Explain your general worldview/belief system (1 Viewer)

[Reverend Ed]

I believe in the Judeo-Christian God and that Jesus Christ was a perfect man who led a sinless life and that He would have died on the cross for no one else except me if that was the sacrifice the Creator asked of His Son. The words attributed to Jesus Christ in the Gospels are logical and loving, just as the words of a sinless man and a savior of all would be. The rest of the Bible is secondary and parts of both Old and New Testaments are questionable at best, totally false at worst. Faith that Christ died for my sins and honoring my parents come first, and a close second in my life is going out of my way to help others in need with no expectation of reward. I believe we live in the so-called "end times", and that our selfishness, greed, hate and apathy have pushed the world to the brink of destruction. I believe that usually the ones who make a show or claim to be the most religious are usually the most evil. I think that those who claim to be religious yet kill others in the name of their beliefs have a special hell waiting for them when they die.

I do not believe in tolerance; I believe in respect mixed with acceptance of things as they are instead of things as I wish them to be. I do my best to get the plank out of my own eye before attempting to remove the speck from my neighbor's eye. I believe in agape, unconditional love; not condemnation, pity or other such stumbling blocks. I believe in magic, the pure magic of love without boundaries or conditions. If I met any of you on the street, I would greet you with respect and dignity and if that respect was not returned I would simply turn away rather than waste my time worrying about why that respect wasn't reciprocated. I believe we are all sinners and that life is a constant struggle for all of us to avoid being destroyed by our own sins. I believe that forgiveness is available to all those that ask for it from God with a sincere heart.

As for other religions and whether or not salvation is available to those who choose a different religious path (or no religious path at all), who am I, a sinner, to judge someone else's search for truth? I find Hinduism and Buddhism very fascinating and I believe that many universal truths can be found in them. We will all be judged by the unfathomable judge someday, and I do not want to go before the center of all truth and be found guilty because I judged another human being harshly based on their choice of belief.

God IS love.

 

[robin]

God IS love.

Love of what ? ... disease, famine, pestilence, ignorance, wars ?
Oh some of these are a product of man aren't they. Why did he make man so then ?
Answer... he didn't make man.
DNA & millions of years of evolution made man & man has a primitive side that leads to wars.
However this is not becuase man is like an animal... it's becuase man IS an animal !
The sooner man realises that, the sooner he will understand himself & avert his primitive side taking over. Indulging in religious fantasy is no help in this.
In fact it tends to make people think they are right when they kill people in wars & that even if they are not right, they will be forgiven anyway if they prey for forgiveness.

 

[B84]

I absolutely love reading your works of art. When is the book coming out?!

 

[cnredd]

I love robin's answers...

If you ask her if the glass is half-empty or half-full, she just throws the glass against the wall and says "totally empty".

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I love robin's answers...

If you ask her if the glass is half-empty or half-full, she just throws the glass against the wall and says "totally empty".

But we all know the glass is half empty. And probably poisoned.

 

[Reverend Ed]

Love of what ? ... disease, famine, pestilence, ignorance, wars ?
Oh some of these are a product of man aren't they. Why did he make man so then ?
Answer... he didn't make man.
DNA & millions of years of evolution made man & man has a primitive side that leads to wars.
However this is not becuase man is like an animal... it's becuase man IS an animal !
The sooner man realises that, the sooner he will understand himself & avert his primitive side taking over. Indulging in religious fantasy is no help in this.
In fact it tends to make people think they are right when they kill people in wars & that even if they are not right, they will be forgiven anyway if they prey for forgiveness.

I guess I forgot to add that I'm a Social Darwinist... :doh

As for this primitive side you allude to that leads to wars, in many ways I would tend to agree. I don't believe that God answers insincere prayers, and relishing in the slaughter of others in war while thinking "God is on your side" or "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" is the utmost in hypocrisy. The purely religious person knows killing is wrong, all forms of it. I am one of those contradictory folks that believe that all killing is wrong, therefore abortion is sin as well as the death penalty, as well as war.

