Conservative Bible

[occupied]

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

 

[ding]

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

 

[occupied]

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

 

[Meriweather]

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

Who considered the alternative more harmful to society? How did they reach their conclusions?

 

[occupied]

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

Who considered the alternative more harmful to society? How did they reach their conclusions?

The thousands of women rendered sterile or dead, the doctors stripped of their practices and jailed, the untold numbers of abandoned infants, the fact that only the rich had ready access to a safe abortion, the orphanages, the shame of out of wedlock births, the lack of reproductive choice for women and many other considerations. To those who do not remember the old days it is difficult to identify with why abortion was legalized or why it was ever illegal.

 

[Meriweather]

The thousands of women rendered sterile or dead, the doctors stripped of their practices and jailed, the untold numbers of abandoned infants, the fact that only the rich had ready access to a safe abortion, the orphanages, the shame of out of wedlock births, the lack of reproductive choice for women and many other considerations. To those who do not remember the old days it is difficult to identify with why abortion was legalized or why it was ever illegal.

As opposed to millions of lives being lost? The interesting history about abandoned infants is that this was one way to help insure survival among both mother and child during depressed economic times. In our times, little interest is given to survival of the child. The issue is not just to support the survival of the mother today, the issue often involves not inconveniencing the mother.

I doubt it can be argued that the loss of millions of children was the less harmful option for society. That being said, no matter how society has tried to handle the problem of unwanted pregnancies, there have always been unintended consequences. For example, early on in the Catholic Church it was a matter of honor not to have sex outside of marriage. The unintended consequence was that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy brought shame not only on the girl, but on the families. In early America, non-Catholic families decided that unwanted children would be raised by the entire community--which put a burden on small, poor communities. So an entire community was not burdened with these children, orphanages came into vogue. Children often did not thrive in orphanages which brings about foster care, where again everyone's tax dollars are paying for the care of unwanted children.

Down through the ages unwanted children have ever been a problem. I don't think society has solved this problem with abortion. What is the solution? Or is there one?

 

[occupied]

The thousands of women rendered sterile or dead, the doctors stripped of their practices and jailed, the untold numbers of abandoned infants, the fact that only the rich had ready access to a safe abortion, the orphanages, the shame of out of wedlock births, the lack of reproductive choice for women and many other considerations. To those who do not remember the old days it is difficult to identify with why abortion was legalized or why it was ever illegal.

As opposed to millions of lives being lost? The interesting history about abandoned infants is that this was one way to help insure survival among both mother and child during depressed economic times. In our times, little interest is given to survival of the child. The issue is not just to support the survival of the mother today, the issue often involves not inconveniencing the mother.

I doubt it can be argued that the loss of millions of children was the less harmful option for society. That being said, no matter how society has tried to handle the problem of unwanted pregnancies, there have always been unintended consequences. For example, early on in the Catholic Church it was a matter of honor not to have sex outside of marriage. The unintended consequence was that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy brought shame not only on the girl, but on the families. In early America, non-Catholic families decided that unwanted children would be raised by the entire community--which put a burden on small, poor communities. So an entire community was not burdened with these children, orphanages came into vogue. Children often did not thrive in orphanages which brings about foster care, where again everyone's tax dollars are paying for the care of unwanted children.

Down through the ages unwanted children have ever been a problem. I don't think society has solved this problem with abortion. What is the solution? Or is there one?

Not really, ready birth control for teens without parental consent has helped as well as most states allowing "morning after" pills without a prescription. The most effective thing has been frank and effective sex education. All these things are controversial as well. Seems there is no pleasing evangelicals on this.

 

[Meriweather]

Not really, ready birth control for teens without parental consent has helped as well as most states allowing "morning after" pills without a prescription. The most effective thing has been frank and effective sex education. All these things are controversial as well. Seems there is no pleasing evangelicals on this.

I wouldn't single out Evangelicals. Many faiths teach sex within the confines of marriage. We see the Patriarchs of Genesis using this theme over and over again. The stories usually involve one of the Patriarchs going out into the world and observing other tribes. Societies that cared little about sexual mores and morals had one other thing in common. They usually disintegrated into all round chaos.

