Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

423 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scudbuster
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We can't and shouldn't get rid of all crosses and other signs of religion in our communities.  They are part of our heritage, monuments to how we used to do things when we didn't know any better.

That the road was built after the cross was erected, is unfortunate, but the cross was part of the landscape at the time and should remain.

 

That being said, giant crosses are an eyesore.  Tacky done in the name of god is still tacky.  Examples:  the large cross along I-35 north of Oklahoma City and the giant one at Effingham, Illinois.  "My god's bigger than your god."  Really?

Doug

I've seen that monster of a thing off of I-70 when I'm driving out to Colorado, it's.....pretty ugly. 

Edited by Scudbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 2/26/2019 at 3:21 AM, DingoLingo said:

Personally I would love to see Atheists doing a door knock, like the Mormons and joho's do.. Or see a Priestess standing on the corner handing out leaflets on why we should pray to the old gods.

tumblr_n59319EmrO1s73qjho1_500.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 3/1/2019 at 5:10 PM, Scudbuster said:

I've seen that monster of a thing off of I-70 when I'm driving out to Colorado, it's.....pretty ugly. 

It's in Effingham, Illinois.  Makes "Effingham" sound like a bad word.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 3/3/2019 at 12:00 PM, Tatetopa said:

tumblr_n59319EmrO1s73qjho1_500.jpg

Shouldn't that be "allfeather?"

Doug

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

It's in Effingham, Illinois.  Makes "Effingham" sound like a bad word.

"Hey, I've been waiting here for an hour already!  Could I just have my Effingham and cheese sandwich please?"

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 2/28/2019 at 2:01 PM, Podo said:

Well if you're going to get that granular, then as I and other posters have already said,

Our Founding fathers stated it long before you.  That is what motivated them to devise our Constitution in hopes to prevent tyranny through limited government.

 

any governing body can slip into totalitarianism if given enough time and resources. Everything is and has become totalitarian at some point of human history, and I doubt that'll change. It's human nature to be greedy and seek power, unfortunately.

Not can but will slip into totalitarianism.  There is nothing intrinsically evil with greed or seeking power.  But our Founding Fathers found an answer to that.

 

Yep, because few controlling bodies will willingly give up power and let people decide what's what.

That’s the whole point to limiting government from the beginning.  Politics should not be a profession.  If it is let go for too long, the only way to remove it is by force and that has been the ultimate fate of any flavor of Socialism.  Establishing a government doesn’t free up the responsibility of the people from being active in the body politic.

 

I agree, everything tries to eventually get more power. We can argue over the definition of tyranny but ultimately it is a matter of opinion, and it's clear that we differ in this, so let's skip that particular semantic shenanigan.

I don’t know how we can skip it because it is that definition that is central.  It is not a matter of opinion.  Tyranny is quite easy to define, the more power government gains, the less freedom the people have.  That is tyranny.  but let’s see where it goes…

 

A canary can't talk, humans can.

Just because humans can talk doesn’t mean that they are aware of how much they are not free.  If they did then we wouldn’t have Socialism in the first place.  Unfortunately, it takes time and the loss of prosperity and lives before people learn that lesson.

 

I'm free and I'm pretty happy.

Are you really or is that only an illusion?  Are you the content canary?  No one should be content allowing the government to provide all.  That only means that the government owns you.  Is that something to be content about?  You’re definitely not free.

 

Lots of people are happy.

Again, happiness does not translate into freedom.  Freedom is more essential than happiness.  Happiness comes from freedom, not government.

 

What do you mean here?

Avoiding the tyranny definition didn’t last too long, but let’s see what we can do?  For a people that are free, happy isn’t as important as liberty is.  If you have liberty, happiness takes care of itself.  If having the government guide every aspect of life for you is your idea of being happy, then tyranny is for you.  However, if liberty is your cup of tea then you seek freedom and not happy.  Happy is complacency of government dominance.  True contentment is found in the pursuit of happiness.  History is complete with that axiom.

 

Your founding fathers have no bearing on my life, so I'm unsure why they matter in this discussion.

Perhaps they have no bearing on your life but their words are truisms that bear greatly on yours and everybody else’s.  Their words eloquently express the state of the human condition.

 

That's your opinion. If a person is happy, has their needs met, and is content, that's a good thing.

A basic need for humans is to struggle and succeed (they are paired).  Without struggle, success is worthless.  Without success, struggle is just existing.  When you take that away it is not a good thing.

 

Suffering on your own terms in an unregulated society sounds rather miserable to me, but I guess I value a person's wellbeing more than you do.

An overregulated society is even more miserable because it restricts freedom of the people.  A character like John the Savage or Edgar Friendly are far better off in their respective overregulated worlds.  Under tyranny, ‘wellbeing’ is being kept like a prostitute.  I would not be happy, I would just be existing.  Life is more than just existing.  This is just an observation, not meant to insult, but I see many Europeans as just existing and many Americans are close behind.  That is why millennials are ignorantly looking at Socialism, because their needs are not being met.  They don’t realize the true source of ‘just existing’.  They don’t look at the history of Socialism and are confused with the semantics game and think it is something new.  Under Socialism, suffering (without success) is institutionalized.