I noticed you're from the UK. I wonder; do you feel that the British should have just rolled over for Hitler during the Battle of Britain and surrendered to rid themselves of the horrible bombings he unleashed? Is there such a thing as a justifiable war? I think there is. I would give my life defending my family; I might even give my life for a stranger's defense depending on the circumstances. Does that make me a hypocrite? I'm not sure. I most certainly am not a pacifist, and I would avoid war like the plague unless there was no alternative to it. If all attempts at diplomacy are exhausted, I would kick some ass.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I noticed you're from the UK. I wonder; do you feel that the British should have just rolled over for Hitler during the Battle of Britain and surrendered to rid themselves of the horrible bombings he unleashed? Is there such a thing as a justifiable war? I think there is. I would give my life defending my family; I might even give my life for a stranger's defense depending on the circumstances. Does that make me a hypocrite? I'm not sure. I most certainly am not a pacifist, and I would avoid war like the plague unless there was no alternative to it. If all attempts at diplomacy are exhausted, I would kick some ass.

But maybe if money was spent more wisely, we could reduce (eradicate probably nor realistic at the current time) the need for war?

http://costofwar.com/

 

[Reverend Ed]

But maybe if money was spent more wisely, we could reduce (eradicate probably nor realistic at the current time) the need for war?

I'm an idealist, not a realist and I would love to see the billions my government spends on foreign soil fighting an enemy it cannot defeat spent instead on eradicating the root causes of war. Poverty is a disease that can be cured, not by handing out money but by giving people an education so that they can fend for themselves. Colonialism is another disease, but hatred of colonialism does not justify the slaughter of innocents by suicide bombers. Instead of this addiction to oil perpetuated by gas guzzling autos and such, spend money on alternative fuel research and development. I'm sure we could both go on and on about ways to reduce or eradicate the causes of war, but until our respective governments come to the realization that a true and fair peace is achievable, we will be stuck in this quagmire of conflict.

 

[teacher]

I'm new to the forum, and interested in getting a little insight into the worldviews of people I'm going to be discussing political and current events with. Please don't attack people for their beliefs in this thread but feel free to ask questions for further clarification if you are truely interested.

Do the right thing. Right and wrong is not subjective, it's simple. With great power comes great responsibility. As a great nation with massive power it is our MORAL OBLIGATION to right the world's wrongs. Yes, that includes Iraq.

Put it like this.

Your walking down the street and come upon a 14 year old boy kicking the snot out of a 10 year old boy. The 10 year old is saying, "I've had enough, please help me". Is it not your MORAL OBLIGATION to help that 10 year old boy?

Now make that person walking down the street the U.S.A. Make the 14 year old boy an oppressive government. Make the 10 year old boy those who are being oppressed. Fuc*k borders and "sovereign nations" rights. It is our moral obligation to help those we can. We can be the "good Samaritan". As I've posted this question before on this site I expect no answer aside from those who agree. As always, the asker of a question that the other side can not or refuses to answer says loads.

Class dismissed.

 

[N.Lmn]

Do the right thing. Right and wrong is not subjective, it's simple.

If morality is not subjective, then presumably you can define morality in objective terms no? So how is morality decided?

 

[nkgupta80]

right and wrong can be very subjective. Just take the nuke bombings of Japan during WWII.

 

[teacher]

If morality is not subjective, then presumably you can define morality in objective terms no? So how is morality decided?

Right and wrong is not subjective. Those who can't decide have not the brains and/or balls. Give me any scenario and I'll tell you what's right and wrong. Take this next post for instance.

 

[teacher]

right and wrong can be very subjective. Just take the nuke bombings of Japan during WWII.

Dropping nukes forces the surrender of Japan. And I've been over this one before on this site.

Estimated US causalities in a mainland Japan invasion were as high a 1/2 a million. With way more dead Japanese. In the end a least a million lives were saved on both sides by dropping nukes. Less than 200,000 Japanese dead. No Americans dead. Right. Are you people arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Reverend Ed]

Now make that person walking down the street the U.S.A. Make the 14 year old boy an oppressive government. Make the 10 year old boy those who are being oppressed. Fuc*k borders and "sovereign nations" rights. It is our moral obligation to help those we can. We can be the "good Samaritan". As I've posted this question before on this site I expect no answer aside from those who agree. As always, the asker of a question that the other side can not or refuses to answer says loads.

Class dismissed.

Your weak attempt at justifying the war in Iraq is a joke. Broken analogies just don't cut it. Iraq is just one of many nations that has felt the wrath of the oppressor that once fed it. When Iraq did most of its oppressing, especially its own citizens, we were giving a butcher like Saddam Hussein aid and comfort. We aided him in his quest to oppress and subjugate until he was no longer useful to us and we took him out, causing a power vacuum a much worse enemy will fill. Iraq and Iran are joining ideologies under the Shiite banner and our ignorance and shortsightedness helped make it happen. I remember Bush bleating about how Iraq would become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, but already the Iraqi council has added to the wording of its draft constitution that Iraqi law will be taken directly from Islamic law. What a fricking mess we've created, not only for the Middle East but for ourselves.

