Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Dayton Kitchens, Mar 18, 2019.
Unless you consider becoming a head coach a standard.
I think the wannabe head coach is confusing maintaining standards with setting goals. You can fail at the latter but still achieve the former.
Funny, isn't it? He judges LGBTQ people for things he'd never do (that we know of), and yet what he seems to be saying with his "specks and specks" argument is that since he's never murdered anyone he has no business forming opinions about murderers.
That's utterly ridiculous and you well know it. I'm perfectly free to condemn any sin that I've never committed.
You are, and people are equally free to keep point out that in the spirit of the Good Samaritan you were one of those passing judgement who were happy leaving someone in trouble alone on the road.
What in the story of the Good Samaritan had to do with "judging"?
Which contradicts your entire "argument" against Matthew 7:5.
Other than it being the whole point of the parable?
Errrr.... are you sure? That seems to BE his argument regarding Matthew 7:5.
So if you have committed a sin you can't judge?
My understanding of the scriptures is that you should not judge others of sins you are CURRENTLY GUILTY of. That is if you are cheating on your spouse you should not condemn someone else who is cheating on their spouse.
Now if you cheated on your spouse ten years ago, and your spouse forgave you and you asked God to forgive you then you can condemn that same sin committed by someone else as it is no longer held against you.
Ok, but if someone doesn't believe in God (or, at the very least, your God) what then?
You see this whole idea seems very circular to me, the church decides on what sin is (and they do - there are many branches of Christianity with just as many interpretations of the Bible) and the church is made up of people.
Those people are no different to any other people and every bit as prone to selfishness, greed and corruption as anyone else. So what supports this idea that their interpretation of scripture is any better a guide to behaviour than anything else?
Everyone has to study the scriptures honestly and open mindedly to establish what they believe. You will find that even within different churches there are variations on interpretations among members. God might accept some of those interpretations. He might reject others.
Have you read the Quran?
How about the Mahayana Sutras?
Those differences in interpretation have resulted in some of the bloodiest periods in human history. People are still killing each other over them today, yet from an outside perspective there's nothing which makes any of them more convincing than any other religious text.
I put it to you had you been born in India you would likely be a Muslim or a Sikh, if you were born in Nepal you'd be a Buddhist.
The religion would have a different name, a different face, but you'd make exactly the same arguments in its' defense, because at root they are all equally valid to their adherents. All would claim that others are misguided.
So why would I look at your faith as any more authoritative than any other?
Your question is beyond my ability to answer at this time.
That's ok, I'm not trying to catch you out here.
This is very much one of my concerns about religion in general, that from an outside perspective it's very difficult to differentiate why any one should be seen as the one true correct path and others are imposters. I've said before that I have a lot of respect and admiration for the teachings of the man known as Jesus if what we know of him is true, but equally I see much that is deeply worthwhile in Buddhism and some aspects of the various Pagan traditions.
Traditions which can historically be shown to not only predate Judeo Christian faiths but to have been incorporated into them.
See my problem? Every single one of those faiths (and many others) believe every bit as fervently as you do, they would all make the same claim to have found some measure of enlightenment.
None of them, however, have truthfully managed to change human nature or produce people who were at core any different to their counterparts elsewhere.
One thing you don't tend to see though are armies fighting under the banner of secularism.
It's the story of the blind men and the elephant.
Really? What about Communists? Or Nazis for that matter?
I might be wrong, but they did not fight to promote secularism, it was incidental. The Jews were an easy target for social and economic reasons, but it wasn't their faith which was being targeted per se.
Fun fact, church attendance actually rose in Nazi Germany at least amongst Catholics.
Countless wars have, though, been fought in the name of converting people to a given religion, bringing God to the Heathens.
Belief systems, not dissimilar to religions in that sense.
Aren't those distinctions with out a difference?
Fun fact, church attendance actually rose in Nazi Germany at least amongst Catholics.
Countless wars have, though, been fought in the name of converting people to a given religion, bringing God to the Heathens.[/quote]
You could make a quite credible argument that the Crusades had nothing to do with "converting people" and were instead motivated by the geopolitical/cultural situation in feudalistic Europe as well. As you well know, almost every war has multiple causes so attributing religion as the main reason for any significant conflict is difficult at best. Or a lack of religion as a contributing factor too.
For example? Was James Brady murdered by John Hinkley?
I'm not sure they are distinctions without a difference.
You're right, of course, wars rarely are fought for one specific political or ideological reason, but as a rallying cry religion has consistently proved very effective.
Other causes and ideologies have served the same purpose, you mentioned a few there, but I really do struggle to think of a war of aggression which sought to bring rationality and humanism to an enemy, or used that as a propaganda tool.
If I had to speculate why it would be that critical thinking and skepticism are very difficult things to unite people with. By their nature they are individualistic pursuits and cannot be reduced to slogans, mottos or anthems.
You can sum up patriotism with something along the lines of "For God and Country" and people will see that as a cause to be loyal to, it's simple, emotive and sounds worthwhile. Soldiers are not effective when they are thinking deeply about the reasons and justifications.
I notice you disagree with this @Dayton3 , can you educate me on what the message of that parable was intended to be?
I believe the parable of the good Samaritan was meant to show that a person should do what is right without regard for who benefits from it. In essence, that the correctness is in the act itself and not who it effects.
In addition it should be noted that the parable is in part answer to the query Jesus received about "who is my neighbor". From what I've read "neighbor" in most Middle Eastern cultures is completely opposite of how we see the relationship in western culture. In our western culture a "neighbor" is automatically implied to be someone you should be friendly with and get along with (or at least try) no matter who are what they are if for no other reason for expediency's sake. Like helping the guy next door start his car even if he is a local drug dealer.
But to a Middle Easterner, a "neighbor" is actually someone to be suspicious of. Because it's your "neighbor" who competes with you for resources like water and grazing lands. Middle Easterners (except for Persians) actually put more stock in being good to strangers. Hence the horror of Lot in Sodom when the men of the city came to the door of his home and sought to rape the two young men who were his guests (who turned out to be angels anyway).
I can guarantee @Dayton3 is going nowhere near heaven. I have made bargains for a few thousand years of playing with him as my toy and I will kick in the gates of heaven to have my toy. What can I say, lucifer likes me in some way.
I think the issue here is that most American detractors of climate change also have a 12-year obsession, but it's their cousin.
"Neighbour", in my interpretation, was supposed to mean pretty much whoever you are interacting with regardless of who they are.
I'm skeptical of this interpretation. It doesn't really match up with the Biblical contextual evidence.
Another one for @Captain Conspiracy. Rather than surface area, this shows the actual volume of ice.
Separate names with a comma.