 

There is no way to be truly independent from other humans, though; not even ancient societies had true isolation, the family/tribe/city-state/etc was always the focus and the governing body of one's life. We are a tribal species that generally finds a way to create heirarchies when none exist. Furthermore,

You laid out a lot of things there.  You are conflating being human with government.  Being independent is not isolationism.  Being independent is pulling your own weight in the tribe.  The existence of the tribe means there is a pecking order or hierarchy.  We are a tribe of individuals.  Yes, the family is the basic unit of government but that is not the primary aspect.  Government at the state level is a different animal.  Humans cannot serve two masters.  That is why we see this war on the family.  Toxic Masculinity is a devastating salvo, but the only way government can ultimately gain control.  The purpose of the non-tyrannical government is not to grant/take things away or impose rules.  Its purpose is to create an environment for the people to seek Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The difference is that one imposes control over the people and the other empowers the people.  The wellbeing of the people is far better served by empowering them, not controlling them.

 

I would argue that the government should reflect the values of the people, so if the majority want something changed/taken away, then it should be. I recognize that in practice this is often not the case, but that's how it should work, in a proper democratic system. Governments are run by people for people, that's their purpose, and that purpose involves imposing rules and regulations on citizens. If a citizen does not like a country's rules, they have (or should have) the right to leave.

The government should reflect a steadfast foundation of stability for all citizens.  Taking things away is not the purpose of a non-tyrannical government.  Mob rule is not a virtuous value of the people.

 

That entirely depends on your cultural definition of what prosperity is. If your only judge of prosperity is material wealth, you're a very sad individual.

Prosperity *IS* material wealth.  The term “Pursuit of Happiness” was originally “Property”.  Without material wealth, altruism would not exist.  Material wealth is not acquisition by the uber-wealthy.  It is simply being successful and having the means to raise your family and see to it that their needs are met.

 

I shrug heavily at this and simply disagree. Even if I cared what your founding fathers say, which I resoundingly do not, I'd still point out that this quote you're brandishing about can be interpreted in a million ways, since it's wholly unsubstantiated and suuuper vague. This vagueness would be why your country is in such a divided and sorry state, I suspect. Oh well. Once you guys sort it out, let me know how it goes

What the Founding Fathers stated was universal and by your response, I see it is beyond you.  Limited governemnt is very substantiated.  One just needs to look at history, as the Founders did to see the importance of it.  We have always been a divided and sorry lot and in most cases that has been the source of our stregnth, however, the current internal threat is the most serious we’ve had to deal with.  It is a threat that actually uses the system against itself to gain control.

 

In many places, yes. In others, no. In most, it's some shade of grey.

That’s a round ‘bout way of saying that government does, only serve its own interests in *ALL* cases.

 

The world isn't as black-and-white as you're trying to make it. But that's your opinion and you're welcome to it

The world is shades of grey.  And people will point out that one shouldn’t make something black & white.  But there are somethings that *ARE* black & white and shouldn’t be made grey.  Academically there are numerous variations of tyrannical government (grey) but ultimately there are only those governments that are tyrannical and those that are not.  Right now, there is barely only 1 non tyrannical government (under that 30% limit on the spectrum) on this planet

 

A cursory look at history shows that this is demonstrably untrue.

On the contrary, history shows how detrimental government is when it restricts the people.  How many millions have died trying to implement Socialism of one flavor or another?

 

Regulation gave us wildlife conservation, worker's rights, safety codes, healthcodes, building standards, sanitation rules, weekends, healthcare, scientific ethical guidelines, and a million other positive things.

As stated before, [common sense] regulation is to create an environment so that people can follow their path to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  It wasn’t meant to restrict the freedom or dreams of the people.  Government always has the tendency to overregulate and that squashes their dreams.  Many of these things you listed were already being done at the state or private levels.  Even the Native Americans practice wildlife conservation and the first settlers learned it from them. 

 

Government established standards across the board.  That is government doing what it is supposed to do.  But government all too often, goes overboard with regulation and imposes its will on the people, then it has gone too far and that is tyranny.  Many of the above are outcomes of the Industrial Revolution.  The IR changed the way we live on this planet in a major way.  It reset the bar on many things.  Many good things came from it as well as bad.  Is it so easy for you to list only the positive and ignore the negative?  Or do you think the benefits outweigh the treachery of government?  Whatever was wrong with having a limited government that provides limited common-sense regulation?

 

Before regulations the only difference was that the rich had even more power than they have now, which is too damn much.

Oh?  What is the complaint we hear today?  That the rich are getting richer?  Seems that they have even more power today.  Regulation is only holding back the rest of us from being successful too.  The wealth enviers can only imagine stealing wealth instead of creating it themselves.  A government needs to build up the poor rather than cutting the legs out from under the rich.  But a tyrannical government would lose power if they did that.  If more people were less dependent on government, then government would have to constrict.

 

Human life is more peaceful and our quality of life is higher right now than it has been in any other point in human history. That doesn't mean that there aren't things that could be improved, because there certainly are, but don't pretend like the lawless past was some kind of utopia.

Life is more peaceful because of American Hegemony and American Exceptionalism.  But the peace you are talking about is that which is controlled by the state of tyrannical governments.  There is no such thing as a viable utopia.  We are seeing Socialist utopias begin to flounder marked by shortages.  They have reached their high-water mark.  Rationing is not sustainable to maintain a decent quality of life.

