NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a simple little thread really. No debate wanted. No flaming. No long winded statements about how Atheist are going to hell and Theist are stupid for believing. Just state whatever way you feel towards God. Just so there is no confusion we are talking about the Christian God here.

As for me, anyone who knows me, even a little, knows how strong my belief in God is.

God? What God? My opinion.

There's already One religious thread on this board... please limit your religious comments to that thread :P

This thread is doomed. No thread about religion can avoid turning into a flame war once the arch-atheists start something and the faithful Christians start going at it with them in a most un-Christlike way.

This thread is doomed. No thread about religion can avoid turning into a flame war once the arch-atheists start something and the faithful Christians start going at it with them in a most un-Christlike way.:( yeah, I shouldn't be arguing.

I was trying to have a nice pleasant conversation with the Christians on the Board... but I guess some people just can't stand that.

there is no God.

I can acknowledge nothing but that wich is real.

This is a simple little thread really. No debate wanted. No flaming. No long winded statements about how Atheist are going to hell and Theist are stupid for believing. Just state whatever way you feel towards God. Just so there is no confusion we are talking about the Christian God here.

As for me, anyone who knows me, even a little, knows how strong my belief in God is.


Are you saying "God" as in Christianity/Catholic, or "God" as in the omnipotent spiritual whole of the universe? If you are saying "God" as in Christianity and Catholics, then no, I do not think anything... (whispers to myself, good thing we have a gate now to keep those Mormons off my property!)

If you're saying "God" as in the omnipotent spiritual whole of the universe, then yes, I do believe... I believe in the whole of things and not some being that humans made up to teach their young ones about the moralities of life - of course, I can't say for sure that the Bible was made up. All I'm saying is that we all don't know for sure. Nothing is really for sure...

Wait, off topic... Sorry... 8/

I don't acknowledge 'God' in any way really. I only acknowledge myself and those around me. 'God' can't do anything to help or cause distress to me. Of course, Christians will detest, but... Off topic again... 8]

In short, I look at 'God' a different way - as with most Buddhist... 8] Those who follow the different levels of the scriptures of Buddhism/Hinduism, try to preserve life and not by enforcing fantasies upon passerby's - eg: "If you don't follow us, even if you care for life, you're going to h..." Wait a sec, off topic again!

Well, long msg... Good morning everyone... 8]

No God.

That is all.

God is the ground of being.
When known experientially God is compassionate but not manipulative (not all-controlling).
All life is received into a golden eternal moment.
I acknowledge God through living in simplicity and kindness.

God is the saddest construct of the human mind, a manefestation of lonliness and unanswered questions, a hungering for acceptance and love that has not yet been found in the real world. the day God dies in the minds of all people will be the day that humanity realizes its finest hour, for then heaven will be on Earth.

I acknowledge God by trying to become the best individual I can possibly be, by becoming fully integrated into the energy and life around me. God is in all things, and we are all part of an interconnected matrix of existence that is God.

God is the saddest construct of the human mind, a manefestation of lonliness and unanswered questions, a hungering for acceptance and love that has not yet been found in the real world. the day God dies in the minds of all people will be the day that humanity realizes its finest hour, for then heaven will be on Earth.

That was beautiful Bottle.

Most people don't realize that heaven is not a place, it's a modality of existence.

As Nas said in one of his songs: I'm talkin bout heaven in your own hearts in your own mind, I ain't talkin bout nothin material, heaven's just a mile away

(I'm paraphrasing on that so there may inconsistencies with the actual song.)

God is racial memory. A bond that ties us together in a way that is both instinctual and learned. God is a way for us to overcome the walls we erect around ourselves while we define who we are and share an understanding of our common experience.

God exists because we want it to. We give it form and shape from our own belief and give it motive from our own desire. Would God exist without us? I believe so, but it would be unaware, vegetative. God is sunlight, our conciousness is the prisim and our faith is the narrow band of colors we can perceive. We only know the part of God that we are interested in, but there is so much more. A wellspring that doesn't run dry.

God is "The Force That Through The Green Fuse Drives The Flower." God is more terrible and more beautiful than we can imagine because we are more terrible and beautiful than we can imagine and life is more terrible and beautiful than we can imagine. God is the best of us and the worst of us and we pour it into a mold that we can make sense of, forgetting that there is so much left that we ignore.

God is not a person and our personification of it is simply the only way we can encompass some small part of it.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I know God Exists. I know Christ lives. I know the church is true.

You got a problem with that? Well why should I care... I don't have to prove anything to you.

dp

God is the saddest construct of the human mind, a manefestation of lonliness and unanswered questions, a hungering for acceptance and love that has not yet been found in the real world. the day God dies in the minds of all people will be the day that humanity realizes its finest hour, for then heaven will be on Earth.

well said!

How I feel towards God? Hmm. I guess I would say that he is a mirror, a reflection of Mankind's fears. Fears which I do not have. Or at least, ones to which I pay no regard.

God is the saddest construct of the human mind, a manefestation of lonliness and unanswered questions, a hungering for acceptance and love that has not yet been found in the real world. the day God dies in the minds of all people will be the day that humanity realizes its finest hour, for then heaven will be on Earth.

couldn't've said it better meself. at least not when i have a group theory test due tomorrow and i've only answered 2/5 questions in the last 2 days.

There's already One religious thread on this board... please limit your religious comments to that thread :P

Be careful, people might accuse you of trolling. :P

I could care less about the hateful Christian God that smites people and needs to be worshipped.

But the REAL god that is ONE and ALL I Love very much.

God is my father, my saviour, the Lord of my life and has been for the past five months.
Every day I think on how blessed I am to have entered into an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
I try to live my life in a way that would please God but at the same time I realise that I continue to mess up all the time. But God is a loving, caring, forgiving God and that's the best news I've heard in my lifetime.
:D

i am a Christian, i belive in God and His word, and i am thankfull of that.


i've said my peace, and that is all.

I know God Exists. I know Christ lives. I know the church is true.

You got a problem with that? Well why should I care... I don't have to prove anything to you.

No, actually you don't, You believe all this is true, you have faith it's true, however you don't know 100% for fact, no one does. If there was any proof that there was a God, we'd all know it by now. Please don't mistake fact, with faith.

God is the saddest construct of the human mind, a manefestation of lonliness and unanswered questions, a hungering for acceptance and love that has not yet been found in the real world. the day God dies in the minds of all people will be the day that humanity realizes its finest hour, for then heaven will be on Earth.

That was beautiful Bottle.

Most people don't realize that heaven is not a place, it's a modality of existence.

As Nas said in one of his songs: I'm talkin bout heaven in your own hearts in your own mind, I ain't talkin bout nothin material, heaven's just a mile away

(I'm paraphrasing on that so there may inconsistencies with the actual song.)

i get very frustrated with people on these boards (and in the real world) who accuse me of hating religion or religious persons, because nothing could be further from the truth. i view religion as an unfortunate byproduct of human beings' unanswered needs; people desire a sense of purpose, and to know that they are important, because it gives them strength to endure the difficulties of their own existence. when somebody tells you that a higher power wants you and created you and loves you, and that your actions will have siginificant repercussions for you even after the end of your mortal life, that is a tantalizing solution to the problem.

i don't blame anybody for finding that offer attractive, i simply pity them for lacking the strength and patience to find meaning beyond the bribe of superstition. many people are raised into religious belief, or are not given the guidance they need to build their own answers and structure, and that is a failing that one cannot blame them for. they should be helped, but not hated or persecuted, since hositility won't relieve their stresses and thus cannot free them from their situation. it's impossible to destroy God for someone else...they have to learn to do it for themselves. i am always confused by religious persons who think atheists are a threat to their belief; how could somebody else destroy your God, or take God away from anybody who wants him? that's not possible, since the belief is for the individual alone to control. God will die when the individual is ready, never before.

but i will spend my life working to build a world where God does not need to be born in the minds of children, and where people find themselves whole and purposeful without the need for magic and spirits. when the world is as it should be there will be no religion, because there will be no need to look farther than the world to find happiness and satisfaction.

Professing an opinion on that which does not exist but as a figment of the imagination of irrational people is futile.

I try to acknowledge God by seeing everyday as a gift. I think that as bad a day as i had, it could have been alot worse, and I thank God that it wasnt. I also try to show love toward other people, in the same way that Jesus shows love toward everyone. I try to see everyone as a child of God, and no higher, or lower then I am in the eyes of God. And I also try to acknowledge God by thanking him for the gifts, and opportunities he gives me everyday.

I try to acknowledge God by seeing everyday as a gift. I think that as bad a day as i had, it could have been alot worse, and I thank God that it wasnt. I also try to show love toward other people, in the same way that Jesus shows love toward everyone. I try to see everyone as a child of God, and no higher, or lower then I am in the eyes of God. And I also try to acknowledge God by thanking him for the gifts, and opportunities he gives me everyday.

I appreciate your egalitarian outlook.
Some think worship of a higher power is demeaning and ignoble, but for me it places everyone on an equal footing.

As the author of this thread I must congratulate all who have taken part.

You have all behaved in an amirable fashion, and for that I thank you.

Let this thread be an example to all that religious topics can be discussed rationally.

Let this thread remind you that believers and non-believes can post on the same thread without bashing, flaming, flamebaiting or just plain rudeness on anyones part.

You all should be very proud of yourselves.

I believe in the Christian God, but not in the way many Christians do. I do not accept the Bible as truth, as there are too many errors and contradictions for it to be 100% truth. And if it isn't all truth, then how do I know which bits are and which are not? Instead, I find myself inspired by some of the words which are attributed to Jesus Christ. Anybody who said what he said knew something pretty special, and I want a part of that.

I reject a belief I once held, that God interacts with the world in the form of miracles and the like. While my Christian friends often report 'miracles', these tend to be pretty insignificant. I've heard of people claiming to be healed of dyslexia, one claimed that when they lost their work from a disk it was retrieved by a miracle and so on. When you look around the world and see people starving, dying in civil war and slowly rotting of AIDS I find it hard to believe that there could be a God who could heal someone of dyslexia but cannot save someone from AIDS.

Christians tend to say that God is all loving and all powerful. I'm prepared to accept the first, but not the second.

there is no god. :(

Notice to any Moderator who happens to be reading this thread. If at anytime you should see it degenerating into a flame war/bashing contest, you have my blessing on placing a lock on it. Please use your own best judgement when doing so, is all I ask.

If any of you see god, tell him that he still owes me $20 :wink:





I totally won that Job bet.

Professing an opinion on that which does not exist but as a figment of the imagination of irrational people is futile.

Actually, it's known as a Psychological COnstruct

Then again, so is the Mind

Does the Mind exist?
You have no proof to say it does.
You have no proof to say it doesn't.

Do you believe in the Mind?

I don't particulary believe in God. At least not as a concrete single entity. Something more nebulous, maybe. A general overarching something. (oh so definite here)

And yet, I find myself wishing to God, or semi-praying sometimes. It's just like instinct, who else would you wish to?

Basically I'm one of those people that are uncertain, although right now I would say I don't think God exists.

ALL HAIL..............NOTHING!

Welcome to Agnosticism Erastide!

It's the beige religion of believing in the totality of "MAYBE"

Welcome to Agnosticism!

look out the window and you will see atheism :lol:

It's dark outside.

I just see faded stars.

I hate living in the city.

I strongly believe in the existance of God. Do I believe that God has much sway over earthly physical matters? Nay, I believe that God has very little influence in things that are physical. I think of God as sort of the supreme soul, who has the ultimate power in the spiritual realm. I believe in a kind, compassionate God, a God who loves all. I do not believe in hell, as I don't believe that God would be cruel enough to banish a person's soul to eternal torture. Maybe, if you malevolent to others during your time on Earth, you serve as a servant for a certain period of time in the afterlife, I don't know.
I also have a strong belief that while God is our parent, so is the Earth. I percieve the Earth to be our mother, and I view the degradation of the Earth as nothing less than the brutal rape of our mother.
I don't believe in a vindictive authoritarian God. I believe that God is pretty laid back and is satisfied with letting you do what you want if you're kind to others.

Well, that's my 2 cents

Mm...Buddha/God theory
and the inverse pagan oedipal syndrome

I think that "god" doesn't exist as such, "god" meaning a heavenly father who watches over us. I think god is more human orientated, such as kindness/etc

I think youi might get the meaning of that *shrugs* Maybe not. Doesn't particularily matter.

I am very tired but I did want to respond to one of the post made a page or so ago. I believe it was made by bottle.

The day God dies the Earth will cease to exist. So it wouldn't matter how happy you were that it happened.

I would consider myself to an agnostic. I believe that if god existed we would probably would not notice him in any major way (and most people haven't), and if I don't exist he would not be noticed either since he do not exist since I don't believe science would be sufficient to be able to discover god. My opinion is that you shouldn't make up your mind about things when you neither can prove that he/she exists or prove that he don't exist.

