The problem with conservatism.

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
"HW, I purposely preface my comments by letting you know that it is to help you understand Christians better because you clearly have misunderstandings about us - it is not an attempt to subjugate or force you to believe what we believe.
I would just like for you to speak the truth and not some random thing that sounds senseless out of context to make it
look foolish."
You presume too much. I've been alive long enough to form complete positions on a very many things. I understand Christians VERY well.
I've lived among them all my life (46-years, I stopped believing in God at about 8). You may not see the actions of Christians as a direct
threat to the choices of people who don't view the world as THEY do, but the evidence is everywhere. The abortion debate is just one example.
Christians make up the vast majority of anti's don't they? Are you aware that the modern gun-control movement got it's early funding from
a religious organisation? I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. You say you aren't interested in converting me, but you also say that
you'd like me to "speak the truth." Have you ever considered that my truth may be different from yours, though just as heartfelt?

Yes I'm sure its heartfelt. But its not the truth. If the Christians you knew set better examples, your idea of "truth" may well be different. I offer you the concept of what a Christian will do ideally, while acknowledging full awareness that this never happens and that we fail - just as the Christians you know failed you. I ask you to speak the truth so you won't defame Christians with your misinterpretations, not so I can convert you.

Christians are no different from anyoene else in the sense that if any of us were able to completely impose our will, they will be as you call it, direct threats to the choices" available to people.

"Now where have I ever suggested anyone is better than you because they are Christians? Whats the criteria for being better?"

Since when does a person or group have to OPENLY suggest anything for their motives and status to be easily understood? Why else
would hristian missionaries be crawling all over Iraq right now if they didn't think that THEIR way is better? What is that 18-year
old JW trying to tell me when he comes to my door on Saturday morning saying "I can tell you about things that can change your life!"
other than than HIS way is better than mine?

Again I ask what is your definition of better. Christians do believe we are all sinners and that if we indeed love mankind we would like for everyone to be "saved" by accepting Jesus as their Savior. The truth? You want to know if I think I'm better than you? I tell you this - and please don't misinterpret it. I have not done a single thing that would possibly make my God love me more than you. We are all loved infinitely by God, and deserving of death. But because my God loves you, He calls for Christians to plead His case to you, so that you can see its not about your merits or your accomplishments or about your struggles. It is about His love for you and the sacrifice He has made to reconcile. The missionaries who come to your door and those who go to Iraq - they do it not because they think they're better, but because their God calls upon them to love.

"I believe many liberal concepts show humility. I criticize this Republican regime for its international policies of unilateralism
because it shows no humility. I criticize conservative views on social issues because to me, they show little humility. Most of
all, I continue to hammer the point that I acknowledge to being sinful, and failing over and over, because I believe in humility.
God commands us to be humble, and that His grace alone will save us."

That's fine, but I don't. For the sake of clarity, which of the definitions best fits what you mean when you say "humble?"

1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology.
3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage.

I try to be all three of those.
1. I try to come to God with a humble heart, so I can listen to His Word and follow it.
2. I acknowledge God is good, and Holy and infinitely loving and powerful. I also acknowledge I am infiintely far from those atributes.
3. I acknowledge I am a sinner, and prone to failure. And that I am not worthy of Him. This is why "by His grace alone" is the most powerful concept in the Bible.

"I believe, most of all, that my God reveals Himself to me because humility compels me to listen to Him and his word. I don't tell God
what I need or demand from Him. I don't tell God what I expect my rights and freedoms to be, or how I need Him to bless me. I leave it
all up to Him. He has blessed me and my fiancee in the last year or so, in infinite ways, ways I could never hope or ask for. Most of all, in ways
I could never have been able to work for and earn."

I have all these same things and more, without ONCE looking to the divine, a book or ONCE pretending to be humble. How do you explain this?

We each have a unique character and act differently in circumstances compared to anyone else. Perhaps, (or perhaps not) you are one to require virtually all power and authority in order to feel secure, and you've worked super hard to earn for it. In this sense, you've done everything you can to control all forseeable circumstances so you can feel secure and in control. Perhaps one day you won't be in control - whether you're in a plane plummetting to the Earth or bedridden with cancer. As bad as it sounds, perhaps that will be the impetus it takes for you to see you were never, and could have never been in control of everything - but the irony of ironies - someone else is, and that someone happens to love you in a perfect way. My point is - God uses different situations differently to work within different people.

