equip depreciation rates and I hadn't voted in that election cycle.
It just depends if you want to have your opinion heard, or not...
Not necessarily true. I got the ways & means committee to change the law on business equip depreciation rates and I hadn't voted in that election cycle.
It just depends if you want to have your opinion heard, or not...
You're right actually, there are ways other than voting to get your opinion heard. I should have clarified. However I think many will see the spirit of what I was driving at.
That is why I'm a firm beliver in a single ass kick by a metal leg kickboxer to anyone who screams X and X is horrible president, when in fact the offender didn't even bother to vote. If you don't vote, you have no right to complaint.
Pet peeve. People who don't vote, and yet are very vocal on the outcome.
That is why I'm a firm beliver in a single ass kick by a metal leg kickboxer to anyone who screams X and X is horrible president, when in fact the offender didn't even bother to vote. If you don't vote, you have no right to complaint.
I agree on it being a pet peeve, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they "don't have a right" to complain. Everyone has a right to complain, even people who voted for the President they're complaining about. We're not fortune tellers.
now look at EVERY government in history....i think it is obvious than man cant rule himself.
So, who can?
So, who can?
Trogdor.
you are making a lot of assumptions about me....
not voting does not hurt me...lol it shows my opinion... in a way NOT voting is kinda LIKE voting.
you can take it 2 ways...
1). i dont care or
2). i dont think either candidate is suitable.
either one proves a point.
i dont believe that it is my choice to make decisions in the 'grand scheme of things ' as you put it.
an oxymoron is that people who are too ambitious should not be politicians,,,but you have to be extremely ambitious to get the position....
The fact that politicians believe they are good enough to make decisions, and rule over others tells me something about them... They view themselves as superior to us.
i am a pious person so i will quote supporting scripture of my beliefs...
Eccl. 8:9 "man has dominated man to his injury."
Jer. 10:23 'to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.'
and
Gen. 8:21 "The inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up."
now look at EVERY government in history....i think it is obvious than man cant rule himself.
First, I think Batshido and Squarecircle are addressing the overall points about not voting. I'd like to address your last bit.
First, Please don't cherry pick quotes from the Bible like that. Is that even the full verses? What's the context? Who's speaking and being spoken to?
Furthermore, while in some ways I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence, inasmuch as I believe man to be a fallen, selfish, sinful creature (especially myself many a times),....we're all we've got. And to that, I say I'd vastly prefer our system over about any other, beyond maybe Britain's (oh, how I'd love a Question Hour in American politics).
I'll finish this with a quote from my college Bible classes: "CONTEXT!!!!"
I agree on it being a pet peeve, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they "don't have a right" to complain. Everyone has a right to complain, even people who voted for the President they're complaining about. We're not fortune tellers.
yes i have a right to complain ESPECIALLY because i dont vote... As i explained i don't see any of the candidates as suitable for the position....
i think it makes less sense to complain if you DO vote (if its the one you voted on) because you chose the fool. Me on the other hand. I have nothing to do with it. My hands are clean. I just live here.
First, I think Batshido and Squarecircle are addressing the overall points about not voting. I'd like to address your last bit.
First, Please don't cherry pick quotes from the Bible like that. Is that even the full verses? What's the context? Who's speaking and being spoken to?
Furthermore, while in some ways I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence, inasmuch as I believe man to be a fallen, selfish, sinful creature (especially myself many a times),....we're all we've got. And to that, I say I'd vastly prefer our system over about any other, beyond maybe Britain's (oh, how I'd love a Question Hour in American politics).
I'll finish this with a quote from my college Bible classes: "CONTEXT!!!!"
and I can quote if i feel like it. I MADE REFERENCES!!! so go check it yourself if you want to know more. You expect i should quote the entirety of the scriptures? LOL ...no need to be in denial over the points of those scriptures. If you dont agree with the bible thats your own choice...Im not pushing on others just stating my own beliefs which happen to be in harmony with the scriptures.
and the context changes nothing, it is pretty straightforward...
and I can quote if i feel like it. I MADE REFERENCES!!! so go check it yourself if you want to know more. You expect i should quote the entirety of the scriptures? LOL ...no need to be in denial over the points of those scriptures. If you dont agree with the bible thats your own choice...Im not pushing on others just stating my own beliefs which happen to be in harmony with the scriptures.
if you are unable to look for yourself then here is this....
the ones in quotes are the full verse, and the one between commas is a partial verse, as is proper.
you should have learned that in college bible classes.
and the context changes nothing, it is pretty straightforward...
*facepalm* Ok, yeah, you put up the verse references. No I don't expect the entire Scripture. I should expect passage references, maybe a brief "they were in this situation" or something. You can't just pull stuff from the Bible. Yes, I believe the Bible. Looking at the chapters surrounding those verses, I'd say that we can conclude that man's not perfect, and instead fallen and sinful. Not exactly a groundshaking revelation. Only the Eccl. reference really fits with a direct reference to government, but looking at the chapter, it seems to be saying this in comparison to a wise ruler.
And if we're going to bring in college classes, I'd say that you could do with a bit more sentence capitalization. As well, none of those are the full verse.
I'm not trying to be mean. I am trying to help a fellow believer improve his use of the Word.
*facepalm* Ok, yeah, you put up the verse references. No I don't expect the entire Scripture. I should expect passage references, maybe a brief "they were in this situation" or something. You can't just pull stuff from the Bible. Yes, I believe the Bible. Looking at the chapters surrounding those verses, I'd say that we can conclude that man's not perfect, and instead fallen and sinful. Not exactly a groundshaking revelation. Only the Eccl. reference really fits with a direct reference to government, but looking at the chapter, it seems to be saying this in comparison to a wise ruler.
And if we're going to bring in college classes, I'd say that you could do with a bit more sentence capitalization. As well, none of those are the full verse.
I'm not trying to be mean. I am trying to help a fellow believer improve his use of the Word.
yeah im a sloppy quoter lol... i really need to work on caps because its important for some words....Lord for example and word Word...have different meanings. and you ninjad be before i could fix my screw up..lol i even screwed up the quote therefore making me look like a imbocile...
oh well... hah hah
whos leader?....by not voting i am not acknowledging any of them as my leader....
do you acknowledge the last man you voted for as your leader? did you vote for bush? he certainly is not my leader even though i live in this country.