God is the supreme power of the Universe...

Let's not get to grand as yet.

God is and will be the ruler of my life. I will continue to live my life according to Him.

Professing an opinion on that which does not exist but as a figment of the imagination of irrational people is futile.

Actually, it's known as a Psychological COnstruct

Then again, so is the Mind

Does the Mind exist?
You have no proof to say it does.
You have no proof to say it doesn't.

Do you believe in the Mind?

Please.

There is more evidence for the existance of 'mind' than 'god' by a long shot.

here....have a read....

www.ini.unizh.ch/~pfmjv/InsectCognition/nat+neurosci_6_579.fly-salience.pdf

I am very tired but I did want to respond to one of the post made a page or so ago. I believe it was made by bottle.

The day God dies the Earth will cease to exist. So it wouldn't matter how happy you were that it happened.

you are obviously quite entitled to your beliefs, and such scare tactics are often very successful means of keeping believers "in the flock." sadly, there are many religious organizations and leaders who care more about increasing their own influence than about the mental and emotional health of their followers. well-meaning people are often frightened into joining or remaining in congregations, through threats of hell or supernatural retribution, and horrible pictures of the end of the world are used to enforce obedience to the chosen diety. personally i don't think fear is a good reason to stick with any belief system, and any group that tries to use apocalyptic messages to hold your attention is probably not altogether on the up-and-up.

I do not believe in god. My girlfriend does. I accept her and her families prayers in good grace, and they accept my blessings in the same.

God be with My loves family.

Jim

I am very tired but I did want to respond to one of the post made a page or so ago. I believe it was made by bottle.

The day God dies the Earth will cease to exist. So it wouldn't matter how happy you were that it happened.

you are obviously quite entitled to your beliefs, and such scare tactics are often very successful means of keeping believers "in the flock." sadly, there are many religious organizations and leaders who care more about increasing their own influence than about the mental and emotional health of their followers. well-meaning people are often frightened into joining or remaining in congregations, through threats of hell or supernatural retribution, and horrible pictures of the end of the world are used to enforce obedience to the chosen diety. personally i don't think fear is a good reason to stick with any belief system, and any group that tries to use apocalyptic messages to hold your attention is probably not altogether on the up-and-up.

I can show you the remains of an ark that one group made in northern PA back around 1910. It's way up on a mountain top; they figured those waters would get pretty high. People always get excited about the end times, even though james Baldwin was right, it'll be "the fire next time", not a flood.

Ironic that Jesus himself said worry about today, it's got enough to occupy you, don't get in a lather about some imaginary future.

You're right; those teaching are used improperly, to keep people in line.
It's amazing people still fall for it after centuries of false predictions.

I am very tired but I did want to respond to one of the post made a page or so ago. I believe it was made by bottle.

The day God dies the Earth will cease to exist. So it wouldn't matter how happy you were that it happened.

you are obviously quite entitled to your beliefs, and such scare tactics are often very successful means of keeping believers "in the flock." sadly, there are many religious organizations and leaders who care more about increasing their own influence than about the mental and emotional health of their followers. well-meaning people are often frightened into joining or remaining in congregations, through threats of hell or supernatural retribution, and horrible pictures of the end of the world are used to enforce obedience to the chosen diety. personally i don't think fear is a good reason to stick with any belief system, and any group that tries to use apocalyptic messages to hold your attention is probably not altogether on the up-and-up.

I can show you the remains of an ark that one group made in northern PA back around 1910. It's way up on a mountain top; they figured those waters would get pretty high. People always get excited about the end times, even though james Baldwin was right, it'll be "the fire next time", not a flood.

Ironic that Jesus himself said worry about today, it's got enough to occupy you, don't get in a lather about some imaginary future.

You're right; those teaching are used improperly, to keep people in line.
It's amazing people still fall for it after centuries of false predictions.

Ever so true...rule of fear...not love....

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

eh? Good quote, though.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

eh? Good quote, though.

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politics/niemoller.shtml

The point is that sometimes you do have to trample over others beliefs....

I can show you the remains of an ark that one group made in northern PA back around 1910. It's way up on a mountain top; they figured those waters would get pretty high. People always get excited about the end times, even though james Baldwin was right, it'll be "the fire next time", not a flood.

Ironic that Jesus himself said worry about today, it's got enough to occupy you, don't get in a lather about some imaginary future.

You're right; those teaching are used improperly, to keep people in line.
It's amazing people still fall for it after centuries of false predictions.

it just makes me sad that so many people twist spirituality into a means of coersion, like parents who use the boogey man to force their children to behave...it seems so cruel and dishonest, and not at all a nice way to live. i always want to give a big hug to people who buy into the End Times stuff, they seem so sad to me.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

that depends; if they believe they should bomb an abortion clinic because God told them to then i will trample their beliefs without a qualm.

I am very tired but I did want to respond to one of the post made a page or so ago. I believe it was made by bottle.

The day God dies the Earth will cease to exist. So it wouldn't matter how happy you were that it happened.

you are obviously quite entitled to your beliefs, and such scare tactics are often very successful means of keeping believers "in the flock." sadly, there are many religious organizations and leaders who care more about increasing their own influence than about the mental and emotional health of their followers. well-meaning people are often frightened into joining or remaining in congregations, through threats of hell or supernatural retribution, and horrible pictures of the end of the world are used to enforce obedience to the chosen diety. personally i don't think fear is a good reason to stick with any belief system, and any group that tries to use apocalyptic messages to hold your attention is probably not altogether on the up-and-up.Just to be sure you noticed I was only stating my belief of what would happen if God died, the same as you did. The thinking of my religion is that God is eternal and thus cannot die. I was simply giving my hypothectical reaction to a hypothectical situation.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?Very good post Mutant Dogs, you stayed within my original rules to this thread (by not just stating that people who believe are stupid or that Atheist are all going to hell.) Stated your opinion on the matter without resorting to bashing others opinions.

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politics/niemoller.shtml

The point is that sometimes you do have to trample over others beliefs....No the idea is to respect the others rights to hold their own belief and to not support those who would attack them for doing so.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

that depends; if they believe they should bomb an abortion clinic because God told them to then i will trample their beliefs without a qualm.I would uphold their right to have this belief, but as I disagree with it, I would make every attempt to get them pschological help. Just because of the extreme nature of the example you gave. I did not say that everyone, I disagree with, needs psyhcological help.
This is relatively shocking. To think, a liberal thinker such as yourself, is in favor of violence due to an expression. Freedom of expression. While I do not uphold his right to bomb the abortion clinic, I do uphold his right to be against abortion, as I am. I would also be in favor of seeing this person jailed for the rest of their natural life if it resulted in the death of anyone, born or unborn.

I personally think god is some one who had way to much free time when he made me :shock: but hey just one more loon in the world never hurt any one right? ....dont answer that....

I believe in god..i mean how else can you explian what cuased the big bang and how we got hear ill keep belive ing in god until some one proves that he doesnt exist wich i dout any one can. :?

The real question is to me is..who made god? i mean this is the question that makes me loose sleep sometimes!

curse my bad spelling! :evil:

I believe in God...but not in my own way and not in a House of Worship. To me, He is like Walden's God or something along those lines.

I'd like to say ....
Excellent cognition and sensitivity on this subject (in my opinion) on the parts of Bottle and Berkylvania - could be worth a few flips (or JUST ONE) of a coin!
and High Orcs ...
and for High Orcs :
"What is mind?"
"No matter."
"What is matter?"
"Never mind."
- Homer Simpson to Bart Simpson. One of the, if not the, first episode of The Simpsons (Tracy Ullman days)

For what it's worth ....
The God one reveres for, itself, as an ultimatum of expression and freedom, of cowardice and self-preservation, of choice and duty, of justice and compassion, of ecstasy and loneliness, of power and responsibility, all is summated in the part one (plays) takes in life, not from another's words or mantra as truth but in the karma or action of one's deeds and consequence. Blessed be the ones and all who seek the wisdom of choice and understanding that come with truly appreciating their place in the nature of all things that cooperate, whether first apparent or otherwise.
I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas in a more lucid moment who seemed to understand that a mechanic appreciation of the form of the universe in no way undermined the spirit and soul appreciation of anything greater than him but moreover refined and strengthened it.
Nasdravlje.

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politics/niemoller.shtml

The point is that sometimes you do have to trample over others beliefs....No the idea is to respect the others rights to hold their own belief and to not support those who would attack them for doing so.

That is weak. You may as well say that one respects racists or homophobes or religious fundimentalists beliefs because they have a point of view that 'I' do not agree with, therefore they are pushing the envelope of acceptable behaviour....that my friend is balderdash.

Why?

Because these extremists want nothing more than to remove my right to define my own beliefs and morality.

God does not exist. If he does, then he is very foolish.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

that depends; if they believe they should bomb an abortion clinic because God told them to then i will trample their beliefs without a qualm.I would uphold their right to have this belief, but as I disagree with it, I would make every attempt to get them pschological help. Just because of the extreme nature of the example you gave. I did not say that everyone, I disagree with, needs psyhcological help.
This is relatively shocking. To think, a liberal thinker such as yourself, is in favor of violence due to an expression. Freedom of expression. While I do not uphold his right to bomb the abortion clinic, I do uphold his right to be against abortion, as I am. I would also be in favor of seeing this person jailed for the rest of their natural life if it resulted in the death of anyone, born or unborn.

huh? first off, i am not a liberal. second, i never said i advocated violence against them, simply that there are many cases when people aren't going to get to exercise their beliefs...i will do everything in my power to prevent many people from living their beliefs, almost invariably because those beliefs involve harm to others or interference with others' freedoms. yes, people have the right to believe abortion is wrong. no, they don't have the right to express that belief any way they chose. if they believe in bombing abortion clinics, or mosques, or churches, in the name of God then i will trample that belief with gusto.

i get very frustrated with people on these boards (and in the real world) who accuse me of hating religion or religious persons, because nothing could be further from the truth. i view religion as an unfortunate byproduct of human beings' unanswered needs; people desire a sense of purpose, and to know that they are important, because it gives them strength to endure the difficulties of their own existence.

I don't need God, or spirituality, or other people for that matter. I don't need fried chicken, or cool cars, or Kool-Aid. But they do make my life somewhat better. I don't need them, and I got along without them before, but that's not the point.

I remember when I was an athiest/agnostic, and ya know what? I don't like the person I was then. I was a cold-hearted bastard. I would steal, lie, cheat, and kill. Anything to satisfy my ego, my desires. One day, this chick walked by me and our eyes met, and she started walking away really fast. I saw the stark fear in her eyes, she was afraid for her life just because of looking at my eyes the way they normally were. I wasn't even angry at the time. I never want to induce that kind of fear in anyone again. Maybe its that I associate my belief system at the time with my behaviors, but I'll never go back to that.

Also, I know that God exists. I had an experience which I could not explain with my scientific knowledge, I could not explain by assuming I had been brainwashed or drugged, or that all my senses were playing tricks on me. Not even a combination of all three could solve this one.
It fit the model for a loving, forgiving, powerful God very well though.

i don't blame anybody for finding that offer attractive, i simply pity them for lacking the strength and patience to find meaning beyond the bribe of superstition. many people are raised into religious belief, or are not given the guidance they need to build their own answers and structure, and that is a failing that one cannot blame them for. they should be helped, but not hated or persecuted, since hositility won't relieve their stresses and thus cannot free them from their situation. it's impossible to destroy God for someone else...they have to learn to do it for themselves.

You pity us? Well I don't need your pity, hon, but I appreciate that you don't advocate feeding us all to lions or something. :wink:

i am always confused by religious persons who think atheists are a threat to their belief; how could somebody else destroy your God, or take God away from anybody who wants him? that's not possible, since the belief is for the individual alone to control. God will die when the individual is ready, never before.

I am confused by that too. I think many people are insecure in their faith, and I think those may be the same people who claim to know they are going to heaven but are afraid to die.

but i will spend my life working to build a world where God does not need to be born in the minds of children, and where people find themselves whole and purposeful without the need for magic and spirits. when the world is as it should be there will be no religion, because there will be no need to look farther than the world to find happiness and satisfaction.

You do that, Bottle. The world probably will be better for your efforts. I too, hope the world gets to the point where we needn't look farther for happiness. That we won't need to steal to feed our families, that we won't have to escape reality with drugs, that we can just love and respect one another without thinking there's some big policeman in the sky watching over us. I look forward to that. I may never see it, but I sure as hell hope it comes to pass.

http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politics/niemoller.shtml

The point is that sometimes you do have to trample over others beliefs....No the idea is to respect the others rights to hold their own belief and to not support those who would attack them for doing so.

That is weak. You may as well say that one respects racists or homophobes or religious fundimentalists beliefs because they have a point of view that 'I' do not agree with, therefore they are pushing the envelope of acceptable behaviour....that my friend is balderdash.

