The Nature of True Religion

[Virgil Showlion]

TL;DR: Don't bother reading and please don't bother commenting. This thread is for readers with the time and patience to digest the OP in its entirety.


This thread stems from the debate here about the inseparability of religion from what was called "public practice of religion" (by myself), "controlling others [sic] behavior/choices" (oped), and "forcing [...] beliefs on others" (RichardInTN). The debate centered on two statements:

1. To hate an ideology, doctrine, or practice, it suffices that you don't want it practiced publicly and are willing to take steps to ensure it doesn't.
   
   
2. Despising public religion is tantamount to despising religion itself.
   

This thread is intended mainly to address the latter point.

The first and most important issue to address is the nature of true religion. Various statements (e.g. Reply #254) betray a postmodern areligious view of religion: a collection of phatic rituals, traditions, idols (crosses, rosaries, etc.), and isolated social meetings. Religion is "tacked on" to life. It may have some nominal influence on political views but is subordinate to prevailing social attitudes, personal reasoning, convenience, public acceptability, as well as all civil laws, statutes, and regulations. Life isn't strictly bound by religious dictates (if such dictates even exist), decisions are made independently of God and His Word, and individuals have no moral obligations beyond passive compliance with the established social order.

Indeed, most nominally religious people of all faiths in our time practice such a religion. It's easy to see why Richard et al. mistakenly see "religion" as little more than men dancing naked in the street, fondling crucifixes, muttering quiet prayers in church twice a year on holidays. Nevertheless, this is not true religion.

True religion is a whole and intractable way of life. It specifies a man's purpose, his morals and judgments, rules of conduct, fundamental view of humanity and the universe, views on laws, governance, and society, his focus, beliefs, passions, hopes, sorrows, expectations, and every other aspect of his existence. It is inseparable from how he interacts with his fellow man, governs, teaches, wages war, rears children, confronts immorality and criminality, and judges between righteousness and unrighteousness. Furthermore, it is by no means subordinate to prevailing social attitudes, personal reasoning, convenience, public acceptability, or civil laws beyond the specific ways in which his religion dictates observance of these things.

Although I fall short in many ways, this is the ideal I personally strive toward. If I convince anyone of anything in this thread, I hope it will be the absurdity of asking me or anyone who practices religion (of any faith) as defined above to "practice their religion" without "forcing beliefs on others". I can do nothing in public without forcing my beliefs on others in some sense. The laws I support, I support because of my religion--specifically, the teachings of Jesus Christ. The laws I obey or disobey, I obey or disobey in accordance with my religion. When I govern and organize people under my control (employees, organizations under my leadership), I govern according to the principles and statutes of my religion.

When I donate money to combat injustice, assist my fellow man, preach the gospel, or any other thing, I do so in accordance with my religion, often for the express purpose of extending the reach of my religion into every dark corner of my society and the world. When my wife and I raise our children, God willing, we will raise them according to the principles, obligations, and responsibilities laid out by our religion. Every debate I have, every public action I take, every example I strive to set, every public show of reverence to God, any support or opposition to the enshrining of symbols and practices (what to teach, what to fund, which civil duties to attend to, which duties to abstain from, etc.), every solitary aspect of how I interact with the world and my fellow man, including those that might reasonably be construed as "forcing beliefs on others" or "controlling others' behavior/choices" (through laws, parentage, indoctrination, admonition, spending, debate, speech, conduct, calls to prayer, and every other conceivable mode of influence) are subject to my religion.

All of this I call "public practice of religion". To the extent that man forbids any of it, he forbids me. As I said to Richard in the previous thread, to forbid any of these modes of influence is to forbid my religion entirely. You'd do as well to forbid a car from driving or to forbid a banana from being eaten. The trappings left over--the postmodern alregious man's version of "religion": all pointless vanity.

For Christians in the readership, although I might choose from hundreds of scriptures to emphasize the singular importance of religion (and of zealous, true religion in particular), the one that first comes to mind is Revelation 3:15-18 (AKJV):

I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel you to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich; and white raiment, that you may be clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Written to the church of Laodicea, the final era of the Church. Written to you, me, and all Christians today.

As a final note: Is everything that oped might call "controlling others' behavior/choices" and Richard calls "forcing your beliefs on others" a mandated part of my religion?