 

[busmaster11]

dp

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
"However this is my question to you. If you can have a weapon identical in look, feel, and responsiveness to yours, which instantaneously
stuns the assailant instead, would you definitely prefer it? Why or why not?"

You're assuming again and I reject your premise. Killing an intruder, carjacker, armed assailant or strong arm robber would not be my first
impulse. I would give this person the chance to desist (under most circumstances) and time to comply. However, if they
didn't, I WOULD shoot them, with the intend to disable as quickly as possible. The law supports this. BTW, if they died in the process, I
wouldn't loose a minute of sleep over it. Criminals are cowards and deserve what they get.

I understand. And I agree completely with what you are saying. If I killed someone about to rape or assault a member of my family I doubt I'd lose a minute of sleep either. But unless you imply the intent to kill in any situation you would need to pull the trigger, you didn't answer the question - if a stun weapon can disable the attacker just as feasibly, which would you prefer?

I'm starting to see more of your point, HW, now I just hope you can convince me this has nothing to do with ego.

EDIT:I also see that many of my biggest questions remain unanswered. I politely ask that if we are to have any sort of peaceful discussion on this matter that you would volunteerily chose to answer them, and vice versa.

 

[HardWarrior]

"Yes I'm sure its heartfelt. But its not the truth."

Is this REALLY called for? You have NO right or power to define my truth for me. When I accused you of "cosmic thumb-sucking" (akin to saying that
YOUR truth is a lie), you and the the Christian Defense League went bonkers. Don't you DARE try to devalue MY experiences unless you want
a steaming pile of it in return. (I'm trying my best to not be abusive here. Return the favor or let's end this before it gets nasty again.)

"If the Christians you knew set better examples, your idea of "truth" may well be different."

Yet you say no good example of Christian behavior exists because you're all just like the rest of us.

"I offer you the concept of what a Christian will do ideally, while acknowledging full awareness that this never happens and that we fail - just as
the Christians you know failed you. I ask you to speak the truth so you won't defame Christians with your misinterpretations, not so I
can convert you."

Concepts are all well and good. But if you can't LIVE your beliefs, in real-time, then the "concept" means nothing. I don't need
God to tell me to treat others with respect and charity (until such time as they prove my efforts a waste of time). I do these things because
I want to be treated the same way. For me this works. Let me tell what I think you're trying to foist on me when you say "don't defame
Christians." I see all religious people in the same light. The specifics of the doctrine don't come into it:

You want me to ignore 46-years of complete and detailed experience, as well as nearly 8000 years of recorded history, and fixate on
a "concept." That isn't going to happen. The religious have, and continue to, cut a bloody swath across this planet in their zeal to rid
themselves of the "infidels" among them. The only entity that has surpassed the religious in terms of body-count is the "State."
In fact, in many cases the two have been one in the same. It hasn't mattered whether those infidels were people like me, who
simply want to be left alone in there choices, or those who see the divine in a slightly different light. Even YOU say that the religious aren't
capable of living up to the concepts they seem to hold so dear. In all honesty, how can you, or any of your kind, attempt to export your
beliefs to others without FIRST making sure that they work for you?

There isn't ONE thing I want to see changed about you or taken from you. I have no "message" or "life altering equation" that I'm driven
to impart. You can carry or not carry a means of self-defense, lethal of non-lethal, and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest, because I'm not
going to screw with you or your property. You can own a sub-machine gun capable of spewing a thousand rounds a second, for the same reason
stated above. In fact, I would be the first person to jump to your defense if someone attempted to take away YOUR right to live your life as YOU
see fit. What do I ask in return for this uncommon gift? Only that you be willing to do the same for me.

I know you see this sentiment as some sort of "libertarian trick", but it is no such thing. It is, in actuality, the highest tribute I can pay to a
perfect stranger. It is also the very foundation our country was built on. If you don't believe me read the constitution, the federalist papers, the
individual writings of the framers and the men they looked to for inspiration. Men like John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli.

"Christians are no different from anyone else in the sense that if any of us were able to completely impose our will, they will be as you call it, direct threats to the choices" available to people."

Which is what I said at first, but you disagreed. That's why people who don't believe or believe in something else or so afraid of your kind.

