Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss Why are some people so submissive? at the General Discussion; Religion, like politics, has become so polarized that 'free thinking' has become something one does under cover of darkness, if ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:44 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 11,288
Thanks: 9,083
Thanked 7,328 Times in 4,719 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Religion, like politics, has become so polarized that 'free thinking' has become something one does under cover of darkness, if they belong to a particular religion, IMO.

As with politics, I consider myself an independent, somewhat agnostic. My morals are just fine, thank you very much. I don't need someone telling me I will burn in hell because I have not 'been saved', nor that because I am human, I am innately a sinner. I do not need to go to a building at a pre-prescribed day and time to 'worship'. If I need a conversation with a 'higher power' that is as simply done in a place of nature's beauty. For the last 40 some-odd years, my conversations with any higher power have been related to the illnesses of those close to my heart, and with the higher power of their choosing, not mine.

Free thinking, by my definition, is the acceptance that I have my views, my interpretations of certain 'religious' events, and other people have theirs, and all are valid within the eyes of the beholder. The key to all is harm none, do unto others as you would have done unto you.

On my commute into work, there is a billboard along I-40 that reads: "Real Christians obey the teachings of Jesus". Personally, I see a number of conflicts in that statement: obey versus follow, and Jesus versus God. To be told to obey something means submitting to an authority. Submitting, usually without question.

Not for me, thanks. I'll question the dickens out of anyone who tells me to 'obey'.....
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:30 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,112
Thanks: 1,434
Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,726 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
one issue people consider is Abortion.
if one is an athesit they often reject outright even the option of a supernatural source of life much less a supernatural OPINION on the issue of any kind.
so what REASONs are they to apply to question AFTER they've Apriori decide they do not have freedom to think about GOD?

they can only go to their personal feelings and some version of pragmatism.
morals for most of them are considered subjective and socially constructed and changeable so the killing of the unborn becomes a simple Choice.
not a moral question.
for the atheist there are no UNIVERSAL morals, just the assuption that most people have some moral FEELING that are worked out by whatever views are dominant in the various cultures.
It's quite interesting to read an non-atheist because they make false claims such as "there are no UNIVERSAL morals" for the atheist which is, of course, false.

For example the atheist finds acts of aggression to be morally wrong and that can be applied to the "abortion" issue. If, instead of an "abortion" there is the surgical delivery of a fetus, where the fetus is removed unharmed and intact, then no act of aggression has taken place. If the fetus dies (there's a 50-50 chance at 25 weeks) then it dies of natural causes and not due to an act of aggression. Prior to 22 weeks the fetus always dies regardless of whether it's a surgical delivery or an abortion so even if an "act of aggression" takes place it's pragmatically irrelevant. Prior to 24 weeks the vast majority of medical providers will not attempt to save the fetus because of the low survival rate and the extremely high costs.

So for the atheist, based upon the universally accepted morality of the "non-aggression" principle, there are no moral objections to abortions before 22 weeks because the fetus cannot survive and will die of natural causes regardless of whether an act of aggression takes place or not.

The morality of the atheist is really based upon the natural rights of the person which is the foundation for secular humanism.
__________________
I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU
BUT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR YOU
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 01:30 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,094
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,464 Times in 3,695 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
Religion, like politics, has become so polarized that 'free thinking' has become something one does under cover of darkness, if they belong to a particular religion, IMO.
just quick look at history shows that religion (and politics) have always been polarizing.
Jesus died on the cross at the hands of the state and the instigation of some religious leaders.
Most of the apostles were also physically attacked and finally killed for telling people they'd go to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus.
A lot people REALLY didn't want to hear it then either.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
It's quite interesting to read an non-atheist because they make false claims such as "there are no UNIVERSAL morals" for the atheist which is, of course, false.

