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; Originally Posted by mr. wonder just quick look at history shows that religion (and politics) have always been polarizing. Jesus ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 08:45 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,396
Thanks: 1,452
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,771 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.

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.
You're playing a game of rhetoric without substance and I can provide an example of that where you state,

"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."

Please cite a single passage in the Bible where we have documentation that God was the author of that passage. We don't have a single written document attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and don't even know if Jesus was literate.

Every known religious text in history was written by men and it's men that have declared their own writings to be the "word of God" so how much do you trust other men to tell the truth? You're believing someone that you never met, that lived thousands of years before you did, and often you don't even have a clue about who the person really was. We know, for a fact, that the Books of Moses in the Bible weren't written by Moses because they have multiple authors. We know that the Jewish religion plagiarized the earlier religion of Mesopotamia because the stories are almost identical to stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The religious believer doesn't have any more "inherent" foundation for their beliefs than the atheist. They have to "believe" that what someone else has told them is true and that's not inherent. That's trust without a foundation.

The atheist doesn't "trust" what someone else says as being the truth. They have to logically understand the foundation and the reasons that establish their morality.

Let me ask you this. Is the following moral?

Quote:
Ephesians 5:22-33New International Version (NIV)

22*Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23*For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24*Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Is moral to require the wife subservient to the husband? Should the wife submit to the husband in everything?

You claim moral superiority based upon the Bible but inequality is not moral. So is your "god" immoral because your "god" commands a wife to submit to her husband in everything?

In point of fact all people have the same inherent foundation for morality and it's an evolutionary development of the human being and many other animals. It's called the survival instinct that in humans is contained in the sympathetic nervous system that controls the "fight or flight" response. Inherently, based upon evolution, people avoid conflict if possible (the flight response) and this physical reaction to danger drives the unconscious and conscious mind to seek solutions to problems that don't involve conflict. Nature provides the "Laws for Survival of the Species" and it's upon those laws that the "Natural Rights of the Person" are based.

Those that believe in religion are assuming that the "commands" that men wrote were from God and they're also assuming that those "commands" are based upon the Natural Law for Survival of the Species, the foundation for the Natural Rights of the Person, but those that wrote the words in the Bible didn't know about Natural Law and Natural Rights because mankind had not yet developed far enough to establish the arguments for either at the time.

Gender equality is based upon Natural Law for survival of the species and yet we see the Bible denying gender equality. How many Christians oppose gender equality today because the Bible opposes gender equality. Misogyny is wide spread in America today. Our president bragged about sexually assaulting women (and the women came forward to verify that, for once, he was telling the truth) and arguably this is because of the Bible's command that "wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

I'm sorry but I'll never buy into a belief that misogyny is in anyway moral but that's what "God commanded" so where is the inherent morality in an immoral act?

Evolution has instilled in our body physically the foundation for morality because our survival instincts drive a desire to avoid conflict. It is upon that survival instinct that morality is based and not what someone wrote in a book two thousand years ago where immoral commands exist.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 10:12 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,863
Thanks: 255
Thanked 5,688 Times in 4,128 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Please cite a single passage in the Bible where we have documentation that God was the author of that passage. We don't have a single written document attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and don't even know if Jesus was literate.
I see what you are thinking. I rattle my brain all the time when I ask Muslims the same thing about their book, the Koran. How do they know Allah was the author, and how many know if Mohammed was even literate?

OOPS. Back to the original topic. But I think it can be expanded to include all cults, like Islam.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 12:01 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,262
Thanks: 9,813
Thanked 3,756 Times in 2,459 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
My point, in using the word, "submit," was that some are too eager, in my opinion, to submit to other human beings: a Pope; a pastor; a bishop; a deacon--whatever. And I see only Jesus--and his word, through the Scriptures--as being worthy of receiving submission. (And I would not want others to become The Official Interpreters of the Scriptures for me.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
True.