"Again I ask what is your definition of better. Christians do believe we are all sinners and that if we indeed love mankind we would like for everyone to be "saved" by accepting Jesus as their Savior. The truth? You want to know if I think I'm better than you? I tell you this - and please don't misinterpret it. I have not done a single thing that would possibly make my God love me more than you. We are all loved infinitely by God, and deserving of death. But because my God loves you, He calls for Christians to plead His case to you, so that you can see its not about your merits or your accomplishments or about your struggles. It is about His love for you and the sacrifice He has made to reconcile. The missionaries who come to your door and those who go to Iraq - they do it not because they think they're better, but because their God calls upon them to love."

I answered this question, and even gave examples of how religious people tend to express their inherent sense of superiority over non-believers.
There's that all inclusiveness that you claim doesn't happen. I don't believe in God, so "love" doesn't come into it for me. I'm amazes me that you
don't see this sort of phraseology for what it is. Remember, if we're going to be able to talk as equals, which we are, you're going to have to respect
my frame of reference JUST like you want YOURS respected.

"1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.
2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology.
3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage.[/quote]
I try to be all three of those.
1. I try to come to God with a humble heart, so I can listen to His Word and follow it.
2. I acknowledge God is good, and Holy and infinitely loving and powerful. I also acknowledge I am infiintely far from those atributes.
3. I acknowledge I am a sinner, and prone to failure. And that I am not worthy of Him. This is why "by His grace alone" is the most powerful concept in the Bible."

Of the list from dictionary.com

1. IMO, only sheep behave this way.
2. I'm capable of delivering an apology if one is called for. I defer when needed, but submit to no one.
3. These qualities aren't in my nature.

As for your 3, as long as they work for you, fine.

"Perhaps, (or perhaps not) you are one to require virtually all power and authority in order to feel secure, and you've worked super hard to earn for it. In this sense, you've done everything you can to control all forseeable circumstances so you can feel secure and in control. Perhaps one day you won't be in control - whether you're in a plane plummetting to the Earth or bedridden with cancer. As bad as it sounds, perhaps that will be the impetus it takes for you to see you were never, and could have never been in control of everything - but the irony of ironies - someone else is, and that someone happens to love you in a perfect way. My point is - God uses different situations differently to work within different people."

There is no such thing as "security." Any of us can be wiped from existence in the blink of an eye, by a host of means. I do, however, think it's
incumbent upon me to take any steps available to ameliorate those curve balls that life has a way of tossing in my direction. Be that a gun on my hip or
eating a salad sometimes when I really want prime rib. Again, I'm surprised that you assume that I don't understand such things. Could this be
that innate sense of superiority that you deny exists? Not at all, I plan on meeting my fate with the same dignity that I've tried to live my life.
There won't be a deathbed conversion. Your God has proven to me on many occasions that he doesn't exist. That fact won't change just because it
might "feel" good for the moment.

 

[HardWarrior]

" don't you dare put words in my mouth and tell me what it seems like when all you do is draw conclusions based on your idea of who I am."

For a person who had the audacity to say: "Gee, I'm glad you calmed down!", you sure do fly of the handle quickly.

Now, you tell me, in exacting detail, where I attempted to "put words in your mouth" or "draw conclusions based on your idea of who I think you are"? Here's exactly what I said:

"Then we have a shoot-out until the cops arrive to sort it out, though you have to know that criminal behavior doesn't work this way. The people you're talking about are cowards, after all. If I kill a rapist and mistakenly hurt or kill a bystander in the process I'll be held accountable for my actions, and probably be found innocent of malice. That's the way the system works. Are you suggesting that I should allow my wife or daughter to be raped in an effort to avoid hurting someone? It seems to me that you want the choice taken away from me just to avoid the possibility that some asshole might get what he deserves. That's a SCARY frame of mind you have there. Maybe, maybe not, it depends. The choice of how I deal with any of your doomsday scenarios is mine, not yours."

"I am suggesting no such thing. If anyone has, is, or even intended on raping a loved one I will have no qualms about emptying bullets into their skulls, whether its Christian or not."

Yet you've said that CCW should either NOT be "allowed" or those who carry should have to jump through the hops of a sometimes hostile system
like circus ponies before they can carry. Besides, you would be helpless regardless, right? Because you won't carry anyway, right?

"You're also banking on the expectation that all criminals you'll ever encounter are cowards and will run at the sight of a gun. This is the part where I would really like to understand more. You would have a shootout, risking your life and likely, the life of your wife or daughter. Is your dignity or liberties or freedoms worth more than their lives? If you die, is your life, coupled with their emotional suffering, and potential loss of their breadwinner, combined, worth less than your liberties or freedoms and dignity?"