I was born here into this world in the U.S. but i am not a part of this world...if that makes sense to you. and by not voting i am showing that i want no part in this... none of those men (or women) i believe are qualified for that position. and i wont choose someone who i know can't fit the bill.
I am a woman with similar beliefs. An example for why I do not vote is a verse in 1 John (5:19), "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one". No matter who the ruler is, he (she) will still be part of this world that lies in Satan's power.
Here is an example why the righteous should not be part of this world, (the whole verse) John 15:19 "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you".
So if people hate you, they are just fulfilling the scripture.
i cant argue to deaf ears...or to people unwilling to reason.
The guy who is claiming he doesn't vote because he believes that mankind should subjugate itself purely to the will of a divine being we don't all believe in is chiding the rest of us for not listening to reason?
This is rich.
If we want a world that is not completely out of control we need leaders. As human beings, we gravitate to controlled situations.
I would definitely agree with this. We're a pack/herd species, so we naturally develop a hierarchical structure. That's pretty much undeniable.
What I'd personally disagree with is this next part;
Order is our natural state - much like most animals, actually.
The natural state of human society is to be in flux. Granted, since we've developed things like interlocking cultures and managed to subvert a large portion of our species-wide xenophobia towards each other, it doesn't tend to turn violent nowadays within any given social network, we're still constantly jockeying and coming into conflict with others over who gets to make the decisions.
The difference is that now, rather than having one chief/tribal leader/council of elders at the top of the chain until they are violently or non-violently deposed, we simply handle such depositions through some semblance of democracy. Who's in charge, what they want to do with their power, who we pick fights with, it all changes constantly. We've plastered a veneer of stability over an incredibly chaotic system, is all.
If the world looks bad today, imagine what it would be like with no leadership and no laws of man. Cluster-f, that's what.
I'd agree with this part, again. I have one caveat, though; the fact of having leadership is only as useful as the leaders you actually have. In not a small number of cases throughout human history, a solid case could be made for anarchy being better than the alternative.
The natural state of human society is to be in flux. Granted, since we've developed things like interlocking cultures and managed to subvert a large portion of our species-wide xenophobia towards each other, it doesn't tend to turn violent nowadays within any given social network, we're still constantly jockeying and coming into conflict with others over who gets to make the decisions.
The difference is that now, rather than having one chief/tribal leader/council of elders at the top of the chain until they are violently or non-violently deposed, we simply handle such depositions through some semblance of democracy. Who's in charge, what they want to do with their power, who we pick fights with, it all changes constantly. We've plastered a veneer of stability over an incredibly chaotic system, is all.
Hmm. Order may not have been the best choice. What I was trying to get at was that we naturally organize. How loose or tight, controlled or chaotic that organization may be, we still group and pick leaders of one sort or another. There is always some type of structure to our groupings. I think that gets at what I meant when I said "order". That's what I get for taking on a post that's more than superficial right out of the gate, though. I should know my brain needs to warm up a bit. ;)
I'd agree with this part, again. I have one caveat, though; the fact of having leadership is only as useful as the leaders you actually have. In not a small number of cases throughout human history, a solid case could be made for anarchy being better than the alternative.
This is true. But I disagree with one thing. You cannot make a case for anarchy at any time. Anarchy is not a possibility for humans. You can have anarchy as a type of "government" in a nation, but humans will always fall into some organization or another. We are animals just like the rest. We seek each other out and then sort out where we fall into place. True anarchy is an impossibility. We will always be beholden to someone (or something) else. The only way out of that is to lead. In either case, you're organized on some level.
This is true. But I disagree with one thing. You cannot make a case for anarchy at any time. Anarchy is not a possibility for humans. You can have anarchy as a type of "government" in a nation, but humans will always fall into some organization or another. We are animals just like the rest. We seek each other out and then sort out where we fall into place. True anarchy is an impossibility. We will always be beholden to someone (or something) else. The only way out of that is to lead. In either case, you're organized on some level.
Well, in a human defined sense, anarchy is basically the complete loss of whatever order was there previously. If the government collapses and we revert to warring tribal groups, that's effectively a step into anarchy.
We as a species are driven to organize on some level though, you're absolutely right. My statement was more in terms of whether having what we now view as a centralized government was preferable to a model more approaching tribal life; in a lot of cases, it's simply not.
Well, in a human defined sense, anarchy is basically the complete loss of whatever order was there previously. If the government collapses and we revert to warring tribal groups, that's effectively a step into anarchy.
We as a species are driven to organize on some level though, you're absolutely right. My statement was more in terms of whether having what we now view as a centralized government was preferable to a model more approaching tribal life; in a lot of cases, it's simply not.
Got it. And I agree. I thought that was the way you were using the term. I just felt like blabbin' about the way I generally use it myself, I guess. :D
I am a woman with similar beliefs. An example for why I do not vote is a verse in 1 John (5:19), "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one". No matter who the ruler is, he (she) will still be part of this world that lies in Satan's power.
Here is an example why the righteous should not be part of this world, (the whole verse) John 15:19 "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you".
So if people hate you, they are just fulfilling the scripture.
Okay, so if we're not to be part of the world, in the vein you're interpreting it, do you have a job outside the church or another ministry?
Here's my point. I've never argued, or been told, that Christians should "embrace the ways of the world". That's always warned against in the Scriptures. But God, Jesus, an others never said "don't hold a job and be a regular citizen". After all, Israel, in its day, had several men who ruled, including David, "a man after God's own heart". Incidentally, we have ample proof he wasn't perfect, but he apparently did a solid job anyways.
The apostles never told everyone to stop working their jobs. Paul himself worked as a tentmaker at times, and would even go to the places in Greece where philosophers would discuss, well, philosophy. He'd meet them on their own turf, speak their language. We can't do that if we're holed up in monasteries.
"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.' " Matthew 28:18-20. That was His last commandment to us.
Furthermore, I find it ironic you've decided that, as a Christian, you can't vote, because of the influence of the world, or being a part of the world, or whatnot. Yet coming to these boards, being on the internet, that's okay? I mean, which one has a higher chance of corrupting you: the internet, or voting?