As you are probably aware, there was a schism in the church, about 100 years ago, between those that were then known as "modernists," and those that came to be known as "fundamentalists." (By the way, the latter was in no way considered to be a pejorative term. In fact, those in this group eagerly embraced the term, "fundamentalists.")

"Fundamentalists" all agreed to five "fundamentals":

The virgin birth of Jesus

The inerrancy (or "infallibility") of Scripture

The atonement of Jesus for our sins

The historical reality of Jesus' miracles.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus

I do, in fact, believe in some of these (including, most importantly, the atonement).

I have difficulty, however, with some others--including the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. (For instance, the Book of Philemon appears to amount to a tacit endorsement of slavery.)

So I would definitely not be a fundamentalist.

Perhaps, on the scale, I fit somewhere between "fundamentalist" and "modernist."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
Some things are quite difficult, I think, even after a good bit of study.

I have already mentioned one conundrum--the "women's covering" of I Corinthians 11--but there are several others:

At the end of some of his letters to churches, Paul says--with the apparent force of a command--to "[g]reet one another with a holy kiss."

Question: Is a mere handshake the modern equivalent of this? Or does a holy kiss impart greater emotion?

In John 13:14-17, Jesus washes his disciples' feet--and commands them to do likewise, to others.

Question: Was this just a matter of teaching humility and/or hospitality (remember, first-century people did not wear "shoes," as we think of them--but merely sandals. And they walked upon dirt--not concrete. So it would, indeed, have been hospitable to wash others' feet in the first century.)

Or do some sects--including the so-called "Foot-Washing Baptists"--have it right, in insisting that the act, itself, is mandated?

In Matthew 19:1-9, Jesus does not allow divorce except for the sin of adultery.

So that begs the question: If two non-believers get married, and one is divorced--and later, one becomes a Christian--is it then incumbent upon the two to separate?

What if there are minor children involved?

Should they merely live under the same roof, but have no more physical contact?

How best to resolve this dilemma?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
[I]'m not sure what grounds we could use here to assume that this tradition had a time limit.
I tend to think that it was limited to the custom and the time of the place; but I am not really sure that I could prove that.

And it begs the question: Are other matters, then, confined to the customs of the times--such as, say, not allowing a woman to teach men (I Timothy 2:12-13; cf. I Corinthians 14:32-35).

I know that I am getting into the "weeds" here. But some questions are not easy, in my opinion.
__________________
"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
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 01:47 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,712
Thanks: 9,604
Thanked 5,846 Times in 3,951 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
You're playing a game of rhetoric without substance and I can provide an example of that where you state,
...
my post are long enough if i we're to site references for everything they'd be even longer.
but what i posted wasn't " rhetoric without substance"
look up "Social Darwinism" for yourself.
It was/IS an Atheistic/Darwinist (there is no God and Man is only an advanced monkey) base concept that promotes eugenics (even today among some scientist) and has promoted/committed genocide... not the non-aggression principal.
It's based on the Idea that Darwinism is TRUE (survival of the best of the species being a highlight) therefore it SHOULD be applied in human society. Usually, some small group deciding who are "the best" that should survive (people like them) and who are dregs that should either be allowed, encouraged or forced to die. Various atheistic people and groups have promoted the concept in small and large degrees since the 1890s at least. Darwin's Book Full Title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

look at the eugenics movements of the the 1920-30s.
the non-aggression concept for those atheist made ZERO sense in a world they thought to be likely overrun by "life unfit for life".


Many Darwinists - scientist - atheist REGRETTED promoting the above type of thing, especially after the horror of it all was revealed so vividly in WW2. (some just went into "soft sell" mode or underground)

So what i said is not substance-free rhetoric AT ALL.
Atheists can go ETHIER Direction... ANY DIRECTION the wind of "the science" or "the culture" or "the politics" or their personal inner sense of morals or their emotions blow.

there's NO universal ground for atheists to point each other... or others... to concerning morals.