 

The only people who think that are the ones who have convinced themselves that they'd be a main character in Mad Max, when in reality they'd be the poor starving peasant in the background, dying at the ripe old age of 30 from some preventable malady.

You have very interesting ideas, all wrong and clearly established by the MSM.  That’s where Socialism leads.  A Mad Max/Thunder Drome world.

 

Wholesale lack of regulation leads to might-makes-right tyranny, and we both know by now that you agree that tyrants are bad. 

Limited, common sense regulation is not wholesale lack of regulation.  Overregulation is might-makes-right tyranny.

 

“Socialism is not about the Environment, it’s not about justice, it’s not about virtue.  Socialism is about only one thing, power for the ruling class.” - Trump CPAC 2019

 

“Once you see it, you can never unsee it.”  - Brandon Straka Life, Liberty & Levin 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Dear Lord, I can't seem to avoid politics here if I tried.

Even here Ravenhawk is filibustering his nonsense... <_<

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
13 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Dear Lord, I can't seem to avoid politics here if I tried.

Even here Ravenhawk is filibustering his nonsense... <_<

As usual, you’re not paying attention.  For one, read the full subject header and take note that this started in the politics forum (I think the op had more to do with politics than religion anyway).  It is accepted that the principles that built this country like limited government would be nonsense to you.  Just can’t tell if that is from ignorance or apathy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 2/27/2019 at 10:56 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If you are talking about my point of some questions of mine, you haven't answered, keep in mind, I tend to get avoidance of these particular questions. (In which, there are good questions, I believe, to ask, when I see claims are made about people who should be knowing of religions, but are in countries that are legal to not be educated.)

I’m talking about jumping to conclusions that I’m not answering your questions.  My life includes other things than this forum.  On any given day, I see perhaps a dozen posts I would love to reply to but time allows me to only reply to one.  I usually have a lot to say and it takes time to properly edit.  The nature of a forum like this is that if I don’t answer one person, the same question will pop up again with someone else.  I believe that I have answered your question but I’m not sure now?  Notice the delay of this reply?  I believe your question was do I believe that GOD wrote the Bible?  That is a “depends” question but I thought I explained why??  If you want to followup with this, then now is a good time.

 

I wanted to make sure you answered the one I reposted, because I find it very important to confront something I might see as a wrong judgment call. When I asked this type of questions to others here, when there are judgmental statements about non-believers, there tends to be an................................ avoidance of answering. 

Again, I thought I did?  In post #128??

 

I also find it interesting, that you don't know how to reply to it. 

I thought I did??

 

As I have stated, I too, work for a living, I do manage to answer, (most of the time) posts. 

Then you should know better.

 

Right now, I feel it's important to cut to the chase here. As I see that we're going to go back and forth on who wrote the bible,

How many times do I need to answer the same question?  If you do not understand the answer then say so or at least let me know that you seriously want an answer and I will try to go in a different direction.

 

and how it was with society at the time of Christ and when the bible is written,

I don’t think any of the Bible was written at the time of Christ.  The last book of the OT was 400 years prior to Christ and the first book of the NT was about a decade after his death, with most of it between 30 to 60 years after.

 

I think we have wrapped that up, with you and your point of view, and me with mine. I have stated, that I counter with it being how I look at it, and not as claims.

How you look at it *IS* your claim.

 

And still as in my opinion, even when I find sources and links to back up my ................................ opinion   (and I see you post some sources, .............. wait! Do you? ) 

I really try not to post sources.  For the most part, they are useless.  For any link I post, someone will have some exception to it as I would find exception with any link you post.  I figure that if I bring something up that you disagree with, then you can google it for yourself if you are serious about it.  If you have a particular question then I’ll try to answer the best I can.  But you need to drop the persecution complex.

 

I want to deal with the statement of only God can teach right and wrong, and knowing I grew up without anything associated with God and/or other religions. What do you think, what conclusion one would assume is being said about them, when they fall into the category of not being raised in a world with God? 

Now that is a good question.  And I did answer it, but I see I need to expand on it.  The short answer is that you did grow up in a society associated with GOD.  Man is a great impersonator.  The habit of following the law has become basically muscle memory.  From Israel, to Rome, to Europe, then to America, the law has followed and has been institutionalized in such a way that people do not know anything else.  That was the point of the law in the first place.  I wrote the following shortly after your post and include it here but I don’t see much need to update it a lot…

 

I now realize from your reply that you may not even understand some of the basics??  That’s my bad, I apologize.  I assume that everybody should know the basics whether they believe in GOD or not.  Understanding doesn’t translate into belief.  Our culture is just so immersed in these basics, that many people don’t realize where various aspects come from.  So let me go right to the heart and fan out from there.  You have proved to me that you know right from wrong, but what you don’t know is where that comes from??  You pride yourself in your humanism, which is fine, but that belief masks the facts.  Your morals do not come from your experiences and observations.  It comes from your interpretation of those.  And that interpretation is molded from the collective consciousness.  And that it can be traced back to the Golden Calf.  I guess I must assume you do not know that reference well enough?  It is a bit more than a dramatic scene from a Cecile B DeMille movie. 