I'd also like to point out that this seems a bit selfish. You're essentially saying that you won't vote so you can stay clear of corruption. At the same time, what about the potential good your vote could bring? I'll say straight up, when I vote, I try to do so for the person I believe will do the most good for my country and fellow Americans, over the longest period of time. (Obviously, I'd disagree with a few here on that, but hey, it's America, we can do that.)
I'm just kind of baffled by this attitude, honestly.
This is true. But I disagree with one thing. You cannot make a case for anarchy at any time.
You cannot make a case for any form of government at any time, actually. All governments fail eventually. Either through rebellion, hostile takeover, or modification.
Anarchy is not a possibility for humans.
No government is.
You can have anarchy as a type of "government" in a nation, but humans will always fall into some organization or another.
And we'll also always fall out or organization and into disorganization. We will always rebel (though not always violently and not even always overtly). We will always both resent authority and seek authority. Whatever given state we are in, we will seek the opposing state. You can't argue against anarchy without also arguing against government, at least not with the arguments you've presented.
We are animals just like the rest. We seek each other out and then sort out where we fall into place. True anarchy is an impossibility.
That's not true. My wife and I have a sort of "system of anarchy," as it were. Neither of us is the "head." We're equals, without any "laws" between us, just some guidelines. It's arguably anarchist. It's definitely socialist.
We will always be beholden to someone (or something) else. The only way out of that is to lead. In either case, you're organized on some level.
You can be "organized" and still be anarchist. Anarchism isn't against organization, just against heirarchy. While humans do tend to heirarchy, we also form non-heirarchal groups, which are anarchist by virtue of not being heirarchal. If you have a group of friends, for instance, who all put equal input into your activities and into the group in general, that's anarchy. However, if you allow one friend to take the "lead" and be the center of the group (and I know this happens in many circles) then you may have a form of heirarchy, and thus not anarchy.
Batshido; We've plastered a veneer of stability over an incredibly chaotic system, is all.
those are very insightful words. that is the good thing about mans government..it does its best to hold things together. It works fairly well, but is far from perfect. And that is only because man is not perfect...we do what we can but we can not reach that watermark.
Knights_Disciple; wall of text....heh heh
the scriptures do not forbid people from working jobs. most of the authors had jobs, and Jesus was a carpenter. Making a living does not make you part of the world.
Being part of the world means being involved with politics, mans wars, non christian holidays..(halloween, easter....was a pagan fertility holiday hence the rabbits and the eggs...people justify it with the resurrection but then why the rabbits and eggs still?) being caught up in celebrity gossip, taking in worldly views such as evolution and big bang theory.
Matthew 22:21 -Pay unto Caesar what is Caesars', and don’t use God as an excuse to avoid your lawful duties (that don’t conflict with the Bible). You are expected to obey the laws that are put in place...as long as they dont conflict they are for your benefit. So pay taxes, obey speed limits...etc..
God told the prophet Samual 12-13-15 that if your king does not follow the voice of God and does not obey God's commands. God will destroy you and your king.
I assure you our president does not follow god,,,if he did he would not be in politics or at war. So if you acknowledge him as your leader thats your choice. and why you keep using this corruption word...i dont think being social is corrupting anyone.
Okay, so if we're not to be part of the world, in the vein you're interpreting it, do you have a job outside the church or another ministry?
Here's my point. I've never argued, or been told, that Christians should "embrace the ways of the world". That's always warned against in the Scriptures. But God, Jesus, an others never said "don't hold a job and be a regular citizen". After all, Israel, in its day, had several men who ruled, including David, "a man after God's own heart". Incidentally, we have ample proof he wasn't perfect, but he apparently did a solid job anyways.
The apostles never told everyone to stop working their jobs. Paul himself worked as a tentmaker at times, and would even go to the places in Greece where philosophers would discuss, well, philosophy. He'd meet them on their own turf, speak their language. We can't do that if we're holed up in monasteries.
"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.' " Matthew 28:18-20. That was His last commandment to us.
Furthermore, I find it ironic you've decided that, as a Christian, you can't vote, because of the influence of the world, or being a part of the world, or whatnot. Yet coming to these boards, being on the internet, that's okay? I mean, which one has a higher chance of corrupting you: the internet, or voting?
I'd also like to point out that this seems a bit selfish. You're essentially saying that you won't vote so you can stay clear of corruption. At the same time, what about the potential good your vote could bring? I'll say straight up, when I vote, I try to do so for the person I believe will do the most good for my country and fellow Americans, over the longest period of time. (Obviously, I'd disagree with a few here on that, but hey, it's America, we can do that.)
I'm just kind of baffled by this attitude, honestly.
If I seem like I'm being selfish, I apologize. I don't beleive that I would become corrupted, I will not put my trust in earthling man (Ps. 146:3)
Sure it is better in this world to have earthling leaders then not to. There are many examples of leaders in the scriputures.
I know that I can never be perfect, but Jesus was. So doesn't that make him a perfect role-model ? If we were to go back in time to when Jesus lived, and there were political voting going on, do you think that Jesus would vote? My answer is no.
Don't complain that your voice is unheard if you don't try to speak. If you want to see the system changed, change it. Not voting isn't the solution to the woes of our system. Not voting is simply wallowing in self-pity. That ballot box is one of the four boxes associated with revolution, use it at every opportunity.
Learn the system. Manipulate the system. Gut the system. Rebuild the system. If you want change, go make it.
If we were to go back in time to when Jesus lived, and there were political voting going on, do you think that Jesus would vote? My answer is no.
I disagree. Jesus, if he lived was a voice against the authorities. The Bible is full of examples of Jesus going against the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, what makes you think he wouldn't take great pride in casting his lot in a free election?
Historical* evidence suggests that if Jesus did exist, his disciples Judas and Thomas were most likely Sicarii. The surname of Judas Iscariot supports this. Having zealots among his followers suggest that it is possible that the crimes he was accused of and executed for may have actually been committed. Rebels often vote, if they can, simply because that lets them use the system against itself.
*I mean no offense in this. Until the Bible has corroboration, it cannot be used as a historical reference. There are some parts that can be corroborated**, but as a whole, it is as much a historical work as Moby Dick.
