Why do people believe the bible?

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Thou Shalt Not Kill was reserved for kith and kin. If you know anything about the Middle East, then and now, you know they had and have no compunction against killing their enemies. Human beings don't often have ideal circumstances to always express the better angels of their nature. The prime motivator, as with all species, is self preservation and that of the group. Like it it or not, we can't separate people from the influences of their cultural complex.

Attachment Theory, accounts for this, genes, environment, culture, and behavior. 

Culture is not the only factor, it is one of them, and even then if one has a high empathy barometer, a home environment that nurures empathy and a person who empathizes with do no harm say  it wouldn’t matter what the culture taught. The behavior would most likely be expressed empathetically and altruistic.  It is an over generalization to suggest that the only prime motivator is self preservation and that of the group, I can accept this argument if it was 20 A.D. 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Sherapy

[Guyver]

8 minutes ago, simplybill said:

And now, today, in real time, we have a front-row seat to watch what happens when Christianity and Judaism are squelched and marginalized. It’ll be an interesting show.

I don’t understand why you’re attempting to promote Judaism.  It should be marginalized.....at least the biblical kind should be in light of the atrocious acts it supports, like rape, slavery, genocide and misogyny.  In any event, biblical Judaism doesn’t even exist anymore, and it hasn’t since 70 AD.

According to Biblical Judaism, I can rape a woman and make her my wife forever, if I’m willing to pay her father 50 shekels of silver.  Is that one of the Judeo/Christian principles you think makes society a better place?

[simplybill]

I’m not going to name a top three. This isn’t a game show. And to clarify: I’m not offering an opinion, as you put it. Instead, I’m offering an observation. I’m 64 years old, so I’ve lived long enough to observe both the beginning and the end of people’s lives, the results of ideologies, and the results of corruption. I’ve seen it live, in front of my eyes. 

And now all of us in Western Society have the same opportunity. Things are progressing rapidly. Within our lifetimes, we’ll see the results of abandoning an ideology that had some really good benefits. 

[+Sherapy]

37 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Guyver, there’s no point in me answering those questions because, as you’ve said numerous times, you’ve already studied Christianity and found it to be so untenable that you abandoned it. If that’s your decision, then live with it. 

The problem is that the former believers who post on these threads don’t merely abandon their beliefs; they actively attempt to discredit them. And now, today, in real time, we have a front-row seat to watch what happens when Christianity and Judaism are squelched and marginalized. It’ll be an interesting show.

 

37 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Guyver, there’s no point in me answering those questions because, as you’ve said numerous times, you’ve already studied Christianity and found it to be so untenable that you abandoned it. If that’s your decision, then live with it. 

The problem is that the former believers who post on these threads don’t merely abandon their beliefs; they actively attempt to discredit them. And now, today, in real time, we have a front-row seat to watch what happens when Christianity and Judaism are squelched and marginalized. It’ll be an interesting show.

I think Guyv is asking incredible questions; he is asking out of genuine interest, in the event he missed something.

I would love to hear your response too, based on what precepts do you suggest that Christianity has a workable model as a universal?

I honestly, could not say this as a Zen Buddhist; I could not recommend it globally as there are to many other factors that come into play. 

I think this is a profound point that guyv., has touched upon. When one is practicing to be “right” (dogmatize) about a path they tend to address questions in a defensive closed off way as opposed to a flexible open ended way.

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I’m not going to name a top three. This isn’t a game show. And to clarify: I’m not offering an opinion, as you put it. Instead, I’m offering an observation. I’m 64 years old, so I’ve lived long enough to observe both the beginning and the end of people’s lives, the results of ideologies, and the results of corruption. I’ve seen it live, in front of my eyes. 

And now all of us in Western Society have the same opportunity. Things are progressing rapidly. Within our lifetimes, we’ll see the results of abandoning an ideology that had some really good benefits. 

It sounds like you are defending a belief system by saying you know, you are right, and you are not gonna discuss this anymore, because you are 64, have seen it all and can speak for all. 

It doesn’t sound like you are seeking the give and take of quality conversations that do happen in this section. Is this a fair conclusion?

I say Guyv., makes another great point Modern Judaism is not a prosteluzing religion and doesn’t promote the OT of yesterday as applicable ideas, not since Spinoza ushered in a new approach, which has been adopted, unless one is fringe or Orthodox. 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Sherapy

[Guyver]

3 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I’m not going to name a top three. This isn’t a game show. And to clarify: I’m not offering an opinion, as you put it. 

