Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 88 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I watched a movie with my kids last night called "Timechanger" and it was really good.

What I noticed about it was that it talked about morality and that you can't have moral standards (from the Christian point of view) without evolking the name of Jesus or the Bible as the source. Meaning, without the authority, then the moral standard is just an opinion.

It was a really good movie and certainly shows why moral debate with worldly rationals, really can't and won't stand up. Dwayne: Why daddy can't I marry Steve? Dad: Because it's wrong, urr not right. Dwayne: But why? Dad: Urr, I don't like it, if you do, never come back.........

Sadly, our country will continue to slide into whatever rational people have including euthanasia and perhaps even infanticide.

About infanticide, I bet you think I'm crazy, but it's already happening in an unofficial way (some people dump babies in trash cans, etc.), as a their logical action, why can't they have a group start to legalize it (if no one is willing to adopt them). Call it abortion after birth, just reconsidered.

By the way, cloning for organs is very close to the same thing. In fact, it is the same thing, THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Take a pill, man. You're getting a little edgy.

I'm leafing through the Bible here, looking for the verse on cloning. Meanwhile, would you share with us your thoughts on the Xian dominionist movement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
Speak for yourself.

If you need Jesus and the Bible to <i>force</i> you to be a good person, then please keep the faith.

Speaking for myself, I don't need to be bribed or threatened by the Almighty to recognize or do the right thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Let me help you.

BottomBracketShell said:
I'm leafing through the Bible here, looking for the verse on cloning. Meanwhile, would you share with us your thoughts on the Xian dominionist movement?
You need to break the issue down to common terms.
Cloning involves life and the vlaue of it. The Bible speaks tons about those things.

By the way, did you know it speaks to every aspect of society and life. Transportation anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It'll be funny when you have to make a stand

czardonic said:
Speak for yourself.

If you need Jesus and the Bible to <i>force</i> you to be a good person, then please keep the faith.

Speaking for myself, I don't need to be bribed or threatened by the Almighty to recognize or do the right thing.
You won't be able to. Pick an issue you want to defend. You'll have no ground except your opinion. Scary huh?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
So does kindergarten.

Flip Flash said:
By the way, did you know it speaks to every aspect of society and life. Transportation anyone?
Christian dominionism? Want to show your cards here?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Your response sounds small minded and bigoted

You ridicule people who desire to follow the teachings of their religion. That's nice! Jews follow the teachings of the Tanach, yet Jews seem to be spared your criticism. It's quite obvious you are a bigot!


czardonic said:
Speak for yourself.

If you need Jesus and the Bible to force you to be a good person, then please keep the faith.

Speaking for myself, I don't need to be bribed or threatened by the Almighty to recognize or do the right thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
You're absolutely right, I will never tell my child it is wrong without having a good rational reason for believing it's wrong (not just it's wrong because God told me so). If my son ends up being gay and wants to marry Steve (is this what you were implying?) he'll have my blessing because it's more important to me that he live a happy, fulfilled life than anything else.

Euthanasia, I'm totally in support of that. Who the hell are you or any one else to tell someone else when it's time for them to end their own life if they so chose?

Keep 'em coming if you want to my stance on ethical issues.
 

·
Censored by *********
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
People who need to have an invisible external warden to keep them "moral" should have a
camera trained on them at all times.

Paul


Flip Flash said:
I watched a movie with my kids last night called "Timechanger" and it was really good.

What I noticed about it was that it talked about morality and that you can't have moral standards (from the Christian point of view) without evolking the name of Jesus or the Bible as the source. Meaning, without the authority, then the moral standard is just an opinion.

It was a really good movie and certainly shows why moral debate with worldly rationals, really can't and won't stand up. Dwayne: Why daddy can't I marry Steve? Dad: Because it's wrong, urr not right. Dwayne: But why? Dad: Urr, I don't like it, if you do, never come back.........

Sadly, our country will continue to slide into whatever rational people have including euthanasia and perhaps even infanticide.

About infanticide, I bet you think I'm crazy, but it's already happening in an unofficial way (some people dump babies in trash cans, etc.), as a their logical action, why can't they have a group start to legalize it (if no one is willing to adopt them). Call it abortion after birth, just reconsidered.

By the way, cloning for organs is very close to the same thing. In fact, it is the same thing, THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
What might that be?