I'M NOT BANKING ON ANYTHING! You feign indignation when you ASSUME, wrongly I might add, that I put words in your mouth and then turn RIGHT
around and do it to me. Another supposed silly doomsday scenario huh? If he doesn't comply, he gets SHOT, at least twice for good measure. You get
THIS TFB, dude. The worth of MY dignity is NOT for you to decide. Not with your childish, ignornant, made-for-TV scenarios or your INANE platitudes.
>I< get to decide what MY dignity is worth, in real-time, and I don't GIVE A DAMN what nightmares you lob my way in order to "test my thought
processes."

"BTW, if you need a reminder of how this part of the debate got started, it is this: The author equates personal belongings to one's dignity, and calls on one to defend these things because they symbolize that. To me, that is a sign his balls are bigger than his brain. I will gladly defend a loved one, but I will not risk my life for some symbolic "dignity.""

AGAIN, your ignorant, insular, short-sighted, untested, ASSININE view of the world trumps ALL, and anyone who disagrees must be scorned with
low-level, feminist CRAP. YES, >I< WILL defend what I've worked hard for, with lethal force if required. And to your ever-lasting TERROR and DREAD, the
system will support me in my in my actions, as it has MANY others in the SAME situation. LIVE WITH IT, there's no change coming.

NOW, unless you can conduct yourself in a more cordial and less arrogant/beligerent manner on this subject, I'M DONE WITH YOU. The second I
get a whiff of more BS, you're going to find yourself braying into an empty tree.

Good night to you.

 

[HomerJS]

Here is your definition... This is very applicable for the loudmouth conservatives.

Do as I say, not how I live.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Here is your definition... This is very applicable for the loudmouth conservatives.

Do as I say, not how I live.

Simple an to the point, Homer. I like it.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
"Yes I'm sure its heartfelt. But its not the truth."

Is this REALLY called for? You have NO right or power to define my truth for me. When I accused you of "cosmic thumb-sucking" (akin to saying that YOUR truth is a lie), you and the the Christian Defense League went bonkers. Don't you DARE try to devalue MY experiences unless you want a steaming pile of it in return. (I'm trying my best to not be abusive here. Return the favor or let's end this before it gets nasty again.)

Well, let's see if we can put this into perspective. Can we agree that there's only one truth? Because I don't know that either of us can deal with the concept that there are multiple truths and realities for the sake of argument... If that is the case, isn't it reasonable that what you've observed from Christians from an outsider's perspective may not be the complete truth? What I'm trying to do, HW, is to get you to see the same mess we both see in a slightly different perspective. When terrorists attacked on 9/11, People like Ann Coulter said "nuke em all." Some liberals may say, "let's give them what they want." I asked, - why did this happen? Why were they so desperate as to commit these crimes?" In my anger and contempt, the whole truth still matters. Should it not matter to you why Christians do what they do? If they were following God's Word, one thing sticks out between their agendas and 99.9% of all the agendas every acted upon in history - their objectives are not motivated by greed and selfishness. That should at least raise an eyebrow for most people. Christians can only attempt to live by the ideals set forth in the Bible.

"If the Christians you knew set better examples, your idea of "truth" may well be different."

Yet you say no good example of Christian behavior exists because you're all just like the rest of us.

"I offer you the concept of what a Christian will do ideally, while acknowledging full awareness that this never happens and that we fail - just as the Christians you know failed you. I ask you to speak the truth so you won't defame Christians with your misinterpretations, not so I can convert you."

Concepts are all well and good. But if you can't LIVE your beliefs, in real-time, then the "concept" means nothing.

Have you ever set a goal for yourself you haven't been able to accomplish, HW? Most of us have. Does this mean the goal was worthless? Have you not learned things about yourself along the way? Have you not learned discipline, patience, and new skills along the way, even if you haven't reached the ultimate objective? That is what life is about, right? The journey, not the destination. This does work for me.

"Christians are no different from anyone else in the sense that if any of us were able to completely impose our will, they will be as you call it, direct threats to the choices" available to people."

Which is what I said at first, but you disagreed. That's why people who don't believe or believe in something else or so afraid of your kind.

I'm not sure I recall disagreeing, but I see nothing wrong with it. There is not a philosophy of anyone's which, if implemented throught the world, would not violate what an individual thinks his rights or freedoms are - or at least, change status quo so that they can't depend on what they had been able to previously. The truth is, I struggle with the idea of an interconnected church and state. Until there comes a time when people will all volunteerily come to God, the separation is important, imo.

