Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (17617)	6/5/2004 2:40:32 PM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

there is not one out of a thousand Christians who have read 5% of that shit. woo-hoo! I am special. But what is more important is the basis on which the rules are made ... is it based on a humble kneeling before the Universe of reason? Here's to humble kneeling! But what is "the universe of reason?" Is it the tangible world of our 5 senses? Is it everything in this world? Maybe that is the dividing line in this debate - you prioritize either this life or the next life. John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. That is JC talking, and he didn't mean himself. It seems that some other entity "rules" over this place and this time and the affairs of men. The kingdom of men is a direct opposite of the kingdom of God. (GWB and John Kerry will be lucky to be wait staff at Jesus' "stupidity feast," as you dub it.) This is why the great leaders of the Bible all have humble origins. Moses was a 40 year old murderer who was not even a good public speaker by his own admission. David was short. He killed Goliath while he was at the battle delivering cheese to his older brothers; he was not even worthy enough to be one of the soldiers who cowered in fear with Saul at Goliath's taunts. Jesus was despised his entire life. That was part of the prophecy. At the time of JC, most people despised the Nazarenes. Rejections of wealth, power, and pride are all rejections of this world. Christianity has no monopoly on these prescriptions for living, btw. There are consistent themes in many world religions. I recently researched the religious beliefs of the Shawnee Native American tribe. They are strikingly familiar - there is one supreme God, do unto others..., and do not fear death if you have lived a good life because you will be rewarded in the afterlife. "When it comes time to die ... sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Chief Tecumseh, Shawnee Nation As for me, I choose the next world. Bring on the "stupidity feast!" I gotta go. Jesus is throwing a party. It's gonna rock." Buckley's Angel, King of the Hill

To: Solon who wrote (17617)	6/6/2004 3:02:57 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"It was you who suggested that the concept was not Absolute but was subject to certain whims and caprice" I don't think so. You will have to give me a link to where I said that. "The most powerful have ultimate say." Again the difference between that and might is right is indistinguishable if as you contend ethics are derived from circumstance. "<<<Your ideas of what constitutes "the benefit (well-being) of the community (which means the individuals who compose the community)" is completely arbitrary.>>>" "It is NEVER arbitrary." How could it be anything but arbitrary if everything is relative? I believe I used the term "conscientious" however I meant to say "social consensus" (general agreement) rather than (guided by conscience). so to restate; <<<Why would they need to defeat tyranny; is tyranny objectively wrong if that tyranny is arrived at by (social consensus)?>>> The Nazi's had a social consensus to kill all the Jews <<<first you seem to grant moral equivalence to actions based on shirt color as if there were no issues involved. Talk about fashion wars! The shirts are not the issue!>>> "(I can't believe you thought that shirt colour was anything other than a proxy for moral belief!)." It doesn't matter you still grant the two moral equivalence. Get real! For such a smart gut you seem oddly dense on this issue. As the D Day anniversary is upon us I can't believe you would see that conflict as one between ethical equals???? Yet this is what your analogy clearly implies. "And this makes one side good and one side murderers, and this does not comport with the Absolute Morality which you claim is written on the hearts of all people. It seems to relate more to the relative opinions of Nation, Culture, and Country!" You are combining two separate issues as though they logically follow one another when they do not. Issue 1: All Men have a common, basic, innate, knowledge of right and wrong. Issue 2: Men do not always act in accordance with that knowledge. Conclusion: When men act in ways that disagree with the knowledge that they posses; then they are objectively guilty of violating those standards. <<<Second you purposely misrepresent my position by saying that killing is written on the hearts of men when I said the knowledge of what is right and wrong is>>> "YOU ARE A LIAR......You said that people knew that wrong was wrong because it was "written on their heart". So tell me how a million people (with stuff written on their heart) can be "right", while another million are "wrong" just because their uniform is another??"" You really are losing it..Calling me a "LIAR" and then restating what I said in essentially the same way is more than a little bizarre! Again I don't grant moral equivalence to any conflict "just because their uniform is one colour--" Ethical judgments can only be based on the particular actions that each side take. I think you need a new metaphor. The rest of your post deteriorates rapidly from there (if that were possible) into a foul mouth and bigoted drool to which no other response is needed.