We can ask ourselves (and I'm sure come up with varying answers) whether we consider--as a whole--that our own society is becoming chaotic. I am not proposing that sex outside of marriage makes a society chaotic. However, could lack of discipline in sexual practices be an indicator that we lack self-discipline in other areas as well?

 

[occupied]

Not really, ready birth control for teens without parental consent has helped as well as most states allowing "morning after" pills without a prescription. The most effective thing has been frank and effective sex education. All these things are controversial as well. Seems there is no pleasing evangelicals on this.

I wouldn't single out Evangelicals. Many faiths teach sex within the confines of marriage. We see the Patriarchs of Genesis using this theme over and over again. The stories usually involve one of the Patriarchs going out into the world and observing other tribes. Societies that cared little about sexual mores and morals had one other thing in common. They usually disintegrated into all round chaos.

We can ask ourselves (and I'm sure come up with varying answers) whether we consider--as a whole--that our own society is becoming chaotic. I am not proposing that sex outside of marriage makes a society chaotic. However, could lack of discipline in sexual practices be an indicator that we lack self-discipline in other areas as well?

Societies have always tried to make sex the reward for conforming but when it comes down to it people are just going to have sex. Women especially pay the hard way for puritanical societal mores.

 

[Meriweather]

Societies have always tried to make sex the reward for conforming but when it comes down to it people are just going to have sex. Women especially pay the hard way for puritanical societal mores.

They also pay the hard way when society leans towards or is actively engaged in sexual licentiousness.

 

[occupied]

Societies have always tried to make sex the reward for conforming but when it comes down to it people are just going to have sex. Women especially pay the hard way for puritanical societal mores.

They also pay the hard way when society leans towards or is actively engaged in sexual licentiousness.

Places like the arab world, India, pakistan etc. have the world's most used and abused women. Their puritanical attitudes on sex are much more aligned with evangelicals than they would be willing to admit. Sex only in marriage, steep penalties for fornication and "deviance" such as homosexuality. Oddly child molestation is unbelievably common..

 

[sealybobo]

Well, since it's in the name.....heh

I thought early Christians were called, "Followers of the Way". I thought Christian was a derogatory term.

Pop quiz!

What was the way 'Followers of the Way' followed??

What does 'the way' refer to? How does one follow it?

I am "the way" the truth and the life. No man cometh to tbe father except through me or something like that.

They were followers of Christ. They were communist that forsook all their material posessions for the cause of Christ. It was a more intense form of Christianity. The term "Christian" was an insult that followers of the way proudly adopted. To answer SweetSue92's question, haters are the ones who defined the word Christian.

And followers of Christ from the very beginning believed that the end of days were near. But when you are brainwashed as a child by your grandmothers grandmothers traditions, and they were saying that back then, but nothing happened, eventually they stopped believing the end days were upon us. There are still Christians thousands of years later still claiming the end days are upon us.

I am looking forward to reading the Bible again. I just need to motivate myself to get started. On January 1 I read Genesis 1-9 and fell off the wagon on the second day. I am completely objective and able to see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be. I have mentioned in other discussions that everybody should read the Bible except for Christians. I still believe that. Keep your faith. Never do anything to jeopardize your faith which includes reading the Bible. A firm belief in mainstream religions is a treasure. Guard it. I wish I could believe it again. The Bible is amazing. The character of Christ is amazing. According to many posters I got a lot of the Bible wrong. Another round of reading I may become closer to right.

I was bored to tears but made it through. I don’t get it.

 

[Meriweather]

Places like the arab world, India, pakistan etc. have the world's most used and abused women. Their puritanical attitudes on sex are much more aligned with evangelicals than they would be willing to admit. Sex only in marriage, steep penalties for fornication and "deviance" such as homosexuality. Oddly child molestation is unbelievably common..

Let's solve American dilemmas first. What is interesting about this is back in Colonial times it appears the East was known for loose sexual mores. Now that appears to have reversed. The West claims loose sexual mores, whereas the East is considered more puritanical. Kind of interesting. No one seems to be able to attain a sustainable balance.

