Originally posted by FieroReinke:The golden rule has been replaced by the platinum rule. Treat others as they want to be treated not how you want to be treated.
Sorry, I can not afford that. Too many have become entitled to other peoples money and stuff. I really learned this with my rental duplex.
I will stick to "Treat other as I would ask them to treat me".
I don't know how this thread got onto the subject of Phonedawgz but he has given me plenty of free help with my Fiero problems through the years.
There is a thread in General Chat about Phonedawgz/Redevilriver that got way way off topic. That should catch you up.
I'll post my thoughts on this this subject in a little bit. Been busier than usual at work so I haven't been able to expand on the subject, but I feel it's an interesting subject that deserves some attention. Just not in General Chat.
[This message has been edited by Jason88Notchie (edited 09-15-2015).]
Considering that you have gone on and on and on about this ad nauseum... I have to wonder what your agenda is? You weren't even involved in the original discussion. Good gawd...
quote
Originally posted by Jason88Notchie:
I feel it's an interesting subject that deserves some attention. Just not in General Chat.
It's called General Fiero Chat, and no, it wasn't the appropriate forum for members to be promoting their religious views.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-15-2015).]
Don't do it. Don't get caught. Don't get convicted. Don't take it. Make A counter charge. Define your actions as a right Demand the right be recognize. Demand protected status. Define opposition as intolerant. Define intolerance as a crime. Dominate through Prosecution and lawsuits.
but for a good man to do evil that requires a religion
The logical conclusion to that statement then is that religion is required to define good and evil otherwise good men would continue to do good while evil men would continue to do evil but since there is nothing defining which is which no one would know if the good man did evil or the evil man did good. /shrug, Personally I think your analogy is a bit flawed.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 09-15-2015).]
Don't do it. Don't get caught. Don't get convicted. Don't take it. Make A counter charge. Define your actions as a right Demand the right be recognize. Demand protected status. Define opposition as intolerant. Define intolerance as a crime. Dominate through Prosecution and lawsuits.
who needs morality when the law says yes........
I had to check the original topic. "What is Morality Based On? " I do believe there are people that follow your views but, it makes me want to throwup until I am convinced there was a mistake in what I thought I heard. You making a joke?
I had to check the original topic. "What is Morality Based On? " I do believe there are people that follow your views but, it makes me want to throwup until I am convinced there was a mistake in what I thought I heard. You making a joke?
No joke, just a sad example of how many are defining (or redefining) morals. Today it seems you can choose between Religion or The Legal System to define or justify your moral compass.
No joke, just a sad example of how many are defining (or redefining) morals. Today it seems you can choose between Religion or The Legal System to define or justify your moral compass.
Interesting statement. But religion or the legal system didn't create our morals as human beings. Perhaps think empathy. I think you have to give human beings a little more credit.
all morals are based in the current situation and need to serve the needs of the people
A finer admission of Liberal Leftist moral relativism has never been put into text on this forum.
Whack Job Leftist thinking like THAT gets you stuff like THIS:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall! (El Paredón)"
--Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
(serving "the needs of the people")
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-15-2015).]
Implying? No, you inferred. Infer away. You took a simple statement, and turned it into a monster. I have repeadly asked (in the other thread) for quotes. I got worn old lines, and inferences. Seriously, no new material? Are you waiting for the next book to be published? It's like trying to explain something to someone whose bible is BET. Dennis was talking about HIS faith. Religious or not, if it works for him, great. I don't know him. Maybe he's an axe murderer. I similarly hope your belief scheme works for you.
I was being kind, using the word discussion. Until you can provide actual facts, there is no discussion. I was actually very objective, but I'm sorry you failed to see that in your apparent bias.
Actually, Patrick was the one who turned the thread. I merely followed the turn.
A defensive stance of defending against your attack? Yeah, I guess you could say that I'm doing that. I've provided facts, definitions, and quotes. You've provided opinions, emotional comments, editorial, and --what do they call made-up info? The proliferation of twisted meanings and inferences in the last thread was incredible.
You have been attacking those with whom you disagree, apparently, and you're calling me out? Dennis must've really struck a nerve. Who knew? He made an innocent comment, and you and Patrick came out like someone kicked over your hive. I guess it's true what they say about throwing a rock into a pack of dogs.
Enlightenment is only possible to the open mind. You can't handle it.
Apparently, in your haste to attack and your insecurity of belief, you missed the whole point that phonedawgz didn't exhibit these positive traits. I don't know this person. Perhaps you're suggesting that phonedawgz is exhibiting the superior morals and good traits of an athiest. The argument could well be made. Dennis was offering his faith characteristics as an alternative. You/Patrick hotly contested that, or that the religions as you choose to see them are all that great, so we're left with what, your alternative point of view? Are you sure you want to be in the same lump with phonedawgz? I can't speak for your moral character, either. I can't say you're a good person. I can only speak for myself. I don't need to tear down your beliefs to support my own. I will stand up for what is right and good. I have to ask myself, what is your agenda, then? Why wouldn't you do the same?
I don't need to prove anything. If you're questioning your beliefs, I don't have the answers. It's up to you to find them for yourself. I find it telling that you do feel the need to prove something. I don't need to prove you wrong to make myself feel OK. On the contrary, I clearly posted irrefutable facts. Changing the subject doesn't change the facts. If you're uncomfortable with your beliefs, that's your issue--not mine. Your last two sentences in the quote above bear some serious reflection on your part.
Either way, I'm done with this. It's like trying to teach calculus to a 4-year old. The repitition of misunderstandings and worn old lines has gone past the point of boredom. It's no fun debating against an unknowledgeable opponent. From your posts, you seem to believe that you have no faith, religious or otherwise. Be very careful, or you'll make the point you claim Dennis stated.