 

The Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years.  They had become assimilated.  They were Egyptian.  The common understanding had them as a race of slaves for Egyptian masters, but after 400 years, you’re not slaves and others will argue that case.  I tend to agree.  But within Egyptian culture, I think they were 2nd class citizens, an undesirable minority population.  They might as well have been slaves.  The Israelites yearned to be free of this burden.  They were brought up out of the land of Anu (with Abraham) and a few generations later, ended up in the land of Ra with a Covenant from GOD.  400 years later, where had this promise gotten them?  The scriptures state it very well, “And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.” – Ex 3:9.  This is a people ready to go somewhere but are they serious about it?  Where was there to go?  Are they ready to follow GOD?  Or even as oppressed as they were, still had a good life in Egypt.  That’s a tough decision.

 

Moses had become their de facto leader.  They looked to him for guidance.  He had become the Authority.  Nothing was done without his say so.  He eventually became known as the Lawgiver.  They had no idea what they were in for.  They had been ripped from the only culture they knew and plopped at the foot of Mt Sinai.  GOD calls Moses away and before long, the Israelites revert to their baser selves.  They couldn’t even abide by the tenets of Ra.  They picked up on the local God Baal.  Instead of staying altogether, the people probably dispersed among local Canaanites (there was really no exodus in the classical sense).  The Israelites prided themselves in their humanism, thinking they were doing right and they constructed the Golden Calf to worship.  This is one of the important parts.  GOD tested them to see if they were ready to live by GOD’s morals and they failed.  Without Moses, they couldn’t make the right decisions.  If they passed, then their yoke would have been light.  10 Commandments vs 613 is a lot easier.  From that point on, the law was established.  The people didn’t have to think.

 

Through repetition over thousands of years, the law has become habit among the people.  They are capable of making the right decision now.  That was part of the purpose of Jesus.  He opened up the law for everybody by restructuring the law into a form all could follow.  Jesus fulfilled the Law which means that the Law is now written on the hearts of Man.  But it required sacrifice on his part.  There are still many that do not understand the purpose or meaning of Salvation and Redemption, but they are key to the message of Christ.  We can trace the origins of our government back to Christian Rome and to Moses.  It is a rich and substantive history.

 

I told you of my life, and those around me in the same situation, do you believe I got this far without knowing right from wrong? 

You have no choice but to know right from wrong (or you should) because those around you and those that came before followed the traditions from long ago of following the Law.  And they probably never realized it.  It was second nature to them as it has become with you.

 

Do you believe, that I knew it without the help of God and religion? 

No, I do not believe that.  What’s clear is that you do not believe it.  But the Law is in place and you cannot avoid it.  You owe your sense of morals to GOD whether you like it or not. 

 

Have I been too subtle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 25/02/2019 at 3:30 PM, RavenHawk said:

Religion has saved Europe, Arabia, and India, especially against Genghis Khan,

Umm... The thing that saved them from Genghis was that Genghis died. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
7 minutes ago, Setton said:

Umm... The thing that saved them from Genghis was that Genghis died. 

I don’t think the Mongol Empire ended with Genghis’ death.  Religion provided a stability that allowed the locals to withstand the Empire.  Hinduism kept the Mongols at bay and later halted the Muslim invasions.  In time, Islam absorbed the remnants of the Western Empire.  Christianity checked Mongol power and was able to repulse two major Muslim invasions.  That’s why they still exist today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
25 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I don’t think the Mongol Empire ended with Genghis’ death.  

No, it didn't, but it did mean all the senior commanders pulled back to support their choice of successor. 

You have a good point with regard to Christendom resisting invasions by the Turks and Muslim armies resisting crusaders but Genghis is a poor example. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

No, it didn't, but it did mean all the senior commanders pulled back to support their choice of successor.

The Empire continued to grow after Genghis’ death.  It wasn’t until after Kublai’s death that it actually began to shatter.

 

You have a good point with regard to Christendom resisting invasions by the Turks and Muslim armies resisting crusaders

I wasn’t talking about the Crusades.  I was talking about the two Muslim invasions beginning in the 7-8th Centuries.  One was stopped at the Battle of Tours and eventually reversed by 1492.  The other gobbled up Christian lands until it was finally halted in 1683 at the Battle of Vienna.  Christendom took a great hit but Europe was saved.

 

but Genghis is a poor example. 

Genghis is a great example.  The Persians have long memories.  They still hate the Mongols and their legacy.  The presence of the Mongols was one source for unity in the individual realms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The Empire continued to grow after Genghis’ death.  It wasn’t until after Kublai’s death that it actually began to shatter.

Yes, but what saved the Italian States and bought Christendom the time to prepare was Genghis' death. The empire did continue to grow but its expansion stalled while the succession was decided. 

Quote

I wasn’t talking about the Crusades.  

No, but I was. They are a good example of Islam as a unifying influence. Just as Vienna is a good example of Christianity doing the same. Which I also referred to. 

Quote

Genghis is a great example.  

How so? You talked about religion uniting Europe against him. How is that the case when Genghis died before his forces got into anything more than far Eastern Europe. Where they very definitely were not stopped by a very definitely not united Christian force. 

Edited by Setton
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
59 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, but what saved the Italian States and bought Christendom the time to prepare was Genghis' death. The empire did continue to grow but its expansion stalled while the succession was decided.