The root cause of the mess that is the Middle East is the meddling of Western nations, especially England and secondly the youngster on the block, the United States. Let's see... what has this so called moral obligation to 'help those we can' brought us? England carved Pakistan out of India and caused a regional arms race coupled with nuclear technology being sold by our supposed ally Pakistan to the highest bidder. Because of Pakistan, NKorea and Iran have the technology to make nuclear weapons. England carved the nations of Israel and Jordan out of one of its protectorate territories, Palestine. This has caused nothing but unending hate and discord for all peoples in the region, especially Israel. I am neither pro-Arab or Israeli, nor do I favor one religion over the other.

The house of Saud was created, the Shah of Iran was created, and Osama binLaden was created by the extension of your philosophy that moral obligation means help, which IMO means 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. You claim moral obligation when what you really offer is moral relativism packed in a pretty box called 'the end justifies the means'. Any human being with a conscience, either religious or nonreligious knows that this is a false morality. Our burning the candle at both ends is serving nothing in the long run other than the world's destruction.

If all you have to offer is weak analogies that I can easily shoot full of holes, don't bring them.

Class isn't dismissed until I say so.

 

[teacher]

If all you have to offer is weak analogies that I can easily shoot full of holes, don't bring them.

So I'll just put you down for letting the 10 year old get beat up. Bet it would be different if it were your kid. If all of todays actions were Dependant on what went wrong in the past keeping us from doing the right thing then no action would ever take place. Moral relativism is a term used by the timid and spineless. Good thing in this country we vote. Your argument has been dismissed by an election.

 

[nkgupta80]

if that 10 year old was stealin from the bully everyday then what the **** woudl u do.

 

[nkgupta80]

you can come up with more complicated situations. If you take right and wrong to be cut and dry. What if you're a manager. And you have to fire one of two guys. Both have done excellent work and have worked hard for years. You know if you fire either of them they will end up in financial dispair, and pretty much have their lives ruined. Ideally you'd keep both, but the company heads are tellin u that u need to cut down on the workforce. wahts right and wrong. Its relative isn't it. To each guy the choice would be different on his moral scale.

 

[Reverend Ed]

So I'll just put you down for letting the 10 year old get beat up. Bet it would be different if it were your kid. If all of todays actions were Dependant on what went wrong in the past keeping us from doing the right thing then no action would ever take place. Moral relativism is a term used by the timid and spineless. Good thing in this country we vote. Your argument has been dismissed by an election.

Again, you have used a broken analogy that makes no sense. You act as if the US can do no wrong and has never tried to manipulate all sides of the world scene and dilute other cultures with our own.

Here's a correct analogy...

The 14 year old kid is the bully we created to kepp the other kids on the block in line. The 10 year old is one of the kids on the block we didn't intend to get beaten up. Therefore, we must stop the bully from doing what bullies do when we're the one who set him loose on the neighbor kids to begin with. Then, to add insult to injury, we expect the 10 year old to accept our way of doing things as the only way or else we'll beat him up too.

Sounds like moral relativism to me. Quit pretending as if the US is faultless and pure and you can create an analogy that makes sense on your own. Want to stop the 10 year old from getting beaten up? Stop creating bullies.

School is still in session, methinks....

:rofl

 

[nkgupta80]

yeah teacher doesnt seem to understand that with foreign policy, morality is never the top issue. It is always about money and power. You gotta be stupid and naiive to think that we fought germany in WWII out of goodwill for the Brits and French. You gotta be naiive to think the European governments are against the Iraqi war for moral reasons (They just don't want their investments in Iraq taken over). You gotta be naiive to think that the Marshall Plans and the various reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan are out of pure benevolence of the US. Actually, we should thank our government for being so morally neutral, 'cause without that mindset, we wouldnt be the superpower we are today. You gotta be morally neutral to ensure the country's prosperity.

 

[teacher]

you can come up with more complicated situations. If you take right and wrong to be cut and dry. What if you're a manager. And you have to fire one of two guys. Both have done excellent work and have worked hard for years. You know if you fire either of them they will end up in financial dispair, and pretty much have their lives ruined. Ideally you'd keep both, but the company heads are tellin u that u need to cut down on the workforce. wahts right and wrong. Its relative isn't it. To each guy the choice would be different on his moral scale.