Clearly you are the one who needs to prove something, since you keep writing so much about it and simply attack those whom disagree with you, rather than involve yourself in any sort of intellectual discussion on the subject matter.
You're right. Your repetition of misunderstanding and worn out old lines has gone past the point of boredom.
But go on and keep making wild assertions about what my beliefs are. You clearly know everything about me, including my deepest moral, or immoral as you and Dennis would like to believe, convictions, despite your having never actually met me in person, and only having been a member on this forum yourself, for a little over a year. Please, go on with your wildly nonsensical accusations, and racist sentiments. We really need a lot more of that on this forum, because there isn't enough already.
Interesting trick question. I think a better one would be "What is morality?" Nevertheless, let's wade right on into this purely philosophical discussion that has no right answer.
Morality, I think, is a lot like truth. Whereas truth can be fluid based on the perceptions of the viewer, morality is, almost by necessity, always fluid based upon the perceptions of the viewer. Morality is ambiguous by nature and almost impossible to define. Even someone raised in a "good, Christian" way can have experiences in life that cause them to deviate from the morality that is expected of their upbringing while still considering what they're doing morally correct. Even more, morality bases can vary widely between sects of the same religion, not to mention different religions altogether.
Originally posted by randye: A finer admission of Liberal Leftist moral relativism has never been put into text on this forum.
Whack Job Leftist thinking like THAT gets you stuff like THIS:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall! (El Paredón)"
--Ernesto 'Che' Guevara
(serving "the needs of the people")
still afraid of reds under the beds ?
che died the whole commie thing is dead or dying but your still afraid
and greatly prefer morals for goat herders hint most do not even have goats today
btw revised rules from JC wanted a very commie life style circa the year 40 ace they even claimed sky daddy killed a guy who held some back your book describes them as a very commie group
Psalms 114:1-3: Fools say to themselves, “There is no God.” They sin and commit evil deeds; none of them does what is right. The Lord looks down from heaven at the human race, to see if there is anyone who is wise and seeks God. Everyone rejects God; they are all morally corrupt. None of them does what is right, not even one!
all morals are based in the current situation and need to serve the needs of the people
Amos 7:7-9: He showed me this: I saw the sovereign One standing by a tin wall holding tin in his hand. The Lord said to me, “What do you see, Amos?” I said, “Tin.” The sovereign One then said,
“Look, I am about to place tin among my people Israel. I will no longer overlook their sin. Isaac’s centers of worship will become desolate; Israel’s holy places will be in ruins. I will attack Jeroboam’s dynasty with the sword.”
"Tin" is a plumb bob. It is not only possible to deviate to the left or the right from plumb, but forward and backward, as well. There are all kinds of ways that we deviate from morality, which is not relative. Our view of moral relativism is, in itself, a deviation from morality.
btw revised rules from JC wanted a very commie life style circa the year 40 ace they even claimed sky daddy killed a guy who held some back your book describes them as a very commie group
Acts 2:42-47:
They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. All who believed were together and held everything in common, and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
They were devoted to one another, through the Spirit. This is antithetical to the Natural Man, who's morality is based on himself. Those who believed, the verses say, held everything in common. This was also the very early church, and we see later in Acts, as well as in the Epistles, that corrupting influences, even then, were present. Things changed quickly, due to Human nature.
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35 : 2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11 : 7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Interesting statement. But religion or the legal system didn't create our morals as human beings. Perhaps think empathy. I think you have to give human beings a little more credit.
That seems at face value to be reasonable. However it is hard to apply it to individual who lacks the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. At that point you have to apply some other form of reasoning to empathize with experiences alien to your own. Whether that be Religion, Logic, Law, etc only matters if the goal is to understand and show compassion for the other person. What is the basis for "our" morality? Sorry, I'd just be sharing my faith in an attempt to answer the question. The best I can do is compare what we are seeing to possible root causes.
On the topic of root cause, how interesting would that study and analysis be if it were done by a group of car enthusiast....... Although I have a sneaky feeling the answer will be selfishness. Or to be more P.C. - personal benefit.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: You are the common denominator. But I see that you still blame others. You sir are a ****t. Always have been. Always will be.
FYI, dobey has a history of this. Internet know it all.
Good of you to jump in and attack without knowing a damn thing. Just like always.
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
I think it's three goats and a cow. Or was it donkeys.
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35 : 2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11 : 7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Ray, even I know that you don't base your morals on a television show.
First of all, those laws weren't written for or to you, so you and most everyone else here is off the hook on all of those counts. Secondly, Jesus life, death and resurrection got the rest of us off the hook, as well. If the Jews had accepted His Message, these points would have been the least of your worries. Because He was rejected by His own, His gift of Grace is available to all. So, either one accepts, and these queries are moot, or not, and these are likely the least of your worries.
You've done better in trying to ridicule what you claim to understand. :P
Ray, even I know that you don't base your morals on a television show.
First of all, those laws weren't written for or to you, so you and most everyone else here is off the hook on all of those counts. Secondly, Jesus life, death and resurrection got the rest of us off the hook, as well. If the Jews had accepted His Message, these points would have been the least of your worries. Because He was rejected by His own, His gift of Grace is available to all. So, either one accepts, and these queries are moot, or not, and these are likely the least of your worries.
You've done better in trying to ridicule what you claim to understand. :P
but there was no garden no talking snake no tree of knowledge or eternal life ether and no angel with flaming sword on guard [but that would be hard to miss] so no original sin to be saved from and no need of a savior
btw killing yourself is seldom the answer to the worlds problems
Even more, morality bases can vary widely between sects of the same religion, not to mention different religions altogether.
You sir are a ****t. Always have been. Always will be. 