Of course not. The Bible tightly proscribes when and how a Christian is to manifest his religion, and I am beholden to these limits. I'm not Saul of Tarsus, storming into neighbours' homes and dragging them in front of the synagogues. Nor am I among the cohort who would demand that state-mandated educational curricula teach creationism. Nor do I consent to any organization calling itself a church to govern in the style of the Roman Catholic Church or its descendants (including the entirety of Protestantism). And many other things besides, I am not.

But what I am privately, I am publicly; and I do nothing publicly except in the ways an areligious man would call "forcing your beliefs on others" (concerning the religious) or "establishing law and order in society" (concerning himself).

@richardintn : If you hold point (1) above to be true (regarding sufficiency for hatred), I trust this post establishes my basis for asserting (2), and thus why I assert you hate religion. I realize you may not accept my definition of "true religion"; you may want to call it "forcing beliefs" or whatever else suits you. So long as we both understand we're talking about what I've defined here, you can critique my summary of your position without us having to agree on terms.

[thyme4change]

Shocking that this isn't full of responses, especially with the first sentence laying out precisely who may and may not participate, as judged by the OP, who has the power to eliminate posts and posters that do not comply.

[weltschmerz]

"When I donate money to combat injustice, assist my fellow man, preach the gospel, or any other thing, I do so in accordance with my religion, often for the express purpose of extending the reach of my religion into every dark corner of my society and the world"
----------------------

A lot of people in every dark corner of the world, or even here at home, want nothing to do with your religion. You have no business spreading it like the Spanish flu.

That's why I donate to secular charities only.

When I hear  "God's love "in an appeal for charitable donations, they're not getting a nickel from me.

[weltschmerz]

You come bearing bread with one hand, while holding a bible in the other.

Your charitable help comes with strings attached. It's not selfless.

[thyme4change]

Christian missionaries have unapologetically destroyed many cultures in the name of God, and then they whine that immigrants aren't immediately baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans.

[weltschmerz]

I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you're Jewish, tough. If you're Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you're not worthy of assistance. It's quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they're most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls. (In the interest of full disclosure, I personally received help from the Red Cross when my apartment building burned down in 2001. They were extremely helpful and compassionate, and expected nothing in return.)

www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=The-Salvation-Army-s-Red-K-by-Mary-Shaw-081213-14.html

[weltschmerz]

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 14:42:13 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Shocking that this isn't full of responses, especially with the first sentence laying out precisely who may and may not participate, as judged by the OP, who has the power to eliminate posts and posters that do not comply.

Assuming I went mad with power, flouted all oversight, and attempted to enforce compliance, how on Earth could I possibly know who does or doesn't read the OP in its entirety before replying?

Please consider the disclaimer in the OP a 100% voluntary suggestion to the readership on how to avoid wasting our collective time.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 16:39:32 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Your charitable help comes with strings attached.

Whatever you say, Weltz.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me who I extend charitable help to and what strings I attach to it. I'm sure I'm as curious as everyone else.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 17:08:54 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Christian missionaries have unapologetically destroyed many cultures in the name of God, and then they whine that immigrants aren't immediately baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans.

What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

"baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans"...? What in the world...?

[weltschmerz]

Dec 28, 2017 17:41:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2017 16:39:32 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Your charitable help comes with strings attached.

Whatever you say, Weltz.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me who I extend charitable help to and what strings I attach to it. I'm sure I'm as curious as everyone else.

Oh, for God's sake, Virgil! You said it right here!

"When I donate money to combat injustice, assist my fellow man, preach the gospel, or any other thing, I do so in accordance with my religion, often for the express purpose of extending the reach of my religion into every dark corner of my society and the world"

You donate money to extend the reach of your religion into every dark corner of  the world.
Your charitable giving to "assist your fellow man" is not selfless.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 17:52:37 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

You donate money to extend the reach of your religion into every dark corner of  the world.
Your charitable giving to "assist your fellow man" is not selfless.

1. Not all my donations go to preaching the gospel.
   
   
2. If I don't genuinely believe that preaching the gospel helps other people, what personal (i.e. selfish) benefit do I derive from it?
   
   
3. If I do genuinely believe that preaching the gospel helps other people, what personal benefit do I derive from it aside from that inherent in helping other people?
   

[weltschmerz]

Ugh.

It's called evangelism, Virgil. Spreading the word, into every dark corner. It doesn't mean you personally benefit, but it's a tenet of your religion.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 18:08:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Ugh.

