I
iamme
Guest
what anger?And your anger and bias doesn’t serve to blind you to facts?
- Status
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
maybe G-d is the one you should turn to, nothing lasts forever, but Him. He can be a rock for you, the only thing you really need.
think the parable of the man who built his house on sand, and it fell when the storm came, but the man who built his house on the rock, his house weathered the storm.
in the same way when the storms of life blew down my house, i was depending on my self, on my friends and on my own abilities and strengths, and they were all no match for the storm.
now i know my only rock is G-d, no one, not me, not my family or friends can help me, when the chips are really down. my house is now built on the solid Rock of Christs Love and Sacrifice for me, and no matter since then how hard the storm blows, i have been steady, depending solely on my Master.
life will always be up and down. no one can stop that, and it occurs to everyone.
a solid relationship with G-d, as hard as it is, is the only safe place when the storm rages
I
iamme
Guest
now? im not asking anything. however, for a long time, i was asking “why?”.
and honestly, id rather not get into the particulars of what i was asking in regards to, as its rather personal. if youd like to pm me about it, feel free, but im not going to discuss it out here.
I
iamme
Guest
thats kind of my problem.
ive yet to see this “up” that you speak of…
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
the anger that leads you to pray for the ability to punch someone over the computer.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
what do you mean by ‘up’? like some kind of emotional high?
I
iamme
Guest
thats not anger, its the ability to knock common sense! its the power of the fist!the anger that leads you to pray for the ability to punch someone over the computer.
i guess i mean things not being sucky all the time?
C
chrisb
Guest
So you believe ‘Justice’ is determined by the will of the people?whatever the country started as, it is a different creature now, tho we hold the same ideals. we may be a more “equality” loving country than others, but we are far from equal in many, many respects. and of course its harder in practice than it is on paper, because everyone has different degrees and standards for right and wrong, thats what makes us individuals, but we do have a collective reasoning of whats more right or wrong than something else, and it is decided by a committee. its the judicial branch. also, our rights are inalienable, not ineligible… those are VERY different things
PS: Thank you for the correction, I did mean ‘inalienable’ not ineligible although some might consider them ineligible… :blush:Kudos.
I
iamme
Guest
justice is informed by the will of the people, but determined by the people we have chosen (by proxy) to decide what is right and what isnt.
W
williamric
Guest
Oh thats not what I mean… I’m not trying to say that talking to Hitler about Christian morality would sway him… My comment was about the moral obligation of an act. I think Hitler would have rejected the “rational” argument because it never builds any moral obligation.
On the other hand, the argument from Christian morality builds a moral obligation… (of course one could reject the system in which case there is no obligation, but I think for arguments sake we can make the assumption)… Hitler can still reject my argument. The fundamental difference is that I can say he is morally wrong, an Atheist cannot do the same
Whether or not its bad for humanity is besides the point… because now you are basing morals on what is “good/bad for humanity” … This is an arbitrary standard…
Definitely, I agree with you entirely… My only cue to join this thread was an Atheist claiming that what Hitler did was morally wrong, i.e. an absolute moral standard. This is inconsistent with Atheism, and the only real point I am trying to emphasise.
Regards,
William
C
chrisb
Guest
So you think it was just for early Americans to have slavery because the individuals chosen by the people decided it was right? Is this correct?
What is your definition of ‘Justice’?
What is your definition of ‘equality’?
What responsibility does the citizenry of a nation have to secure either for themselves and their neighbor? Is there any responsibility in your mind?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
what harm are you refering to? what harm is anywhere near the level of the atheistic atrocities of the 20th century?
as to scale, a king was not the king without the Churches say so for many centuries. the church was the ultimate authority for a long time
and we dont all worship the same G-d by a different name either, Judaism, and islam dont recognize that Jesus is G-d.
thats why we have a completely different world view than they do.
but as to the question of “why” we are the way we are, and why certain things happen to us.
in my own experience i have asked why many times also, i couldnt understand, and that made me angry.
but i happen to be a hobbyist blacksmith, and that gave me a revelation, standing at my forge one day.
when i want to make a tool from a raw piece of iron, i first put it into a very, very hot forge fire, i burn it until it glows, then when it is yellow-hot i take it out and hammer it into the shape i want on the anvil.
i have to do this dozens of times, but finally i have the tool shaped juust how i want it for its purpose.
i realized that every suffering i have ever had made me just like that piece of iron, G-d was the blacksmith of my soul. i am shaped thus and so, in order that i may be used by G-d to fulfill some purpose of His.
so when you ask why you suffer, you may be sure that you are being shaped in just the right way to fit G-ds purpose for you, even if you dont yet understand.
the difference between being happy or unhappy is whether or not you cooperate with the process. you will suffer either way, but you can make it useless suffering by refusing to cooperate, or you can look forward to the day that you are a bright and shiny tool in G-ds greater plan by seeking to be a good servant of His Will.
its all up to you.