Succession didn’t take all that long.  Expansion didn’t stall in the western steppes.  The Muslim states were decimated.  Genghis held up in Eastern Europe for two reasons.  He didn’t want to take on a united army and he also wanted to ally with Europe to take on the Muslims.  Actually, both sides did but couldn’t get past requests of the one to submit to the other.  But I think many knew in Europe that if they allied to defeat Islam, the Mongols would eventually turn to Europe.

 

No, but I was. They are a good example of Islam as a unifying influence. Just as Vienna is a good example of Christianity doing the same. Which I also referred to. 

Well I’m glad you made that clear…

 

How so? You talked about religion uniting Europe against him. How is that the case when Genghis died before his forces got into anything more than far Eastern Europe. Where they very definitely were not stopped by a very definitely not united Christian force. 

It wasn’t just Genghis but also his successors.  Because he would be taking on two united forces at once.  Because his court had Nestorians in it, he was more partial to ally with Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m talking about jumping to conclusions that I’m not answering your questions. 

I don’t know. You seem to take longer and longer in answering them. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

My life includes other things than this forum.  On any given day, I see perhaps a dozen posts I would love to reply to but time allows me to only reply to one.  I usually have a lot to say and it takes time to properly edit.  The nature of a forum like this is that if I don’t answer one person, the same question will pop up again with someone else.  I believe that I have answered your question but I’m not sure now?  Notice the delay of this reply?  I believe your question was do I believe that GOD wrote the Bible?  That is a “depends” question but I thought I explained why??  If you want to followup with this, then now is a good time.

I don’t get how it can be a ‘it depends ‘ Kind of answer. The way I see it going either believe it I don’t.

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote
I wanted to make sure you answered the one I reposted, because I find it very important to confront something I might see as a wrong judgment call. When I asked this type of questions to others here, when there are judgmental statements about non-believers, there tends to be an................................ avoidance of answering. 

 

Again, I thought I did?  In post #128??

 

 

 

 I’m on my phone, so it seems like the posts are worded and numbered differently. But, I don’t think you did. It just seems you implied that  I didn’t know right from wrong, but had to put in your reasoning to make it sound A little bit innocent in your presentation. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I also find it interesting, that you don't know how to reply to it. 

 

I thought I did??

I was hoping for a yes or no answer. I thought it was that simple. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

As I have stated, I too, work for a living, I do manage to answer, (most of the time) posts. 

 

Then you should know better.

:huh: 

My  Point was, that it doesn’t take me as long.

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Right now, I feel it's important to cut to the chase here. As I see that we're going to go back and forth on who wrote the bible,

 

How many times do I need to answer the same question?  If you do not understand the answer then say so or at least let me know that you seriously want an answer and I will try to go in a different direction.

 

 

 

 I’m looking for your point of view.  I’m not actually wanting to know about who did.  For example, if you believe the Bible was written entirely by God, how can you prove that is true. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

and how it was with society at the time of Christ and when the bible is written,

 

I don’t think any of the Bible was written at the time of Christ.  The last book of the OT was 400 years prior to Christ and the first book of the NT was about a decade after his death, with most of it between 30 to 60 years after.

 OK, here’s the thing. The Bible Was written a long time ago when society was a lot different. I don’t see it as something being true for today’s society. 

 I don’t believe the Bible should be pushed on everyone, especially when contradicts a lot of things of today’s world.  My feelings on that. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I think we have wrapped that up, with you and your point of view, and me with mine. I have stated, that I counter with it being how I look at it, and not as claims.

 

How you look at it *IS* your claim.

No, it isn’t. From here

Quote

verb (used without object)

to make or file claim:

 That’s not the same as a point of view or opinion. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I really try not to post sources.  For the most part, they are useless.  For any link I post, someone will have some exception to it as I would find exception with any link you post.  I figure that if I bring something up that you disagree with, then you can google it for yourself if you are serious about it.  If you have a particular question then I’ll try to answer the best I can.  

  The links and sources still would back up your claims. I like to find more than one site that shows the same claim, just to show where I get the information. 

 Your claims don’t have to be believed. 

Quote

But you need to drop the persecution complex.

 I can’t drop something I’m not doing. 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I want to deal with the statement of only God can teach right and wrong, and knowing I grew up without anything associated with God and/or other religions. What do you think, what conclusion one would assume is being said about them, when they fall into the category of not being raised in a world with God? 

 

Now that is a good question.  And I did answer it, but I see I need to expand on it.  The short answer is that you did grow up in a society associated with GOD.  Man is a great impersonator.  The habit of following the law has become basically muscle memory.  From Israel, to Rome, to Europe, then to America, the law has followed and has been institutionalized in such a way that people do not know anything else.  That was the point of the law in the first place.  I wrote the following shortly after your post and include it here but I don’t see much need to update it a lot…

Muscle memory? That’s the first I’ve heard about muscle memory. In fact, that doesn’t make sense.

As for being raised in a society  associated with God, what are you really referring to? Are you talking about the laws?  If you are  saying the laws are tied in with God,  where is your proof? 

 As far as I know, the laws of the state in this country, are not all tied in to the Christian religion.  And there seems to be varying  cultures and other religions mixed in. But, being as this country is secular, I don’t think I grew up in a society that stems from one particular higher power.  I believe, it allows the freedom to practice or not to practice A belief.