And what i said concerning Abortion and the non-aggression principle applies fully.
the Atheist you portray CHOOSES to apply the principle ONLY to human beings he considers worthy or strong enough to survive "outside the womb". But has no problem with a Dr. invading the womb and aggressively pulling the child out to die. Or the mother taking a poison to kill the growing child.

that's not substance-free rhetoric either. That's where your atheist non-aggression principle adherent ends up.
__________________
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; 06-22-2017 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 04:33 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,396
Thanks: 1,452
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,771 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.

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)
You're playing a game of rhetoric without substance and I can provide an example of that where you state,

"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."


Please cite a single passage in the Bible where we have documentation that God was the author of that passage. We don't have a single written document attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and don't even know if Jesus was literate.

You state,

"Jesus died on the cross at the hands of the state and the instigation of some religious leaders."

There's no record of this even though the Romans were meticulous record keepers. In fact there's no independent contemporary records of Jesus at all. Josephus was about as close as we come to a independent verification of the existence of Jesus but his works were written around 93–94*AD. The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116). I don't doubt that Jesus lived but there's no contemporary documentation confirming the stories in the New Testament. No records of the large crowds, no record of the arrest and execution, no records at all really. Just a few claims made perhaps 30 years later in letters written between different Christian churches at the time. Even the canonization of the Bible that took place hundreds of years later was based upon politics where only certain texts were chosen to meet the dogma of the church, and sometimes modified by editing, and then declared to be the Holy Bible by the political leaders of the church.

Every known religious text in history was written by men and it's men that have declared their own writings to be the "word of God" so how much do you trust other men to tell the truth? You're believing someone that you never met, that lived thousands of years before you did, and often you don't even have a clue about who the person really was. We know, for a fact, that the Books of Moses in the Bible weren't written by Moses because they have multiple authors. We know that the Jewish religion plagiarized the earlier religion of Mesopotamia because the stories are almost identical to stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the New Testament we have the introduction of a demigod (Jesus - part man, part god) that was adopted from Greek/Roman mythology. The New Testament introduces polytheism with the "father, son and holy ghost" that are clearly identified as three different entities. We have many supernatural deities that aren't to be worshiped by Christians that include angels and the arch-villain angel Lucifer. Finally we have the addition of Hades, the Greek god of the underworld that introduced as "Hell" in the New Testament, in Revelations. All of these changes to the Jewish religion were focused on a single thing. It was to so that Christianity could be marketed to the Romans, a brilliant marketing strategy because as just a Jewish cult Christianity would have faded from history.

All of the "assumptions" made by Christians tend to ignore the true history of Christianity and simply believe things were the way the Christians claim but we know better.

The atheist doesn't "trust" what someone else says as being the truth. They have to logically understand the foundation and the reasons that establish their morality.

Let me ask you this. Is the following moral?

Quote:
Ephesians 5:22-33New International Version (NIV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23*For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Is moral to require the wife subservient to the husband? Should the wife submit to the husband in everything?

You claim moral superiority based upon the Bible but inequality is not moral. So is your "god" immoral because your "god" commands a wife to submit to her husband in everything?

In point of fact all people have the same inherent foundation for morality and it's an evolutionary development of the human being and many other animals. It's called the survival instinct that in humans is contained in the sympathetic nervous system that controls the "fight or flight" response. Inherently, based upon evolution, people avoid conflict if possible (the flight response) and this physical reaction to danger drives the unconscious and conscious mind to seek solutions to problems that don't involve conflict. Nature provides the "Laws for Survival of the Species" and it's upon those laws that the "Natural Rights of the Person" are based.

Those that believe in religion are assuming that the "commands" that men wrote were from God and they're also assuming that those "commands" are based upon the Natural Law for Survival of the Species, the foundation for the Natural Rights of the Person, but those that wrote the words in the Bible didn't know about Natural Law and Natural Rights because mankind had not yet developed far enough to establish the arguments for either at the time.