"Again I ask what is your definition of better. Christians do believe we are all sinners and that if we indeed love mankind we would like for everyone to be "saved" by accepting Jesus as their Savior. The truth? You want to know if I think I'm better than you? I tell you this - and please don't misinterpret it. I have not done a single thing that would possibly make my God love me more than you. We are all loved infinitely by God, and deserving of death. But because my God loves you, He calls for Christians to plead His case to you, so that you can see its not about your merits or your accomplishments or about your struggles. It is about His love for you and the sacrifice He has made to reconcile. The missionaries who come to your door and those who go to Iraq - they do it not because they think they're better, but because their God calls upon them to love."

I answered this question, and even gave examples of how religious people tend to express their inherent sense of superiority over non-believers.

The "religious" people you have known have failed you if they conveyed first and foremost a sense of superiority.

"Perhaps, (or perhaps not) you are one to require virtually all power and authority in order to feel secure, and you've worked super hard to earn for it. In this sense, you've done everything you can to control all forseeable circumstances so you can feel secure and in control. Perhaps one day you won't be in control - whether you're in a plane plummetting to the Earth or bedridden with cancer. As bad as it sounds, perhaps that will be the impetus it takes for you to see you were never, and could have never been in control of everything - but the irony of ironies - someone else is, and that someone happens to love you in a perfect way. My point is - God uses different situations differently to work within different people."

There is no such thing as "security." Any of us can be wiped from existence in the blink of an eye, by a host of means. I do, however, think it's incumbent upon me to take any steps available to ameliorate those curve balls that life has a way of tossing in my direction. Be that a gun on my hip or eating a salad sometimes when I really want prime rib. Again, I'm surprised that you assume that I don't understand such things. Could this be that innate sense of superiority that you deny exists? Not at all, I plan on meeting my fate with the same dignity that I've tried to live my life. There won't be a deathbed conversion. Your God has proven to me on many occasions that he doesn't exist. That fact won't change just because it might "feel" good for the moment.

I don't believe in emotional conversions on the deathbed either. Emotions come and go, and rarely offer anything steadfast and reliable. They don't reflect genuine intentions, but rather that one's back is against the wall and is begging for any options available - those folks tend to turn their backs on God given any chance of getting better.

HW, there's a book by a former editor of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel, a nonChristian, who wrote a book called Case for Christ - in which he left no stone unturned in his search for historical and scientific evidence - the book questioned every little detail imaginable and was written from a skeptic's perspective - up until the very end. I can only apologize if the Christians you've met turned you off from God - but if you care enough to just be slightly curious, I'd love to send you a copy straight from Amazon.

HW, the sheer deepness of our differences account for just about everything - not a sense of superiority. To prove it to you, I ask you this - if you saw evidence of God which moved you to believe, and God had commissioned you to spread the Gospel, how would you be different that you are today? Would you think of yourself as superior to those you preach to? Either answer will tell you a lot about Christians.

 

[busmaster11]

Now, you tell me, in exacting detail, where I attempted to "put words in your mouth" or "draw conclusions based on your idea of who I think you are"? Here's exactly what I said:
"Then we have a shoot-out until the cops arrive to sort it out, though you have to know that criminal behavior doesn't work this way. The people you're talking about are cowards, after all. If I kill a rapist and mistakenly hurt or kill a bystander in the process I'll be held accountable for my actions, and probably be found innocent of malice. That's the way the system works. Are you suggesting that I should allow my wife or daughter to be raped in an effort to avoid hurting someone? That's a SCARY frame of mind you have there. Maybe, maybe not, it depends. The choice of how I deal with any of your doomsday scenarios is mine, not yours."
"I am suggesting no such thing. If anyone has, is, or even intended on raping a loved one I will have no qualms about emptying bullets into their skulls, whether its Christian or not."
Yet you've said that CCW should either NOT be "allowed" or those who carry should have to jump through the hops of a sometimes hostile system like circus ponies before they can carry. Besides, you would be helpless regardless, right? Because you won't carry anyway, right?

me: "You have a gun, but where is there's a group of them, and they all have guns? What if you shot the rapist before he could get to your wife or daughter, but he has a family behind him and they are out for revenge, and are out to terrorize your family? What if they nabbed your wife, and demanded whatever it is represents your dignity in exchange for her? Is your dignity and liberties the most important thing in each of these cases?"
you: "It seems to me that you want the choice taken away from me just to avoid the possibility that some asshole might get what he deserves."
If you can tell me how my words imply that I am against justice for the offender, I will retract and apologize for saying you put words in my mouth.

