Conservatives, a question for you

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 19 2005, 01:52 AM
Freddie, if our laws were based on a Judeo-Christian tradition, you could have multiple wives and execute them if they weren't virgins. (It's all there in the Bible.)

No, laws tend to come and go.

[post=330134]Quoted post[/post]​

I think he was referring to the fact that the group of men who set the ball in motion were all Judeo-Christians and therefore influenced our system of government, not that all our laws reflect the Old Testament.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 18 2005, 08:52 PM
Freddie, if our laws were based on a Judeo-Christian tradition, you could have multiple wives and execute them if they weren't virgins. (It's all there in the Bible.)

No, laws tend to come and go.

[post=330134]Quoted post[/post]​

Jonb you are right about that being in the Old Testament. It is refuted in the New Testament. But the prevailing viewpoint of most public school history books is that this nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman foundation.

That isn't where the problem is. America built a house on that foundation. That foundation is not the house. The extreme right and fanatical fundie Christians want to tear down the "house" we now have and rebuild the laws and customs of the ancient nations of Judah and Israel. And I suspect that some of them would go for the mulitiple wives though there would be a tax so only the rich could afford them.

We don't need to have abortion here because the rich can go to Canada for such procedures.

And you and I know that some of the "American" customs come directly from the Native Americans. Though some might try to dispute that.

And every group of immigrants has brought some of their heritage to share with the rest of the people we call Americans.

Here in Arkansas the Quapaw was a civilized tribe that lived at the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers. They had a rich culture and their villages were quite large by any standard in America at that time some villages numbering into the thousands. They were farmers. Their distant cousins lived up in the Ozarks, they were fierce fighters and were hunters and gatherers. So they raided the Quapaw when they could get away with it. The Quapaw made peace with the Europeans and lived side by side until the infamous Jackson years. Unfortunately, small pox, a gift from Europe wiped their numbers in to a fraction of their original numbers. When sometime after the Lousiana Purchase they were asked to trade their rich farmland and move to the Red River in Southwest Arkansas, they willingly moved. To the credit of the government here in Arkansas the aged Chief was unhappy around the Red River and he was allowed to bring the Quapaws back to the Arkansas River and he lived out his days. Then came along Andrew Jackson and the Quapaw were removed to Oklahoma along with all the other "cilivlized tribes" There weren't many Quapaw. They have sinceintermarried with other tribes until all who claim Quapaw ancestry also have other Native American or European ancestry. The state of Arkansas was named for the Quapaw. The Quapaw were part of a larger group of Native Americans called the Arkanza and the name of Arkansas is pronouced Arkansaw. Which is a blend of the two names.

On one of my "inservice" workshops as a teacher I visited the annual Quapaw festival in Little Rock. The Quapaw from around the world gather. I got to see and speak to many of them. Unforunately, as I age, my ability to gather details from my brain isn't what it used to be, but I learned a lot that is not in the textbooks.

I asked some of them if they would like to return to Arkansas. They said, no Oklahoma was home and had been for now close to 200 years.

The highlight was meeting the grandaughter of the last Quapaw Chief. The Quapaws decided upon the recommendation of her grandfather to replace the chief with an elected council. But of course as his granddaughter the other Quapaw held her in very high esteem. She was old then, so very likely she has died.

If any of this information is incorrect it is because I am writing from memory of an "inservice" workshop that I took some 15 years ago.

The Arkansas History books in public schools show great reverence for the Quapaw and make much of the state's name coming from the Quapaw. And history begins in Arkansas with the Quapaw.

The history books in Arkansas when I taught protrayed Jackson as being evil in removing the Quapaw from our state. They were then and still are beloved to our state.

I hope you appreciate the large part of the Arkansas heritage that the Quapaw gave to our state. For instance, they taught the European settlers how to farm native Arkansas products. There is a long list of their contributions to this state and in their loyalty to the French and later to the United States.

The European settlers wrote in their dairies that the Quapaw men went nude in the summer and that they were very handsome men. The wording of the dairies didn't leave much to imagine what made them handsome. Apparently they all could have been founding members of this forum!

 

[Lex]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 18 2005, 11:36 PM


Realistically, it isn't very relevant, as a lot of liberals are atheists.

[post=330181]Quoted post[/post]​

That's a GROSS over-generalization and probably not even true. Are you saying that people with more moderate to liberal leanings are aetheists? That the only people with values tend to be Christian and conservative? C'mon, Chimera.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by Lex+Jul 19 2005, 09:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lex &#064; Jul 19 2005, 09:20 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX@Jul 18 2005, 11:36 PM


Realistically, it isn&#39;t very relevant, as a lot of liberals are atheists.