It's called evangelism, Virgil. Spreading the word, into every dark corner. It doesn't mean you personally benefit, but it's a tenet of your religion.

Yes. All this is true.

selfless (adj.) Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; unselfish.

If I derive no personal benefit from evangelism, which you seem to be affirming here, how does it not comport with this definition?

[thyme4change]

Dec 28, 2017 17:46:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2017 17:08:54 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Christian missionaries have unapologetically destroyed many cultures in the name of God, and then they whine that immigrants aren't immediately baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans.

What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

"baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans"...? What in the world...?

The true nature of religion: believe what I believe, say the approved things, act as I instruct you to, or else be tortured and damned for all eternity.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 18:26:33 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Dec 28, 2017 17:46:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

"baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans"...? What in the world...?

The true nature of religion: believe what I believe, say the approved things, act as I instruct you to, or else be tortured and damned for all eternity.

You're appealing to the Faustian concept of Hell, which isn't Biblical; a Catholic view of judgment, which isn't Biblical; and supposing Biblical laws to be "mine", which is no more true than the idea that atheistic precepts are "yours".

None of these have anything to do with the OP or "baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans".

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2017 12:02:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

TL;DR: Don't bother reading and please don't bother commenting. This thread is for readers with the time and patience to digest the OP in its entirety.


This thread stems from the debate here about the inseparability of religion from what was called "public practice of religion" (by myself), "controlling others [sic] behavior/choices" (oped), and "forcing [...] beliefs on others" (RichardInTN). The debate centered on two statements:

1. To hate an ideology, doctrine, or practice, it suffices that you don't want it practiced publicly and are willing to take steps to ensure it doesn't.
   
   
2. Despising public religion is tantamount to despising religion itself.
   

...

...

@richardintn : If you hold point (1) above to be true (regarding sufficiency for hatred), I trust this post establishes my basis for asserting (2), and thus why I assert you hate religion. I realize you may not accept my definition of "true religion"; you may want to call it "forcing beliefs" or whatever else suits you. So long as we both understand we're talking about what I've defined here, you can critique my summary of your position without us having to agree on terms.

I don't hold point one to be true... so the rest of the question is essenytially pointless. Point one is YOUR point... not mine.

I never made ANY point arguing against the public practice of religion, by private individuals. My sole point is that they should not be allowed to force their beliefs upon others.

I said it in the other thread: Feel free to do whatever your religion requires you to do SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T FORCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW/PARTICIPATE.

If your religion requires everyone to dance naked around a fire in the town square at noon... (as long as you have the proper fire permit and clean up the mess afterwards) YOU, and your FELLOW BELIEVERS can go for it. Have a blast. Worship in peace. Enjoy. Where you get into trouble is when you forcibly strip someone else and MAKE THEM DANCE NAKED TOO, AGAINST THEIR WILL AND AGAINST THEIR RIGHTS.

[mmhmm]

Dec 28, 2017 17:58:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2017 17:52:37 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

You donate money to extend the reach of your religion into every dark corner of  the world.
Your charitable giving to "assist your fellow man" is not selfless.

1. Not all my donations go to preaching the gospel.
   
   
2. If I don't genuinely believe that preaching the gospel helps other people, what personal (i.e. selfish) benefit do I derive from it?
   
   
3. If I do genuinely believe that preaching the gospel helps other people, what personal benefit do I derive from it aside from that inherent in helping other people?
   

There is, indeed, a secondary gain from helping other people. One feels better about oneself. In the case of preaching the gospel to others (some of whom, perhaps, don't really care to hear it), the secondary gain comes from the knowledge you're giving your treasure trove of very important knowledge to those poor unfortunates who don't know all the wonders you know. None of that is wrong. It's human. We feel better when we help others and we can't help but feel better when we know more than others and can educate them. Problems may arise when the others you've chosen to educate already have the education they need,  through their own efforts. and don't wish to entertain your contributions. We all run into this at times.

[thyme4change]

Dec 28, 2017 19:58:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2017 18:26:33 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

The true nature of religion: believe what I believe, say the approved things, act as I instruct you to, or else be tortured and damned for all eternity.

You're appealing to the Faustian concept of Hell, which isn't Biblical; a Catholic view of judgment, which isn't Biblical; and supposing Biblical laws to be "mine", which is no more true than the idea that atheistic precepts are "yours".

None of these have anything to do with the OP or "baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans".