**Archaeological sites like Bab-eh-Drah(sp?) and Numeira support the existance of cities in the places that Sodom and Gamorrah were supposed to have existed, but that doesn't mean the story is completely true historically speaking.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Iowa it would only take 10,000 signatures on a petition to have "None of the Above" placed on the ballot. Your party would then have the right to select electors to send to Washington to vote nolo contendare in the electoral college. That would be a revolution, there's never been a abstain vote in the electoral college.
Don't complain that your voice is unheard if you don't try to speak. If you want to see the system changed, change it. Not voting isn't the solution to the woes of our system. Not voting is simply wallowing in self-pity. That ballot box is one of the four boxes associated with revolution, use it at every opportunity.
Learn the system. Manipulate the system. Gut the system. Rebuild the system. If you want change, go make it.
Who is complaining about their voice not being heard, Self-pity?? Please do not make things up. Self-pity is the exact opposite of who I am.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Iowa it would only take 10,000 signatures on a petition to have "None of the Above" placed on the ballot. Your party would then have the right to select electors to send to Washington to vote nolo contendare in the electoral college. That would be a revolution, there's never been a abstain vote in the electoral college.
Don't complain that your voice is unheard if you don't try to speak. If you want to see the system changed, change it. Not voting isn't the solution to the woes of our system. Not voting is simply wallowing in self-pity. That ballot box is one of the four boxes associated with revolution, use it at every opportunity.
Learn the system. Manipulate the system. Gut the system. Rebuild the system. If you want change, go make it.
the problem is there are armies of zeds that vote by party. Anyways, you forget the electoral college, for the president, your vote, literally, does not count.
If I seem like I'm being selfish, I apologize. I don't beleive that I would become corrupted, I will not put my trust in earthling man (Ps. 146:3)
Sure it is better in this world to have earthling leaders then not to. There are many examples of leaders in the scriputures.
I know that I can never be perfect, but Jesus was. So doesn't that make him a perfect role-model ? If we were to go back in time to when Jesus lived, and there were political voting going on, do you think that Jesus would vote? My answer is no.
Why do you say He wouldn't? Granted, it's hard to tell, but...I mean, you're basically implying it's a sin to vote. That just does not compute...
Why do you say He wouldn't? Granted, it's hard to tell, but...I mean, you're basically implying it's a sin to vote. That just does not compute...
if you read all the posts perhaps it will make more sense....jesus was not a part of the world. voting is being part of the world.
Why do you say He wouldn't? Granted, it's hard to tell, but...I mean, you're basically implying it's a sin to vote. That just does not compute...
I can't say that its a sin or not, but "I am" going to only put my trust God and Jesus. I can't put my trust political leaders who I know can't not be right with God.
If you (or anyone else) are a believer, and believe that political leaders (or candidates) are right with God, then go ahead and vote. Or if you don't care, thats fine too.
if you read all the posts perhaps it will make more sense....jesus was not a part of the world. voting is being part of the world.
So is playing D&D and discussing things on their Internet Message Boards.
And how exactly do you define "part of the world"? He had a job, a family, friends, He ate food, laughed, cried, experienced things, preached in the temple, spent time with and loved the "sinners and tax collectors"...sure He didn't hold a political office, but that wasn't His mission at the time.
What if "part of the world" means conforming to the values of the world? Being consumed by sin and selfishness?
I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you're coming from; you both keep saying "don't be part of the world"; and again, I ask how it is you can say "I don't vote because I don't want to be part of the world", but it's okay to play an RPG that's not explicitly Christian, and talk about it on the Internet (which has way more potential to corrupt than voting).
Unfortunately very few people will do this. Most people will vote Republican or Democrat, instead.
Funny how most people complain about these two parties and how stupid there leadership is, considering the country and the world in general continue to improve every decade.
Sometimes I think people are too close to the situation to truly see, the arguments we have are the same as those 100 or so years ago but they last longer due to longer life expectancy, more leisure time and greater amounts of disposable income and entertainment options.
I can't say that its a sin or not, but "I am" going to only put my trust God and Jesus. I can't put my trust political leaders who I know can't not be right with God.
If you (or anyone else) are a believer, and believe that political leaders (or candidates) are right with God, then go ahead and vote. Or if you don't care, thats fine too.
Why does it matter if political leaders are 'right' with god? Politics and religion should remain seperate. It's more important to have an effective leader who does the right thing, rather than one who is religious. I really don't mind if a person has religion, but I don't think you should vote just because a certain candidate has the same religious beliefs. If I misinterpreted what you tried to say, ignore this.
Completely off topic: Jesus was not perfect. I don't mean to start an argument, but I have to say this. Jesus was not perfect. He was a man. Humans learn by their mistakes to grow and improve. If you make mistakes, you are not perfect. Also, anyone who claims perfection is not perfect, since sayingthat shows you are merely arrogant.
Show
If someone's a Christian (like me), we believe He was, because He was more than just a man. If that statement was off topic, yours is even more; you know full well it's just asking to start an even further off base argument. You're denying a basic tenant of Christian faith.
if you read all the posts perhaps it will make more sense....jesus was not a part of the world. voting is being part of the world.
If Jesus was not part of the world, why did He call himself the "son of man?"
I'm not a Christian mind you, but from what I've read of the Bible, it seems to me that Jesus is both part of the world, and part of God. That's the whole "thing" about Jesus. If he wasn't part of this world at all, wouldn't his sacrifice therefore be meaningless?
If Jesus was not part of the world, why did He call himself the "son of man?"
I'm not a Christian mind you, but from what I've read of the Bible, it seems to me that Jesus is both part of the world, and part of God. That's the whole "thing" about Jesus. If he wasn't part of this world at all, wouldn't his sacrifice therefore be meaningless?
A more common idea among Christians is to be "in the world, but not of the world". Meaning, as I said earlier, we have jobs, lives, etc., but we don't submit ourselves to the "ways of the world" (in quotes due to varying interpretations; what goes through my mind when I say that isn't necessarily what another believer thinks). We strive for righteousness instead of sin and selfishness; even as we mess up, we work to move beyond the mistake.
Essentially, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2, NASB (Context being a chapter wherein Paul is discussing behavior, and contrasting believers and "everybody else", as well as encouragin unity among believers).