Why?

Because these extremists want nothing more than to remove my right to define my own beliefs and morality.What I said is that I respect their right to have an unpopular belief. I also state that I do not support taking negative actions towards another just due to their belief. Using your example groups I can say that I support the rights of all people to hold racist, homophobic, and religious fundimentalistic beliefs. I am against any of those people taking action against any other person due to their beliefs. Now I hope you have a little better idea of what I was saying.

I don't need God, or spirituality, or other people for that matter. I don't need fried chicken, or cool cars, or Kool-Aid. But they do make my life somewhat better. I don't need them, and I got along without them before, but that's not the point.

I remember when I was an athiest/agnostic, and ya know what? I don't like the person I was then. I was a cold-hearted bastard. I would steal, lie, cheat, and kill. Anything to satisfy my ego, my desires. One day, this chick walked by me and our eyes met, and she started walking away really fast. I saw the stark fear in her eyes, she was afraid for her life just because of looking at my eyes the way they normally were. I wasn't even angry at the time. I never want to induce that kind of fear in anyone again. Maybe its that I associate my belief system at the time with my behaviors, but I'll never go back to that.

Also, I know that God exists. I had an experience which I could not explain with my scientific knowledge, I could not explain by assuming I had been brainwashed or drugged, or that all my senses were playing tricks on me. Not even a combination of all three could solve this one.
It fit the model for a loving, forgiving, powerful God very well though.


no offense, but if you couldn't behave in a moral and respectful fashion before you believed in God then your admission belies your claim that you don't need God. your situation is a prime example of what i was talking about, people who can't find meaning and morality in themselves and their reason, so need to be forced or coerced into it through religion. that's okay, you're not alone, and it's a tough thing to do. but don't kid yourself about your dependence on the supernatural; if you couldn't make yourself a good person without it then that says more about you then about the power of God.

But what if my own way was - "not at all"?

Well, I hope it's still funny....IN HELL!!!!

I AM JUST KIDDING!! :D

Believe what you want, just make sure you don't trample on the beliefs of others because they have just as much right to them.

that depends; if they believe they should bomb an abortion clinic because God told them to then i will trample their beliefs without a qualm.

Okay, yes, yes, both you and Vonners have adequately showed me that my statement was naive. So I would like to amend it to include something about believing what you want to believe so long as you don't force it one anyone else, which covers insane acts of violence and persecution.

There, now we should all be happy. :D

no offense, but if you couldn't behave in a moral and respectful fashion before you believed in God then your admission belies your claim that you don't need God.

Actually, it doesn't. H.R. simply claimed that he was a different person, a person he didn't like. He made the fundamental choice to change on his own from his own desires and his own sense of right and wrong, or at least his own sense of the world he wanted to live in and the way he wanted that world to react to him (which is the fundamental purpose of morality). If he now chooses to hang his morality off a framework of religious thought (and I'm making this assumption, I could be wrong, H.R.)
, it in no way cheapens the initial decision to pursue a different course or even demands that faith in a governing principle of the Universe is needed. I understand your point, Bottle, but I think you're being too quick to judge others with different perspectives.


your situation is a prime example of what i was talking about, people who can't find meaning and morality in themselves and their reason, so need to be forced or coerced into it through religion.

But what about those of us who are perfectly capable of finding meaning and morality without a religious construct, but through a sense of general wonder at the Universe, have acknowledged the limitations of what we know (and can know) and have chosen to have faith? I agree with you that people shouldn't be betting on an eventual heaven to make up for injustices in this life or hoping for an eternal hell to punish those that made life uncomfortable for them. This wanton obsuration of reality is probably one of the most damaging legacies of religious thought. I firmly believe that, just because one has a religious life, one should not neglect the physical world and should strive every day to create, for lack of a better term, a heaven on Earth. However, the assumption is that everyone who believes in a higher power of some stripe is either forced or coerced into it through fear. This is simply not true. I will admit some come to it through those means, but fear is a bad basis for faith. There are those of us, though, who realize that a quest for God or divinity adds a dimension to our lives and ourselves. It may be through a profoundly personal experience, like H.R.'s, which only he (I'm also noticing I'm making the assumption that H.R. is a man, so, if you're not, I apologize. It's the internet, having a penis seems to be the ground state) can truly appreciate because it is so profoundly personal. It may come about through a simple bargin to the tune of, "Well, God may or may not exist, but it costs me nothing to believe in him and, if he does exist, I win all and, if he doesn't, I lose nothing." It may just be an innate sense of higher order to things, but it doesn't always happen out of fear. I am sorry this is all you see when you look at theists. I don't know what has happened to you that makes you view all theists with such skepticism and cynicism, but please believe me when I say that not all theists trace the roots of their belief back to fear.


that's okay, you're not alone, and it's a tough thing to do. but don't kid yourself about your dependence on the supernatural;

See, this is the issue I have here. You make "allowances" for people you don't know and extend them an unasked for pity based on your own limited experience while at the same time assuming that you've somehow managed to tap into a knowledge source that has given you the right to condecend to those who have just as much experience as you, but have come to different conclusions. Bottle, I like the way you think and I respect the strength of your beliefs, but it annoys me how you use the same exact tactics as a fundamentalist Christian to ignore and belittle the life experiences and conclusions of those around you. What conclusive proof do you have for your position, other than your own reason and belief? Neither one of us has any, so why are my conclusions any less valid than yours, simply because I advocate for a spiritual order to the universe and you don't? You may say that you don't do this, but every post you make belies that.


if you couldn't make yourself a good person without it then that says more about you then about the power of God.

He did make himself a better person, Bottle. Not because of God, but because of what he saw in that woman's eyes, the fear he engendered. Even if it was only his imagination, it was his initial perception of her reaction that sparked his change. Once he made that decision, that fundamental rail switch of personal responsibility, everything else is cake. During his process of searching for a new morality, he embraced theistic thought. That does not make his final conclusions any less valid for the path that he has come, as the initial desire to change was his alone. This is the thing that seems to hang you up the most, the idea that just because someone adopts a moral stance in line with theistic belief, that somehow makes their conlcusion less valid than someone who has come to that same moral stance through atheistic belief. Personally, I believe that an atheist and a theist can both be just as principled and wonderful as one another, but you seem to insist that because theisim is somehow worked into my equation, my princeples and morals are somehow less than yours, even though I imagine we share many similar ones. Why are you not willing to grant the same latitude that I grant you? What does it cost you?

no offense, but if you couldn't behave in a moral and respectful fashion before you believed in God then your admission belies your claim that you don't need God.

I could have behaved in a moral and respectful fashion. It was my choice to not do that. My capacity to be a good person without God is not in doubt, at least not for me. Without a couple of key experiences, I would have become you, Bottle, and I do consider you a good person. This is part of why you interest me, because you show me what I would have been without God. I am impressed with what you have become, but I am also quite content with my choice.

your situation is a prime example of what i was talking about, people who can't find meaning and morality in themselves and their reason, so need to be forced or coerced into it through religion.

There was no coercion. It was my choice, Bottle. Do you understand that? That I willingly chose a life of communion? Can you not accept that someone as intelligent as you, someone with the mental strength you have, chose a very different path? Do you know that I did not choose to submit myself to God out of weakness? That is was my very mental fortitude that allowed me to make a choice that was very difficult for me? I do not accept a master lightly. In fact, anyone who knows me will say that I submit to noone and nothing unless I choose to do so of my own free will. That is a fact about me that has frustrated those in human authority for a long time. They have no power over me unless I grant it, and I make sure they know it.

This is what God desires, that we be in union with Her of our own volition.

but don't kid yourself about your dependence on the supernatural; if you couldn't make yourself a good person without it then that says more about you then about the power of God.

I am not dependent on the supernatural (or metanatural as I prefer to call it). I choose to be united with the supernatural. That is the point. Maybe it says something about you that you don't have the strength to choose such an option, eh?

I mean no offense to you, and I am sorry if you are hurt by that. I just want you to consider the possibility that there are theists who are truly your equals, Bottle, even if we chose a very different life. You made your choice, and based on the evidence you have that choice is probably quite valid. Could you give me the same consideration I give you, and respect that we have made different choices based on different information?

Thanks to Berkylvania for his? rousing defense of me. Yes, I am male. Penis accounted for. I do choose to hang my framework for morality from religious thought to a much greater extent than I did before, but not entirely.

well, it sounds like it's all just a matter of opinion. personally i think it takes much more strength to find meaning and morality without having a religious group spoon-feed you, and it takes much more character to behave well for your own sake and that of those around you rather than out of a desire to curry favor with God or get into heaven. but that's just my opinion, and i don't expect others to share it...i've been around far too long and met far too many people to expect something that naive :).

well, it sounds like it's all just a matter of opinion. personally i think it takes much more strength to find meaning and morality without having a religious group spoon-feed you, and it takes much more character to behave well for your own sake and that of those around you rather than out of a desire to curry favor with God or get into heaven. but that's just my opinion, and i don't expect others to share it...i've been around far too long and met far too many people to expect something that naive :).

Sorry if I sounded harsh in my response, I've had a long day. :D

I just get tired of what I perceive as people attempting to invalidate my moral stances because I have chosen to also explore the possibility of divinity. I don't think that it takes more character or strength to arrive at firmly held moral convictions and then live your life by them depending on your views on theisim. Morality is hard. Being consistently and carefully vigillante with not only your own actions, but your response and acceptance of others is difficult, no matter what the source is. To be spoon fed morality (and there are just as many atheists and agnostics as there are theists who are guilty of not closely examining the roots and relevances of their own moral beliefs) is bad, I agree. But to assume that just because someone professes a theisim they are somehow less, either in strength, character or morals, is just as wrong as to assume that just because someone is a Christian that they are a "good" person.

Frequently it's put to me that one of Christianity's greatest failings is it's lack of tolerance of other belief systems. I will admit that this is many times the case, but I see no particular tolerance coming from the other side. It makes it hard to exchange ideas and information when both sides are trying to outshout the other because neither side really believes their own press.

I don't usually quote Terry Pratchett, but I think I shall do so more often. Like he said in his book, Small Gods:

"I. This is Not a Game.
II. Right Here and Now, You Are Alive"

Everything else is guess work and my guesswork is just as good as anyones as no one has been able to offer irrefutable proof on either side. In order for tolerance and acceptance to happen, you must have a certain faith in the best of humanity and be the first one to extend that tolerance and acceptance to others. Frequently you get the door slammed in your face, but that does not excuse you from becoming cynical and trying again. My faith is important to me, just as I now realize the faith of others is important to them, be they still operating under the same belief system they were born into or the faith they have come to embrace. My morality has been tested and is tested every day. It doesn't require religion, as it was pretty much the same when I was still searching, but it is supported by it and I don't see how that makes my choices or my character any less valid.

Bottle, just to clear things up from before. I did not call you a liberal (I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy :lol: ). That's not really true just a funny. What I did say about you is that you are a liberal thinker. I do believe that statement to mean open minded. If you look back on the discussion between you and me, I think, you will find that we were saying the same thing. I did make an assumption that you meant violence when you said you would trample on someone's belief. There I was mistaken and for that I am sorry.

Now if we can all return my thread to it's original purpose, I would appreciate that. I did not want this thread to be a debate over religious beliefs v. non-belief. This I plainly stated in my first post. I am just as much to blame as everyone else for allowing this to happen. I do believe that it was my response to Bottles statement that helped to start the debate flying. Now I request that it be allowed to return to it's original purpose. Thank You All

Berkylvania and Jay W

(having tried to reply to each of your posts with no success I decided to try to answer you both in a new post)

Berkylvania

Yes that is pretty much how I view it....as long as your belief does not affect me then I have no issue. This does not preclude reasoned debate on issues but it does imply a certain maturity that does preclude partisanship. In this sense I am a parliamentarian even though I am an anarchist.

Jay W

What would you have done on Kristallnacht? Would you have sat back or would you have fought the Brownshirts?

Me? I'd be there fighting....and I'd be dead. There are some evils that one has no choice but to fight and sometimes make the ultimate gesture.

As an atheist this means I am not sacraficing myself for a better afterlife or a chance to reside in heaven. It means I am willing to die knowing that I have nothing to look forward to once I am dead.

I am not denegrating believers in this as ultimately they too will face the same end.

I will add though that perhaps this is why atheists are less likely to get to a stage where death is inevitable.

well, it sounds like it's all just a matter of opinion.

Yes. It ultimately comes down to an opinion.

personally i think it takes much more strength to find meaning and morality without having a religious group spoon-feed you, and it takes much more character to behave well for your own sake and that of those around you rather than out of a desire to curry favor with God or get into heaven.

Of course you would. That's what you value. :wink: Do you know why I obey God? It is not to get into heaven or escape hell, and it is not to 'curry favor' with God like some dog licking his master to get some food. It is because I respect and appreciate what God has done for me, and I think God knows and desires what is best for me.