Anyone who thinks this forum is a game show has issues, deep and wide like a river.  Anyway, I’m not surprised you can’t list any Judeo/Christian principles simplybill, because I don’t think you really know what they are.  I don’t say that insultingly, but based on experience, I think most Christians are completely clueless regarding the principles that Christianity and Judaism actually promote.

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Anyone who thinks this forum is a game show has issues, deep and wide like a river.  Anyway, I’m not surprised you can’t list any Judeo/Christian principles simplybill, because I don’t think you really know what they are.  I don’t say that insultingly, but based on experience, I think most Christians are completely clueless regarding the principles that Christianity and Judaism actually promote.

I agree, and I say this from one who once didn’t either; I think you would say the same thing. We sure had our chops busted over the years.

I came on regurgitating and learned how to critically think and let go of defenses.

My rule of thumb is if I am defending my beliefs I have an opportunity to explore why.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Sherapy

[FFA]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

Except this biblical dictum (thou shalt not kill/do no harm) are simply a projection of the innate drivers that motivate us not to kill each other which is empathy and altruism. Lack of these leads to a murderous nature. 

 

Read up on Attachment Theory. 

Thanks. I will spend some time reading. I however am reluctant to assume that this is the basis of why killing another is morally unacceptable.

"Attachment theory is a psychological model that attempts to describe the dynamics of long-term and short-term interpersonal relationships between humans. "

In short, I would reject the long term applicability of the theory on the basis of not being able to generate a reproducible experiment from data contributions from early humans when utilizing the long term modeling approach. One would have to assume considerable different characteristics as humans today. That is, assuming evolution as it applies to human behavior is correct. Not only that but long term biological systems behave considerably nonlinearly over extended periods of time and the outcomes of the proposed findings of this theory are based on data from modern humans only. Without measurable data from ancient humans as it applies to this theory, it is a stretch to assume it also applies to early humans in the same way.  

Thats just my opinion.

Edited January 14, 2018 by FFA

[simplybill]

Sherapy - In order to answer Guyver’s questions, I would have to take him to Vietnam, China, India, and the Middle East. It’s nearly impossible to teach the importance of Ideology when a person has lived immersed in a society that has shaped his worldview from birth. As the Koreans say, “If you want to know about the water, don’t ask the fish.”

If you want to learn about Christianity, then study the Khmer Rouge. I personally read four books on the Khmer Rouge. Study Communism, or better yet, visit a Communist country. I’ve been to Vietnam and China. I’ve seen the results of Communist ideology with my own eyes. I was once friends with a man who often visited Russia in his younger days. He learned the language and spent time with the people. He saw firsthand the results of a post-Christian society. 

I can suggest some books to read. An excellent book for studying Communist society is “Will the Boat Sink the Water?” written by a Chinese dissident. The book was banned in China.

I recently read “A River in Darkness” written by Ishaji Isikawa, a Japanese-Korean man who escaped North Korea.

Read any book by Richard Wurmbrand, who was imprisoned and tortured in Communist Romania for 14 Years.

Call Saeed Abedini, one of the four Americans released from Iranian prisons after President Obama intervened on their behalf. Mr. Abedini has a lot to say about life in a totalitarian regime.

So no, with all due respect, I won’t play the 3 Questions game.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by simplybill

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, FFA said:

Thanks. I will spend some time reading. I however am reluctant to assume that this is the basis of why killing another is morally unacceptable.

"Attachment theory is a psychological model that attempts to describe the dynamics of long-term and short-term interpersonal relationships between humans. "

In short, I would reject the long term applicability of the theory on the basis of not being able to generate a reproducible experiment from data contributions from early humans when utilizing the long term modeling approach. One would have to assume considerable different characteristics as humans today. That is, assuming evolution as it applies to human behavior is correct. Not only that but long term biological systems behave considerably nonlinearly over extended periods of time and the outcomes of the proposed findings of this theory are based on data from modern humans only. Without measurable data from ancient humans as it applies to this theory, it is a stretch to assume it also applies to early humans in the same way.  

Thats just my opinion.

There are two strong arguments for the evolutionary advantage for empathy ( inheritable trait)  one, as a prosocial behavior and two, that empathy promotes altruism towards kin and kin like relationships (friendships). ( Affective and cognitive empathy). 