 Another thing, how can you prove the practice of doing right and doing wrong comes from an entity that cannot entirely be proven? 

 So, I don’t believe that I learn right from wrong from God, I believe I learned it from  actual people, provable people. 

 This explanation of man being the great impersonator, and that we are all practicing the same cycle of laws that supposed to be coming from God doesn’t make sense.  Laws differ from country to country, state to state.  They change with the times.  If God is the creator of laws, of morals, of rules, then why isn’t he the one to punish in person? 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

.  You have proved to me that you know right from wrong, but what you don’t know is where that comes from??  You pride yourself in your humanism, which is fine, but that belief masks the facts.  Your morals do not come from your experiences and observations.  It comes from your interpretation of those.  And that interpretation is molded from the collective consciousness.  And that it can be traced back to the Golden Calf.  I guess I must assume you do not know that reference well enough?  It is a bit more than a dramatic scene from a Cecile B DeMille movie. 

 

 

 

 First, apparently you shouldn’t be putting in references to movies that were likely are not seen by everyone. Yes I have not seen that movie so I don’t get what you’re saying. 

 Second, you’re getting too deep and trying to explain your reasoning. My morals  do not come from my interpretations.  My morals come from knowing  what is right and what is wrong by being taught  by secular  parents and as I said before buying my experiences. 

 So I think you put an interesting little twist and now answering that I do know right from wrong but trying to tie it to God.  I think that is a very ambiguous link to something  as I have said before, that cannot be entirely proven.

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years.  They had become assimilated.  They were Egyptian.  The common understanding had them as a race of slaves for Egyptian masters, but after 400 years, you’re not slaves and others will argue that case.  I tend to agree.  But within Egyptian culture, I think they were 2nd class citizens, an undesirable minority population.  They might as well have been slaves.  The Israelites yearned to be free of this burden.  They were brought up out of the land of Anu (with Abraham) and a few generations later, ended up in the land of Ra with a Covenant from GOD.  400 years later, where had this promise gotten them?  The scriptures state it very well, “And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.” – Ex 3:9.  This is a people ready to go somewhere but are they serious about it?  Where was there to go?  Are they ready to follow GOD?  Or even as oppressed as they were, still had a good life in Egypt.  That’s a tough decision.

 

 

 

Moses had become their de facto leader.  They looked to him for guidance.  He had become the Authority.  Nothing was done without his say so.  He eventually became known as the Lawgiver.  They had no idea what they were in for.  They had been ripped from the only culture they knew and plopped at the foot of Mt Sinai.  GOD calls Moses away and before long, the Israelites revert to their baser selves.  They couldn’t even abide by the tenets of Ra.  They picked up on the local God Baal.  Instead of staying altogether, the people probably dispersed among local Canaanites (there was really no exodus in the classical sense).  The Israelites prided themselves in their humanism, thinking they were doing right and they constructed the Golden Calf to worship.  This is one of the important parts.  GOD tested them to see if they were ready to live by GOD’s morals and they failed.  Without Moses, they couldn’t make the right decisions.  If they passed, then their yoke would have been light.  10 Commandments vs 613 is a lot easier.  From that point on, the law was established.  The people didn’t have to think.

 

 

 

Through repetition over thousands of years, the law has become habit among the people.  They are capable of making the right decision now.  That was part of the purpose of Jesus.  He opened up the law for everybody by restructuring the law into a form all could follow.  Jesus fulfilled the Law which means that the Law is now written on the hearts of Man.  But it required sacrifice on his part.  There are still many that do not understand the purpose or meaning of Salvation and Redemption, but they are key to the message of Christ.  We can trace the origins of our government back to Christian Rome and to Moses.  It is a rich and substantive history.

 

 

 

   Naw, I don’t see how this can tie in in how I  Learned right from wrong from God. But it seems  Like you’re getting a history lesson.

 Here’s the thing, even in your history lesson year God is not seen just mentioned. 

 Like I said, I just can’t see the Tie in. 

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I told you of my life, and those around me in the same situation, do you believe I got this far without knowing right from wrong? 

 

You have no choice but to know right from wrong (or you should) because those around you and those that came before followed the traditions from long ago of following the Law.  And they probably never realized it.  It was second nature to them as it has become with you.

 Are you trying to tie in our laws to God? Can you prove that?

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Do you believe, that I knew it without the help of God and religion? 

 

No, I do not believe that.  What’s clear is that you do not believe it.  But the Law is in place and you cannot avoid it.  You owe your sense of morals to GOD whether you like it or not. 

 

 

 

Have I been too subtle?

Wordy would be my thoughts on that.  But, as I’ve said before, it seems like you’re tying our laws to God and I think it should be proven hundred percent that that is the case. 

 Now, I also decided to do a little checking on the Internet. I first asked if our laws come from God. I can’t find any links to show that they do or do not. I think, that should be saying something. 

 Then I found  This site  Which tells me, if I’m thinking about our own United States laws, that doesn’t seem to be any link to God and religion.

 It’s not about me not liking the fact that I’m obeying God’s law,  it’s about not seeing any evidence of it. Your post doesn’t seem to prove it to me. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Ok, now that I'm a different device, I decided to search for 'muscle memory'. And I find it interesting how it's being used to 'remembering' 'laws' and from where. 

from here.