[post=330181]Quoted post[/post]​

That&#39;s a GROSS over-generalization and probably not even true. Are you saying that people with more moderate to liberal leanings are aetheists? That the only people with values tend to be Christian and conservative? C&#39;mon, Chimera.

[post=330243]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Totally agree Lex. Seeing that atheists are less than 10 percent of the population it would seem very unlikely that "a lot" of liberals are atheists.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+Jul 19 2005, 12:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Jul 19 2005, 12:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Lex@Jul 19 2005, 09:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX

@Jul 18 2005, 11:36 PM


  Realistically, it isn&#39;t very relevant, as a lot of liberals are atheists.

[post=330181]Quoted post[/post]​

That&#39;s a GROSS over-generalization and probably not even true. Are you saying that people with more moderate to liberal leanings are aetheists? That the only people with values tend to be Christian and conservative? C&#39;mon, Chimera.

[post=330243]Quoted post[/post]​

Totally agree Lex. Seeing that atheists are less than 10 percent of the population it would seem very unlikely that "a lot" of liberals are atheists.

[post=330345]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I agree with both of you. I haven&#39;t known that many avowed atheists. Some of the most conservative people on non religious issues have been atheists.

Just as it is wrong to paint all Chrisitans as fundies. It is wrong to paint all atheists as being liberals.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Well CHimera, even if your sample size were adaquate enough it wouldn&#39;t point to most liberals being atheist but the other way around. I would agree with you and say that most atheists are probably not in agreement with most conservatives when it comes to church/state issues, or other "religious" issues. But "tax relief" is another issue.
I am an atheist, and I consider my self in the middle. I am somewhat fiscally conservative, and somewhat socially liberal. I guess I would be best categorized as libertarian, but not the extreme.

 

[jonb]

Well, yeah, a lot of Greco-Roman institutions, such as slavery. LOL Actually, the Enlightenment was about Europeans and colonists having this idea of what "primitive" society was like, and trying to recapture some of the better aspects for modern times.

A while back, Radu, our resident expert on all things European, described the Enlightenment pretty well to me.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 19 2005, 11:40 PM
Morals aren&#39;t exactly ethics either (jonb ).

[post=330475]Quoted post[/post]​

ethics n. 1. A principle of right or good behavior. 2. A system of moral priciples or values.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 19 2005, 07:40 PM
BTW, atheists usually have a better since of right-or-wrong than the Christians I&#39;ve met have.

[post=330475]Quoted post[/post]​

Can&#39;t believe I&#39;m finding common ground with you, Chimera, but I&#39;m tempted to believe this too (based purely on my own limited human experience). I think a lot of us abandon moral systems (like religions) out of frustration for their failings or the hypocrisy of their practitioners.

Maybe recognizing the way things "ought to be" without having to do so out of guilt or fear or indoctrination.

 

[madame_zora]

I&#39;m not too eager to say more atheists are moral, it really depends on the person. I must say I&#39;ve known some sour atheists in my life. Unlike Chimera who knows "dozens", I&#39;ve probably known that many but haven&#39;t engaged them in deep philosophical conversations.

Personally, I haven&#39;t completely adandonded a concept of God, but that concept is certainly changing. The more I learn about the development of religions throughout history, the less I can believe any one of them wholesale. Does this mean they have no value at all? Certainly not, but there is good cause to separate (in my mind) what is "religion" from what is "morality". Some people believe these are solely the province of the Church in one form or another, many Christians will argue that an unbeliever cannot be moral, but I find that as nonsensical as saying all Christians are fundies.

The problem is that morality is very subjective, so while one person can&#39;t understand how a woman could have an abortion, another person wonders how anyone could support killing brown people who didn&#39;t provoke us. Add to the mix the fact that our leaders are telling us different things, and wow. If we don&#39;t think for ourselves and question everything in earnest, it is unlikely we will ever have a clear picture of even our own beliefs, let alone begin to comprehend those of another.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by jay_too@Jul 19 2005, 06:25 PM
ethics n. 1. A principle of right or good behavior. 2. A system of moral priciples or values.

[post=330516]Quoted post[/post]​

Morality refers to "shame". Ethics refers to "guilt". I don&#39;t know how to explain it better than that.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 20 2005, 08:04 PM
I&#39;m not too eager to say more atheists are moral, it really depends on the person. I must say I&#39;ve known some sour atheists in my life. Unlike Chimera who knows "dozens", I&#39;ve probably known that many but haven&#39;t engaged them in deep philosophical conversations.