A more common idea among Christians is to be "in the world, but not of the world".
Too often, though, this morphs into something more like "I will endure the slings and arrows of existence without raising a hand in my own defense or taking responsibility for changing this world for the better." That's where the whole "Jesus wouldn't vote" thing comes from.
As I've said before, it's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to remember a couple passages about actively working to make life better for yourself and others. Those seem pretty contradictory to the "life is **** because that's how god wants it" worldview that precludes involvement in elections.
Too often, though, this morphs into something more like "I will endure the slings and arrows of existence without raising a hand in my own defense or taking responsibility for changing this world for the better." That's where the whole "Jesus wouldn't vote" thing comes from.
As I've said before, it's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to remember a couple passages about actively working to make life better for yourself and others. Those seem pretty contradictory to the "life is **** because that's how god wants it" worldview that precludes involvement in elections.
As to raising a hand to one's own defence...hm. While not a pacifist myself, I can perhaps give leeway to those who choose such. But for the second thing? Yeah, not so much.
Hm. Do you recall which part of the Bible it was in? If not, it's cool, I can always search for it.
As to raising a hand to one's own defence...hm. While not a pacifist myself, I can perhaps give leeway to those who choose such. But for the second thing? Yeah, not so much.
Hm. Do you recall which part of the Bible it was in? If not, it's cool, I can always search for it.
It's been years, I really don't remember at this point. I'm pretty sure it was new testament, though. Sorry I can't be more specific, but the last time I gave it a thorough reading was in college.
Too often, though, this morphs into something more like "I will endure the slings and arrows of existence without raising a hand in my own defense or taking responsibility for changing this world for the better." That's where the whole "Jesus wouldn't vote" thing comes from.
As I've said before, it's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to remember a couple passages about actively working to make life better for yourself and others. Those seem pretty contradictory to the "life is **** because that's how god wants it" worldview that precludes involvement in elections.
After that last statement of yours, it's only a matter of time before someone brings up Nietzsche.
Oops.
And after that Godwin's Law isn't too far behind.
Hitler.
Well crap. There you go.
After that last statement of yours, it's only a matter of time before someone brings up Nietzsche.
Oops.
And after that Godwin's Law isn't too far behind.
Hitler.
Well crap. There you go.
*Sighs* Well, now you've gone and done it.
*Sighs* Well, now you've gone and done it.
Ironically, Godwin and God-is-dead-win probably have more place in the Argument thread than here.
Ironically, Godwin and God-is-dead-win probably have more place in the Argument thread than here.
Well, you mentioned that some Christians have a nihilistic worldview (although not in those words) which was very Nietzsche-esque.
And of course any discussion on Nietzsche escalates the probability of enacting Godwin's Law with every post.
Well, you mentioned that some Christians have a nihilistic worldview (although not in those words) which was very Nietzsche-esque.
That I did, and that it is.
And of course any discussion on Nietzsche escalates the probability of enacting Godwin's Law with every post.
I never got the connection there. Is it the German thing? Because otherwise Neitzsche and the Nazis couldn't be further apart ideologically; Hitler was anything but a nihilist.
That I did, and that it is.
I never got the connection there. Is it the German thing? Because otherwise Neitzsche and the Nazis couldn't be further apart ideologically; Hitler was anything but a nihilist.
It's a historical connection. Nietzsche's sister "interpretted" Nietzsche's work to be sympathetic to Nazi-ism. Yeah, I know, INCREDIBLY IRONIC considering how anti-nationalist and anti-Nazi Nietzsche was. But the sad fact is, that's how many, including Hitler, interpreted Nietzsche for a long time. He STILL has that undeserved stigma of somehow being related to Nazi-ism. It's really sad, especially considering that he was not only anti-nationalist, but openly and consistently criticized anti-Semitic behavior.
But even today, people still have the misconception that Nietzsche was anti-Semitic. Especially since Hitler made such a big stink about [his misinterpretation of] the ubermensche.
Oh, look. We genuinely broke Godwin's Law. lol
Completely off topic: Jesus was not perfect. I don't mean to start an argument, but I have to say this. Jesus was not perfect. He was a man. Humans learn by their mistakes to grow and improve. If you make mistakes, you are not perfect. Also, anyone who claims perfection is not perfect, since sayingthat shows you are merely arrogant.
I basic my beliefs for from the scriptures, since Adam and Eve were created by God and were once perfect before they sin, makes them once a perfect form of a human being. Since Jesus was God's Son, (John 10:36 "do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am God's Son.") that would make him perfect. To say for what I believe in- that I'm being arrogant is extremely mean and rude ! :headexplo
Knights Disciple, (Romans 12:2), that verse can go both ways. As being not part of this world, I already talked about that 2 Cor. 6:14-18. I don't wish going to argue with anyone, its pointless to reason with anyone who won't listen. I have quoted many verses the justify my beliefs.
Maybe I was naive, I didn't realize that I'd have so much negativity directed at my beliefs. With that said I'm going to bow out.
I basic my beliefs for from the scriptures, since Adam and Eve were created by God and were once perfect before they sin, makes them once a perfect form of a human being. Since Jesus was God's Son, (John 10:36 "do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am God's Son.") that would make him perfect. To say for what I believe in- that I'm being arrogant is extremely mean and rude ! :headexplo
Knights Disciple, (Romans 12:2), that verse can go both ways. As being not part of this world, I already talked about that 2 Cor. 6:14-18. I don't wish going to argue with anyone, its pointless to reason with anyone who won't listen. I have quoted many verses the justify my beliefs.
Maybe I was naive, I didn't realize that I'd have so much negativity directed at my beliefs. With that said I'm going to bow out.
I don't think Disciple was trying to insult you. At least that's not how I interpreted it. You share the same faith (Christianity) so its understandable that both of you would care how others of your faith represent it. Also, because you share many of the same beliefs (by virtue of being Christian) I don't think he was expressing negativity at yours.
But, that's just how I see things as an outsider. I don't like to see hurt feelings.
I don't think Disciple was trying to insult you. At least that's not how I interpreted it. You share the same faith (Christianity) so its understandable that both of you would care how others of your faith represent it. Also, because you share many of the same beliefs (by virtue of being Christian) I don't think he was expressing negativity at yours.