Quote

Learning to ride a bike is an exercise in episodic memory: you can know how to ride a bike without being able to explain how you’re doing it. Biking is an unusual case because there seems to be a moment in which you finally understand it, but learning to do anything physical involves this kind of memory. It feels to us as if that memory is stored in our muscles—as if they’re remembering how to perform an action without our really being aware of it. But the reality is that the activity is happening in our brains.

but, what I think this is saying, it's talking about how parts of our bodies performs tasks. 

from here.

Quote

We often talk about these skills as being held in muscle memory, but this term is really a bit of a misnomer. Although certain skills, like cycling or perfecting a tennis serve, might require the strengthening of certain muscles, the processes that are important for learning and memory of new skills occur mainly in the brain, not in the muscles. Changes that occur in the brain during skill learning and memory alter the information that the brain sends out to the muscles, thereby changing the movements that are produced.

It seems to be saying that here. But, how does this have to tie in to laws and traditions, (that change, expand, and show differences in varying societies throughout time and areas) being something tied into God and his law being something that spreads all over for everyone to ...........living it. Can a Muslim say the same thing for everyone and everything? Can a Wiccan say the same about their Goddess? 

It seems to be varying Native American culture and their beliefs seem to have more effect in the world, to me. So, to be told that I have been raised in God's law, then others can say I have been raised in all the others too. (And of course, it would require a lot of source searching to tie it in completely, my thinking on that) 

What seems to be implied, is tradition and a certain belief, being a major influence through out the years and spreading through out all cultures and societies. When there is the possibility of things changing and evolving after so much time, how can one pin point it coming from one source and prove that to be completely true? 

So, I go back into my standing of not being raised in complete understanding of a Christian God, and it's rules and beliefs. I think it's a stretch even thinking of it so. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

And something remembering and reflecting on replies: 

starting from this quote: 

Quote

Not in the way you think.  As humans we are great impersonators.  We have lived under a derivative form of the Mosaic Laws for thousands of years, so it has become 2nd nature and that was the purpose in the first place.  Again, Man’s law is to “do unto others before they do unto you”.  But that was replaced by sheer repetition.  Today, our conscience tells us what is right or wrong, just out of habit.

Now, also remembering this: 

Quote

GOD.  Man is a great impersonator.  The habit of following the law has become basically muscle memory.  From Israel, to Rome, to Europe, then to America, the law has followed and has been institutionalized in such a way that people do not know anything else.  That was the point of the law in the first place.  I wrote the following shortly after your post and include it here but I don’t see much need to update it a lot…

So, then you said: 

Quote

You have proved to me that you know right from wrong, but what you don’t know is where that comes from?? 

Despite the fact, I think I’m noticing you first said I don’t know right from wrong, and then I am, because......

Here’s the thing, if indeed you think that I, as a secular raised person learned right from wrong, because everyone is remembering the laws, the morals, the rules from being impersonated by previous generations of learning the rules from God, why aren’t there more (or for that matter, everyone) knowing right from wrong? If indeed, we are great impersonators, how come it’s not working for everyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 3/6/2019 at 5:00 PM, RavenHawk said:

That’s the whole point to limiting government from the beginning.  Politics should not be a profession.  If it is let go for too long, the only way to remove it is by force and that has been the ultimate fate of any flavor of Socialism.  Establishing a government doesn’t free up the responsibility of the people from being active in the body politic.

Democracy, if it is to be a true democracy, founded on "government of the people, by the people and for the people"  must prevent the collection of economic power in the hands of the few.  When "we the people" try to put limits in capitalism, we are decried as communists and socialists by people who don't even know what those terms mean.  That's the root of the problems America currently has.  The wealthy among us are trying to block socialism in favor of fascism.

Actually, Americans love socialism - tRUMP included.  He took $137 million of public tax funds for his golf course in New York City.  That's money that should have been spent on schools, teachers and infrastructure.  But instead, it is used for recreation for a very few - those who can afford clubs and greens fees.

And Amazon loves socialism - so much so that when it couldn't get $1.5 billion from New York to build a processing facility there, it pulled out of the deal.  That deal probably would have benefited New Yorkers with 25,000 jobs.  But one has to wonder if those jobs would pay any better than Walmart or MacDonalds or the businesses the facility would replace.  Was Amazon REALLY going to benefit New York?

And MerCruiser closed its plant in Oklahoma and moved to Wisconsin, claiming that taxes and union wages in Oklahoma cost too much.  It did my heart good to see the Wisconsin workers organize a union.  But to get that plant, Wisconsin had to shell out a whole lot of tax breaks.  That's corporate socialism.

And then there's tRUMP's giveaway to Carrier.  He got them millions of dollars of Illinois tax money in exchange for a promise not to close its Illinois plant.  Carrier closed the plant anyway, sticking Illinois tax payers with the bill.  That's socialism - bad socialism - but tRUMP and Carrier loved it.

And most professional sports teams take public money to build their stadiums.  These teams pay their star players millions of dollars, but can't afford to pay for their own stadiums?

Walmart tried to extort tax money from my town.  If they couldn't get tax breaks, they threatened to build outside the city limits where they wouldn't have to pay city taxes.  They didn't get the breaks, so they did.  Ever hear of "flag-pole annexation?"