Personally, I haven&#39;t completely adandonded a concept of God, but that concept is certainly changing. The more I learn about the development of religions throughout history, the less I can believe any one of them wholesale. Does this mean they have no value at all? Certainly not, but there is good cause to separate (in my mind) what is "religion" from what is "morality". Some people believe these are solely the province of the Church in one form or another, many Christians will argue that an unbeliever cannot be moral, but I find that as nonsensical as saying all Christians are fundies.

The problem is that morality is very subjective, so while one person can&#39;t understand how a woman could have an abortion, another person wonders how anyone could support killing brown people who didn&#39;t provoke us. Add to the mix the fact that our leaders are telling us different things, and wow. If we don&#39;t think for ourselves and question everything in earnest, it is unlikely we will ever have a clear picture of even our own beliefs, let alone begin to comprehend those of another.

[post=330753]Quoted post[/post]​

Some would argue that since the atheists motivations for being "good" are different than those that have a belief in God, in that they don&#39;t lead good lives only to get rewarded by heaven or to avoid punishment, that that would make them more "moral". Sure the definition of "moral" is subjective so the argument falls on its face, but in my opinion I think that someone who doesn&#39;t steal because they believe it to be wrong is way more moral than someone who doesn&#39;t steal because they feel that God is watching and will burn their little ass for all eternity. I am not saying however that all religious people lead good lives only because they fear punishment or because they were ordered to, I believe that most people have a more independant sense of right and wrong that does not come from religion even though they may have a hard time serparating the two. It is disconcerting though when I would have discussions with SOME religious people and when the subject of morality came up and I asked the question: "If God told you to slaughter innocent children for the sins of their parents would you?" And at first they say that their God wouldn&#39;t order that, but when pressed they say that yes, they would follow any order their God would give them because any order coming from God would be a "good" order. Makes you understand how the nazis were able to rationlize their actions.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne+Jul 22 2005, 10:13 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Jul 22 2005, 10:13 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jul 20 2005, 08:04 PM

[post=330753]Quoted post[/post]​

Some would argue that since the atheists motivations for being "good" are different than those that have a belief in God, in that they don&#39;t lead good lives only to get rewarded by heaven or to avoid punishment, that that would make them more "moral". Sure the definition of "moral" is subjective so the argument falls on its face, but in my opinion I think that someone who doesn&#39;t steal because they believe it to be wrong is way more moral than someone who doesn&#39;t steal because they feel that God is watching and will burn their little ass for all eternity. I am not saying however that all religious people lead good lives only because they fear punishment or because they were ordered to, I believe that most people have a more independant sense of right and wrong that does not come from religion even though they may have a hard time serparating the two. It is disconcerting though when I would have discussions with SOME religious people and when the subject of morality came up and I asked the question: "If God told you to slaughter innocent children for the sins of their parents would you?" And at first they say that their God wouldn&#39;t order that, but when pressed they say that yes, they would follow any order their God would give them because any order coming from God would be a "good" order. Makes you understand how the nazis were able to rationlize their actions.

[post=330863]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
According to the biblical &#39;"experts", all people have a sense of what is right or wrong to do. Chemera says that since atheists only expect to live right here and now, that they are going to be more moral that a Christian who expects to have a future in eternity. Got a Big ONe states Christians are good because "God is watching and will burn thier little ass for all eternity."

This thread is about people paints broad brushes for whole groups of people concerning morality, ethics and religion. It can&#39;t be done folks. We are all more complicated than that.

All of us have different reasons for being moral or not being moral. In my case, my parents approval or disapproval was and has been more of an influence than religion or God.

All humans are flawed. We are physically flawed in that as soon as we are born, our bodies already have set in motion a blue print that ulitmately will lead to radilcal physical decline then death.

Some philsophers say that all humans are moral for some gain or approval. We are in the deep end of the pool. There doesn&#39;t appear to be a bottom. Of course their is but we can&#39;t stand up and find it.

This can be discussed forever and the answers won&#39;t be clear. Do religious people love God and have a personal relationship with God and do the right things becasue they love God or because they are afraid of God&#39;s wrath if they don&#39;t. Depends on the person. Personnaly I don&#39;t think that the fear of God is going to get someone an eternal life. If the only reason a person is being moral to to escape hell then I am not sure they "know" God. But then who is God.

God is love, not hate. giving, not selfish and so on. The Bible itself says that there will be hypocrites. That is people who pretend to believe and follow God but don&#39;t.

Got a big One. I know you are atheist. I believe in God. But I expect to see you in heaven if there is a God. Why? I see a good person who is good for the right reasons, not for fear of burning in a lake of fire.

As far as religions, they are way for God to find people. And all religions have followers as fake as a three dollar bill. Of course since I believe in God it would not be unusual for me to have a belief as to how God and man can be in communion with each other. It is my belief that some way some how God comes into communion with all his children. True a person can totally reject God. But if God is love and a person chooses love over hate haven&#39;t they in a sense chosen God? To my way of thinking they have.