But, that's just how I see things as an outsider. I don't like to see hurt feelings.
You have the right of it. I tend to be...aggresive...at times, but I certainly wasn't trying to insult you, Rizen. I was trying to offer fresh perspective. It looks to be an "agree to disagree" situation. ;)
since Adam and Eve were created by God and were once perfect before they sin, makes them once a perfect form of a human being.
How could someone who is perfect sin? There would have to be an imperfection that leads to the mistake of sinning.
Kinda like saying, "this calculator program is perfect, except it doesn't add correctly."
How could someone who is perfect sin? There would have to be an imperfection that leads to the mistake of sinning.
Kinda like saying, "this calculator program is perfect, except it doesn't add correctly."
Perfect in this case is perhaps not the best word. "Sinless" or "Pure" might work better. Those denote a state one can change without possible confusion over terms. You can take something that was without something else, and add the something else.
Adam and Eve started off sinless, and physically perfect (ultimate humans, if you will). Utilizing their free will, they ended up sinning, and marring themselves and their legacy.
I'm sure a theologian could describe this better than me, but that's kind of the gist of my understanding.
Perfect in this case is perhaps not the best word. "Sinless" or "Pure" might work better. Those denote a state one can change without possible confusion over terms. You can take something that was without something else, and add the something else.
Adam and Eve started off sinless, and physically perfect (ultimate humans, if you will). Utilizing their free will, they ended up sinning, and marring themselves and their legacy.
I'm sure a theologian could describe this better than me, but that's kind of the gist of my understanding.
I agree. I think the poster who I was responding to doesn't understand this.
Some things never change.
So you are saying that we are condemned just because of the actions of our ancestors?
Yes, so NO SOUP FOR YOU! :D
So you are saying that we are condemned just because of the actions of our ancestors?
Not entirely. We've all also messed up plenty on our own. The understanding, roughly, that I've taken, is that their mistake opened the door for our nature to bend towards selfishness, rather than unselfishness. Or sin, rather than righteousness. However you like to word it.
Were this a different venue, I'd wax lengthy on this, but I will say: all hope is not lost! We have another option than condemnation.
From "You all suck and I'm leaving" to Adam and Eve in four pages.
Some things never change.
You forgot the invocation of Godwin's law. ;)
Not entirely. We've all also messed up plenty on our own. The understanding, roughly, that I've taken, is that their mistake opened the door for our nature to bend towards selfishness, rather than unselfishness. Or sin, rather than righteousness. However you like to word it.
Were this a different venue, I'd wax lengthy on this, but I will say: all hope is not lost! We have another option than condemnation.
Two things
1) does this mean I can have soup? :D
2) thanks for clearing this up. If I get in deep ****, I'd rather it was for my actions, not another's. I feel better now.
You could PM me if you want to wax lengthy on it
I'm sure a theologian could describe this better than me, but that's kind of the gist of my understanding.
Theologians have been arguing this for many centuries. The whole "was Jesus a man?" question was a part of the reformation that produced the various Protestant denominations*. If I understand the context of your post, you're coming from the "Jesus was sinless" school of thought. The only problem I've ever had with that kind of thinking is that if he was sinless, how was he a man?
The story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden demonstrates that all of mankind is capable of sin. Some denominations hold that the "original sin" of eating the Apple** taints everyone from their first breath to their last. This has been a major sticking point for centuries as well.
If every man, woman and child is born with the stain of original sin, then Jesus, being borne of a woman is a sinner and therefore not sinless. See the problem? It shows a distinct lack of proper editing that such glaring contradictions would exist. Although it has created rather an amusing spectrum of faiths and beliefs.
*I was nice, I called them "denominations" instead of "sects" or "cults".
** The Apple in the Garden of Eden is even the root of the Mennonite faith. Called the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, the Mennonite and Amish have rejected the technology that comes from furthering our "knowledge" of things like physics and chemistry. Technology is a byproduct of knowledge and therefore sinful. Funny old world, isn't it, when even a bit of fruit can cause a religious schism?
From "You all suck and I'm leaving" to Adam and Eve in four pages.
Some things never change.
He was leaving so we jacked the thread. Where's the harm in that, eh?
Anybody that just sees the number of posts and doesn't read them will think we're trying to talk him down or convince him to stay. So we have another added benefit. We got a false flag religious debate and we're making it look like the OP has alot of friends here.
a well thought out argument
Don't applaud me. That was my favorite theology prof from college. He was also the one that told me that "A seminarian or Divinity student will tell you that faith can move mountains, but a theology student will tell you bulldozers and explosives work better."
He was also the one that told me I can learn more about religion reading The Wizard of Oz and Gulliver's Travels than I can reading just the Bible. Theology is odd, it's got students that approach it from a faith-based study and students that approach it from an academic angle. He and I are both of the latter persuasion.
Don't applaud me. That was my favorite theology prof from college. He was also the one that told me that "A seminarian or Divinity student will tell you that faith can move mountains, but a theology student will tell you bulldozers and explosives work better."
He was also the one that told me I can learn more about religion reading The Wizard of Oz and Gulliver's Travels than I can reading just the Bible. Theology is odd, it's got students that approach it from a faith-based study and students that approach it from an academic angle. He and I are both of the latter persuasion.
he was in fact a HUMAN BEING... but not the son of a man....he was the son of god..he would not inherit man's sin. Mary gave birth, but one could assume her dna was not even involved. There is a verse where he refers to himself as "son of man" but he is refering to his humanity...not inheriting sin. Now if he flat out said "i inherited mans sin" then you would have a point.
there is no contradiction in the bible.
pretty amazing considering it had over 40 authors and written over hundreds of years huh?
I was gonna leave this post alone, but it won't do any good and just anger more people, so out of respect for others, I've deleted it
I really wish I had your self control. The logical holes, they call to me.
*Sighs* Sorry guys. I'd be responding more, but I just got some rather saddening news about an old friend.
Sorry to hear that, K_D. My thoughts are with you.
Sorry to hear that, K_D. My thoughts are with you.
Thanks. Not saying I won't be making silly type posts, but my, ah, debating, is a bit off now.
*Sighs* Sorry guys. I'd be responding more, but I just got some rather saddening news about an old friend.
Sorry to hear that. Hope you get feeling better soon.