Evolutionary thought supports that empathy undergirds morality and is the inhibitor of violent tendencies.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Attachment Theory, accounts for this, genes, environment, culture, and behavior. 

Culture is not the only factor, it is one of them, and even then if one has a high empathy barometer, a home environment that nurures empathy and a person who empathizes with do no harm say  it wouldn’t matter what the culture taught. The behavior would most likely be expressed empathetically and altruistic.  It is an over generalization to suggest that the only prime motivator is self preservation and that of the group, I can accept this argument if it was 20 A.D. 

 

 

 

After living through the Vietnam war era, I'd have to say that--in two,thousand years, there doesn't seem to be much improvement. You should ask your lady about the temperance movement. They had the opportunity to put their noble ideals into practice.

[Guyver]

In order to understand Christianity, I should study communism?  I would normally just shrug this off as silly, but ironically according to the Bible the early Christian Church was communist. So anyway.  I guess that’s about that then.  

[Guyver]

I mean Marxist.....you know, the real communism.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

After living through the Vietnam war era, I'd have to say that--in two,thousand years, there doesn't seem to be much improvement. You should ask your lady about the temperance movement. They had the opportunity to put their noble ideals into practice.

I am only addressing whether or not empathy is a trait ( inheritable) and the likely roots of it. I don’t disagree that as a humanity that we can do better, for me, my advocacy of non violent parenting is me trying to model a better way...

With that being said,  I think science does an adequate job of showing that genetics (trait of empathy) are the likely cause of do no harm, (inhibiting  violent tendencies ), the Bible doesn’t serve as a template for do not harm, in spite of the commandment thou shalt not kill. 

Thank you and simply bill for you service; I have only respect for veterans. 

My uncles and dad fought in the Vietnam Nam war and my grandfather was in World War II.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, simplybill said:

Sherapy - In order to answer Guyver’s questions, I would have to take him to Vietnam, China, India, and the Middle East. It’s nearly impossible to teach the importance of Ideology when a person has lived immersed in a society that has shaped his worldview from birth. As the Koreans say, “If you want to know about the water, don’t ask the fish.”

If you want to learn about Christianity, then study the Khmer Rouge. I personally read four books on the Khmer Rouge. Study Communism, or better yet, visit a Communist country. I’ve been to Vietnam and China. I’ve seen the results of Communist ideology with my own eyes. I was once friends with a man who often visited Russia in his younger days. He learned the language and spent time with the people. He saw firsthand the results of a post-Christian society. 

I can suggest some books to read. An excellent book for studying Communist society is “Will the Boat Sink the Water?” written by a Chinese dissident. The book was banned in China.

I recently read “A River in Darkness” written by Ishaji Isikawa, a Japanese-Korean man who escaped North Korea.

Read any book by Richard Wurmbrand, who was imprisoned and tortured in Communist Romania for 14 Years.

Call Saeed Abedini, one of the four Americans released from Iranian prisons after President Obama intervened on their behalf. Mr. Abedini has a lot to say about life in a totalitarian regime.

So no, with all due respect, I won’t play the 3 Questions game.

 

 

It sounds like you are arguing that Communism rose because of a lack of Christianity?

Is this what you are suggesting? 

[simplybill]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

It sounds like you are arguing that Communism rose because of a lack of Christianity?

 

Communism and various other totalitarian ideologies don’t rise, they descend. They propel society into a less civilized state. Judeo/Christian ideology, in comparison, leads to a greater amount of freedom, as long as society holds itself accountable to biblical standards.

That’s one thing I have to admire about Richard Dawkins. He was brave enough to point out the obvious.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

Communism and various other totalitarian ideologies don’t rise, they descend. They propel society into a less civilized state. Judeo/Christian ideology, in comparison, leads to a greater amount of freedom, as long as society holds itself accountable to biblical standards.

That’s one thing I have to admire about Richard Dawkins. He was brave enough to point out the obvious.

I think freedom comes from holding ourselves accountable to the Constitution by way of the laws and amendments and keeping Religion separate. The framers were brillIant men they built in a checks and balances for religion. 

This is where our greateness lies, not in our barbaric religions. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sherapy

[FFA]

12 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Communism and various other totalitarian ideologies don’t rise, they descend. They propel society into a less civilized state. Judeo/Christian ideology, in comparison, leads to a greater amount of freedom, as long as society holds itself accountable to biblical standards.