Gender equality is based upon Natural Law for survival of the species and yet we see the Bible denying gender equality. How many Christians oppose gender equality today because the Bible opposes gender equality. Misogyny is wide spread in America today. Our president bragged about sexually assaulting women (and the women came forward to verify that, for once, he was telling the truth) and arguably this is because of the Bible's command that "wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

I'm sorry but I'll never buy into a belief that misogyny is in anyway moral but that's what "God commanded" so where is the inherent morality in an immoral act?

Evolution has instilled in our body physically the foundation for morality because our survival instincts drive a desire to avoid conflict. It is upon that survival instinct that morality is based and not what someone wrote in a book two thousand years ago where immoral commands exist.

Ultimately the religious believer doesn't have any more "inherent" foundation for their beliefs than the atheist. The difference is that they "choose to believe" that someone else has told them is true often without questioning the truth and that's not inherent. That's trust without a foundation. In reality the Christian is over-riding their inherent foundation for morality because they're believing what someone else said as opposed to using their own inherent foundation for morality.

On a final note there's no point to quoting an "atheist" in an attempt to make an argument against atheists because there's no dogma and there are no "atheist" leaders for the atheist. Christians often quote Dawkins, for example, but Dawkins opinion has zero meaning for the atheists. Atheism is not a religion where there are religious leaders or a dogma to adhere to. Each atheist must find their own morality through logical reasoning and deduction because they start with nothing except their natural instincts to guide them. Obviously some do this better than others, and some like those that follow religious teachings, simply take the word of someone else as being the truth.

The only real advantage that the atheist has is that they can be the skeptic and challenge any proposition without hesitation and that give the atheist the ability to find the truth without being hindered by prejudice.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 04:47 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 77,278
Thanks: 54,339
Thanked 25,808 Times in 18,389 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
It is rather irritating to me: There are actually some people--in the twenty-first century, yet!--who will allow themselves to be held hostage by their respective churches, as concerning acceptable dogma.

This seems most evident in the Catholic Church (especially when the Pope speaks ex cathedra).

But it is certainly not unheard of in some Protestant churches, either--especially fundamentalist churches.

Perhaps I am especially irritated in this regard precisely because I am a freethinker (to borrow a term that has not been in frequent usage for a rather long time now).

I truly do not appreciate the efforts of any other person (or institution) to instruct me as to what I must think--or else.

In the end, I would far--far!--rather be widely considered to be a heretic than to be widely considered to be a Lockstep-type Christian.

(I don't think they still burn heretics at the stake, do they?)
Romans 14

The Weak and the Strong
Quote:
14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Quote:
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

Quote:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b
Quote:
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
Quote:
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

Footnotes:

Romans 14:10 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family; also in verses 13, 15 and 21.
Romans 14:11 Isaiah 45:23
Romans 14:23 Some manuscripts place 16:25-27 here; others after 15:33.
__________________
Do not mind anything that anyone tells you about anyone else. Judge everyone and everything for yourself.
Henry James
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 05:53 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,712
Thanks: 9,604
Thanked 5,846 Times in 3,951 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
You're playing a game of rhetoric without substance and I can provide an example of that where you state,
.....
Before I chase your red herring

Should I assume that you acknowledge that the non-aggression principle is not a default or universal principle that Atheist can come to?
And that atheist can just as easily come to the conclusion that killing and/or sterilizing the "unfit" and "lesser races" based on "science" for the greater good or something else is just as "reasonable"?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 05:54 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,396
Thanks: 1,452
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,771 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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)
No, a classical view of natural rights does not assume a God of Nature. Natural Law isn't based upon any entity but instead it's based upon the Laws of Survival of the Species. What is required for the survival of the species establishes what Natural Law is.