For example the atheist finds acts of aggression to be morally wrong and that can be applied to the "abortion" issue. If, instead of an "abortion" there is the surgical delivery of a fetus, where the fetus is removed unharmed and intact, then no act of aggression has taken place. If the fetus dies (there's a 50-50 chance at 25 weeks) then it dies of natural causes and not due to an act of aggression. Prior to 22 weeks the fetus always dies regardless of whether it's a surgical delivery or an abortion so even if an "act of aggression" takes place it's pragmatically irrelevant. Prior to 24 weeks the vast majority of medical providers will not attempt to save the fetus because of the low survival rate and the extremely high costs.

So for the atheist, based upon the universally accepted morality of the "non-aggression" principle, there are no moral objections to abortions before 22 weeks because the fetus cannot survive and will die of natural causes regardless of whether an act of aggression takes place or not.

The morality of the atheist is really based upon the natural rights of the person which is the foundation for secular humanism.
that sounds good but there's nothing inherent in atheism that leads to "rights" or the idea that the "non-aggression" is a universal principle that MUST or should be obeyed/followed
Other atheists, based on what they assume are evolutionary biological facts, have advocated Social Darwinism which promotes eugenics in various forms.
including killing the handicapped, "imbiciles" "lesser races" the old and unwanted.

Atheism, says there is no God.
and Atheists like Sam Harris ADMIT that there's no universal moral standard for non-religious people to point to. and has asked for RESEACH into brain studies and culture, pragmatic test and even exploring the morals of various religions to tease out some universals... maybe one day.

the humanist ASSERTIONS of a non-aggression principles is laudable, but it has no more grounding in the ONLY material reality (that atheist often claim is all there is, was or will be.) than anyone else's assertion of what's right or wrong universally.

Personally, I believe that the non-aggression principle IS a real Universal.
but I ground it in that God created man and placed in each a conscious. THEN added verbal commands to LOVE each other, and respect all Human life.
Which at the least included not bringing harm to others
this is is where 'RIGHTS' come from if they come from anywhere.
(the classical view of natural rights assumes a GOD of Nature)

seems to me the moral Atheist can only ASSERT that non-aggression seems to be a GOOD IDEA and SHOULD be accepted UNIVERSALLY because it SEEMS like something that most people generally agree with naturally and would probably be the best starting place for human relations.

But even the humanist version of non-aggression comes into conflict with other individuals rights if the humanist are in political power and think they know best for everyone and feel compelled to FORCE others OBEY laws they disagree with.

The forced moving people off of land or the closing of their farms to "save the earth" for example.
And even in abortion. You assume that the LINE for doing harm comes in AFTER a child is forcibly and unnaturally removed from it's home (the womb) too early and against it's will, then "the non-aggressor want ask it to survive ON IT's OWN. seriously?
If you took a 2 year from parents who didn't want it and put it on the street it wouldn't "survive" either. right?
Removing life support from a person who'll only need it a few more days to make full recovery is an act of aggression as well.
the act of abortion at any point Kills/Harms a separate person so is an aggression by an equally reasonable standard.

So the atheist you mention is simply choosing WHEN to be aggressive if they try to apply a non-aggression principle and support abortion at some point.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 06-21-2017 at 01:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 01:52 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,054
Thanks: 9,279
Thanked 3,610 Times in 2,363 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
One of the problems is that if the answer is found in the Bible how do you know the answer is correct? In reality the Biblical answer would need to be collaborated by an external authoritative source. If you have an external authoritative source then why do you need the Bible?
Although I do not agree with your view that atheism is correct, I do think that you have stumbled upon a logical fallacy here.

It is known as the a priori fallacy.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 02:12 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,054
Thanks: 9,279
Thanked 3,610 Times in 2,363 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
I've found that Jehovah Witnesses tend to be very clear on what they believe. and do in fact tow a STRICT line with their leadership's teachings.
Basically, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. (Actually, there is a Kingdom Hall about a mile from where I live.)

I do have their interlinear New Testament (The New World translation). It is not especially unusual in its renderings, except in those cases in which its theology is at stake. (Example: John 1:1, in which it renders theos as "a god," rather than as "God." Grammatically, either translation is possible; but the JWs' unusual theology has carried the day here.)