Many theists are obeying God because:

a) They are sheep following the rest of the flock.

b) They are afraid of Hellfire and damnation.

c) They are wanting to get into heaven like its an exclusive club or something.

I don't even condemn them for that, because they may not have the capacity or education to have a healthier perspective. I treasure my own perspective, because I was lucky enough to have the intelligence and education, but I understand the circumstances that keep my fellow theists from reaching the same conclusions.

but that's just my opinion, and i don't expect others to share it...i've been around far too long and met far too many people to expect something that naive :).

:lol: I knew you were a smart one, Bottle! Can we hug and make up now? :wink:

DP

I acknowledge the Goddess by following what my mind tells me, even when it leads me to doubt her existance.

what god are you talking about? ohh you meen thAT non existant figmant of everyones imagination that suposivaly makes things happen, ( i spit on you for being stupid ) there is no god, and you are stupid and wasting your life for beleiving in him

what god are you talking about? ohh you meen thAT non existant figmant of everyones imagination that suposivaly makes things happen, ( i spit on you for being stupid ) there is no god, and you are stupid and wasting your life for beleiving in him
That's fine if you don't believe in God. If you're right, death will not discriminate: all of our candles will be blown out. The consequences of you being wrong, however, are more bleak. But what's with the "stupid" stuff? Wasting my life? I don't think so. Christianity gives a path for how to conduct yourself in this life with love, compassion, and knowledge (not stupidity). As far as I know, that's happiness, and spending life in happiness isn't really wasting it, is it?
Oh, I loved how you said that god was a 'figment of everyone's imagination'. Everyone, eh? I think you might be mistaking soul for imagination. If that's true, isn't a little odd that the entire human race attempts to grasp an intangible concept of a supreme being, regardless of cultural origins? Hm...

I don't belive in god, but i think that individuals belifes should be respected

what god are you talking about? ohh you meen thAT non existant figmant of everyones imagination that suposivaly makes things happen, ( i spit on you for being stupid ) there is no god, and you are stupid and wasting your life for beleiving in him

That's rather harch of you isn't it?

Berkylvania and Jay W

(having tried to reply to each of your posts with no success I decided to try to answer you both in a new post)

Berkylvania

Yes that is pretty much how I view it....as long as your belief does not affect me then I have no issue. This does not preclude reasoned debate on issues but it does imply a certain maturity that does preclude partisanship. In this sense I am a parliamentarian even though I am an anarchist.

Jay W

What would you have done on Kristallnacht? Would you have sat back or would you have fought the Brownshirts?

Me? I'd be there fighting....and I'd be dead. There are some evils that one has no choice but to fight and sometimes make the ultimate gesture.

As an atheist this means I am not sacraficing myself for a better afterlife or a chance to reside in heaven. It means I am willing to die knowing that I have nothing to look forward to once I am dead.

I am not denegrating believers in this as ultimately they too will face the same end.

I will add though that perhaps this is why atheists are less likely to get to a stage where death is inevitable.As an answer to your question, I would have to say I don't know. This is due to the fact that I have no idea what this Kristallnacht thing is that you are talking about. In a general way of answering, seemings it appears to be about a war, I would fight in a war. The bible tells us there will be wars, but does not tell us not to fight in them. A person who follows the teachings of the bible knows they are supposed to defend themself. These same people know tht they are to try to not start the war themself. I hope this is a clear enough answer to your question.
I don't claim to understand the Atheist mind, but I don't go about physically fighting them. Words, when they want them, are freely offered. Words, when they do not want them, are not.

what god are you talking about? ohh you meen thAT non existant figmant of everyones imagination that suposivaly makes things happen, ( i spit on you for being stupid ) there is no god, and you are stupid and wasting your life for beleiving in him
Here, my good folks, we have one to use as an example.

This person is obviously one of three types:

1.) A troll or flamebaiter
2.) Just a plain mean person, with nothing better to do with thier time.
3.) Someone incapable of reading a thread before posting into it.

I stand behind their right to not believe in God.
I believe they have no right to attack someone else just because they do.

Berkylvania and Jay W

(having tried to reply to each of your posts with no success I decided to try to answer you both in a new post)

Berkylvania

Yes that is pretty much how I view it....as long as your belief does not affect me then I have no issue. This does not preclude reasoned debate on issues but it does imply a certain maturity that does preclude partisanship. In this sense I am a parliamentarian even though I am an anarchist.

Jay W

What would you have done on Kristallnacht? Would you have sat back or would you have fought the Brownshirts?

Me? I'd be there fighting....and I'd be dead. There are some evils that one has no choice but to fight and sometimes make the ultimate gesture.

As an atheist this means I am not sacraficing myself for a better afterlife or a chance to reside in heaven. It means I am willing to die knowing that I have nothing to look forward to once I am dead.

I am not denegrating believers in this as ultimately they too will face the same end.

I will add though that perhaps this is why atheists are less likely to get to a stage where death is inevitable.As an answer to your question, I would have to say I don't know. This is due to the fact that I have no idea what this Kristallnacht thing is that you are talking about. In a general way of answering, seemings it appears to be about a war, I would fight in a war. The bible tells us there will be wars, but does not tell us not to fight in them. A person who follows the teachings of the bible knows they are supposed to defend themself. These same people know tht they are to try to not start the war themself. I hope this is a clear enough answer to your question.
I don't claim to understand the Atheist mind, but I don't go about physically fighting them. Words, when they want them, are freely offered. Words, when they do not want them, are not.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.

Ah, yes, the Everpresent Evil question. As a pacificst, both from secular reasoning and religious inspiration, this is always troubling. The easy and facile answer is that one should never let matters deteriorate to this level. This ignores reality, though, and in reality, there are other people playing and they don't always obey the rules of the game. I don't know how other people answer this one. For myself, I don't. People like the Brownshirts may not understand debate, but I don't understand killing and I'll be damned if I let others force my hand. The only right I truly have, as a human being, is the right to choose and I won't relinquish that right because of a moral life boat situation. It does mean I need to work harder to try and stop the situation from ever getting to such an abhorrant point, but if it's there, I must stick to my principles and hope for the best. To kill is wrong. Period. To try and rectify that wrong by killing again is impossible. They cycle must be broken.

It's not much of an explanation, I know, but it's the only one I've got.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.

Ah, yes, the Everpresent Evil question. As a pacificst, both from secular reasoning and religious inspiration, this is always troubling. The easy and facile answer is that one should never let matters deteriorate to this level. This ignores reality, though, and in reality, there are other people playing and they don't always obey the rules of the game. I don't know how other people answer this one. For myself, I don't. People like the Brownshirts may not understand debate, but I don't understand killing and I'll be damned if I let others force my hand. The only right I truly have, as a human being, is the right to choose and I won't relinquish that right because of a moral life boat situation. It does mean I need to work harder to try and stop the situation from ever getting to such an abhorrant point, but if it's there, I must stick to my principles and hope for the best. To kill is wrong. Period. To try and rectify that wrong by killing again is impossible. They cycle must be broken.

It's not much of an explanation, I know, but it's the only one I've got.

That is a thorny issue. The cycle must be broken, but you letting yourself die won't do it, Berk. In order to break the cycle you must enter it for a time. There is danger in this approach, but with the proper tools and safeguards, it can be done. The cycle of violence is made up of many smaller cycles. The cycles of poverty, fear, and ignorance must be broken first. Education, physical well-being, and emotional wholeness are necessary for the elimination of violence.

That is a thorny issue. The cycle must be broken, but you letting yourself die won't do it, Berk.

Well, I don't know. It may not break the cycle completely, but it would make me not a part of perpetuating it. I can't control the actions of others, but I can control my own actions and every thing I believe and hold true, but the spiritual and the rational, tells me that to take the life of another human being (or harm another human being) is wrong. All my other moral choices flow from that one basic assumption.


In order to break the cycle you must enter it for a time.

Well, like They Might Be Giants said in their song, "You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding." I don't believe that you can function in a paradigm that is drastically different from your own without becoming corrupted by it. Frequently, people try to "change the system from within," but once they get on the inside, the sacrifices they've had to make to get there have reduced their desire to make the changes that motivated them in the first place. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and you can't get more absolute than taking the life of another. I don't trust myself of my judgement enough to pass that scentence on anyone.


There is danger in this approach, but with the proper tools and safeguards, it can be done.

But when has it been done? I agree it looks good on paper, but it never seems to last in practice.


The cycle of violence is made up of many smaller cycles. The cycles of poverty, fear, and ignorance must be broken first. Education, physical well-being, and emotional wholeness are necessary for the elimination of violence.

I agree that violence arises out of these other societal ills, and I work to try and reduce or eliminate them. However, violence is unique in that it is an end in and of itself and it engenders itself. While this means so many paths may lead to it, it also means we can work against it on many different fronts and we must work against it on all those fronts, from protesting captial punishment, to making sure women considering having abortions have good counciling and understand their options without removing their right of choice, to advocating for more money to be spent on drugs and health to working tirelessly against wars like the one in Iraq. It's a hard battle to fight because we're working against a basic tennant of human nature, the desire to hit something.

I like this article by David McReynolds from the nonviolence site (http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php). He illustrates the problems nonviolence belief encounters and, ultimately, his answer is much like mine: No living philosophy can completely explain every possible permutation of human behavior. So I don't have an answer and if I was put into a situation where I had to make a choice and I laid down my life for my beliefs, perhaps I would be making a mistake. But that mistake is mine to make and, based on what I feel to be true and what I've worked out at true in my mind, there can be no other course for me. Like I said, I can not control the actions of others, but I can control the actions of myself and I will not tarnish what I consider to be the pinacle of the human spirit by giving into fear or hatred.

Well, I don't know. It may not break the cycle completely, but it would make me not a part of perpetuating it. I can't control the actions of others, but I can control my own actions and every thing I believe and hold true, but the spiritual and the rational, tells me that to take the life of another human being (or harm another human being) is wrong. All my other moral choices flow from that one basic assumption.

That is a very noble philosophy. I respect that you are willing to die rather than take the life of another human. You would not be perpetuating violence, that is true. Your integrity would be assured. Of course, you are not needed to perpetuate violence, it is being perpetuated quite nicely without you. You are the only one who would benefit from your choice.

My question is: Is your right to choose integrity greater than the right of the human race to have you as a resource in eliminating violence by educating people and providing for their emotional and physical well-being?

You can answer that however you like, and I won't condemn you for it.

Well, like They Might Be Giants said in their song, "You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Watch me. With the help of God, it can be done. Evil is much more than I could ever hope to prevail against alone, but I have friends in high places. :wink:

I don't believe that you can function in a paradigm that is drastically different from your own without becoming corrupted by it.

I was already a part of the system before. Did it corrupt me? Yes. Did I manage to escape the corruption? Yes. Can I go back into the system without having to become part of it? Yes, with God's help.

Frequently, people try to "change the system from within," but once they get on the inside, the sacrifices they've had to make to get there have reduced their desire to make the changes that motivated them in the first place.

My previous experience with the system, my analysis of it, and my recovery from it gives me the tools I need to be successful in this task.

Do you know what makes a person truly wise? Knowing your own limitations, knowing your self.

I know that without God I would fail at this.


Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and you can't get more absolute than taking the life of another. I don't trust myself of my judgement enough to pass that scentence on anyone.

I don't think taking a life is absolute. Why do you?

But when has it been done? I agree it looks good on paper, but it never seems to last in practice.

I think it is because the people who are doing it think they won't get corrupted by the system. They have a false sense of security.

I know I can be corrupted by the system, and I know the mistakes I made that let it happen last time, so I can be on guard this time.

I agree that violence arises out of these other societal ills, and I work to try and reduce or eliminate them.

Well, at least we agree on something. :wink:

However, violence is unique in that it is an end in and of itself and it engenders itself.

Really? I don't think that's unique. Religion, power, and pleasure often have those same qualities when they are perverted.

While this means so many paths may lead to it, it also means we can work against it on many different fronts and we must work against it on all those fronts, from protesting captial punishment, to making sure women considering having abortions have good counciling and understand their options without removing their right of choice, to advocating for more money to be spent on drugs and health to working tirelessly against wars like the one in Iraq. It's a hard battle to fight because we're working against a basic tennant of human nature, the desire to hit something.

Quite right.

I like this article by David McReynolds from the nonviolence site (http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php).

Good article.

He illustrates the problems nonviolence belief encounters and, ultimately, his answer is much like mine: No living philosophy can completely explain every possible permutation of human behavior. So I don't have an answer and if I was put into a situation where I had to make a choice and I laid down my life for my beliefs, perhaps I would be making a mistake. But that mistake is mine to make and, based on what I feel to be true and what I've worked out at true in my mind, there can be no other course for me.

That choice is indeed yours to make, and I would not prevent you from making it unless my truth requires me to do so.