That’s one thing I have to admire about Richard Dawkins. He was brave enough to point out the obvious.

I don't agree. Basically post world war I, the Judeo/Christian ideology was a fundamental component of US culture for most. Go back 20 plus years ago,  the Judeo/Christian ideology was at its highest and we started flying people into space, developed the computer, developed nukes, invented TV, invented radio, invented the air plane, automobile, etc. Innovation now is static or terribly slow. Are we seeing the result of the decline? It would seem that way.

[Mr Walker]

On 13/01/2018 at 8:56 PM, bigjim36 said:

So if the bible is a collection of fairy tales (as I stated in my OP) then they hold no value other than as a historic document. The claim that it taught wisdom is utter rubbish as it held back scientific development due to it contradicting with what the bible taught. 

The values and morals in the bible no longer apply to todays society. I don't need telling how to treat my slave as I don't have one. I don't need telling it's ok to rape as I know it's not. The bible on the other hand teaches the opposite. 

So as I said it is not relevant in todays society. What was relevant context in the bible is NOT relevant today. So therefore it is completely worthless as a moral compass.

So the bible advocates the complete extinction of a race of people, that's a great life lesson - genocide! If that's the case surely Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and all other despots are just following biblical teachings and should therefore be seen as rightous men? It says it's right in the bible and you're saying it has value today...

Yes, absolutely their behaviour was morally wrong! Rape and incest no matter what the context are wrong. The fact that you're trying to find some justification for it is ridiculous. These are not people to be admired and looked up to.

 

You are entitled to your opinion  but it is fairly biased 

As one example  You might agree with people who say that fairy tales  from the 1800s should not  be told to modern children because modern ethics values and moralities are different.

Another might argue that basic moralities and ethical standards always stay the same even though  the  cultural circumstances in which the y are applied may differ 

I have to differ from you.

I, and many people I know, live today, very successfully and harmoniously using the basic moralities and ethics of the bible.

In many ways, we are happier, more law abiding, peaceful and better citizens than those without similar values 

Eg we would not steal or harm another person without just cause,  and obey the laws of Ceasar /govt  We care for others as our selves and thus give to, and work for, community and humanity around the world  (an atheist can of course have a complete framework of ethics and moralities based on a productive set of underlying values and be just a s good a citizen)

  We are not faced with many of the scenarios those people were faced with  But indeed if faced with the extinction of your own family, tribe, clan, or nation; or  the extinction of those trying to kill you all,  what is the moral decision? 

That is an extreme example of course but it shows how laws and rules are constructed to fit the time they are written in

 Even such an extreme example can be applied to the modern world.   For example ,you are the president of the USA and you are informed with absolute certainty that tomorrow N Korea will launch every one of its ballistic missiles at the usa  You are not certain how many there are or how  accurate and effective the y will be.  What do you do given that your responsibility is to the people of America, not those of N Korea?  What personal ethics, and morals and values, do you use in making your decision? 

Until the late 60s, only two counties in the world (one aws russia )  had any legal framework for rape in marriage All the world's laws recognised a moral and legal  assumption that a marriage conferred an ongoing and irrevocable consent to sex on demand

  Today we consider forcing a partner in a marriage to have sex, to be rape, but was it morally and ethically wrong for all those centuries?

How do you defend your opinion using logic and reason?

What makes something right or wrong? 

Today we put our elderly in nursing homes and forget about them. In earlier cultures the y were often cared for at home,  but in some they were allowed to die, to preserve resources for younger people.  Tomorrow we might begin euthanasing them, first with their consent and, possibly, later without it.  What is moral/immoral ethical/unethical in each of those choices? 

You and your sister are the only survivors of a disaster  Which is more wrong?  To have a baby with your sister or not to do so, and allow the human race to die out ?  (Yea i am aware of the genetic unreality of this but answer it as a moral question, or think about it as a pair of castaways on an island way off the trade routes. ) 

Your plane crashes in the Andes and half your soccer team are killed  Eventually you must either eat the  flesh of your team mates and friends  flesh, or die  What is the ethical or moral solution, (for you)  and why? 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mr Walker

[simplybill]

2 minutes ago, FFA said:

I don't agree. Basically post world war I, the Judeo/Christian ideology was a fundamental component of US culture for most. Go back 20 plus years ago,  the Judeo/Christian ideology was at its highest and we started flying people into space, developed the computer, developed nukes, invented TV, invented radio, invented the air plane, automobile, etc. Innovation now is static or terribly slow. Are we seeing the result of the decline? It would seem that way.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re disagreeing with.