The only thing that is obvious here is that you are a bigoted hypocrite. I believe I remember you ranting how Giuliani was a fascist like Hitler because he wanted to shut down funding to the Brooklyn Museum in response to exhibits he and other Catholics found offensive. Yet now you are in support of either suppressing the release of "The Passion" or forcing it to be edited. You claim that because it depicts Jews as having a hand in the death of Jesus of Nazareth (a factual not a subjective issue), that the author and anyone supporting this view are anti-Semites. That's a big stretch and quite a bigoted view. I also say it's a hypocritical view because of your previous stance on freedom of speech and expression - see Dixie Chics, etc. But, that's nothing new from you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
You overestimate yourself. Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine

[Benjamin Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine

by Benjamin Franklin



Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a printer, author, inventor, scientist, philanthropist, statesman, diplomat, and public official. He was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774); a member of the Continental Congress (1775-76) where he signed the Declaration of Independence (1776); a negotiator and signer of the final treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783); and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he signed the federal Constitution (1787); Franklin was one of only six men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He wrote his own epitaph, which declared: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter 1 is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.




TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paine latter published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"”; 7 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 8 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 9

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 10 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 11 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 12 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 13



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes
1. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-2.(Return)
2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.(Return)
3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 372-373, to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802.(Return)
4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 770, to John Dickinson on February 16, 1796. (Return)
5. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), p. 203.(Return)
6. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 24, n. 2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.(Return)
7. John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain’s [sic] “Rights of Man” (London: John Stockdale, 1793), p. 13.(Return)
8. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford.(Return)
9. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250, to his daughter Betsy on August 20, 1796; see also, George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 366 n; and Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. II, p. 12.(Return)
10. John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.(Return)
11. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.(Return)
12. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833) Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.(Return)
13. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Thomas Paine.” (Return)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
It must not be obvious, if you need it explained to you <i>again</i>.


Live Steam said:
The only thing that is obvious here is that you are a bigoted hypocrite. I believe I remember you ranting how Giuliani was a fascist like Hitler because he wanted to shut down funding to the Brooklyn Museum in response to exhibits he and other Catholics found offensive. Yet now you are in support of either suppressing the release of "The Passion" or forcing it to be edited.
Incorrect. I don't object to Gibson's movie because of who it might offend. I object to it because of who it might <i>incite</i> to violence. I know that this fact offends your sensibilities, but Jews have been targeted by Christians to the tune of millions of lives taken violently and unjustly because of the blood libel. And given your tortured attempts to sweep this sorry record of religious zealotry under the rug, I don't think I am being "hyper-sensitive" to the possibility that this behavior will continue. If there was a similar record of anti-Catholic genocide inspired by tastless art, I would be against the display of such incitements too. But there isn't, so you don't have a leg to stand on.


Live Steam said:
You claim that because it depicts Jews as having a hand in the death of Jesus of Nazareth (a factual not a subjective issue), that the author and anyone supporting this view are anti-Semites. That's a big stretch and quite a bigoted view.
Having a hand is one thing. Portraying an ugly and selectively negative "vision" of Jews at the time of the Crucifiction, especially one that concentrates on their hand to the exclusion of others, is another.


Live Steam said:
I also say it's a hypocritical view because of your previous stance on freedom of speak and expression - see Dixie Chics, etc. But, that's nothing new from you.
For the umpteenth time, I am not suggesting that anyone be censored or boycotted. I am simply expressing my opinion that Gibson is an irresponsible zealot. He is rehashing what is literally ancient history with the intent of inspiring religous fervor and pretending that only the "good" kind of religious fervor will result.

I don't see anything that validates your mantra of "hypocrite"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Haven't we already agreed that acceptance of God is a matter of Faith not reason or did I misunderstand? If we agree it is Faith there is no arguement, you either believe or you don't. End of story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
alternatives

Flip Flash said:
I watched a movie with my kids last night called "Timechanger" and it was really good.

What I noticed about it was that it talked about morality and that you can't have moral standards (from the Christian point of view) without evolking the name of Jesus or the Bible as the source. Meaning, without the authority, then the moral standard is just an opinion.

It was a really good movie and certainly shows why moral debate with worldly rationals, really can't and won't stand up. Dwayne: Why daddy can't I marry Steve? Dad: Because it's wrong, urr not right. Dwayne: But why? Dad: Urr, I don't like it, if you do, never come back.........