Like I said, I can not control the actions of others, but I can control the actions of myself and I will not tarnish what I consider to be the pinacle of the human spirit by giving into fear or hatred.

Once again, you express a very noble sentiment.

Violence is not necessarily motivated by fear or hatred. Is only the violence that has those motivations wrong?

I am not a religious person in any way, but I have a couple of things I need to clarify and ask.

1. Atheism and Agnosticism are very different things. I am agnostics and it very much angers me when I am associated with atheists. Atheism is the belief that there is no God at all, none. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether a God or Gods exist. The word agnostic comes from 'nostic' which means to know. Thus agnostic is to not know. I know the two get lumped together by many theists simply because both are not of theist beliefs, but please at least humor me and try to keep them separate.

Now here comes my question.
(I have not done years of theological research, so please tell me if anything I say is wrong, or needs correcting)

1. How do people put their faith entirely on the words of a couple thousand year old book written by the same people who thought the Earth was flat? OK, I can see basing a good moral code from the readings, but not taking every word of it for truth. It’s a book. Is it not possible that some of the stories were slightly embellished? As for the 'arc in the mountains, it must be true' argument: I don’t argue that the entire book was made up. It’s very possible that many of its stories were BASED on true events, but not written exactly as they happened.

Thats all for now, but Id like to leave you with a couple quotes I like.

What happens when we're dead? The irony is that all our questions will be answered after we die. We spend our whole life trying to figure out the truth and the only way we'll find out what it is, is to get hit by a bus. And the only comfort that religion offers is that God is driving that bus.
~John Ryman, "When Galaxies Collide"

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
~Bertrand Russell

When you grow up in America things like Christianity waters down your feeling... When you're taught to love everybody, taught to love you're enemies, what value does that put on love?
~Marilyn Manson

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the lord in vain-- then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"
~Robert Heinlein

and my favorite on this topic:

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
~Jeremy Taylor

Sorry if this got a bit long guys... I get caught up somtimes.

That is a very noble philosophy. I respect that you are willing to die rather than take the life of another human. You would not be perpetuating violence, that is true. Your integrity would be assured. Of course, you are not needed to perpetuate violence, it is being perpetuated quite nicely without you. You are the only one who would benefit from your choice.

Well, thanks, but I'm not much interested in nobility, simply in doing what's right as I have come to understand it. Is it part of a greater "Truth?" I would like to think so, but to be honest, I don't know. And yes, without my contribution, people will still be cruel and evil to one another, but it has to start somewhere. To say that it'll happen regardless of one's actions, so you might as well join in, completely absolves you from personal responsibility. I don't go lightly. Being a pacifist doesn't mean being weak or a coward, at least it shouldn't. I demand a certain level of accountability from the world and from us as human beings. Do I always get that? No, of course not, but that doesn't give me permission to give up that demand. And I don't think I am the only one who would benefit from my choice. At the very least, it would be me and the person I didn't kill, even if they went ahead and killed me.

Power only exists by concensus. Organizations and hierarchies only function by popular opinion. You needed raise arms, hands or guns to those in power to overthrow them, simply refuse to function under their rules. There is a long and illustrious history of nonviolent protest. No one said it wasn't dangerous and that hard choices wouldn't be faced, but it is the only way I can see to living a truly moral life, at least by my definition of it.


My question is: Is your right to choose integrity greater than the right of the human race to have you as a resource in eliminating violence by educating people and providing for their emotional and physical well-being?

Well, I would say yes, because how can I teach pacificim and nonviolence and work to bring about peace if I don't follow my own lessons? If I muddle my message by saying something like, "Always work for peace, but prepare for war and kill any bastard who tries to get in your way," I adulterate the very essence of the message. A lot of this goes back to individual responsibility and it is my responsibility to hold true to those principles I espouse, even when threatened with my own demise, otherwise my lesson is only so many words and the cycle continues. Besides, perhaps the purpose of my death would be the lesson. Not to equate myself with them, but leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi show us that it is possibly to not only control how you live your own life, but to use a tragic death as an example for others. Not that I'm interested in being a martyr or anything. There's far more right to the world than wrong with it and I've still got a lot of stuff I want to do before I answer the final question. I have to be truthful, though, and remain true to myself and what I feel to be right and hope the rest of the world either respects that or learns something from it.


Watch me. With the help of God, it can be done. Evil is much more than I could ever hope to prevail against alone, but I have friends in high places. :wink:

That's all very good and well, but I prefer to let God deal with his business while I get about with mine. I do firmly believe in a divinity of some sort and I have found that, through my social conditioning and expectations, I am most comfortable in the Quaker faith, but my motto is "God helps those who help themselves." I don't want to depend on God to get me through situations. If I can't do it by myself, then what right do I have to ask some supreme being to interfere on my behalf? That's why it's so important to be honest and forthright about my beliefs and my principles, because at the end of the day, I am responsible for my actions and if I have wavered, I have done so not on the promise of salvation or the threat of damnation but on my own person desires and having to live with that knowledge, both in this life and whatever lies beyond it, builds the very foundations of either Heaven or Hell.


I was already a part of the system before. Did it corrupt me? Yes. Did I manage to escape the corruption? Yes. Can I go back into the system without having to become part of it? Yes, with God's help.

Well, not to invoke Bottle, but this sort of ties back to her argument from the other day, that you require God to be moral as opposed to being moral because it's just the right thing to do. Let me ask you a question, have you gone back into the system?


My previous experience with the system, my analysis of it, and my recovery from it gives me the tools I need to be successful in this task.

Do you know what makes a person truly wise? Knowing your own limitations, knowing your self.

I agree and I know myself enough to know that taking another human life, regardless of rationalizations and reasons, is beyond me, both in principle and in action. I won't be so bold as to claim this is The Right Choice for everyone, but it is the right choice for me. I don't demand everyone make it and realize that it may not be the right choice for some, but I do demand that my right to make this choice be respected.


I know that without God I would fail at this.

I don't wish to attack your belief structure, but I must say that, by this statement, you are either giving all the credit to God or absolving yourself from responsibility. I understand looking to God for strength and support, and one of the reasons I am such a rabid pacifist is because of my belief of "That of God" in all things and that to harm another human is to directly attack God, but I don't wish to give up my personal responsibility. God is what God is and I am what I am and, while I do believe there is a point of intersection, I'm not sure I believe that the two fully understand one another. Therefore, it is important that what I do, I do myself and have no one to answer to or for but myself.


I don't think taking a life is absolute. Why do you?

Well, death's about as absolute as you can get in this existance. Even from a secular viewpoint, if there is no God and no Afterlife, then this life becomes all that much more important because once it's gone, it's gone for good. I can not presume the moral authority to decide when the uniqueness that is each person should be snuffed out. If I take that power into myself, how am I any better than madmen dictators that gas their own citizens or wage war on other countries for personal gain? I may lie to myself and say I'm doing it for "The Right Reasons," but how do I know? I don't. I can't. I'm simply giving into the rationalization that it's okay to use a gun, so long as the right person is doing it and, by the right person, I mean me. I don't know where those lines are and I'm not proud enough to presume to draw them where I might like them to be. So, after all the analysis falls down, each life is unique and sacred in it's uniqueness and, if I start deciding which ones get to continue and which ones get cut short, then I have stationed myself above all others (which I am most certainly not) and I am guilty of destroying that which will never be again.

I've already alluded to my spiritual belief that God resides in all of us and to attack someone is to attack God and that itself is pretty absolute, waging war on divinity. I tried that at one point in my life and it wasn't fun. I didn't like who I was or how the world looked to me or how I looked to the world. Now, God and I have a truce. I won't demand he get me out of my own messes and I don't have to walk either in front of him or behind him, but beside him as a friend. Then, once I die, I'll get whatever answers there are to be had. Until then, this life is mine, it is a gift, and it's not a gift I intend to abuse.



I think it is because the people who are doing it think they won't get corrupted by the system. They have a false sense of security.

I know I can be corrupted by the system, and I know the mistakes I made that let it happen last time, so I can be on guard this time.

And this sounds like hubris. I don't mean to be rude, but how can you be sure? You keep saying God will give you this, God will give you that, but what do YOU give to you and what obsticles will you throw in God's way? Even those who walk with God are but human, prone to mistakes and obscuring. How will you be certain you are treading the right path when you are surrounded on all sides by funhouse mirrors? I hope you are right and you may be and perhaps I'm a coward, but this is exactly why I try to base my reasoning in myself before in God and then cling to those precepts as tightly as I can.


I agree that violence arises out of these other societal ills, and I work to try and reduce or eliminate them.

Well, at least we agree on something. :wink:

Heh, I think we agree on other things, but yes, this I think most people agree on.


However, violence is unique in that it is an end in and of itself and it engenders itself.

Really? I don't think that's unique. Religion, power, and pleasure often have those same qualities when they are perverted.

I might agree with you on pleasure, but religion doesn't begat itself. People frequently hurt others under the excuse of vengence or "Well, He Started It." Religion assumes an outside impetus. Perhaps it's answering an inner call, but the initial spark to create religious thought theoretically resides outside of the self. I might be inclined to agree with you that power gives rise to more power and feeds on itself, but something seems wrong with that and, now that I've had a tuna melt for lunch, I'm far too sleepy to puzzle out what it is. :D


I like this article by David McReynolds from the nonviolence site (http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php).

Good article.

Heh, good site. Also http://nonviolencehelp.tripod.com/ has good reference information about the history and practice of nonviolence.



That choice is indeed yours to make, and I would not prevent you from making it unless my truth requires me to do so.

And I wouldn't prevent you from doing that, although it might mean losing my life. Although, I would wonder when our values would come to so violent a confrontation.


Like I said, I can not control the actions of others, but I can control the actions of myself and I will not tarnish what I consider to be the pinacle of the human spirit by giving into fear or hatred.

Once again, you express a very noble sentiment.

Well, once again, thanks, but that's not the goal. My life and reasoning is very simple and I strive for that simplicity. All else follows from those original assumptions.


Violence is not necessarily motivated by fear or hatred. Is only the violence that has those motivations wrong?

When is violence motivated by anything other than fear or hatred? Violence is always wrong. I'm not talking about make believe violence like in a computer game (which I think are excellent sources of release for violence which is a natural tendency of humans), but irrevokable harmful action taken against another human for any reason.

I am not a religious person in any way, but I have a couple of things I need to clarify and ask.

1. Atheism and Agnosticism are very different things. I am agnostics and it very much angers me when I am associated with atheists. Atheism is the belief that there is no God at all, none. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether a God or Gods exist. The word agnostic comes from 'nostic' which means to know. Thus agnostic is to not know. I know the two get lumped together by many theists simply because both are not of theist beliefs, but please at least humor me and try to keep them separate.

There are two kinds of atheism that I know of:

1)Belief that there is no God.
2)Belief that there is no clear empirical evidence for God so I cannot logically conclude he exists.

Gnostic comes from the Greek word 'Gnosis' as I recall. I very much respect agnostics. It takes courage to admit that you don't know.

1. How do people put their faith entirely on the words of a couple thousand year old book written by the same people who thought the Earth was flat? OK, I can see basing a good moral code from the readings, but not taking every word of it for truth. It’s a book. Is it not possible that some of the stories were slightly embellished? As for the 'arc in the mountains, it must be true' argument: I don’t argue that the entire book was made up. It’s very possible that many of its stories were BASED on true events, but not written exactly as they happened.

I have no idea how people do that. It seems odd to me too.

What happens when we're dead? The irony is that all our questions will be answered after we die. We spend our whole life trying to figure out the truth and the only way we'll find out what it is, is to get hit by a bus. And the only comfort that religion offers is that God is driving that bus.
~John Ryman, "When Galaxies Collide"

What make John think all our questions will be answered when we die?

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
~Bertrand Russell

I don't remember that there is either. At least not in the four Gospels that are in the Canon.

When you grow up in America things like Christianity waters down your feeling... When you're taught to love everybody, taught to love you're enemies, what value does that put on love?
~Marilyn Manson

Good question. When you only love a few select people, what value does that put on humans?

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the lord in vain-- then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"
~Robert Heinlein

LMAO! :lol: According to some, it is.

and my favorite on this topic:

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
~Jeremy Taylor

Uhhh...ok. I didn't really see the point in this one.

Sorry if this got a bit long guys... I get caught up somtimes.

Oh, don't worry. This kind of stuff actually interests me. Good quotes, by the way.

I am not a religious person in any way, but I have a couple of things I need to clarify and ask.

1. Atheism and Agnosticism are very different things. I am agnostics and it very much angers me when I am associated with atheists. Atheism is the belief that there is no God at all, none. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether a God or Gods exist. The word agnostic comes from 'nostic' which means to know. Thus agnostic is to not know. I know the two get lumped together by many theists simply because both are not of theist beliefs, but please at least humor me and try to keep them separate.