 

[occupied]

Places like the arab world, India, pakistan etc. have the world's most used and abused women. Their puritanical attitudes on sex are much more aligned with evangelicals than they would be willing to admit. Sex only in marriage, steep penalties for fornication and "deviance" such as homosexuality. Oddly child molestation is unbelievably common..

Let's solve American dilemmas first. What is interesting about this is back in Colonial times it appears the East was known for loose sexual mores. Now that appears to have reversed. The West claims loose sexual mores, whereas the East is considered more puritanical. Kind of interesting. No one seems to be able to attain a sustainable balance.

Does there need to be a balance and is maintaining that balance entirely the duty of churches? It seems to me that a bunch of moralizing makes sex dirty and therefore a bigger thrill for deviating from the clean world.

 

[ding]

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

You can call it what you want. It is still relativism if you rationalize it is noble and just to end a human life.

 

[ding]

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

Least harm to whom? The life that is being ended?

There you go again trying to remove the secular rights of people of faith.

 

[ding]

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

Do you know why standards exist?

 

[occupied]

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?

Ah, here we are finally. If you really want to argue this topic I will oblige for a couple of posts but only if you are prepared to answer some questions about the aftermath if the evangelicals get the only thing they seem to care about.

No. I am just pointing out that anything can be twisted. Moral relativism or ethical relativism are one in the same.

Ethics means all effects are weighed and the path of least harm is taken. Abortion was made legal because the alternative was considered more harmful to society. The moral argument does not give a damn about society or the greater good. It is the central problem with letting religious types decide secular issues.

You can call it what you want. It is still relativism if you rationalize it is noble and just to end a human life.

Noble and just? Abortion is by no means the preferable choice in birth control but the choice must be there.

 

[Hossfly]

I love the part of the bible where it says "God helps those that help themselves"

I don't think the Bible says that. I think it was Benjamin Franklin.

"God helps those who help themselves" is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This saying is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, quoted in Poor Richard'sAlmanac in 1757.

 

[presonorek]

I thought early Christians were called, "Followers of the Way". I thought Christian was a derogatory term.

Pop quiz!

What was the way 'Followers of the Way' followed??

What does 'the way' refer to? How does one follow it?

I am "the way" the truth and the life. No man cometh to tbe father except through me or something like that.

They were followers of Christ. They were communist that forsook all their material posessions for the cause of Christ. It was a more intense form of Christianity. The term "Christian" was an insult that followers of the way proudly adopted. To answer SweetSue92's question, haters are the ones who defined the word Christian.

And followers of Christ from the very beginning believed that the end of days were near. But when you are brainwashed as a child by your grandmothers grandmothers traditions, and they were saying that back then, but nothing happened, eventually they stopped believing the end days were upon us. There are still Christians thousands of years later still claiming the end days are upon us.

I am looking forward to reading the Bible again. I just need to motivate myself to get started. On January 1 I read Genesis 1-9 and fell off the wagon on the second day. I am completely objective and able to see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be. I have mentioned in other discussions that everybody should read the Bible except for Christians. I still believe that. Keep your faith. Never do anything to jeopardize your faith which includes reading the Bible. A firm belief in mainstream religions is a treasure. Guard it. I wish I could believe it again. The Bible is amazing. The character of Christ is amazing. According to many posters I got a lot of the Bible wrong. Another round of reading I may become closer to right.

I was bored to tears but made it through. I don’t get it.

You didn't see any of the hilarious stuff? The one sided rivalry of King Saul and David is epic. Jeremiah was one dramatic hubba bubba. The book of Matthew promotes a very intriguing ethical system. The confidence of Paul's writings is a delight and invokes a power trip within me that requires no effort to engage in real life inter relationship battles. My favorite book is Leviticus. The image of purity and discipline promoted by the book of Leviticus can be quite the motivator for someone who wants to get on the right track.

It isn't like there is anything to "get". It is just an entertaining read. Yes. The bulk of it is painfully slow and boring. I guess I persevere through it because I am rewarded with bragging rights. Reading through the entire Bible is challenging. Not too many people have done it. This will be my fourth time. I look forward to bragging about it and catching the stories I missed the first 3 times.