For example a species cannot be cannibalistic where it depends upon eating members of it's own species. It would soon consume itself and starve to death. Each member of the species must be able to provide for it's needs either individually and/or collectively from nature. No member of a species can take more than what is can use from nature. It is useless for a member to have what they cannot use and to possess what they cannot use is to deprives other members of the species that which they need for survival. No member can take from nature more than nature produces. To take more than what nature produces eventually deprives the species of a critical necessity for survival that eventually will lead to extinction of the species.

Natural laws of survival have nothing whatsoever to do with any entity or any mandate. If not followed the species threatens itself with extinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
Acts of aggression by people can lead to the extinction of the human species. That's not an ASSERTION. That's a FACT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
The above is pretty much nonsense as it makes vague allegations and is self-contradictory because secular humanism cannot come in conflict with itself nor can it embrace the violation of the natural rights of person but let me add a caveat. Most people don't have a clue when it comes to understanding the natural rights of the person.

For example the "Farm" may be responsible for causing irreparable damage to the earth and no person has a natural right to spoil or destroy nature. If their use of the land is destroying nature then they don't have a right to the use of the land.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about "Liberty" that provides the freedom to use the land. "Liberty" does not imply "License" and the use of the land is highly limited under natural law and the right to possess land for use is limited to the amount of land the person requires to provide for their own support and comfort. A person doesn't actually own land, or the air or water (as my signature states) but instead they can establish a right to possess land for their use but even then there must be "enough and as good" as for other people to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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?
The "womb" does not belong to the fetus and the fetus cannot establish any claim to it. Where do people come up with such nonsense. In nature there's only one thing that any member of any species actually owns and that is their own body. No one has any right to their body but them. The fetus owns it's own body and no one else's body.

Thinks how stupid the claim is that the fetus owns the womb. That's advocacy for human bondage so let's make it simple. The basic criteria for the natural Rights of the Person (regardless of when personhood is established):

The Natural Right(s) of a person are inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, do not conflict with or violate the Rights of another person, nor do they impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

The Fetus cannot have a Right to Life that is dependent upon the Woman nor can the Fetus impose the obligation upon the Woman to provide a "home in the womb" without the woman's voluntary consent and the Fetus can't even occupy the Woman's body without her consent because that infringes upon the Right of Self of the Woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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.
The raising of a child in the United States is always based upon the voluntary consent of the adult (parent or guardian) to provide for the needs of the child as provided for under the law. If you took a two year old from their parents and put it out on the street you'd be committing an act of kidnapping, abandonment, and child endangerment and if the child died you'd be responsible for the child's death.

I'm not sure what the life support example is about because a machine doesn't have any rights to be violated but the woman does.

It's interesting though because the example is about removing someone from a life support system when they only need it for a few more days but doctors aren't prophets and they'd have no way of knowing the patient only needs it for a few more days. If they're on life support they could die in 5 minutes regardless of the life support system. We do have to question how the person was placed on life support to begin with. Did someone voluntarily put the person on life support?

The woman didn't voluntarily put the fetus on life support in her body (i.e. a planned pregnancy). If she did then she wouldn't want the abortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
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
No, I establish the criteria for aggression.

As noted the criteria I used was actually "surgical delivery" of the fetus as opposed to an abortion. Surgical deliveries, such as a cesarean section delivery, are done all of the time and they're never considered to be an act of aggression.

So we eliminate "abortions" and instead perform "surgical delivery" of the fetus and then see if it lives or dies just like we'd see if we did a cesarean section delivery. Of course if it's prior to the 24th week the medical facility is unlikely to attempt to preserve the life of the "baby" after delivery because the odds are so high that it won't survive anyway. But don't blame the woman, she's not responsible for the death. Nature's responsible and perhaps a little blame can be on the doctors that didn't waste their time to try and keep it alive for a few more days.

I would suggest you not waste your time. All of the BS arguments against the Right of the Woman to have an abortion based upon legal precedent, the Constitution, and Natural Rights have all been addressed and the anti-abortionists have no valid arguments because all they have is a belief.