*I was nice, I called them "denominations" instead of "sects" or "cults".
You might as well not have by including this.
I really wish I had your self control. The logical holes, they call to me.
Well, I'm pretty sure Rizen Istaria hates me now. And maybe Knights Disciple. I don't like hurting others. And I don't need more people that hate me. Mainly I don't like hurting others though. I'm too soft hearted I guess. I feel bad when I accidentally hurt the feelings of someone I will likely never meet.
Well, I'm pretty sure Rizen Istaria hates me now. And maybe Knights Disciple. I don't like hurting others. And I don't need more people that hate me. Mainly I don't like hurting others though. I'm too soft hearted I guess. I feel bad when I accidentally hurt the feelings of someone I will likely never meet.
I don't hate you dude. I get frustrated, but it takes quite a bit to get me to hate, nevermind that I (what with the Biblical warnings against hate) try to actively quell the urge to hate.
You've not really "hurt" me. Again, I might get frustrated, but not hurt.
No, what'll hurt, once it sinks in, is the news I got tonight.
That said, it would be good, in my view, to not choose a site that calls the book I base my beliefs on "evil". Then I might have a more open attitude. ;)
I don't hate you dude. I get frustrated, but it takes quite a bit to get me to hate, nevermind that I (what with the Biblical warnings against hate) try to actively quell the urge to hate.
You've not really "hurt" me. Again, I might get frustrated, but not hurt.
No, what'll hurt, once it sinks in, is the news I got tonight.
That said, it would be good, in my view, to not choose a site that calls the book I base my beliefs on "evil". Then I might have a more open attitude. ;)
Well, that's good to know. I apologized to Rizen, it's your turn now. Sit down, shut up and listen. I attacked you for your religion, even though I wasn't provoked, (no one tried to force it down my throat, no one took a holier than thou attitude) so I'm very sorry. Well, I think I've matured (a little) and it all worked out in the end, and now I don't have to worry about you two hunting me with shotguns. :D Only gotta worry about my ****ing insane neighbors. Anyway, hope you get better soon. So that way I won't feel bad when I kick you. Kicking someone when they're up is OK. Not when they're down. :D
EDIT: and I did get rid of the link to the sites. So that's taken care of. Sorry to anyone who did look at it and got offended. I won't put up **** like that ever again.
Well, that's good to know. I apologized to Rizen, it's your turn now. Sit down, shut up and listen. I attacked you for your religion, even though I wasn't provoked, (no one tried to force it down my throat, no one took a holier than thou attitude) so I'm very sorry. Well, I think I've matured (a little) and it all worked out in the end, and now I don't have to worry about you two hunting me with shotguns. :D Only gotta worry about my ****ing insane neighbors. Anyway, hope you get better soon. So that way I won't feel bad when I kick you. Kicking someone when they're up is OK. Not when they're down. :D
EDIT: and I did get rid of the link to the sites. So that's taken care of. Sorry to anyone who did look at it and got offended. I won't put up **** like that ever again.
It happens. We live, we learn, we mature, even if it's in small increments. ;)
I'm sure I won't get too down; it'd been a while since I've seen him, which, sadly, makes it feel more distant. Plus, I've got assurance I'll see him again eventually.
...Oh, and I wouldn't hunt you with a shotgun. What do you think a scoped rifle and this sword are for? ;) (just kidding, so everyone's clear)
I don't hate you dude. I get frustrated, but it takes quite a bit to get me to hate, nevermind that I (what with the Biblical warnings against hate) try to actively quell the urge to hate.
You've not really "hurt" me. Again, I might get frustrated, but not hurt.
No, what'll hurt, once it sinks in, is the news I got tonight.
That said, it would be good, in my view, to not choose a site that calls the book I base my beliefs on "evil". Then I might have a more open attitude. ;)
You're not referring to this site, are you? I don't think anyone here is calling your book "evil." Unless I missed a post, that is. I certainly don't consider your book evil. I don't consider it true mind you, but I don't consider it evil. ;)
EDIT: Nevermind. Through context it seems a link to a site was posted and that's what you were referring to. I missed the links and didn't catch that.
You're not referring to this site, are you? I don't think anyone here is calling your book "evil." Unless I missed a post, that is. I certainly don't consider your book evil. I don't consider it true mind you, but I don't consider it evil. ;)
EDIT: Nevermind. Through context it seems a link to a site was posted and that's what you were referring to. I missed the links and didn't catch that.
Yeah, it was a link.
And thanks. I realize not everyone considers it true; all I can do is give my perspective, and let you go from there. Anything else becomes pointless; I believe that "conversion through force" is no conversion at all. Just my
And thanks. I realize not everyone considers it true; all I can do is give my perspective, and let you go from there. Anything else becomes pointless; I believe that "conversion through force" is no conversion at all. Just my
Truth is a bit on the flexible side when it comes to matters of faith. Heck, the phrase "taking it on faith" literally means ignoring logic, reason and evidence to the contrary. If your beliefs help you to ignore the things that go bump in the night, so be it.
Truth is a bit on the flexible side when it comes to matters of faith. Heck, the phrase "taking it on faith" literally means ignoring logic, reason and evidence to the contrary. If your beliefs help you to ignore the things that go bump in the night, so be it.
I'm not too worried abou things going "bump in the night"; I bump back pretty good. And I've got excellent backup. ;)
I want to see it, personally. It'd be a nice change of pace.
It happens. We live, we learn, we mature, even if it's in small increments. ;)
I'm sure I won't get too down; it'd been a while since I've seen him, which, sadly, makes it feel more distant. Plus, I've got assurance I'll see him again eventually.
...Oh, and I wouldn't hunt you with a shotgun. What do you think a scoped rifle and this sword are for? ;) (just kidding, so everyone's clear)
eek! run away!Truth is a bit on the flexible side when it comes to matters of faith. Heck, the phrase "taking it on faith" literally means ignoring logic, reason and evidence to the contrary. If your beliefs help you to ignore the things that go bump in the night, so be it.
The phrase "taking it on faith" does not literally mean ignoring logic, reason, and evidence to the contrary. People may use it that way, but it's not what the phrase literally means. Faith is complementary to those things, not antecedent to them. For example, I have faith in my wife, (that she'll stay true, etc) and I have faith that she'll do well in boot camp (USMC). This faith of mine does not ignore logic, reason, or evidence. In fact those things support my faith.