[simplybill]

17 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think freedom comes from holding ourselves accountable to the Constitution by way of the laws and amendments and keeping Religion separate. The framers were brillIant men they built in a checks and balances for religion. 

 

I agree, the framers were brilliant in ensuring that individual Churches wouldn’t be able to declare themselves a State Religion. No one wants a repeat of the Middle Ages. But now we’re in a situation where the pendulum is slowly approaching the other extreme. Whereas American society was once immersed in Judeo/Christian ideology, we’re slowly becoming a society immersed in a secular ideology that doesn’t have a history behind it. We’re entering new territory. We may discover that the Constitution is only as good as the foundation beneath it.

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Thanks, but that doesn’t answer my question.  You said Christianity works in real life.  I think it doesn’t.  I asked you to explain how it works, you didn’t answer.  You also claimed that Judeo Christian values work for society.  I asked you to list the top three principles you’re referencing and you didn’t answer that either.

So that’s no good.  Maybe it would be better for you to just say that Christianity works for you because you believe it and you like going to church?

Could i have a go at that question? Going to anyway  

Applied Christianity works perfectly well in real life for many people including my wife and myself, as a lifestyle choice and incorporating the values of biblical Christianity  Indeed fromobservtionit provides superioe physicla and pscycholgicla outcomes for many peole who chsoe to live by it  

There are many principles but 3 important ones are

Spiritual well being is more important than material well being, and happiness, contentment, peace etc comes from  within not external things.

We had a motivational speaker in our town last night who  was born with no limbs and yet, through faith, has lived a happy fulfilled and  successful life. He loves and lives life.  

Second, all humans are "brothers/sisters"  and we should love all humans as ourselves   Today every human is a neighbour. The bible goes on to explain that, in the real world we still need ceasar's laws to regulate behaviour but that, in our lives,, we should act towards others from love, and obey all god's laws which were given in love, out of love of god.  

 

Third

In life there are secular and spiritual matters  (christ goes into this a bit)

Laws regarding  spirtual matters do not really change because they go to the unchanging psychological make up of self aware beings  (Their needs desires and hopes etc)

However secular laws which must be obeyed unless they contradict gods laws are changeable and indeed will often change.

One example is the treatment of slaves Where a secular law allows the keeping of slaves, the bible says  that a slave owner must treat  the slave a s a human being, with love kindness and respect. (Basically a s one of the family)   ANd indeed must free the slave after a period of service   

Now when secular laws ban slaves then clearly  the spiritual law is no longer needed  This is a very important principle of the bible, knowing what laws are gods )spiritual and which are ceasar's /secular. 

Ps church really has nothing to do with Christianity It is a way of living an internal value system and a personal connection to god or your  sense of spirituality 

Cant resist throwing in a fourth practical christian principle.

Your body (and mind) are the temple of your god, because god dwells within you.

Thus, in everything you do and say, and everything you even consciously think, you should keep that temple clean and healthy.

  Eat to live long and be happy. Keep your body  (and mind) fit, well rested, well nourished,  and well exercised. 

Use your body and your mind to their fullest,  and extend both, to as much of their potential as you can 

Don't  do thing which hurt your physical or mental well being  like take drugs or alcohol

(The risks incurred in pushing your body to be fit or more capable are acceptable if taken sensibly)

Dont use your body to hurt or abuse others   (And don't hurt yourself)

Don't use your mouth to hurt others. (with words)  

 Don't use your eyes to look at another  in lust

Don't use your mind to plan hurt ,or harm, or destruction. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I agree, the framers were brilliant in ensuring that individual Churches wouldn’t be able to declare themselves a State Religion. No one wants a repeat of the Middle Ages. But now we’re in a situation where the pendulum is slowly approaching the other extreme. Whereas American society was once immersed in Judeo/Christian ideology, we’re slowly becoming a society immersed in a secular ideology that doesn’t have a history behind it. We’re entering new territory. We may discover that the Constitution is only as good as the foundation beneath it.

 

I think it is a good thing, but I am not bound by traditon. 

I also live in a society that is diverse and forward moving,; I love change.