Sure it does. It is all about conforming and getting others to conform. And when you use the government to create laws based on your religion, then you can use that law to force everyone to conform.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2017 23:22:51 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Dec 28, 2017 19:58:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're appealing to the Faustian concept of Hell, which isn't Biblical; a Catholic view of judgment, which isn't Biblical; and supposing Biblical laws to be "mine", which is no more true than the idea that atheistic precepts are "yours".

None of these have anything to do with the OP or "baseball loving, apple pie eating, crotch scratching Americans".

Sure it does. It is all about conforming and getting others to conform. And when you use the government to create laws based on your religion, then you can use that law to force everyone to conform.

AND even more...

When you set the precedent that it's acceptable to rule based on your beliefs, you approve of the next religion doing the same to YOU and force THEIR beliefs on YOU when they become the majority. "it only counts if it's Christianity" doesn't fly.

If you wouldn't want a religion you don't agree with forced upon you... you are a hypocrite if you force your religion on others that don't want it.

[Virgil Showlion]

@richardintn: You're not disputing the specific arguments in the OP, and I indeed spent quite a bit of time crafting the missive, paying particular care and attention to how you personally would interpret it. If you read it in its entirety, I think you'll realize our positions aren't so far apart.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 28, 2017 22:51:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There is, indeed, a secondary gain from helping other people. One feels better about oneself. In the case of preaching the gospel to others (some of whom, perhaps, don't really care to hear it), the secondary gain comes from the knowledge you're giving your treasure trove of very important knowledge to those poor unfortunates who don't know all the wonders you know.

Indeed, which is why I was careful to qualify point #3 "personal benefit [...] aside from that inherent in helping other people".

I'm sure you'll agree that any happiness or satisfaction one may derive from helping others doesn't obviate the selfless nature of the act.

Dec 28, 2017 22:51:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Problems may arise when the others you've chosen to educate already have the education they need,  through their own efforts. and don't wish to entertain your contributions. We all run into this at times.

Whether man has the "education he needs" is the key point of contention between Christians and non-Christians. Among Christians, there are disagreements about what Christians should and shouldn't do to teach others.

While you and I may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, I believe our views align to the extent that we both believe right and wrong exist, and that man must be proactively educated on what is right and what is wrong.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 2:55:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you wouldn't want a religion you don't agree with forced upon you... you are a hypocrite if you force your religion on others that don't want it.

This is tantamount to saying "If you wouldn't want the laws of Salafist Islam forced on you abroad, you're a hypocrite if you force your neighbour to comply with Western law."

Hypocrisy is to exempt oneself from one's own standards. If the Christian standard was "All religions are good and no one religion should interfere with any other," then indeed Christian interference in other religions would be hypocritical.

However, as we well know, this is decidedly not the Christian standard. The Christian standard is "There is one Way, one Truth, one God, one Holy Law, and no others. Objective right and wrong do exist and are well defined." There is no relativism in Christ. There are no injunctions against preaching to non-believers for sake of noninterference. The standard is asserted boldly and absolutely, no different than the laws of our society--one set of laws imposed uniformly across all people, with or without their consent (at least until the advent of affirmative action, protected classes, sanctuary cities, financial bailouts, etc., but I digress).

[mmhmm]

Dec 29, 2017 8:56:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 28, 2017 22:51:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There is, indeed, a secondary gain from helping other people. One feels better about oneself. In the case of preaching the gospel to others (some of whom, perhaps, don't really care to hear it), the secondary gain comes from the knowledge you're giving your treasure trove of very important knowledge to those poor unfortunates who don't know all the wonders you know.

Indeed, which is why I was careful to qualify point #3 "personal benefit [...] aside from that inherent in helping other people".

I'm sure you'll agree that any happiness or satisfaction one may derive from helping others doesn't obviate the selfless nature of the act.

Dec 28, 2017 22:51:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Problems may arise when the others you've chosen to educate already have the education they need,  through their own efforts. and don't wish to entertain your contributions. We all run into this at times.

Whether man has the "education he needs" is the key point of contention between Christians and non-Christians. Among Christians, there are disagreements about what Christians should and shouldn't do to teach others.

While you and I may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, I believe our views align to the extent that we both believe right and wrong exist, and that man must be proactively educated on what is right and what is wrong.

To point one:   Even if one receives payment of a material nature for helping others, it doesn't obviate the good done; however, there is always a return on investment, whether personal or otherwise. Such things are never totally selfless and that should be recognized and owned by those who tout their selflessness (that's not pointed at anyone, just for the record). Human nature is, and will remain what it is.