As for Christian theology, which is my religion, why would God come down to earth as a human; hang on a cross in utter pain, the worst and most cruel punishment in the world; piss and shit all over himself, and be nailed naked for hours for all tos see; all of this so humans could go to heaven and then start telling folks they can&#39;t enter the pearly gates because of some little technicality here or there. It doesn&#39;t make sense. I don&#39;t expect non Christians to buy into this paragraph at all. But it is necessary for me to state this to explain my own theology as aa Christian. I believe that God loves ALL his children. Not just some. And if there really is a God, I am quite sure he is much. much more upset with fake preachers then good, moral and upright atheists.

Even as a very staunch Christian, I can consider that there might not be a God or that Christianity might not be the best way to be in communion with God, or that my theololgy might be a bit flawed here or there. This world would be a better place if everyone would be willing to consider that the conclusions they have drawn about God or religion just might not be as correct as they believe then to be.

Come to think of it, no human mind can totally grasp the concept of eternity. And all of us have to accept eternity in some form. To not accept eternity is a surefire way to almost have to believe that before Creation there was a God. Regardless of your personal beliefs about religion or God, there has to be recognition that time is infinite. No matter how far back into time a person goes, there is always time farther back. Same for the future. The earth certainly has an end all right, but not the universe. It will evolve and evolve, but it will always be here in some form or fashion.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Jul 23 2005, 04:01 AM
I believe that God loves ALL his children. Not just some. And if there really is a God, I am quite sure he is much. much more upset with fake preachers then good, moral and upright atheists.

[post=330877]Quoted post[/post]​

Freddie, this is clear to me from the examples of Jesus with the Pharisees. He was never more direct than when he denounced the people supposedly representing God that did so in a condesending way, and without regard to serving the needs of the people. He also rebuked Judas for critisising Mary the prostitute. He brought shame upon the group of "believers" throwing stones at the adultress. He gave forgiveness to the woman at the well. He angrily threw out the moneychangers at the temple. Get a clue, folks. Jesus came to fulfill the law of old FOR us&#33; This means we not longer live under the old laws, but only under the new law of forgiveness and love. People who spend most of their reading time in the Old Testament are clearly missing the point of his coming.

Now, if you believe none of this, it is still easy enough (for me) to believe that there was a great Rabbi named Jesus who said such things. It has been conjectured by some that he never actually called himself "God" but rather "the son of man" and "the son of God", which we all are, if you believe in God at all. He was at least a person who was willing to give his life to make a point. I don&#39;t need to believe in the supernatural aspects of the story to grasp that much.

It is important to me that I do what is good, based on the knowledge of good that was inside me when I was born, that I&#39;ve put effort into discovering throughout my life. I believe the vast majority of people (other than the severely insane or retarded)
have this knowledge or at least a sense of it. There are a lot of people for whom the Church has always been a part of their lives, they were born into religious families and have stayed with that faith throughout their lives. I can&#39;t say that they only do good because they fear God, I have to believe that most are showing respect to God through living good lives. This is very different. Yes, there are churches that still preach fire and brimstone, and I do find that repugnant, but I still have to believe that they are seeking through the methods they see fit. I don&#39;t know if they practise morality out of fear, I&#39;m sure some do. Still, if that&#39;s the only reason they follow the commandments, I&#39;m glad they have some reason not to murder&#33; Maybe they should talk to our pres.

 

[madame_zora]

Calebshung, stop reprinting whole posts for one goddamned sentence. Stop spamming the entire board with nonsense. Participate where you have something useful to contribute or shut the fuck up&#33;

Hey guys, I think this is Chris, aka "hung_big".

 

[jonb]

I thought Chris was gay.

 

[madame_zora]

He wasn&#39;t gay when he was flirting horrendously with me on chat. I asked him the same thing and he adamantly demanded he was bi. No matter to me, I&#39;m not a pedophile.

 

[prepstudinsc]

This kid claims to have a big dick and surf, though, both of which Chris denied, however the age fits.

 

[madame_zora]

Oh you missed his "I wanna be Nixxy" phase where he was suddenly a surfer, and he told me he had a big dick (hung_big).

 

[jonb]

Female pedophiles are fairly rare anyway.

Oh yeah, the "I wanna be Nixxy" phase. I don&#39;t usually give DSM diagnoses based solely on online behavior, but . . .

frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. (not including suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5) (check)
a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation (check)
identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self (double check)
impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating; [not including] suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5)
recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior (check)
affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
chronic feelings of emptiness (check)
inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights) (check)
transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms (and check)

::starts humming "Borderline"::