Whereas they do all adhere to a singular belief--in all matters--that is because they are required to do so. Otherwise, they face expulsion (known in different churches, variously, as "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping").
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 02:15 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,054
Thanks: 9,279
Thanked 3,610 Times in 2,363 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
You mention the Pope speaking Ex cathedra. Do you know Catholics that recently changed their minds on issues because they discovered the Pope said they should?
Probably not.

But "good" Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope's edicts, blindly--at least, in matters of faith and morals.

As for myself, I would not even pretend to do so.

And if I were a Catholic, I would go out of my way to let the local bishops (and priest) know that I had no such intention--and precisely why I considered such an edict to be wrongheaded, according to my understanding of scripture.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 02:31 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,054
Thanks: 9,279
Thanked 3,610 Times in 2,363 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
as far as "free thinking" is concerned,
that's GREAT.
the question comes in though how much free thinking is allowed, what's a person's self-imposed boundaries of what's allowable to consider REAL or VALID.
and How much of it will play into how a person tries to justify they own or their freind's/famly's/group's actions.


one issue people consider is Abortion.
if one is an athesit they often reject outright even the option of a supernatural source of life much less a supernatural OPINION on the issue of any kind.
so what REASONs are they to apply to question AFTER they've Apriori decide they do not have freedom to think about GOD?

they can only go to their personal feelings and some version of pragmatism.
morals for most of them are considered subjective and socially constructed and changeable so the killing of the unborn becomes a simple Choice.
not a moral question.
for the atheist there are no UNIVERSAL morals, just the assuption that most people have some moral FEELING that are worked out by whatever views are dominant in the various cultures.

For those that SAY they are Christain they can "free think" like the Atheist above. and assume various pragmatic concerns, check their own feelings personally and empathically, and not really be concerned about what God may or may not have said or implied.
Christians are FREE to think what they want and IGNORE what their "holy books" or "Church leaders" say the God they "follow" thinks. And make their own judgments.
And MANY do exactly that.

Often justifying their stance by claiming God agrees with them based on their personal application of "LOVE" they've FREELY thought of. While they studiously ignore clear commands and words from Jesus, the apostles, the prophets and Mary that would indicate otherwise.
You make some very valid points. (And, no doubt, some people do take a particular position to simply justify whatever they consider most convenient.)

As for abortion, I strongly oppose it (except, perhaps, in the three so-called "hard" cases: rape, incest, or the life or health of the mother)--but not on religious grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
there are plenty of gray areas for Christian people to HONESTLY take different views on, BASED on the not so clear areas of Bible teaching and history and theology and science.
One of the more hazy areas, I believe, is I Corinthians 11:2-16 (almost the entire chapter).

It involves the so-called "women's covering."

Those who see it as an Eternal Principle believe that it must be followed even today--and in all cultures.

Those who see it as a mere concession to a custom of first-century Corinth do not believe it applies today.

Probably the best argument for the former is Paul's appeal to "the angels," in verse 10.

Some women who believe that it still applies, today, were a hat; others, a veil; still others, a combination of the two.

Personally, I do not believe that it applies today.

But my view plus a dollar will get you a newspaper, as the old saying goes...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 04:23 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 74,587
Thanks: 53,412
Thanked 25,482 Times in 18,115 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
You find the question in the Bible... so where's the answer to the question?
called an understood subject
One of the problems is that if the answer is found in the Bible how do you know the answer is correct? I pray for understanding. very simple. and it always works

One of the problems for all religions is that we can't assume the religious answer is the correct answer because they've often been proven to be wrong. religious answers may be wrong; Godly answers are not

Always remember that all religious texts, regardless of the religion, were written by men and were based upon their understanding at the time. Knowledge is not fixed in time and changes as mankind has learned more over time. What was "right" several hundred years ago (e.g. the Prophet Mohammad being married to a pre-teenage girl) is no longer right in todays society. Think about Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet. In the play we learn that Juliet is only 13 years old while Romeo is older (but we don't know how old). That was acceptable at that time. It would not be acceptable today.