And what about the Farm Bill?  The govt gives away millions of dollars to corporate farms to pay for improvements in production.

 

American businesses LOVE socialism.  They just don't like it when it's applied to people instead of corporations.

Doug

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Democracy, if it is to be a true democracy, founded on "government of the people, by the people and for the people"  must prevent the collection of economic power in the hands of the few.  When "we the people" try to put limits in capitalism, we are decried as communists and socialists by people who don't even know what those terms mean.  That's the root of the problems America currently has.  The wealthy among us are trying to block socialism in favor of fascism.

Actually, Americans love socialism - tRUMP included.  He took $137 million of public tax funds for his golf course in New York City.  That's money that should have been spent on schools, teachers and infrastructure.  But instead, it is used for recreation for a very few - those who can afford clubs and greens fees.

And Amazon loves socialism - so much so that when it couldn't get $1.5 billion from New York to build a processing facility there, it pulled out of the deal.  That deal probably would have benefited New Yorkers with 25,000 jobs.  But one has to wonder if those jobs would pay any better than Walmart or MacDonalds or the businesses the facility would replace.  Was Amazon REALLY going to benefit New York?

And MerCruiser closed its plant in Oklahoma and moved to Wisconsin, claiming that taxes and union wages in Oklahoma cost too much.  It did my heart good to see the Wisconsin workers organize a union.  But to get that plant, Wisconsin had to shell out a whole lot of tax breaks.  That's corporate socialism.

And then there's tRUMP's giveaway to Carrier.  He got them millions of dollars of Illinois tax money in exchange for a promise not to close its Illinois plant.  Carrier closed the plant anyway, sticking Illinois tax payers with the bill.  That's socialism - bad socialism - but tRUMP and Carrier loved it.

And most professional sports teams take public money to build their stadiums.  These teams pay their star players millions of dollars, but can't afford to pay for their own stadiums?

Walmart tried to extort tax money from my town.  If they couldn't get tax breaks, they threatened to build outside the city limits where they wouldn't have to pay city taxes.  They didn't get the breaks, so they did.  Ever hear of "flag-pole annexation?"

And what about the Farm Bill?  The govt gives away millions of dollars to corporate farms to pay for improvements in production.

 

American businesses LOVE socialism.  They just don't like it when it's applied to people instead of corporations.

Doug

No truer words have ever been spoken on this forum before. :tsu: :clap: :nw:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
17 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Democracy, if it is to be a true democracy, founded on "government of the people, by the people and for the people"  must prevent the collection of economic power in the hands of the few.  When "we the people" try to put limits in capitalism, we are decried as communists and socialists by people who don't even know what those terms mean.  That's the root of the problems America currently has.  The wealthy among us are trying to block socialism in favor of fascism.

Actually, Americans love socialism - tRUMP included.  He took $137 million of public tax funds for his golf course in New York City.  That's money that should have been spent on schools, teachers and infrastructure.  But instead, it is used for recreation for a very few - those who can afford clubs and greens fees.

And Amazon loves socialism - so much so that when it couldn't get $1.5 billion from New York to build a processing facility there, it pulled out of the deal.  That deal probably would have benefited New Yorkers with 25,000 jobs.  But one has to wonder if those jobs would pay any better than Walmart or MacDonalds or the businesses the facility would replace.  Was Amazon REALLY going to benefit New York?

And MerCruiser closed its plant in Oklahoma and moved to Wisconsin, claiming that taxes and union wages in Oklahoma cost too much.  It did my heart good to see the Wisconsin workers organize a union.  But to get that plant, Wisconsin had to shell out a whole lot of tax breaks.  That's corporate socialism.

And then there's tRUMP's giveaway to Carrier.  He got them millions of dollars of Illinois tax money in exchange for a promise not to close its Illinois plant.  Carrier closed the plant anyway, sticking Illinois tax payers with the bill.  That's socialism - bad socialism - but tRUMP and Carrier loved it.

And most professional sports teams take public money to build their stadiums.  These teams pay their star players millions of dollars, but can't afford to pay for their own stadiums?

Walmart tried to extort tax money from my town.  If they couldn't get tax breaks, they threatened to build outside the city limits where they wouldn't have to pay city taxes.  They didn't get the breaks, so they did.  Ever hear of "flag-pole annexation?"

And what about the Farm Bill?  The govt gives away millions of dollars to corporate farms to pay for improvements in production.

 

American businesses LOVE socialism.  They just don't like it when it's applied to people instead of corporations.

Doug

LIKE, due to technical difficulties my button is once again down for repairs.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

LIKE, due to technical difficulties my button is once again down for repairs.

jmccr8

I wonder if @Saru has statistics on who has used the like buttons most often! 

I reckon your good self would be up on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
24 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

LIKE, due to technical difficulties my button is once again down for repairs.

jmccr8

Reminds me of the time when I had to babysit one of the kiddies for an hour or so, just to keep her out of trouble I let her mouse click the reactions for me, I'd read and she'd scroll and I say next,  LOL, or LIKE or so on and so forth

then I heard her say " uh oh ... no more ink "

~

:yes:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 2/26/2019 at 9:10 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

Neither.  I am a softwarist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Neither.  I am a softwarist.

Tatetopa:

Is Tatetopa a Pawnee name, by any chance?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.