To point two:   If you and I disagree on what is right and wrong, how and by whom is it determined who should be educating whom? What makes one of us so superior to the other as to render that one the teacher and the other the student? I'm more than twice your age, Virgil, and have spent many more years refining my views on life and living it. Should I find the need for education, I'll seek it out because I'm not a fool. When I do seek it out, I look for the right source from which to learn. I don't need someone else to decide what I need and intrude on my life to bring it to me. As I said, I'm not a fool. I also don't take my beliefs to others without their request and interest. I'm not superior to them and not qualified to teach them - only qualified to answer questions asked, if and when questions are asked, and only qualified to answer for myself.

Our views do align on the mutually recognized absolutes. Perhaps, you simply have more absolutes than I. The important thing to realize, as far as I'm concerned, is that not everyone needs another's "proactive" teaching to grow their world view and principles and not all will develop those from the same source. Individuals will come to this enlightenment, for the most part, through their own efforts and life experiences. For me, that's the richness of humanity.

[swamp]

You're right, TL/DR.

I don't want to debate or discuss religion with you because it's not a discussion, it's a lecture from you.  You are so convinced that you are correct in your interpretation of scripture that you, and you alone (or your church) know what God wants.  It comes across as obnoxious.  

As far as public displays of religion, i don't hate them, i don't care who worships in what way, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.    Using Richard's example, if a group wants to dance naked in the public square, have at it.    Actually, i like some public displays of religion.    When i was in law school, there was a predominantly black seventh day adventist church near my apartment.  I would sit outside the church and listen to the service and the music because it sounded so joyful.    It was loud, happy, and people were into it.  They would come out of  the church dripping sweat. 

Native American dances are part of their religion,and i enjoy watching those too.  

What i don't like is someone telling me how I should think, believe, or worship.   I also don't like how religion is used for social control. 

I don't help people out because God or scripture tells me to, i do it because I believe we all have an obligation to assist our fellow humans and use our skills to make the world a better place.   It's very hippyish.   If I don't do it, God isn't going to punish me. 

My opinion of God, if s/he exists, is that it so powerful and complex that us mere humans can't understand or comprehend it.    S/he certainly isn't a old dude sitting up in the sky, watching down on us, judging our actions.  

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2017 9:38:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 29, 2017 8:56:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Indeed, which is why I was careful to qualify point #3 "personal benefit [...] aside from that inherent in helping other people".

I'm sure you'll agree that any happiness or satisfaction one may derive from helping others doesn't obviate the selfless nature of the act.

Whether man has the "education he needs" is the key point of contention between Christians and non-Christians. Among Christians, there are disagreements about what Christians should and shouldn't do to teach others.

While you and I may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, I believe our views align to the extent that we both believe right and wrong exist, and that man must be proactively educated on what is right and what is wrong.

To point one:   Even if one receives payment of a material nature for helping others, it doesn't obviate the good done; however, there is always a return on investment, whether personal or otherwise. Such things are never totally selfless and that should be recognized and owned by those who tout their selflessness (that's not pointed at anyone, just for the record). Human nature is, and will remain what it is.

To point two:   If you and I disagree on what is right and wrong, how and by whom is it determined who should be educating whom? What makes one of us so superior to the other as to render that one the teacher and the other the student? I'm more than twice your age, Virgil, and have spent many more years refining my views on life and living it. Should I find the need for education, I'll seek it out because I'm not a fool. When I do seek it out, I look for the right source from which to learn. I don't need someone else to decide what I need and intrude on my life to bring it to me. As I said, I'm not a fool. I also don't take my beliefs to others without their request and interest. I'm not superior to them and not qualified to teach them - only qualified to answer questions asked, if and when questions are asked, and only qualified to answer for myself.

Our views do align on the mutually recognized absolutes. Perhaps, you simply have more absolutes than I. The important thing to realize, as far as I'm concerned, is that not everyone needs another's "proactive" teaching to grow their world view and principles and not all will develop those from the same source. Individuals will come to this enlightenment, for the most part, through their own efforts and life experiences. For me, that's the richness of humanity.

And therein lies the problem with this type of discussion with Virgil.   He thinks because he's a Christian, his views are the correct ones.    The ultimate in hubris.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 9:48:55 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 29, 2017 9:38:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

To point one:   Even if one receives payment of a material nature for helping others, it doesn't obviate the good done; however, there is always a return on investment, whether personal or otherwise. Such things are never totally selfless and that should be recognized and owned by those who tout their selflessness (that's not pointed at anyone, just for the record). Human nature is, and will remain what it is.