One day our kids will look back on us and think our religions were barbaric and our secularism old fashioned. Lol 

Thanks for answering my post, always a pleasure Bill.

I also want to thank you for your service to our country. Major respect to you.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You are entitled to your opinion  but it is fairly biased 

As one example  You might agree with people who say that fairy tales  from the 1800s should not  be told to modern children because modern ethics values and moralities are different.

Another might argue that basic moralities and ethical standards always stay the same even though  the  cultural circumstances in which the y are applied may differ 

I have to differ from you.

I, and many people I know, live today, very successfully and harmoniously using the basic moralities and ethics of the bible.

In many ways, we are happier, more law abiding, peaceful and better citizens than those without similar values 

Eg we would not steal or harm another person without just cause,  and obey the laws of Ceasar /govt  We care for others as our selves and thus give to, and work for, community and humanity around the world  (an atheist can of course have a complete framework of ethics and moralities based on a productive set of underlying values and be just a s good a citizen)

  We are not faced with many of the scenarios those people were faced with  But indeed if faced with the extinction of your own family, tribe, clan, or nation; or  the extinction of those trying to kill you all,  what is the moral decision? 

That is an extreme example of course but it shows how laws and rules are constructed to fit the time they are written in

 Even such an extreme example can be applied to the modern world.   For example ,you are the president of the USA and you are informed with absolute certainty that tomorrow N Korea will launch every one of its ballistic missiles at the usa  You are not certain how many there are or how  accurate and effective the y will be.  What do you do given that your responsibility is to the people of America, not those of N Korea?  What personal ethics, and morals and values, do you use in making your decision? 

Until the late 60s, only two counties in the world (one aws russia )  had any legal framework for rape in marriage All the world's laws recognised a moral and legal  assumption that a marriage conferred an ongoing and irrevocable consent to sex on demand

  Today we consider forcing a partner in a marriage to have sex, to be rape, but was it morally and ethically wrong for all those centuries?

How do you defend your opinion using logic and reason?

What makes something right or wrong? 

Today we put our elderly in nursing homes and forget about them. In earlier cultures the y were often cared for at home,  but in some they were allowed to die, to preserve resources for younger people.  Tomorrow we might begin euthanasing them, first with their consent and, possibly, later without it.  What is moral/immoral ethical/unethical in each of those choices? 

You and your sister are the only survivors of a disaster  Which is more wrong?  To have a baby with your sister or not to do so, and allow the human race to die out ?  (Yea i am aware of the genetic unreality of this but answer it as a moral question, or think about it as a pair of castaways on an island way off the trade routes. ) 

"In many ways, we are happier, more law abiding, peaceful and better citizens than those without similar values"

How so MW? How are bible based people happier, more law abiding, more peaceful and better citizens? 

Today we have choices and the finances to get our elderly better care; we have the resources to give choice where once due to the depression and its lingering effects we didn't have those choices. 

My grandmother who is 99 is in assisted living, has been for years,  for her it was her biggest dream to not be a burden to her kids and grandkids, so she worked hard and saved and has the money to give herself the best when she needs it the most. She is old country Italian and she had to take care of her sick father for years and knew how hard it was and didn't want to do the same to us. 

I will never be a burden to my children; we have set ourselves up to provide for ourselves when the time comes.

I have been a live in caregiver twice, ( paid) their are those that prefer to die at home, yet they were able to afford live in caregivers. So while it is an option it is still done with respect and regards for there families too. 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sherapy

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Thanks for answering my post, always a pleasure Bill.

I also want to thank you for your service to our country. Major respect to you.

 

Same here, Sherapy. I have a lot of respect for you.

i have to clarify - I’m not a Vietnam veteran. In 1993, I accompanied a friend who was returning to visit her family in Vietnam for the first time since her escape in 1973. She was one of the people evacuated from the roof of the American embassy during the fall of Saigon. Her parents and siblings were unable to leave Hue due to the invasion.

If you’re interested, here’s a short blog story I wrote about my friend after Frank Merton told us about the education system in Vietnam. You know, I’m afraid we may have lost Frank. He was in pretty poor health after moving to Cambodia. I was hoping to visit him some day. I wanted to see the new highway that starts in Ho Chi Minh City, swings west through Cambodia and ends in Hanoi. It really would’ve been cool to hang out with Frank for a while.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by simplybill