If they are exactly the same (highly improbable though for this conversation I'll bite) I keep the guy that's been there even one second longer. Then I'll do my best to help the other guy get a job elsewhere. I'd network and provide a great reference. In the meantime help him out all I can. Mow my yard, wash my car, whatever. Simple. Where is the relativity? An intelligent man would understand after I told the whole truth. Nice try.

 

[teacher]

Again, you have used a broken analogy that makes no sense. You act as if the US can do no wrong and has never tried to manipulate all sides of the world scene and dilute other cultures with our own.

Never said the US can do no wrong. We are righting wrongs as we speak. I don't buy the sins of the father bit.

Now let me get this right. We are on a world crusade to dilute the other cultures of the world. If by that you mean with freedom and fairness to all, you'd be right.

The 14 year old kid is the bully we created to kepp the other kids on the block in line.

Sins of the father. Now we go clean up our mistakes and do the best we can. But this kind of work was always unpalatable to the public before. Until the towers fell.

The 10 year old is one of the kids on the block we didn't intend to get beaten up. Therefore, we must stop the bully from doing what bullies do when we're the one who set him loose on the neighbor kids to begin with. Then, to add insult to injury, we expect the 10 year old to accept our way of doing things as the only way or else we'll beat him up too.

Maybe someday that 10 year olds son through freedom and open education will see past the grudge the father rightly holds. Kinda like the civil rights movement in this country eh?

Sounds like moral relativism to me. Quit pretending as if the US is faultless and pure and you can create an analogy that makes sense on your own. Want to stop the 10 year old from getting beaten up? Stop creating bullies.

What bullies are we creating now. They can now choose their own bullies if they want. But then can unchoose them later. It's not a perfecty world. Nice try.

School is still in session, methinks....

Your damn right it is.

 

[nkgupta80]

Ok bad example, I'll take one from real life. Our justice system is based on moral relativism. The punishment should be virtually for a wrong? However, in our courts, we have to judge HOW wrong a crime and punish accordingly. That concept in itself is moral relativism.

 

[teacher]

Oh good. Piling on and name calling. As befits a libber. Bring it.

yeah teacher doesnt seem to understand that with foreign policy, morality is never the top issue.

My anology was saying it SHOULD be. Move to the head of the class nkgupta80.

It is always about money and power. You gotta be stupid and naiive to think that we fought germany in WWII out of goodwill for the Brits and French.

True. But good thing we did or Hitler would have the bomb and we'd be done.
And that's what we face now. Do you think if those 19 had a nuke they still would have chosen planes?

You gotta be naiive to think the European governments are against the Iraqi war for moral reasons (They just don't want their investments in Iraq taken over).

Where have I ever said that? The Europeans are the epitome of hypocracy. And they've been caught red handed. Except for the Brits. Cheeky Island Monkeys.

You gotta be naiive to think that the Marshall Plans and the various reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan are out of pure benevolence of the US. Actually, we should thank our government for being so morally neutral, 'cause without that mindset, we wouldnt be the superpower we are today. You gotta be morally neutral to ensure the country's prosperity.

Those days are over. We have to be way on point or it will be nukes instead of planes next. Then when were done with the middle east. Let's take it to Africa. Because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Then N. Korea. And so on. Until the whole world is free to chose their own leaders. Then true world wide prosperity and peace can be a reality. Quit the Bush hating and look at the big picture. And don't you forget. We voted for this. Not you but enough like me. Your in the minority here. Do better the next election.

 

[teacher]

Ok bad example, I'll take one from real life. Our justice system is based on moral relativism. The punishment should be virtually for a wrong? However, in our courts, we have to judge HOW wrong a crime and punish accordingly. That concept in itself is moral relativism.

Hey, I think child molesters should be made stone cold friggin dead. But I don't make the rules. So we are deciding how long a term should be. Not whether a person should be in jail or not. Yea, I guess there is moral relativism in that. Touche :duel yet, en guarde.

And has anyone seen Billo? I hope I didn't push him over the edge.
We were gonna go on a double date with Nurse and champs.

 

[nkgupta80]

You say it should be?

If morality was an issue with politicians, we may not be a superpower and prosperous. Those days are not over. When we take a moral war into Africa, we're hurting our own interests. If we take it into South America, we are hurting our interests. Elect a politician who is willing to sacrifice American prosperity and American lives for world morality, and your wish will be fulfilled. Anyways, you're starting to sound like an idealist.