Quite right. I never group athiests and agnostics together. Both stances are perfectly valid in their own rights and are completely different from one another. However, I think there is a general confusion among everyone as to what an atheist vs. an agnostic vs. a theist actually is. This is because there is no one real set definition for all of them. I've met atheists who claim to be atheistic not because they don't believe in God, but because they firmly believe that God is dead. I've met agnostics who firmly believe in God, but claim agnosticisim because they don't know which particular faith "is the right one." I've met theists who will swear up and down their devotion to a particular faith, but who's action don't jive with their words. The human mind is fascinating in it's complexity and it's ability to form unique viewpoints. Therefore to say, "Athiests are this" is never a true statement, just like it's never true to say, "Agnostics are this," or "Theists are this." There will always be something different. This leads to confusion. A better way to say it is, "In general, Atheists are this," and "In general, Agnostics are this," and "In general, Theists are this." An even better way to say it would be, "Labels are useless because everyone defines their own particular spirituality or lack thereof." :D


Now here comes my question.
(I have not done years of theological research, so please tell me if anything I say is wrong, or needs correcting)

1. How do people put their faith entirely on the words of a couple thousand year old book written by the same people who thought the Earth was flat? OK, I can see basing a good moral code from the readings, but not taking every word of it for truth. It’s a book. Is it not possible that some of the stories were slightly embellished? As for the 'arc in the mountains, it must be true' argument: I don’t argue that the entire book was made up. It’s very possible that many of its stories were BASED on true events, but not written exactly as they happened.

Well, this is the whole crux of the Biblical debate. One side says the Bible is the word of God and is therefore incorruptable. The other side says that there are millions of examples where the Bible is used as an instrument of social control and engineering, so not only is it not the word of God, it is purely the work of Man. There's a third side (which I personally belong to) that says, well, the Bible's a funny old book. It may have been divinely inspired. It's certainly been around as long as a lot of other religious texts that no one else seems to be interested in disproving. It probably has been used as a way to keep societies in line, there's lots of evidence for that. But then again, what hasn't? The point is, it's got some good stories, some nice life lessons and some excellent writing, but to say anymore about it than that is to presume a knowledge you can't prove. So read it for what speaks to you and remember that it's supposed to be the work of a living God who's already revised it once. Perhaps all it was ever meant to be was a scrying pool, something to focus your mind on while searching for answers to your problems. You put your mind here, into the Bible, thus getting out of it's way and letting your subconcious work out the answer which it then latches onto some bit of text in the Bible and screams, "This Is Important!!! This Is The Word Of God!!!! Now Pay Attention And Don't Eat Shellfish Because You Might Get Food Poisoning And Die!!!!!!!!"

Truth is, no one really knows. Many people claim to, but no one does, really. And, not to sound like a fanatic, but that's where faith comes in. Either you have it or you don't. Either way, having it doesn't make you a good person and not having doesn't make you a bad person. It's just what speaks to you.


What happens when we're dead? The irony is that all our questions will be answered after we die. We spend our whole life trying to figure out the truth and the only way we'll find out what it is, is to get hit by a bus. And the only comfort that religion offers is that God is driving that bus.
~John Ryman, "When Galaxies Collide"

Well, the idea of God allows for a little more than that. It gives the sense that God may be driving the bus, but he also planned the streets, built the town and came up with the idea of the bus in the first place. He'll also be there to pick you back up after you get hit, drive you to the hospital in an ambulance and put you back together again. At least, these could be uses for God.


So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
~Bertrand Russell

There's not one word in there speaking against it, either. There is a consequence to knowledge, the loss of innocence, but even Russell would have to admit that. The choice is yours to make, though.


When you grow up in America things like Christianity waters down your feeling... When you're taught to love everybody, taught to love you're enemies, what value does that put on love?
~Marilyn Manson

I think this is a very unfair quote in that it makes lots of presumptions, such as what is the nature of the love spoken of. It's very flip and pseudo-witty, but lacks anything but the most surface understanding of the issues at hand or why people believe what they believe.


"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the lord in vain-- then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"
~Robert Heinlein

Well, who knows? Heinlein probably does, on account of him being dead and all, but for those of us here, we have some guesses, but no facts. Also, this encapsulates a very narrow view of theology, much like how you were earlier complaining when agnostics and atheists are lumped together. You can't just lump theisims and theists together, call them all Christians and assume a sweeping condemnation like this one applies equally to everyone. If you're going to get upset when someone mistakes you for a athiest, you should be just as upset when someone else tries to lump all theists into one pot just for the sake of generalization.


and my favorite on this topic:

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
~Jeremy Taylor


And,

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

To think all things are the same, is to fly in the face of reason, therefore be wary of generalizations because they will most certainly turn around and bite you in the ass. :D

DP

TP

QP- Thanks to whichever Mod deleted my other post. I had to leave because the server kept bouncing me yesterday.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.

Ah, yes, the Everpresent Evil question. As a pacificst, both from secular reasoning and religious inspiration, this is always troubling. The easy and facile answer is that one should never let matters deteriorate to this level. This ignores reality, though, and in reality, there are other people playing and they don't always obey the rules of the game. I don't know how other people answer this one. For myself, I don't. People like the Brownshirts may not understand debate, but I don't understand killing and I'll be damned if I let others force my hand. The only right I truly have, as a human being, is the right to choose and I won't relinquish that right because of a moral life boat situation. It does mean I need to work harder to try and stop the situation from ever getting to such an abhorrant point, but if it's there, I must stick to my principles and hope for the best. To kill is wrong. Period. To try and rectify that wrong by killing again is impossible. They cycle must be broken.

It's not much of an explanation, I know, but it's the only one I've got.

Without a doubt this is a thorny question. Sadly the fact is that even in pacifist movements there is violence. Ghandi might have been a pacifist but some of his hangerson (in regards to Partition) were not. Did Ghandi use that to a political end? I would not be surprised if he did...he was quite pragmatic...

Is it wrong to kill? Yes it is. However most would say that to kill in self defense is acceptable...now if that principle is applied to protecting ones family or those who are unable to defend themselves ... well I think its a natural progression...

Without a doubt this is a thorny question. Sadly the fact is that even in pacifist movements there is violence. Ghandi might have been a pacifist but some of his hangerson (in regards to Partition) were not. Did Ghandi use that to a political end? I would not be surprised if he did...he was quite pragmatic...

Yes, he was, but he was also adamant on certain stances. Did he perhaps take advantage of the misguided actions of his followers? I don't know. I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the situation to assign that kind of blame. Do his actions dictate the validity of my own? Absolutely not. I am responsible for all my stances and for the defense of the same. I can point to people in history who's actions I admire, who's courage I respect and who's thoughts I agree with and use them as examples, but to say I act this way because Ghandi did it or because Marcus Aurelius did it is no better than to say I act this way because God told me to. I am the instigator of my own motivation and I must take responsibility for my actions, not pass that responsibility off to others who have gone before me or some theoretical deity who I may believe in but others don't. The bonus to this, though, is that with all this responsibility comes a freedom from previous bias. While I can not say I am right because I only do what Ghandi did, I don't have to say I'm wrong or have the same problems Ghandi had.


Is it wrong to kill? Yes it is. However most would say that to kill in self defense is acceptable...now if that principle is applied to protecting ones family or those who are unable to defend themselves ... well I think its a natural progression...

Yes, most might say that you can kill in self-defence, I would not be among them and I would consider it wrong and a rationalization. I might be willing to say one can act to subdue someone who is directly attacking you, but no more and not to the point of lethality or permanent injury. Unfortunately, this is not a limit that is respected and escalation seems to be inherant in any interpersonal conflict. It is the rare man who can control his violence while giving it freedom. I do not believe I can, therefore I must hold hard and fast to the line of to harm another or to kill another is wrong, unequivocably and irrevokably wrong and while I can not control how others decide on this or act on this, I can control how I do and that, I believe, in the end is enough.

"A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the lord in vain-- then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?"
~Robert Heinlein


Well, who knows? Heinlein probably does, on account of him being dead and all, but for those of us here, we have some guesses, but no facts. Also, this encapsulates a very narrow view of theology, much like how you were earlier complaining when agnostics and atheists are lumped together. You can't just lump theisims and theists together, call them all Christians and assume a sweeping condemnation like this one applies equally to everyone. If you're going to get upset when someone mistakes you for a athiest, you should be just as upset when someone else tries to lump all theists into one pot just for the sake of generalization.

Where am I generalizing and lumping people? That quote from Heilein I would assume is directly about Christianity. I dont think that that idea does apply to everyone; just the people that belive in a heaven and certain ways of getting there and not getting there.

Another question (I would just like to hear what you guys have to say about it) for those who do believe in the Christian/Catholic/or any other mainstream deist religions.
What makes you think there is a God?

Berkylvania and Jay W

(having tried to reply to each of your posts with no success I decided to try to answer you both in a new post)

Berkylvania

Yes that is pretty much how I view it....as long as your belief does not affect me then I have no issue. This does not preclude reasoned debate on issues but it does imply a certain maturity that does preclude partisanship. In this sense I am a parliamentarian even though I am an anarchist.

Jay W

What would you have done on Kristallnacht? Would you have sat back or would you have fought the Brownshirts?

Me? I'd be there fighting....and I'd be dead. There are some evils that one has no choice but to fight and sometimes make the ultimate gesture.

As an atheist this means I am not sacraficing myself for a better afterlife or a chance to reside in heaven. It means I am willing to die knowing that I have nothing to look forward to once I am dead.

I am not denegrating believers in this as ultimately they too will face the same end.

I will add though that perhaps this is why atheists are less likely to get to a stage where death is inevitable.As an answer to your question, I would have to say I don't know. This is due to the fact that I have no idea what this Kristallnacht thing is that you are talking about. In a general way of answering, seemings it appears to be about a war, I would fight in a war. The bible tells us there will be wars, but does not tell us not to fight in them. A person who follows the teachings of the bible knows they are supposed to defend themself. These same people know tht they are to try to not start the war themself. I hope this is a clear enough answer to your question.
I don't claim to understand the Atheist mind, but I don't go about physically fighting them. Words, when they want them, are freely offered. Words, when they do not want them, are not.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.Sorry I intentionally do not read up on the Jewish/Nazi relationship due to all the worthless name calling that goes on between them. I would rather talk on an adult level. Your question seems to have a lot to do with hate groups, though what that possibly has to do with the topic of this thread and the rules that I have, repeatedly, asked to be followed, in it, are beyond me.

Kristallnacht - when the Nazi Brownshirts went around killing Jews and destroying Jewish properties.

The point is that people like the Brownshirts do not understand debate. The only way to deal with fanatics like that is to kill them.

Same with the Taliban and the Wahhabists.

Ah, yes, the Everpresent Evil question. As a pacificst, both from secular reasoning and religious inspiration, this is always troubling. The easy and facile answer is that one should never let matters deteriorate to this level. This ignores reality, though, and in reality, there are other people playing and they don't always obey the rules of the game. I don't know how other people answer this one. For myself, I don't. People like the Brownshirts may not understand debate, but I don't understand killing and I'll be damned if I let others force my hand. The only right I truly have, as a human being, is the right to choose and I won't relinquish that right because of a moral life boat situation. It does mean I need to work harder to try and stop the situation from ever getting to such an abhorrant point, but if it's there, I must stick to my principles and hope for the best. To kill is wrong. Period. To try and rectify that wrong by killing again is impossible. They cycle must be broken.

It's not much of an explanation, I know, but it's the only one I've got.

That is a thorny issue. The cycle must be broken, but you letting yourself die won't do it, Berk. In order to break the cycle you must enter it for a time. There is danger in this approach, but with the proper tools and safeguards, it can be done. The cycle of violence is made up of many smaller cycles. The cycles of poverty, fear, and ignorance must be broken first. Education, physical well-being, and emotional wholeness are necessary for the elimination of violence.On a religious level forgiveness goes a long, long way. Which, once again, may I remind everyone that is what this thread is about. Religious belief or non-belief. No Bashing is wanted nor is any needed. Thank you. It is getting to the point where I may just have to stop the whole thing myself if you all don't want to do what was asked of you.

There is no God. None whatsoever. I don't wish to be accused of being involved in a flame war, so I shall say....

Sayonora.

This thread is doomed. No thread about religion can avoid turning into a flame war once the arch-atheists start something and the faithful Christians start going at it with them in a most un-Christlike way.

Were you around for the "Place to pray" thread? It was truly amazing how peaceful it was there. No flaming or flame-baiting at all.

As for my opinion on the existence or nature of god(s)...

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

Happy thoughts, but what does that have to do with God?

This thread is doomed. No thread about religion can avoid turning into a flame war once the arch-atheists start something and the faithful Christians start going at it with them in a most un-Christlike way.

Were you around for the "Place to pray" thread? It was truly amazing how peaceful it was there. No flaming or flame-baiting at all.