"You're also banking on the expectation that all criminals you'll ever encounter are cowards and will run at the sight of a gun. This is the part where I would really like to understand more. You would have a shootout, risking your life and likely, the life of your wife or daughter. Is your dignity or liberties or freedoms worth more than their lives? If you die, is your life, coupled with their emotional suffering, and potential loss of their breadwinner, combined, worth less than your liberties or freedoms and dignity?"

I'M NOT BANKING ON ANYTHING! You feign indignation when you ASSUME, wrongly I might add, that I put words in your mouth and then turn RIGHT around and do it to me. Another supposed silly doomsday scenario huh? If he doesn't comply, he gets SHOT, at least twice for good measure. You get THIS TFB, dude. The worth of MY dignity is NOT for you to decide. Not with your childish, ignornant, made-for-TV scenarios or your INANE platitudes. >I< get to decide what MY dignity is worth, in real-time, and I don't GIVE A DAMN what nightmares you lob my way in order to "test my thought processes."

When asked about how your chances improve with a gun, you've brought up immediately on at least two occasions that criminals are cowards. That tells me that right or wrong, that belief is an important part of your reasoning.

But very well, those circumstances aren't likely to arise, so we'll ignore them. Would that be no for carrying the stun gun instead also?

 

[HardWarrior]

"Well, let's see if we can put this into perspective. Can we agree that there's only one truth? Because I don't know that either of us can deal with the concept that there are multiple truths and realities for the sake of argument... If that is the case, isn't it reasonable that what you've observed from Christians from an outsider's perspective may not be the complete truth? What I'm trying to do, HW, is to get you to see the same mess we both see in a slightly different perspective. When terrorists attacked on 9/11, People like Ann Coulter said "nuke em all." Some liberals may say, "let's give them what they want." I asked, - why did this happen? Why were they so desperate as to commit these crimes?" In my anger and contempt, the whole truth still matters. Should it not matter to you why Christians do what they do? If they were following God's Word, one thing sticks out between their agendas and 99.9% of all the agendas every acted upon in history - their objectives are not motivated by greed and selfishness. That should at least raise an eyebrow for most people. Christians can only attempt to live by the ideals set forth in the Bible."

No, we can't. The idea of universal truth is appealing in its simplicity, but reality just doesn't work that way. On the contrary, you're stated what
"truth" is for you and I have no problem with it. The idea of mutiple truths doesn't vex me one bit. You're assuming again and not remembering
what I've told you of myself. I was born and baptised a Catholic. I believed without question for maybe the first 8-years of my life. I'm black, which
means I grew up sorrounded by one of the most intensely religious demographics in this country. I'm 46 long, hard years old and I'm observant/objective
by nature. What you don't seem to understand is that these things, when put together, make me perfectly able to crituqe the subject of religion.
It has nothing to do with truth, IMO, just the FACTS of the matter. No, I'm sorry, the motives behind the actions of others only interests me
in the abstract. People should be judged by there actions in contrast with the law (if any) that covers those actions.

"I don't believe in emotional conversions on the deathbed either. Emotions come and go, and rarely offer anything steadfast and reliable. They don't reflect genuine intentions, but rather that one's back is against the wall and is begging for any options available - those folks tend to turn their backs on God given any chance of getting better."

Exactly right.

"HW, there's a book by a former editor of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel, a nonChristian, who wrote a book called Case for Christ - in which he left no stone unturned in his search for historical and scientific evidence - the book questioned every little detail imaginable and was written from a skeptic's perspective - up until the very end. I can only apologize if the Christians you've met turned you off from God - but if you care enough to just be slightly curious, I'd love to send you a copy straight from Amazon."

Nope, it wasn't religious folks who turned me off from God per se. It was the utter futility of worship, and adherence to a set of rules that were elastic
beyond belief, even to those who claim to hold them most dear. Why pray and pray and pray and recieve NOTHING in return? Why believe in a
God who admonishes "peace, love and tolerance" but has NO power to protect the weak from the strong? If God lived, wouldn't he, in his infinite
power and wisdom, extend his hand to better the lives of us all? See? I KNOW what it's like to CRAVE light in the darkness. I just got tired of waiting.

Absolutely. I would be glad to accept your gracious gift. Though you shouldn't expect miracles, so to speak. It was a long road
that brought me to were I am, and I'm comfortable here.