I
iamme
Guest
early americans werent the only ones to have slavery, it was common worldwide, and the slave trade was started by africans. ive never understood why people bring up something, that by todays standards is obviously deplorable, even tho it happened almost 150 years ago. was it just for the egyptians to have the jews as slaves? also, if you didnt notice, we had this thing called the civil war, in which the people also decided that slavery was wrong. i wont address this question beyond what i already have.
justice for me is simply the remedy to a wrong, even tho the wrong has already been done, and cant be undone. justice is legal compensation.
equality is like air. we need it to survive and should do everything we can to ensure that everyone has it, even if their beliefs or way of life conflicts with our own.
theres social responsibility, which shouldnt extend beyond not letting someone hurt someone else, if you witness it, and to help those who need it if you can, then theres the far more necessary personal responsibilty, which means you keep after yourself, and do whatever you want as long as it doesnt inflict physical or emotional harm on anyone else. and by emotional harm, i dont mean offending someone sensibilities, because sensibilities are sometimes super lame, i mean degrading someone into thinking theyre less than human because they dont think the way you do, or act the way you want them to.
I
iamme
Guest
first, they most certainly worship the same god we do, they just dont believe jesus was the messiah.
as to the first thing you mentioned, surely you know of the cathars. the inquisition was a truly dark period for the world, made possible by the men who ran it, all appointed by the holy roman church, even tho the inquisition was not started by them. they were, however commissioned to carry it out, and they did so. theres also their role (or deafening silence) during world war 2, where, out of fear of retaliation, the pope kept silent about the nazis or the condemnation of hitler until after the war ended, and didnt repudiate all of the rules against the jews. thats not to say the church did nothing positive during the war, but any support, or non-condemnation was a horrible thing.
and, kings didnt always listen to the church, they ultimately did what they want, and took advice from the vatican. of course, by the same token, the kings also influenced the state of the church heavily.
C
chrisb
Guest
I’m not condemning America by pointing out the fact that once the people believed it was just to equate one group of human beings as less than human and to systematically subjugate them for profit and labor. The point I’m making is that if you rely on opinions as to what is right and wrong history tells us that it’s not very reliable or just.
Justice is giving another his/her due. What is right and fair under the law. That would include compensation paid by those who perpetrated the crimes.
Justice doesn’t start after a wrong has been done… that is restitution. Justice is the measure we use to determine if another is being treated unfairly as well as the measure to restore fairness.
Waxing poetic is fine but let’s get a little bit more clear. Equality is the recognition that each in a society is owed Justice. When a society fails one citizen his/her due there is no equality in that society. Justice and Equality go hand in hand with one another.
So you are determining for another what is emotional harm? That should be left up to a court of one’s peers to determine not you. That isn’t democracy but tyranny. You are over stepping your rights to determine what is one’s due (i.e. Justice).
W
williamric
Guest
Dame its not just about assuming G-d exists, its about assuming the viewpoint you are criticising is wrong before you even start… Your entire analysis is based on common secular objections.
Okay Dame, here is what has happened:
I said:
The clear point I have been trying to make is that Atheists cannot claim an objective set of morals (something that an Atheist did do)… This was my original intention in this thread… I made another similiar conmment:
Exactly the same point as above…
Then you replied:
My reply was directed at the bold were you took an OT story and implied that this forms part of normal Christian morality. I replied…
…where I explained how this killing was never a moral norm. i.e. that is was an extra-ordinary event done for extra-ordinary reasons…Note: how I never brought this topic up, I was merely answering a criticism you leveled…
You then posted this:
Your point? The obvious point you were trying to make was that the Christian morality is inconsistent (you see who brought up the “consistency”??!!). If you weren’t talking about “inconsistency” then what were you trying to say? Why did you even bring up this argument at all since you seem to feel so strongly about keeping the “consistency of Christian morals” out of the thread?
Then the thread went on along a similiar line… So don’t tell me to take my arguments to a different thread… All I did was reply to comments you had made…
I am not changing course at all… I only really came to this thread to make one point, which I have made in numerous posts… It was you that changed the direction and quite frankly I’m baffled that you accuse me of this
… It funny that you say I’m the one changing the direction??? hmm…If you look back over the thread you will notice that I took the time to answer every single one of your contentions… as opposed to you, who ignored the rest of my arguments and focused on my defense of an OT story (Something which you clearly brought into the thread). Let me guess, cause I’m Christian I must be the one being irrational about this whole thing
Anyway, I eagerly await to hear the errors in my ways…
S
savienu
Guest
Catholic encyclopedia has this to say about “deaconnesses”:
newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
“The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression incertain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11thcanon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618).”
newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
“The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression incertain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11thcanon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618).”
I
iamme
Guest
i disagree with just about everything you said, but thats fine.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
what?! that is nowhere near true, Jesus is G-d, G-d has three parts The Father( what we have in common with Jews and muslims), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit
we do not, let me repeat, do not worship the same G-d as muslims.
before you make those kind of errors you should check what Catholics actually believe.
ok, 20,000 heretics a thousand years ago.
less than 4000 executions over 300 years, and those, several centuries ago
.
we are talking murders here, being silent isnt the same thing.
further, the Church was not silent, They were surrounded by the axis, they had to work under the radar. just like the resistance did everywhere in europe.
true, the direct secular power of the church varied other like any
other state
do you see now that the atheistic morality that resulted in the genocide of more than 100,000,000 people in what amounts to a consecutive run of 30 years or so, cannot really be compared to the inquisition or the cathars?
we killed a few thousands over the course of more than a thousand years, atheists killed many times that number in the course of a few decades.
on a numbers basis, you are making our case, atheism is morally much inferior to Catholicism
and that is just by the numbers.
C
chrisb
Guest
Well, I’m the kind of person that would rather be corrected than continue in ignorance. Where do you think I’ve went wrong?
- Status