Dogmatic beliefs don't reveal the truth because the belief cannot be supported by the person accepting the belief based upon dogma.
lemme put it this way
either the words are for real or ancient jews were the smartest peoiple who ever lived
either way I'm going with the word
__________________
Humans Less Than 1% of Life on Earth, But Have Destroyed Half of Its Plants, More Than 80% of All Mammals
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:15 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,094
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,464 Times in 3,695 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
You make some very valid points. (And, no doubt, some people do take a particular position to simply justify whatever they consider most convenient.)
agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
As for abortion, I strongly oppose it (except, perhaps, in the three so-called "hard" cases: rape, incest, or the life or health of the mother)--but not on religious grounds.
Ok that's interesting.

Well for me... and maybe it's because i was an agnostic 1st.... but for me there's not really a difference between my "religious" opinion and what i think of as REALITY.

So if i say i have an opinion about something the Bible seems clear on I take the Bible's view as reality and not "religious grounds" in the sense that it's often used. Where "religious grounds" basically equals personal opinion. (you may not mean it that way, you probably don't but you know what i mean)
So it's difficult to understand those that want to claim FOLLOWING God as a Christian but who deny things that are pretty clear and seem to have buffet style approach to the Bible.

one of the reasons i was an agnostic was because I would flatly say 'I don't think THIS or THAT in the Bible is true.' or 'I don't KNOW if this or that is true so I'm NOT a Christian.'
When I bacame a Christian I was (and am) ALL IN.
The Bible IS true, period paragraph end of story.
And it's THE guide for all it speaks on. All my opinion is Subject to it's authority.
If i didn't want to "submit" to my best understanding of Scriptures. I'd start a cult of just stop calling myself a Christian.
I see no point in trying wrap the term Christianity around my personal opinions if they contradict what clearly promoted in scripture.

there's plenty of room for debate on a lot of subjects but stray to far and your in CONTRADICTION to the scripture.
At that point it seems to me that people should just say, hey I don't Agree with the Bible here rather than try to bend the Bible in pretzels to justify their views.

Getting a clear understanding of what it says in various areas may take a minute or years but some things are Clear as day after a short amount of honest study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
One of the more hazy areas, I believe, is I Corinthians 11:2-16 (almost the entire chapter).
It involves the so-called "women's covering."
Those who see it as an Eternal Principle believe that it must be followed even today--and in all cultures.
Those who see it as a mere concession to a custom of first-century Corinth do not believe it applies today.
Probably the best argument for the former is Paul's appeal to "the angels," in verse 10. Some women who believe that it still applies, today, were a hat; others, a veil; still others, a combination of the two.
Personally, I do not believe that it applies today.
But my view plus a dollar will get you a newspaper, as the old saying goes...
Also in that area Paul says this is a "tradition" and that it "dishonors" men or women. It's not called a full blown sin or an offense against God. And it's not repeated anywhere else that i know of? So I'm of the view that it's a probably GOOD to do.. even today... but not necessary.
So if some women want to cover their heads in church today I don't see a problem with that either way. If some Churches insist women do so in their building. well OK is that such a burden? Seems a pretty mild request. It's not asking grown men to be circumcised or something. Men used to have the habit of taking off hats inside. And If a restaurant says "no shoes, no shirt no service" or "Ties required" most people will comply without a fuss if they want to go there. But i'm not sure what grounds we could use here to assume that this tradition had a time limit.
However if a head covering is splitting a church or keeping people from coming then there's more wrong there than clear Bible interpretation seems to me.

But Yeah I agree that it doesn't seem like something that's raised to a HIGH-level of concern.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 06-21-2017 at 06:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2017, 09:54 PM
Uncle Jim's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 749
Thanks: 332
Thanked 250 Times in 224 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Guess I am a Spiritualist...Raised a Southern Baptist - Too Much!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
are, people, some, submissive, why

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0