"HW, the sheer deepness of our differences account for just about everything - not a sense of superiority. To prove it to you, I ask you this - if you saw evidence of God which moved you to believe, and God had commissioned you to spread the Gospel, how would you be different that you are today? Would you think of yourself as superior to those you preach to? Either answer will tell you a lot about Christians."

Indeed, we are VERY different. If I could experience God in some physical sense and was told to follow a certain path, I would. If that path required
me to preach, I would. No, I wouldn't do so from a position of inherent superiority, but then that isn't my nature. How would I be different? I have
NO idea. I think I'm an okay person right now.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
"Well, let's see if we can put this into perspective. Can we agree that there's only one truth? Because I don't know that either of us can deal with the concept that there are multiple truths and realities for the sake of argument... If that is the case, isn't it reasonable that what you've observed from Christians from an outsider's perspective may not be the complete truth? What I'm trying to do, HW, is to get you to see the same mess we both see in a slightly different perspective. When terrorists attacked on 9/11, People like Ann Coulter said "nuke em all." Some liberals may say, "let's give them what they want." I asked, - why did this happen? Why were they so desperate as to commit these crimes?" In my anger and contempt, the whole truth still matters. Should it not matter to you why Christians do what they do? If they were following God's Word, one thing sticks out between their agendas and 99.9% of all the agendas every acted upon in history - their objectives are not motivated by greed and selfishness. That should at least raise an eyebrow for most people. Christians can only attempt to live by the ideals set forth in the Bible."

No, we can't. The idea of universal truth is appealing in its simplicity, but reality just doesn't work that way. On the contrary, you're stated what "truth" is for you and I have no problem with it. The idea of mutiple truths doesn't vex me one bit. You're assuming again and not remembering what I've told you of myself. I was born and baptised a Catholic. I believed without question for maybe the first 8-years of my life. I'm black, which means I grew up sorrounded by one of the most intensely religious demographics in this country. I'm 46 long, hard years old and I'm observant/objective by nature. What you don't seem to understand is that these things, when put together, make me perfectly able to crituqe the subject of religion. It has nothing to do with truth, IMO, just the FACTS of the matter. No, I'm sorry, the motives behind the actions of others only interests me in the abstract. People should be judged by there actions in contrast with the law (if any) that covers those actions.

You have PM, BTW...

I am very disturbed by the concept that there ar multiple truths, because the word truth would then mean nothing more than "perspective" or "outlook." Often thats all that matters, but if you believe in God, that doesn't make sense.

"HW, there's a book by a former editor of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel, a nonChristian, who wrote a book called Case for Christ - in which he left no stone unturned in his search for historical and scientific evidence - the book questioned every little detail imaginable and was written from a skeptic's perspective - up until the very end. I can only apologize if the Christians you've met turned you off from God - but if you care enough to just be slightly curious, I'd love to send you a copy straight from Amazon."

Nope, it wasn't religious folks who turned me off from God per se. It was the utter futility of worship, and adherence to a set of rules that were elastic beyond belief, even to those who claim to hold them most dear. Why pray and pray and pray and recieve NOTHING in return? Why believe in a God who admonishes "peace, love and tolerance" but has NO power to protect the weak from the strong? If God lived, wouldn't he, in his infinite power and wisdom, extend his hand to better the lives of us all? See? I KNOW what it's like to CRAVE light in the darkness. I just got tired of waiting.

Absolutely. I would be glad to accept your gracious gift. Though you shouldn't expect miracles, so to speak. It was a long road that brought me to were I am, and I'm comfortable here.

I wouldn't expect anything from you, except your sincere evaluation and effort at objectivity.

I struggled with most of the things you have as well, including watching seemingly ignorant old folks pray with such a focus and intensity while they seem to have nothing but grief in their lives. Then when something tragic happened, they seemed to make excuses for God and they would grasp tighter to their faith. It seemed pathetic to me.

This is what I believe. It turns out that thats just what we asked for. It's the price of free will. We have the freedom to help or hurt fellow man, and the darkness in our hearts chose the latter much more often than the former. Looking at this world, surely you can see evidence of that whether you believe in God or not. If God constantly rights our wrongs we would not learn anything, nor would we see motivation to resist temptation. We decide our own fate and this way we won't have any excuses...

