Thread: President's Speech

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I'll take odds that before you were a "Christian"; that those moral standards of decency, empathy and a strong North indicator on that "moral compass" of yours, came from sources,ie. parents and other individuals that learned from the Bible.

Infants are born with innocence; not common sense, caring, empathy or hate.

The Bible can be considered a tool or better yet a "source"; Lets give the Bible it's due.

Just my thoughts, from a man who has not entered a church in decades, but knows the power of that book.

Has anyone making the "Bible builds morals" argument actual read it???? its filled with terribly immoral things, to the people claiming its a tool and people can use it for "bad" ...those people are reading the bible and using what it says.... thankfully most of use look at them and use our societal or internal morals and recognize when something is not right.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

The Bible can be considered a tool or better yet a "source"; Lets give the Bible it's due.

As long as you give the exact same due to the other religious books and legends which were the "source" of morals in the exact same way for my good friends who are muslim, buddhists, confucians, shintoists, etc...

Though if I were you I wouldn't be postulating that all morals are ultimately rooted in religion. The reverse is just as plausible.

Originally Posted by gugi

As long as you give the exact same due to the other religious books and legends which were the "source" of morals in the exact same way for my good friends who are muslim, buddhists, confucians, shintoists, etc...

Though if I were you I wouldn't be postulating that all morals are ultimately rooted in religion. The reverse is just as plausible.

First, I have friends of various religions, not many but a few. I don't solely back or support any one religion. Based upon what little knowledge that I have in religion of all types, I feel that all of them are based in the goodness of mankind. Sadly often, each is abused.

Second, I'll tread easy here, dealing with a Moderator. I looked up your word "postulating" to understand it. Sorry , I'm a simple man, of simple words Gugi. My post, directed at Bruno, was not to suggest that ALL morals stem from religion. It was to remind Bruno the importance that the Bible has likely played in his life, prior to being a Christian. Bruno, I'm sure, will correct me if he feels I need it.

Thank you though, Gugi, I will try hard not to postulate on anything; since I'm not an expert on anything.

Originally Posted by razorjoe

I think good qualifacations is a good morale man or woman that understands man's laws in this country and God's laws from the holy bible which is where alot of our common laws come from, and even better a man or woman that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as there savior. From what people say in there post it sounds like only a atheist can be our president? Wouldn't everyone want a good morale and upstanding man or woman to be thier Leader?

I understand what you mean... but I cannot agree.
You seem to say that only a christian can trully be a moral man or woman. I do not share that idea.
I feel that chistianity is not a religion. It is, in fact, a cultural background. It is what bonds together the western hemisphere. That means that catholics and protestants of every particular nuance of protestantism are bound together by a single matrix of culture: the philosophy of judaism and christianity. That means that, if you are within the very wide boundaries of such a culture, you share some values with your fellow westerner. Some call it the 10 commandments. Some call it tradition. Some call it common sense. Call it what you like. However, you cannot assume the morality of a man simply because he believes in YOUR Lord Jesus Christ... A moral man can be an atheist. He can even be a muslim. Or a hindu. Or a buddhist. And a immoral man can be a christian. The 2 concepts are not muttualy exclusive. And because of that, because the founders of modern democracies have realized this they insisted upon the separation of the State and the Church - any church.
I'm an atheist. I am also a family man. I'm about to become a father to a baby boy. I love my wife. However, we are not married. I would lay my life for theirs. Am I an immoral man?

Originally Posted by razorjoe

I am not sure what you want to have explained, what the bible has to say about sin,salvation, redemption,fellowship with God the Father, what is means to be called a born again christian? Romans 5:12 shows us the nature of man which is sinful and wanting to go against God's laws. I Corinthians 15: 1-4 shows us the plain that God has for us which is salvation only through the Lord Jesus Christ's shed blood, then once we become born again we are no longer a slave to sin we can do the things that God the Father wants us to do which is to live a life according to his holy word we see in II Corithians 5:17 we can and should no longer live like everyone else in the world. Does that help?

I guess when you say "he sure doesn't show it" you imply that by actions...or some other impression, Obama does not seem Christian enough for you. Or more to the point, is acting or representing in a non-Christian way. Is that a fair for me to think that is what you are implying? And does that not mean you are judging another person's relationship with god? Is it because he doesn't proselytize enough in his speeches? Just trying to figure out what you were getting at...

If you are living with a woman that you are not married to, you are likely getting a lot more than the rest of us!

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

If you are living with a woman that you are not married to, you are likely getting a lot more than the rest of us!

Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by fpessanha

Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by this.

trying to remain gentlemanly in explaining this...
he means your love life is probably better than the married gentlemen on the board

Originally Posted by gssixgun

How would you feel in the 2016 election if the most qualified candidate was a Hindu ???? or let's get a bit farther out there and say 2020 and he/she is practicing Voodoo ???

I find it very disturbing that you and I are going to most likely vote for the same people for many years to come for very different reasons...

Or if the 2012 candidate is Mormon...

@Hirlau: First it doesn't matter if I'm moderator or not, you can say to me the exact same thing you'd say to any other member, in fact more, as I don't care whether somebody disagrees with me - if they have good argument I like to hear it, if they don't I simply ignore it.

My point was that while what you were saying about Bruno coming from a nominally Christian culture, doesn't mean that the Christianity part has anything to do with the morality that Bruno has got from that culture. Christianity is only moral only if you pick the moral bits out of the Bible and discard the immoral ones. The same is true with any other culture/religion. Which means that the morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you want to understand where it comes from you have to figure out where does the picking and choosing specific bits comes from. Obviously throughout history people have been picking different bits as being the moral ones, and the moral values of our current society have little to do with the moral values of the society based on the same book and religious culture but from say few hundred years back. So I'd say it's a fairly safe extrapolation that our grandchildren will have different morals than ours, as well. Many of them will be reading the same Bible and will simply pick different bits and discard others.

'General goodness of the mankind' is probably a reasonable substitute for 'morality', but doesn't provide much explanation. The evolution of what is moral, however, means there is something more than this.

To postulate something means to just assume/state it being true without any evidence whatsoever. Like the OP stating that there is something inherently virtuous in christianity.




Interestingly though nobody seems to be interested in the first paragraph of the OP, i.e. consolidation of government. To me it seems that it's just the natural process of our human development. The increased connectivity with others invariably leads to the need of regulation of those interactions. Like the creation of USA - do you think that without a central/federal government the states would be able to have the same level of close interaction as they currently do? EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.