Well, these awful, terrible, offensive links do make some interesting points. I think they should have stayed in the thread, personally. If anyone wants to get upset and ignore them just because of the tone of the message, that's their loss.
The phrase "taking it on faith" does not literally mean ignoring logic, reason, and evidence to the contrary. People may use it that way, but it's not what the phrase literally means. Faith is complementary to those things, not antecedent to them. For example, I have faith in my wife, (that she'll stay true, etc) and I have faith that she'll do well in boot camp (USMC). This faith of mine does not ignore logic, reason, or evidence. In fact those things support my faith.
ugh.... that sure sounded like wishful thinking on your part...lol
i was in the army and i can tell you sadly that the numbers are against you.
i have seen MANY (almost 100%) of the non single women messing around.
but then fornication is bad for religious people...im not sure if it matters for an ahteist. WaH wah wAH ...
ugh.... that sure sounded like wishful thinking on your part...lol
i was in the army and i can tell you sadly that the numbers are against you.
i have seen MANY (almost 100%) of the non single women messing around.
but then fornication is bad for religious people...im not sure if it matters for an ahteist. WaH wah wAH ...
Dude. That was, 100% not called for. At all. Please don't say things like this.
ugh.... that sure sounded like wishful thinking on your part...lol
i was in the army and i can tell you sadly that the numbers are against you.
i have seen MANY (almost 100%) of the non single women messing around.
but then fornication is bad for religious people...im not sure if it matters for an ahteist. WaH wah wAH ...
Just because you have manual dexterity and the ability to speak doesn't mean you should open your mouth and point something out.
Some things are best left unsaid.
ugh.... that sure sounded like wishful thinking on your part...lol
i was in the army and i can tell you sadly that the numbers are against you.
i have seen MANY (almost 100%) of the non single women messing around.
but then fornication is bad for religious people...im not sure if it matters for an ahteist. WaH wah wAH ...
Sorry, your anecdotal (and likely exaggerated) evidence doesn't impress me, and furthermore, correlation does not imply causation.
It obviously matters to me or I'd not have mentioned it.
Besides, from everything I've read, the "numbers" are more against her than they are against me, as (from what I understand) the person who 'stays behind' is more likely to cheat. And since I know I'm not doing that, I think I have good reason to think she won't, either.
That said, it would be good, in my view, to not choose a site that calls the book I base my beliefs on "evil". Then I might have a more open attitude.
Did not see the link. But I want to point out that no book or object is evil. I am completly against burning or censoring books, even if they contain subjects of dubious origin. The beliefs contained in a book are not dangerous, ignorance is dangerous.
Heck, I read Mein Kampf and found it a terrible glimpse inside history perceived by extremists*.
*Sorry my English trully sucks and I can't find the word I am looking for.
Besides, from everything I've read, the "numbers" are more against her than they are against me, as (from what I understand) the person who 'stays behind' is more likely to cheat. And since I know I'm not doing that, I think I have good reason to think she won't, either.
Wow, I still can't believe someone would make comments like that. It proves he does not understand love. The important thing is to love and trust, to hell the statistics. Cheers to you!!
but then fornication is bad for religious people...im not sure if it matters for an ahteist. WaH wah wAH ...
First off, stop being a dick. Square knows what he's getting into here, and he has every reason to have faith in his wife. He knows the situation, you don't. Butt out.
Second, cheating on one's spouse isn't suddenly ok because of a lack of belief in a higher power. Marriage is a pact between two people, and as such it's just as sacred to atheists (in whatever form they pursue it) as it is to people of faith.
Human conception of god isn't the sole source of morality. Stop pretending it is.
First off, stop being a dick. Square knows what he's getting into here, and he has every reason to have faith in his wife. He knows the situation, you don't. Butt out.
Second, cheating on one's spouse isn't suddenly ok because of a lack of belief in a higher power. Marriage is a pact between two people, and as such it's just as sacred to atheists (in whatever form they pursue it) as it is to people of faith.
Human conception of god isn't the sole source of morality. Stop pretending it is.
You put it more bluntly than I felt like at the time. Thank you. ;)
Also, if he wanted to be technical, he'd have said "adultery", not "fornication". But now I'm just a nitpicker. :D
You put it more bluntly than I felt like at the time. Thank you. ;)
Heh. Well, I'm not typically known for my tact when the person I'm addressing is being a tool. ;)
Heh. Well, I'm not typically known for my tact when the person I'm addressing is being a tool. ;)
Blunt force when dealing with a blunt object, gotcha. Besides, tact only works when people you're speaking to use the gray bits inside the skull for their thinkin'.
ugh....ya got me figured out....yes i am a blunt and honest person....
sure i would like to trust a woman in any situation, but if a girl goes out for a few months, and comes back...you ask her.."where were you?"
and she says staying at a place with a couple girlfriends and 80 guys.
That's not what boot camp is, though, for one thing.
The FACT of the matter is that unless she is EXTREMELY (have to take account low male standards) ugly...that something happenned.
No, that's not the "fact" of the matter. Do you have any studies that support this? Or is it just your personal opinion? Personally I don't just assume women have such little integrity.
I have been married for several years, but if im in a place with 80 cute girls.....something is going to happen.
Really? Does your wife know you're so impulsive?
i might be cool for a few weeks, but you will build a relationship with those people and they will smooth talk you into doing something that already sounds like fun.
Unless you have some modicum of integrity, you mean.
im a bit of a smoothtalking expert myself, and find it easy to talk someone into doing something they are already musing.
It's easy for anyone to talk someone else into doing something they are already "musing." But we don't all seriously "muse" about cheating on our spouses. You've made it clear that you do, but I personally do not.
It's easy for anyone to talk someone else into doing something they are already "musing." But we don't all seriously "muse" about cheating on our spouses. You've made it clear that you do, but I personally do not.
Not to mention the fact that boot camp isn't co-ed. Women are not in the same baracks as men and they don't exactly have alot of time for extra-curricular activities. I would put the odds of infidelity more heavily on the spouse at home rather than the recent enlistee, but that's just my opinion.