You know what I struggled with more? That God says, "Blessed are those with childlike faith." I never had it. I questioned everything about the Bible in every aspect - science, history, and was skeptical even in the face of evidence, to the point where I grew notorious at church. I found all the evidence I need, in this book and in various other books by authors such as Hugh Ross and other very accomplished scientists.

If you ever give God another chance, sans the cynicism, I think He'll show you why evidence doesn't make a believer. Faith is an intangible. I don't quite have it as well as I'd like, but evidence alone... It'll get you in the door to want to know more, but faith and humility and patience are in the heart, and I believe those are the things that can draw you to God.

 

[HardWarrior]

"I am very disturbed by the concept that there ar multiple truths, because the word truth would then mean nothing more than "perspective" or "outlook." Often thats all that matters, but if you believe in God, that doesn't make sense."

I understand. But I'm sure you can see how that need for ONE universal "truth" can be used as a powerful inducement to remove
the non-believer from the immediate environment, by any means deemed appropriate. If this is true, and it is, I'm sure you can
understand why the devout are viewed with such fear and trepidation. I, by the way, have no problem with the concept of multiple
"truths."

"I wouldn't expect anything from you, except your sincere evaluation and effort at objectivity."

Understood.

"I struggled with most of the things you have as well, including watching seemingly ignorant old folks pray with such a focus and intensity while they seem to have nothing but grief in their lives. Then when something tragic happened, they seemed to make excuses for God and they would grasp tighter to their faith. It seemed pathetic to me."

Indeed.

"This is what I believe. It turns out that thats just what we asked for. It's the price of free will. We have the freedom to help or hurt fellow man, and the darkness in our hearts chose the latter much more often than the former. Looking at this world, surely you can see evidence of that whether you believe in God or not. If God constantly rights our wrongs we would not learn anything, nor would we see motivation to resist temptation. We decide our own fate and this way we won't have any excuses..."

Isn't one of the reasons for worship, in its truest sense, to draw nearer to an omnipotent entity in order to curry favor? This may no longer be true
as far as Christianity is concerned, but it was true in the past for ALL religions. Now, if God is indeed omnipotent, why must these wrongs be
possible in the first place? Even if God has decided to allow people to succumb to the darkness in there hearts with the intention of letting
them burn later for their choices, how does it make sense to allow these same individuals to destroy the innocent and weak in the process?
Forgive what I'm about to say as you might find it presumptuous. But if I had the power to create the limitless wonders that spiral around
us, I wouldn't hesitate to stop a child from being raped, an old woman from dying a slow lingering death, a young powerful nation
from attacking an old weak one for no valid reason or any of the other horrors I see around me. I would allow free will, sure, but ONLY
to the point where that free will spilt over towards others.

"You know what I struggled with more? That God says, "Blessed are those with childlike faith." I never had it. I questioned everything about the Bible in every aspect - science, history, and was skeptical even in the face of evidence, to the point where I grew notorious at church. I found all the evidence I need, in this book and in various other books by authors such as Hugh Ross and other very accomplished scientists."

Wow, that must be SOME book. I look forward to reading it.

If you ever give God another chance, sans the cynicism, I think He'll show you why evidence doesn't make a believer. Faith is an intangible. I don't quite have it as well as I'd like, but evidence alone... It'll get you in the door to want to know more, but faith and humility and patience are in the heart, and I believe those are the things that can draw you to God."

Cynicism? Is that what you think I'm about? You're wrong. Sure I can be scornful, vindictive, contemptuous and downright mean when it comes to
those who believe. But this isn't my nature. I've developed these things as a powerful defensive measure after years of being talked down to
and berated by religious folks, some of whom couldn't hold a candle to my intellect. I'd much rather I be left alone and equal in my choices, but
most religious people simply can't abide that. Again, they preach peace and love, but aren't willing to put forth the effort to make it happen.

Sure faith is an intangible, just like all human emotional constructs. But for me, that intangible MUST spring from the tangible. For instance, I trust
and have complete faith in my wife. For 19-years she has never given me a reason to feel otherwise. I've been through that "door" many
times, BM, and right back through it. But, as always, I'm willing to examine new data as it presents itself.

 

[busmaster11]

Have you checked your private messages? Just click at the top of the page, next to the lock icon where it says X new messages.

 

[Czesia]

I personally see nothing wrong with conservatism, although, I am a little bit lost when trying to figure out your entire point in the thread. The lengthy entry made it difficult to grasp.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Here is your definition... This is very applicable for the loudmouth conservatives.

Do as I say, not how I live.

its applicable to ALL politicians