As for my opinion on the existence or nature of god(s)...

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

I looked into the eyes of my child, and I think he just sh*t himself. :?

Yep. He sure did. *BLEAH* It's nice to know he has his daddy's sense of humor. :wink:

On a religious level forgiveness goes a long, long way. Which, once again, may I remind everyone that is what this thread is about. Religious belief or non-belief. No Bashing is wanted nor is any needed. Thank you. It is getting to the point where I may just have to stop the whole thing myself if you all don't want to do what was asked of you.

I'm not bashing anyone, and I'm certainly not bashing you. We are having a discussion. A polite discussion at that. The thread is alive and we are not keeping anyone from posting their acknowledgement to God.

Now back to the discussion:

To say that it'll happen regardless of one's actions, so you might as well join in, completely absolves you from personal responsibility.

I'm not saying you or I should become a killer because it happens anyway. That would be silly. I am saying that in my mind, my life is most likely to be more valuable than my death to humanity, and so in certain extreme cases I would be willing to kill if that was the only option. (These are just my views, I don't expect you to change your mind or anything, I just figured I ought to express them clearly.)

Would I be responsible to some degree? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't initiate conflict or provoke it. I only act in self-defense, and a death blow is a last resort reserved for extreme situations. If I do have responsibility for that, then I will accept the punishment I am given.

I don't go lightly. Being a pacifist doesn't mean being weak or a coward, at least it shouldn't.

Actually, being a pacifist means probably you have more courage than most.

And I don't think I am the only one who would benefit from my choice. At the very least, it would be me and the person I didn't kill, even if they went ahead and killed me.

Good. Yes. They would benefit, but the world would not benefit, which is what I base my decision on. That seems to be the point where our perspectives diverge. You say it is not ethical to kill a person, I say true, but there are exceptions, and who's to say which is right?

Power only exists by concensus. Organizations and hierarchies only function by popular opinion.

Nah. Power can also exist by the virtue of superior firepower. But, I suppose you could call that "consensus between me and my AK". :wink:

…simply refuse to function under their rules.

Yes, I've used that tactic before, it's very effective.

Well, I would say yes, because how can I teach pacificim and nonviolence and work to bring about peace if I don't follow my own lessons? If I muddle my message by saying something like, "Always work for peace, but prepare for war and kill any bastard who tries to get in your way," I adulterate the very essence of the message. A lot of this goes back to individual responsibility and it is my responsibility to hold true to those principles I espouse, even when threatened with my own demise, otherwise my lesson is only so many words and the cycle continues. Besides, perhaps the purpose of my death would be the lesson. Not to equate myself with them, but leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi show us that it is possibly to not only control how you live your own life, but to use a tragic death as an example for others. Not that I'm interested in being a martyr or anything. There's far more right to the world than wrong with it and I've still got a lot of stuff I want to do before I answer the final question. I have to be truthful, though, and remain true to myself and what I feel to be right and hope the rest of the world either respects that or learns something from it.

OK. A simple Yes would have answered the question nicely, but that was good too. :D

That's all very good and well, but I prefer to let God deal with his business while I get about with mine. I do firmly believe in a divinity of some sort and I have found that, through my social conditioning and expectations, I am most comfortable in the Quaker faith, but my motto is "God helps those who help themselves." I don't want to depend on God to get me through situations. If I can't do it by myself, then what right do I have to ask some supreme being to interfere on my behalf? That's why it's so important to be honest and forthright about my beliefs and my principles, because at the end of the day, I am responsible for my actions and if I have wavered, I have done so not on the promise of salvation or the threat of damnation but on my own person desires and having to live with that knowledge, both in this life and whatever lies beyond it, builds the very foundations of either Heaven or Hell.

Well, it seems as though the realm of opinion is being breached all over the place, by both of us, so there probably isn't much basis for a debate anymore.

Well, not to invoke Bottle, but this sort of ties back to her argument from the other day, that you require God to be moral as opposed to being moral because it's just the right thing to do. Let me ask you a question, have you gone back into the system?

Did I say I required anything of God? I have too much respect for Her to demand anything that hasn't already been given. If I find God is not with me in going down a certain path, I will turn from that path, out of respect for Her wishes and her wisdom. You made the same mistake Bottle did, you assumed things, instead of asking. Don't worry, it's a common problem. I do it myself on occasion.

Hmm...maybe I did not express my self in the clearest way on the issue of my going back into the system. I will be returning to a place where the culture of violence is very powerful, and almost every person there is part of it. I will be susceptible to returning to my old identity. I certainly don't plan to though. I won't go in wanting to do violence. I will only kill in certain unusual cases, and I would prefer to avoid those situations altogether. Perhaps this is a better explanation of what I meant by going into the cycle without becoming part of it.

I agree and I know myself enough to know that taking another human life, regardless of rationalizations and reasons, is beyond me, both in principle and in action. I won't be so bold as to claim this is The Right Choice for everyone, but it is the right choice for me. I don't demand everyone make it and realize that it may not be the right choice for some, but I do demand that my right to make this choice be respected.

I do respect it. It's one of the hardest choices someone can make. I don't claim that my choice is right for you, just that my choice is valid.


I know that without God I would fail at this.

I don't wish to attack your belief structure, but I must say that, by this statement, you are either giving all the credit to God or absolving yourself from responsibility.

Really? I do neither. I thought I was just acknowledging my own limitations. Very little in life is an either/or proposition, Berk. You just committed the fallacy of false dilemma by saying there are two options when there are more. You also made 'The Bottle Error' again. Note that I am following your advice, and refusing to function under your rules. :wink:

I understand looking to God for strength and support, and one of the reasons I am such a rabid pacifist is because of my belief of "That of God" in all things and that to harm another human is to directly attack God, but I don't wish to give up my personal responsibility. God is what God is and I am what I am and, while I do believe there is a point of intersection, I'm not sure I believe that the two fully understand one another. Therefore, it is important that what I do, I do myself and have no one to answer to or for but myself.

More good opinions here, which we differ on, so I don't think debating them has much purpose.

I can not presume the moral authority to decide when the uniqueness that is each person should be snuffed out.

Neither do I presume such a thing, they make their own decisions, and they can live or die by them.

If I take that power into myself, how am I any better than madmen dictators that gas their own citizens or wage war on other countries for personal gain?

I don't take that power unto myself. If someone gives me that power and puts me in a situation where I am sadly brought to use it, is it my fault? I don't want violence. I don't want power over others. All I want is power over myself. I think that is enough power for anyone.

I may lie to myself and say I'm doing it for "The Right Reasons," but how do I know? I don't. I can't. I'm simply giving into the rationalization that it's okay to use a gun, so long as the right person is doing it and, by the right person, I mean me.

Maybe that would be your rationalization, but it is not mine.

I don't know where those lines are and I'm not proud enough to presume to draw them where I might like them to be.

I know where I see the line, and the line certainly isn't where I would like it to be. I would like it to be where you say it is, but I just don't see it there.

So, after all the analysis falls down, each life is unique and sacred in it's uniqueness and, if I start deciding which ones get to continue and which ones get cut short, then I have stationed myself above all others (which I am most certainly not) and I am guilty of destroying that which will never be again.

Neither you or I decide anything of the sort. They make choices, we make choices. Life is sacred, we shouldn’t squander it.

I've already alluded to my spiritual belief that God resides in all of us and to attack someone is to attack God and that itself is pretty absolute, waging war on divinity. I tried that at one point in my life and it wasn't fun. I didn't like who I was or how the world looked to me or how I looked to the world.

We have some common ground there.

Now, God and I have a truce. I won't demand he get me out of my own messes and I don't have to walk either in front of him or behind him, but beside him as a friend. Then, once I die, I'll get whatever answers there are to be had. Until then, this life is mine, it is a gift, and it's not a gift I intend to abuse.

That sounds alot like my own relationship with God.

And this sounds like hubris. I don't mean to be rude, but how can you be sure? You keep saying God will give you this, God will give you that, but what do YOU give to you and what obsticles will you throw in God's way? Even those who walk with God are but human, prone to mistakes and obscuring. How will you be certain you are treading the right path when you are surrounded on all sides by funhouse mirrors? I hope you are right and you may be and perhaps I'm a coward, but this is exactly why I try to base my reasoning in myself before in God and then cling to those precepts as tightly as I can.

I think I've already answered part of this, but there is a question I have for you:

Can you take those questions listed above and the statement that follows and apply them to yourself and me and realize we're in the same boat here?

I might agree with you on pleasure, but religion doesn't begat itself. People frequently hurt others under the excuse of vengence or "Well, He Started It." Religion assumes an outside impetus. Perhaps it's answering an inner call, but the initial spark to create religious thought theoretically resides outside of the self. I might be inclined to agree with you that power gives rise to more power and feeds on itself, but something seems wrong with that and, now that I've had a tuna melt for lunch, I'm far too sleepy to puzzle out what it is. :D

Hehe… :D

And I wouldn't prevent you from doing that, although it might mean losing my life. Although, I would wonder when our values would come to so violent a confrontation.

Probably never. Discussions like this are a sign that we are arguing from the extremes. Silly me for starting it. :oops:

When is violence motivated by anything other than fear or hatred? Violence is always wrong. I'm not talking about make believe violence like in a computer game (which I think are excellent sources of release for violence which is a natural tendency of humans), but irrevokable harmful action taken against another human for any reason.

If my grandfather has a sick old dog, and he shoots it to put it out of its misery, there is no fear, no hatred. Only resolve and sadness. Is he wrong to do so? I don’t know, but it was the best choice he felt he could make.

Nice chatting with you, Berk. You are as much fun as Bottle, and you make me really consider my views. I don't think we're going to reach a consensus on this so I'll just end our discussion here. Also, Jay W seems to be in a bit of a tizzy over our long-winded question and answer sessions.

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

Happy thoughts, but what does that have to do with God?

Nothing in particular. I'm an strongly wavering agnostic at this point but seeing and feeling love really pushes me towards the side of believing that there must be something out there guiding existence in some way, even if it is only there to maintain the coherence of physical laws.

I know God to be inexplicable. :D

Why?

I like to think of it as the "Box Syndrome" - humans compartmentalize everything, and God cannot be put in a mere "box".

People don't have the capacity to fully understand the nature of God.

I rest assured knowing that God will allow me to understand Him more every day. And one day, I'll actually understand God.

That's all from me! :D

i am kind of an agnostic, but i am against anyone who is so obsessed with their religion that they would kill someone for it. this goes for any person from any religion.

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

Happy thoughts, but what does that have to do with God?

Nothing in particular. I'm an strongly wavering agnostic at this point but seeing and feeling love really pushes me towards the side of believing that there must be something out there guiding existence in some way, even if it is only there to maintain the coherence of physical laws.

Forgive me for asking, but, why?

"The kingdom of God is inside you and all around you. Not in buildings made of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and you shall find me."

The Gospel of St. Thomas

(I should say, the "highly debated" Gospel of St. Thomas)

Look into the eyes of your child if you have one, or into the eyes of your lover if you have one, or into the eyes of one of your parents if you don't have either of the former and tell me what you think.

Happy thoughts, but what does that have to do with God?

Nothing in particular. I'm an strongly wavering agnostic at this point but seeing and feeling love really pushes me towards the side of believing that there must be something out there guiding existence in some way, even if it is only there to maintain the coherence of physical laws.

Forgive me for asking, but, why?

Nothing to forgive, don't worry.

I can't really explain it, it's just a sort of amazement. Certainly it is possible that we are here simply by chance, but I prefer to believe that that isn't the case and whether it is or not isn't really important. I am a self-described "irrational rationalist." Consciously I'm very rational and I, like it sounds like you are doing, would look for an explanation that made sense for why I feel the way I do, and chance is as likely as anything, but, like I said, the actual answer is less important than the effect your belief has on how you live your life. If you are happier believing something that everyone else disagrees with then more power to you so long as you're peaceable about your disagreements. On this particular issue there isn't really any strong evidence for either side, so my rational mind has no major problem allowing my irrational sub-mind to emote away at the potentialities of the universe.

I believe in God. I was raised in a Christian house which had a strong influence on many aspects of my life from my moral beliefs to my conscious thought. I have done a lot of thinking after I did some growing. For a while I was a Theist. I am Christian again because of an experience my girlfriend (who describes herself as a raging atheist) had several months ago. What happened to her convinced me that God most certainly does exist and did a lot to support my thoughts on what an all loving deity would be like.

There are major differences in my beliefs and thoughts now than several years ago. When I was younger I used to do what I thought was the right thing because God wanted me to do it, and the right thing was what I thought God thought the right thing was. Now I have found a much better reason for my actions in life. The right thing to do is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do. I do what I believe is right because I want to.