To point two:   If you and I disagree on what is right and wrong, how and by whom is it determined who should be educating whom? What makes one of us so superior to the other as to render that one the teacher and the other the student? I'm more than twice your age, Virgil, and have spent many more years refining my views on life and living it. Should I find the need for education, I'll seek it out because I'm not a fool. When I do seek it out, I look for the right source from which to learn. I don't need someone else to decide what I need and intrude on my life to bring it to me. As I said, I'm not a fool. I also don't take my beliefs to others without their request and interest. I'm not superior to them and not qualified to teach them - only qualified to answer questions asked, if and when questions are asked, and only qualified to answer for myself.

Our views do align on the mutually recognized absolutes. Perhaps, you simply have more absolutes than I. The important thing to realize, as far as I'm concerned, is that not everyone needs another's "proactive" teaching to grow their world view and principles and not all will develop those from the same source. Individuals will come to this enlightenment, for the most part, through their own efforts and life experiences. For me, that's the richness of humanity.

And therein lies the problem with this type of discussion with Virgil.   He thinks because he's a Christian, his views are the correct ones.    The ultimate in hubris.  

You don't believe your views are the correct ones?

Perhaps you believe our views can both be right? I say stealing candy from a baby is wrong; you say stealing candy from a baby is right; hence it's simultaneously wrong and right, and simply a matter of perspective?

Some people are indeed morally relativistic to this degree, but I don't believe you're one of them. I think you believe your views are the correct ones, you're willing to assert their correctness with confidence, and you understand that we cannot both be right. I also believe that if you reflected on it, you'd acknowledge that confidence in the correctness of one's views can exist independently of hubris.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 9:46:36 GMT -5 swamp said:

You're right, TL/DR.

It really is necessary to discuss the intended thread topic.

I don't want to debate or discuss religion with you because it's not a discussion, it's a lecture from you. 

I'm not looking for a debate. The purpose of the OP is to clarify a misunderstanding that arose in the "scared Republicans" thread.

[mmhmm]

I believe these discussions are more enjoyable and productive if posters don't resort to bringing up comparisons that are teetering on the end of a high limb. Rather than using taking candy from a baby (which nobody would find the right decision unless the baby was choking on the candy), why not use something more common to the actual living of life but on which people might disagree? If we don't immediately jump to the absurd to defend our arguments, we'll all get more out of the discussion.

There are plenty of  things in life that are, in good part, equivocal. While something might be very right for you considering your belief set, life experience, location, etc.,  that same thing might be quite wrong for me, or someone else. Who's to say what's the absolute right way under those conditions? In my opinion, one can only be absolutely confident in one's views from one's own perspective. From another's perspective, it may not look the same and we cannot always see through another's eyes. We can but endeavor to understand and avoid condemnation of that we do not truly know.

From here on, I'll probably stay out of this discussion, for the most part, as I generally do on this board. I do feel the need, at times, to insert a bit of logic and proportion to the discussion but am fully capable of quelling that desire.

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2017 11:30:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 9:48:55 GMT -5 swamp said:

And therein lies the problem with this type of discussion with Virgil.   He thinks because he's a Christian, his views are the correct ones.    The ultimate in hubris.  

You don't believe your views are the correct ones?

Perhaps you believe our views can both be right? I say stealing candy from a baby is wrong; you say stealing candy from a baby is right; hence it's simultaneously wrong and right, and simply a matter of perspective?

Some people are indeed morally relativistic to this degree, but I don't believe you're one of them. I think you believe your views are the correct ones, you're willing to assert their correctness with confidence, and you understand that we cannot both be right. I also believe that if you reflected on it, you'd acknowledge that confidence in the correctness of one's views can exist independently of hubris.

I have no idea if I'm right or wrong.  I may die and find myself heading towards the fires of hell, or i may just die and be worm dirt.  Or I can find myself surrounded by 77 virgins.  Nobody knows until the time comes. 

I do know that stealing candy from a baby hurts the child, so it's wrong.   That's a simplistic right or wrong.   Life does have some moral relativity.   Is ending a life wrong?  Generally, yes, but if the person is wracked with pain from bone cancer, maybe it's right.   I think for me it would be right.