Sadly, our country will continue to slide into whatever rational people have including euthanasia and perhaps even infanticide.

About infanticide, I bet you think I'm crazy, but it's already happening in an unofficial way (some people dump babies in trash cans, etc.), as a their logical action, why can't they have a group start to legalize it (if no one is willing to adopt them). Call it abortion after birth, just reconsidered.

By the way, cloning for organs is very close to the same thing. In fact, it is the same thing, THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
"Reciprocal altruism" and "social contract" are bases for morals, ethics, and social codes, not necessarily based upon religion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I see the difference now. You believe that Christians/Catholics won't be able to control themselves because they went to see a movie about Christ and how he died. New flash here - we all knew it before the movie. Again a movie does not create a bigot or Jew hater, and it's small-minded to think so.

My mantra of hypocrite comes from the idea that you're all for freedom of speech and expression as long as it doesn't conflict with your ideas. I also say you are a hypocrite because you believe that the suffering of the Jews is worse than suffering experienced by any other group. I am sorry, but that is hypocritical!

 

·
Censored by *********
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
So, you admit that god is unnecessary for the truly moral. Those who use him/her/it to control themselves or, worse, others are no better than rats moving along the walls of a maze. The truly moral know that they can trust themselves without the promise of a reward or the threat of punishment.

And while we're on the topic, just how is it that so many who "know" there's a hell do the very things that will send themselves there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
factual test?

czardonic said:
It must not be obvious, if you need it explained to you <i>again</i>.




Incorrect. I don't object to Gibson's movie because of who it might offend. I object to it because of who it might <i>incite</i> to violence. I know that this fact offends your sensibilities, but Jews have been targeted by Christians to the tune of millions of lives taken violently and unjustly because of the blood libel. And given your tortured attempts to sweep this sorry record of religious zealotry under the rug, I don't think I am being "hyper-sensitive" to the possibility that this behavior will continue. If there was a similar record of anti-Catholic genocide inspired by tastless art, I would be against the display of such incitements too. But there isn't, so you don't have a leg to stand on.




Having a hand is one thing. Portraying an ugly and selectively negative "vision" of Jews at the time of the Crucifiction, especially one that concentrates on their hand to the exclusion of others, is another.




For the umpteenth time, I am not suggesting that anyone be censored or boycotted. I am simply expressing my opinion that Gibson is an irresponsible zealot. He is rehashing what is literally ancient history with the intent of inspiring religous fervor and pretending that only the "good" kind of religious fervor will result.

I don't see anything that validates your mantra of "hypocrite"
Seems to me that your objection to the movie is largely based upon a belief that it will, in fact, incite violence against Jews. If it does not actually do that, where do you stand?

My belief if that the movie, and I'm saying this before having seen it, is that it will cause the faithful to be more inspired to follow the teachings of Christ, which is certainly not to be bigoted or violent against anyone, much less Jews. That's just the total opposite of what Christ was all about.

Now, will a few idiots be incited who otherwise would not be? I don't know. There are enough nutcases out there who might be incited by The Simpsons or The Bachlorette, for all I know, to do something illegal; I don't think we can live such that we dumb down our lives to the least common denominator so that there will be zero chance of inciting someone to do something bad. I don't think it's even possible.

Just think of all the "bad guys" in the movies. For example, in a movie in which Mel Gibson starred, the bad guys were affluent white guys from South Africa. Do you have any problem with incitment against them? They certainly were detestable. I'm sure we could cite example all day long, and you'd try to split hairs and differentiate every one of them, but nonetheless I think the real questions are whether there will actually be incitement to violence, and then whether that is an acceptable risk, given the good that might come from the work and our values of freedom of expression, too.

I get the impression that you (czar) are not pro-Jew, pro-Islam, pro-atheist, but are actually very anti-Christian. Would that be the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Yes...

Flip Flash said:
I watched a movie with my kids last night called "Timechanger" and it was really good.

What I noticed about it was that it talked about morality and that you can't have moral standards (from the Christian point of view) without evolking the name of Jesus or the Bible as the source. Meaning, without the authority, then the moral standard is just an opinion.
.
I would think anyone would consider a Buddhist country as a moral one and they not only have no bible but one of the central messages of the Buddha was "Take my words and test them for yourself, simply because I said it does not make it true".
 
1 - 20 of 88 Posts
Top