This does not mean I think that someone who does the right thing because God wants them to is doing any less good. I had an argument with my mother about this once. She was teaching Sunday school at our church and was telling me about the lesson she had prepared. The focus of it was that people should do the right thing because Jesus wants them to. I tried to explaining my thoughts on it to her and she couldn't understand my point. I have thought about this a lot and one of the conclusions I have come to as to our difference of opinions is what we hold most important. To my mother Heaven is more important than earth, so her greatest concern lies with spirituality, and therefore God and his will. On the other hand I am more concerned about this world because it is where I am alive now. When I do something "good" it is out of my desire to make the world a better place for everyone (not that I am naive enough to believe that what I do will really make the world a better place for everyone) instead of a desire to carry out God's will, or to get into Heaven, or any other reason based in religion.

I spend next to no time thinking about the afterlife. It simple does not concern me. I believe in God and Jesus, but I will do what is right because I want to. With this reason I will help the world. It is all the reason I need.

I don't know your Christian God, but i think 'God' can be whatever you want him/it to be, personally, i like toast, please don't hate me for that.

Oh ok, i will acknowledge your God, Hiya God, Have a nice day. There, i'm nothing if not polite.

Our concept of God can be whatever we wish it to be, but presumably if there is a reality "out there" it exists beyond our ability to name and know.
By definition the deity is that which knows us, not that which we know. Therefore cannot be proven; attempts and arguments ar epointless. "The power which posits us"- Kierkegaard.

I feel that an anthropomorphic God is a primitive construct defined by our own limitations. I prefer to reference "The Ground of Being". For deity I have Jesus of Nazareth. It is wonderfully offensive to affirm this carpenter's son as the preexistent creator of the world.

Our concept of God can be whatever we wish it to be, but presumably if there is a reality "out there" it exists beyond our ability to name and know.
By definition the deity is that which knows us, not that which we know. Therefore cannot be proven; attempts and arguments ar epointless. "The power which posits us"- Kierkegaard.

I feel that an anthropomorphic God is a primitive construct defined by our own limitations. I prefer to reference "The Ground of Being". For deity I have Jesus of Nazareth. It is wonderfully offensive to affirm this carpenter's son as the preexistent creator of the world.

Now back to the discussion:

I'm not saying you or I should become a killer because it happens anyway. That would be silly. I am saying that in my mind, my life is most likely to be more valuable than my death to humanity, and so in certain extreme cases I would be willing to kill if that was the only option. (These are just my views, I don't expect you to change your mind or anything, I just figured I ought to express them clearly.)

I understand what you are saying and it's certainly a valid conclusion. It just comes down to a point of view, I suppose. To my own mind, I feel that any action I would take after killing another human being would be corrupted by that taking of a life, no matter how good the subsequent action might be. While I do believe in atonement, I also know that I would be crushed by an unbearable burden of guilt, not to mention a complete upheaval of my entire value system. Neither of these outcomes present a livable situation, in my opinion. But that is just for me and I completely understand how others might come to different conclusions and I certainly don't think they are wrong for those conclusion (although I will work with all my effort to further peace causes and life issues for all).


Would I be responsible to some degree? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't initiate conflict or provoke it. I only act in self-defense, and a death blow is a last resort reserved for extreme situations. If I do have responsibility for that, then I will accept the punishment I am given.

Well, you would be responsible, but it's a responsibility you are willing to exist with by your own value system and that's perfectly valid. I don't think either one of our viewpoints are "THE TRUTH" but I certainly think they are true for each one of us individually and respectively.


Good. Yes. They would benefit, but the world would not benefit, which is what I base my decision on. That seems to be the point where our perspectives diverge. You say it is not ethical to kill a person, I say true, but there are exceptions, and who's to say which is right?

Each and every one of us must say what is right ethically for themselves. For me it is never ethically excusable to take another human life and I will work to further that opinion in other, although I refuse to mandate it or enforce it as a choice on others. If I can sway someone by my words and deeds, that's valid, but if I have to force my opinion on others, then my opinion is invalidated by default. As for the world benefiting or not in spite of my actions, well, like you said, who knows? I will admit to this being a selfish choice. I operate under the knowledge that, for me, given the self-construct of morality and ethics I have arrived at, to take a human life would so invalidate my own life for myself as to make it's continued existance a pointless exercise. Therefore, even if it is not fair to "The World" in some abstract way to deprive it of my life, I am unconcerned as it is my life and, ultimately, my decision when I value it and when it has become an unbearable burden to me.



Nah. Power can also exist by the virtue of superior firepower. But, I suppose you could call that "consensus between me and my AK". :wink:

Heh, well, okay, that's a certain type of power. Ultimately, however, it's a very transitory power dynamic because there are only so many bullets and there tend to be more people. :lol:


OK. A simple Yes would have answered the question nicely, but that was good too. :D

Okay, yes then. :D



Well, it seems as though the realm of opinion is being breached all over the place, by both of us, so there probably isn't much basis for a debate anymore.

I'm sorry if I seem to be giving mandates for anyone other than myself. Just as I believe in an intensely personal spiritual journey, I also believe in an intensely personal moral and ethical journey. I present my opinions because I wish to hear the opinions of others, even though I may not agree with them. Hearing the opinions of others also focuses me to consider my own findings and possibly reevaluate them. So I apologize if I seem to be trying to "prove you wrong", because I truly am not. I just look at conversations like this as a form of extended introspection and I try to question myself as rigorously as I question others.



Did I say I required anything of God? I have too much respect for Her to demand anything that hasn't already been given. If I find God is not with me in going down a certain path, I will turn from that path, out of respect for Her wishes and her wisdom. You made the same mistake Bottle did, you assumed things, instead of asking. Don't worry, it's a common problem. I do it myself on occasion.

Yes, I probably did. However, your statements appeared to imply that the only way you saw yourself able to function within a corrupt system was through some power of God as Touchestone. If I was incorrect in this, I apologize.


Hmm...maybe I did not express my self in the clearest way on the issue of my going back into the system. I will be returning to a place where the culture of violence is very powerful, and almost every person there is part of it. I will be susceptible to returning to my old identity. I certainly don't plan to though. I won't go in wanting to do violence. I will only kill in certain unusual cases, and I would prefer to avoid those situations altogether. Perhaps this is a better explanation of what I meant by going into the cycle without becoming part of it.

I am uncertain of your specific situation, but I understand your abstract.


I do respect it. It's one of the hardest choices someone can make. I don't claim that my choice is right for you, just that my choice is valid.

Certainly your choice is valid. I never said it wasn't. Just that it wasn't valid for me and that I will continue to try and sway others to my viewpoint, yourself included, while allowing myself to listen and evaluate the viewpoints of others. We have both made valid choices, that's why we have the rights to try and convince one another to change viewpoints. We may never, but perhaps others will get involved in the discussion and either learn something, examine something in a new way or reach a desicion about a tricky issue that concerns everyone and scares everyone as well.


I know that without God I would fail at this.

I don't wish to attack your belief structure, but I must say that, by this statement, you are either giving all the credit to God or absolving yourself from responsibility.

Really? I do neither. I thought I was just acknowledging my own limitations. Very little in life is an either/or proposition, Berk. You just committed the fallacy of false dilemma by saying there are two options when there are more. You also made 'The Bottle Error' again. Note that I am following your advice, and refusing to function under your rules. :wink: [/quote]

Fair enough. I understand and use the same tactic myself. :D

My response is, though, that you are right, there are very few things in Life that are binary. That is why it's all the more important for us as sentient beings to find basic axioms of ethics that are fundamental to our individual lives and use them as the building blocks of our own moralities. In this case, my binary axiom is: To kill is wrong. Working out from that central starting point, I can fashion a baroque sense of relative right and wrong that will deal with nearly any shade of grey situation life may present to me. Can you define a central axiom for your morality? I don't mean that to be snotty, I ask because I'm interested. My theory may be wrong.


I can not presume the moral authority to decide when the uniqueness that is each person should be snuffed out.

Neither do I presume such a thing, they make their own decisions, and they can live or die by them.

Okay, I have to say I find this argument a tad naive. It seems slightly reminicent of the "Look what you made me do" defence employed by those who realize they're doing wrong, but refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying your point is invalid or your ultimate decision is wrong, but I do question this method of getting there.

To say that others are making a choice to live or die by imposing a choice on you is to give any individual power or self-determintion you might possess away. Ultimately, the final choice is always a personal one.


If I take that power into myself, how am I any better than madmen dictators that gas their own citizens or wage war on other countries for personal gain?

I don't take that power unto myself. If someone gives me that power and puts me in a situation where I am sadly brought to use it, is it my fault? I don't want violence. I don't want power over others. All I want is power over myself. I think that is enough power for anyone.

But power over yourself is precisely that, power only over yourself. To say that someone is giving you power over them by attempting to do you harm is to neatly absolve yourself of the moral consequences of your actions. Perhaps this is allowable under your moral code. Under mine, though, it is not and it just seems, at least to my way of thinking, that you are claiming to be striving for self-control while willfully abandoning it when it suits your purpose. I may have misinterpreted your meaning on this, though.


I may lie to myself and say I'm doing it for "The Right Reasons," but how do I know? I don't. I can't. I'm simply giving into the rationalization that it's okay to use a gun, so long as the right person is doing it and, by the right person, I mean me.

Maybe that would be your rationalization, but it is not mine.

Fair enough, but what is yours, then?


I don't know where those lines are and I'm not proud enough to presume to draw them where I might like them to be.

I know where I see the line, and the line certainly isn't where I would like it to be. I would like it to be where you say it is, but I just don't see it there.

Again, fair enough. However, I think I was incomplete in my metaphor. While I have no idea where "The Line" is drawn, we must all draw our own lines. If the line isn't where you want it, is that because you have an unreal expectation or is it because there's something else you could be doing?


So, after all the analysis falls down, each life is unique and sacred in it's uniqueness and, if I start deciding which ones get to continue and which ones get cut short, then I have stationed myself above all others (which I am most certainly not) and I am guilty of destroying that which will never be again.

Neither you or I decide anything of the sort. They make choices, we make choices. Life is sacred, we shouldn’t squander it.

Agreed, but we make those choices only for ourselves, not for others.


And this sounds like hubris. I don't mean to be rude, but how can you be sure? You keep saying God will give you this, God will give you that, but what do YOU give to you and what obsticles will you throw in God's way? Even those who walk with God are but human, prone to mistakes and obscuring. How will you be certain you are treading the right path when you are surrounded on all sides by funhouse mirrors? I hope you are right and you may be and perhaps I'm a coward, but this is exactly why I try to base my reasoning in myself before in God and then cling to those precepts as tightly as I can.

I think I've already answered part of this, but there is a question I have for you:

Can you take those questions listed above and the statement that follows and apply them to yourself and me and realize we're in the same boat here?

I believe so. I do think we share more common ground than not, but there is one key diversion point and I'm interested in finding out where that exact point is.


And I wouldn't prevent you from doing that, although it might mean losing my life. Although, I would wonder when our values would come to so violent a confrontation.

Probably never. Discussions like this are a sign that we are arguing from the extremes. Silly me for starting it. :oops:

No, no, I think it's good to discuss. Like I said, it forces one to crystalize their beliefs and, sometimes, spot flaws in their reasoning while building empathy and understanding with those of differing, but equally valid, viewpoints. We both hold these convictions deeply, though, so we must expect a certain amount of passion to enter into the picture. Otherwise, what's the point of holding any sort of belief in the first place?


If my grandfather has a sick old dog, and he shoots it to put it out of its misery, there is no fear, no hatred. Only resolve and sadness. Is he wrong to do so? I don’t know, but it was the best choice he felt he could make.

And that was his choice and I would never dream of judging him in any way, shape or form for it. That's a tough call and something we all face in some form sooner or later. When does quality of life become more important than quantity. That's why I'm so personally torn on issues like abortion rights and euthanasia. There are no 100% across the board answers for questions like these, everyone must come up with their own and make peace with it. I do think there is a significant difference between putting down an animal who's every waking minute is consumed with pain, disease and rot and shooting an enemy soldier on the battlefield, but that might just be a comfortable rationalization on my part to try and duck out of my self-described absolute morality. I don't know. I've had animals put down before and I've had animals that I've nursed to the last and, either way, I felt I was doing something wrong. Maybe there are no right answers for that question.


Nice chatting with you, Berk. You are as much fun as Bottle, and you make me really consider my views.

You too! :D


I don't think we're going to reach a consensus on this so I'll just end our discussion here. Also, Jay W seems to be in a bit of a tizzy over our long-winded question and answer sessions.

Yeah, I thought we were doing what he wanted. We were being nice and everything. I even ignored the few people who were just trying to be rude. Oh well, go figure. :)

You know what? I am God. "How do I know I am God" you ask? Well one day I was praying to God and realized I was talking to myself.




(I dont remember where I heard that so I cant give credit to who ever came up with it. I want to say George Carlin, but I dont think thats right...O well)