kunkmiester wrote:Been a busy couple of days. Been wanting to type this post up on the desktop but haven't really had time. Probably tonight or tomorrow.
Will look forward to reading it. I enjoy a well thought out and well reasoned argument.
kunkmiester wrote:Been a busy couple of days. Been wanting to type this post up on the desktop but haven't really had time. Probably tonight or tomorrow.
Government commonly reserves such activities to itself, brutally stomping on those who infringe on it's exclusive purview. But absent social norms and a means to enforce them (aka government) you'd find a lot more killing and enslaving taking place at the hands of people not nominally part of government. The difference between misconduct of government and misconduct of individuals frequently is little more than the means at their disposal and capability of those in opposition.KitemanSA wrote:Hey folks, any body here ever slavered to go out and kill and enslave? Isn't that mainly the provence of government?
Tom Ligon wrote:Confirmation bias ... an interesting concept I'm sometimes accused of having by people suffering from it.
If you believe that people are inherently horrible, no doubt you can confirm it. And no doubt you will conclude that only the imposition of strict laws with equally strict punishment will force them to obey the superior moral standard that its needed.
Seriously? Western Civilization is founded on Judeo-Christianity and you are suggesting we look at socialist dictators for moral guidance? Why would you say that?Tom Ligon wrote: But who's moral standard? Kim Jong-un's? Putin's? Hitler's? The Pope? Abu Mohammed al-Adnani?
Tom Ligon wrote: Recall, the original topic here is flags.
Tom Ligon wrote: Or do you believe, as Barry Goldwater did, that we're better off with less government and as much liberty as we can stand without stepping on each others toes?
Tom Ligon wrote:
One of the latest trends is to judge politicians by how many pieces of legislation they have introduced and gotten passed. Me, I prefer politicians who do NOT introduce new laws, but maybe work to repeal a few of the dumber ones. Because I'm of the opinion that we have a surplus of them already.
The liberal West has been driving on the fumes of Christianity for about a century now and the car won’t go much further.
We think all that matters is being tolerant, kind, compassionate, forgiving and by that what we mean is that we let anybody do whatever they want however they want because personal freedom is all that matters and “who am I to judge?” The problem with this is that without the Christian faith there is soon no Christian morals. Why should a person be good if there is no God? As Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God everything is possible.” When the only virtue left is tolerance and tenderness everybody gets away with everything and there’s no one to put on the brakes.
I believe stoning is old Testament stuff. Not much of a bible reader, but I seem to remember that bit.Tom Ligon wrote:Regarding Judaeo/Christian morality, I'd like to point out that this particular moral reference does require a bit of filtering. We, as a society, have been forced to re-evaluate and cherry-pick this body of history and find those things which we can concur are good and wholesome, and reject those which are abhorrent.
For example, stoning these days is more metaphorical than physical, although we do observe it happening. Physical stoning is abhorrent to western civilization these days, and we condemn it when we see it carried out by Islamic cultures.
Also old Testament stuff.Tom Ligon wrote: And we've pretty much rejected sacrifice of animals and humans on an alter,
Tom Ligon wrote: although sacrifice is still a core belief of Christianity: the regular symbolic cannibalism of God is a pretty bizarre feature for a modern religion.
Tom Ligon wrote:
We've rejected burning witches. We've outlawed polygamy. We've gotten rid of slavery. Our system of justice is more Roman than it is middle-eastern. When we say "Thou shalt not kill", we have a very different meaning than the ancient interpretation that "Thou shalt not murder members of your own tribe, but have at the Other Guys." Although I will admit, our actions are often more in line with the ancient interpretation.
Tom Ligon wrote:
The uniquely American concept is our First Amendment. The idea that this freedom is part of our very Constitution is not supported by Judeo/Christian heritage. Yet we cherish it, because this country was founded by religious refugees from a century of turmoil in Europe over the emergence of Protestant religions. So we mixed Catholics, Protestants, and smatterings of other beliefs, not to mention inventing a few of our own, such as the Mormons. They all thought the others were damnably wrong. And they all thought the Government should damned well stay out of establishing a State Religion. This essential liberty to chose own belief system is the foundation of our national identity.
Delaware State Constitution Oath of Office, 1776: “I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”
Tom Ligon wrote: Jefferson was hard to pin down on having a formal religion (as was Lincoln). Jefferson wrote quite a bit about the subject. He seems to have been a closet Unitarian, and was a friend and admirer of Joseph Priestley. He responded to critics who claimed he was not a Christian. His responses claimed he was, although he rejected much of biblical teaching as myth, no different from pagan myths such as those of the Greeks or American Indians. He was sure these would be rejected in time by an intelligent population capable of making their own judgements. What he thought would prevail was the underlying ethics of Jesus, which he thought were "excellent". He thought a lot of people purporting to teach Christianity were usurpers of the name, and blowing hot air.
Tom Ligon wrote: My point in this is that, while we do, in fact, derive morality from the Judaeo/Christian heritage, we do so selectively, after identifying those portions which we know in our hearts are abhorrent.
Tom Ligon wrote: Some of the parts we find abhorrent are, in fact, portions of Judaic law adopted and retained by Islam. So we are not "off the hook" by simply blindly observing some body of moral law that goes back 4 millennia into the sorts of tribal history that is full of the very tribal social failings that are being condemned by almost all posters on this thread.
I'm curious why you consider liberal and libertarian to be the same thing?Diogenes wrote:As if on cue, this shows up today.
The liberal West has been driving on the fumes of Christianity for about a century now and the car won’t go much further.
We think all that matters is being tolerant, kind, compassionate, forgiving and by that what we mean is that we let anybody do whatever they want however they want because personal freedom is all that matters and “who am I to judge?” The problem with this is that without the Christian faith there is soon no Christian morals. Why should a person be good if there is no God? As Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God everything is possible.” When the only virtue left is tolerance and tenderness everybody gets away with everything and there’s no one to put on the brakes.
The term "liberal" in a political context has been greatly abused. A century ago it denoted favor of liberty and limited government. Since then it has been hijacked by leftists who favor quite the opposite. The only liberty favored by the leftists who hijacked "liberal" may be better describes as license, or libertine, dismissal of social norms that allow a nation to survive and prosper.krenshala wrote:...
I'm curious why you consider liberal and libertarian to be the same thing?
You have NO idea who you said this to. This is typical of your arguments. Presuming so much. It's so not even close to my POV that like so many other times reading your posts I reread them a second time to make sure I read them right.Diogenes wrote:Even nowadays, if you are in the wrong parts of the world, the brutality of man is still manifesting itself in all sorts of cruel ways.
If I'm allowed to admit my own private POV about a religion I'm neither believer nor disbeliever of, that is exactly it. GIT and other people who are so far gone they forget that, all sound that way. No love.Tom Ligon wrote:Diogenes, you keep asking "Such as ...", but brushed off the answers because they were from the Old Testament. You are using the filter of which I spoke, eliminating the Judaeo from your Judaeo-Christian morality.
Which is fine. I'd hope you do not buy into the Genesis creation myth.
You seem to confuse libertarian with liberal. You also seem to think libertarian means anarchist. Or maybe antichrist. Or both.
I don't usually push my particular take on Christian morality, but I think it is well summarized in Matthew 22:37-40, a discussion between Jesus and a another Jew.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So that's Christianity in a nutshell. Its all about love. If it is not about love, it is a poor substitute for the real thing. And with you, sir, I'm just not feelin' the love.
All roads lead to Rome.Diogenes wrote:Dostoevsky had this stuff figured out 150 years ago.
If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Fyodor Dostoevsky