We can note that the Christian belief that opposes abortion is advocacy for the violation of the Rights of the Woman and violating a person's natural rights that are Constitutionally protected is not just an immoral act but arguably very un-American as well.

Laws and actions by the government to deny directly or indirectly the Woman's Right go an abortion would be an act of tyranny. Do you personally support tyranny? I know a lot of Republicans support tyranny when it comes to the Rights of the Woman but I'm curious if you do personally.

In the end that's the fundamental problem with religious beliefs is that so many of them are immoral. Religions have advocated slavery, misogyny, racism, discrimination, premeditated killing (murder), theft, and even genocide historically. When it comes to moral guidance a person is rather foolish to place their belief in religion.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 06:09 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,396
Thanks: 1,452
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,771 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
Before I chase your red herring

Should I assume that you acknowledge that the non-aggression principle is not a default or universal principle that Atheist can come to?
And that atheist can just as easily come to the conclusion that killing and/or sterilizing the "unfit" and "lesser races" based on "science" for the greater good or something else is just as "reasonable"?
The non-aggression principle is a logical conclusion necessary for survival of the species. The human body automatically responds to danger (e.g. an act of aggression) based upon the evolution of our nerve systems.

So we start with a physical>unconscious>conscious response to acts of aggression and then using our reasoning capabilities we end up with the non-aggression principle. We don't start with it but instead it's the end of the road (the ultimate conclusion or "truth") when we address survival of the Human Species.

If the reference to atheist implies secular humanist then I disagree. No one can come to a logical conclusion "that killing and/or sterilizing the "unfit" and "lesser races" based on "science" for the greater good or something else is just as "reasonable" because nature does not grant them the authority to do that. The atheist is a child of nature and only nature grants authority. They would be unable to establish a valid foundation for the authority that would be required.

In fact the "Atheist" can't even provide an valid argument for capital punishment because no person has the right to commit the premeditated killing of another person (which is why I can argue for surgical delivery to replace abortion because surgical deliver does not result in premeditated killing).

Of interest religions, including Christianity, have rationalized genocide and the purging of "non-believers" by execution. Does that bother you?
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 06-22-2017 at 06:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2017, 08:17 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,262
Thanks: 9,813
Thanked 3,756 Times in 2,459 Posts
Default Re: Why are some people so submissive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
We know, for a fact, that the Books of Moses in the Bible weren't written by Moses because they have multiple authors.
Well, I would not be quite so certain about that.

The Pentateuch (usually referred to as the "Torah" by Jews) was once largely considered, by theologians, to be the work of four separate "redactors," over hundreds of years: the "Yahwist" (who used the Tetragrammaton, YHWH--the vowels may be added arbitrarily--as the name of God; the "Elohist" (who used "Elohim" as the name of God; a Deuteronomist (who was responsible, exclusively, for the Book of Deuteronomy); and a so-called "Priestly" writer (who concentrated upon the Law of Moses).

Nowadays, many scholars are abandoning the "Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch," as it is usually called.

True, most of these theologians are not flocking to a belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; but are instead gravitating toward an older theory (i.e. older than the Documentary Hypothesis), known as the Fragmentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch.

But I remain unconvinced that Moses was not the author of these five books (although the best argument to the contrary, I believe, is the different words for the name of God found therein).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Is moral to require the wife subservient to the husband? Should the wife submit to the husband in everything?
That is a very good question.

The Pauline writings do, indeed, teach the subservience of the wife to the husband; and this is something that most of us do not feel quite comfortable with.

But much was based upon the customs of the times.

For instance, the Book of Philemon reads as a sort of tacit endorsement of the institution of slavery.

And Jesus, Himself, appears to approve of some people "ma[king]" other people into eunuchs.

But again, one should not divorce these comments from the customs of the times.
__________________
"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
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 03:50 PM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0