tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post117070947090281501..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Of trolleys and moralityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6525998366858589992007-03-04T08:10:00.000-05:002007-03-04T08:10:00.000-05:00Mark,yes. I've read both Pinker and Wilson, and fi...Mark,<BR/><BR/>yes. I've read both Pinker and Wilson, and find them both intellectually arrogant and philosophically naive. Wilson doesn't advocate a bridge, he wants to reduce everything to biology (of course, he's a biologist after all!).<BR/><BR/>Mind you, they are both good scientists, but I wish they would stick with brains and insects, respectively... :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91257750757046050552007-03-04T05:44:00.000-05:002007-03-04T05:44:00.000-05:00Massimo,Have heard about Steven Pinker advocating ...Massimo,<BR/>Have heard about Steven Pinker advocating an E.O. Wilsonian bridge between the sciences and the humanities?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17712465477328319732007-02-15T07:40:00.000-05:002007-02-15T07:40:00.000-05:00Michael, Sorry I took so long to respond. So wha...Michael,<BR/> Sorry I took so long to respond. So what your saying is that I should be killing anyone who comits these offenses, since God told Moses to. Why do the Jews not believe this, nor the Christians. Again these were direct orders to Moses. My point about the new covenant was just for the sabbath. Moses was Gods appointed leader for the Jews. I do not think he intended for me to uphold his law with killing those who break it. <BR/><BR/> Now you say,<BR/><I> the power of your reason will supersede the rules of the Bible</I><BR/>That is the difference between our morality systems. Yes, I would be lying if I said I would let my family starve. The difference is you believe it is OK to steal in this instance, because to let your family starve would be a greater crime (for you not Bill Gates). Although I may steal, I believe it would still be the greater sin not to let my family starve. It would be my own lack of faith and yes my own logic that would make me steal. I do not belive this is the right thing to do. Yes I do believe the right thing to do would be to let my family starve. Although I am perhaps not strong enough to do it. <BR/><BR/><I>Regarding your question about the baby, I think it is a flawed question from the beginning, but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, it was wrong to kill the baby. It was simply done out of convenience (to avoid a tough life). The father and mother were apparently concerned about their happiness, not the happiness or suffering of the child. </I><BR/><BR/>Funny you say that, this is the same exact reason that abortions are done (convenience and concern about happiness), but your logic and enlightenment allows for that due to stage of developemnt.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16618195152581889572007-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:002007-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:00Jon & AnonMaybe but... It seems we all have a cons...Jon & Anon<BR/><BR/>Maybe but... It seems we all have a conscience. Some will say it comes from God. Others will say it's a biological/social phenom. But at the end of the day it is a conscience, and is supported by a whole register of moral feelings, or feelings about morality. In some deep sense you may be right, but I wouldn't go there too fast. Don't forget the Naturalistic fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52329382141654100272007-02-12T06:50:00.000-05:002007-02-12T06:50:00.000-05:00suffenus you are looking at mans logic illogically...suffenus you are looking at mans logic illogically, otherwise you would find an explanation entirely satisfactory to your problem. I agree with selfish jon, the genes survive and the status quo is maintained. Simple not a moral dilemmaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12640570594324613312007-02-12T06:41:00.000-05:002007-02-12T06:41:00.000-05:00I think your missing the point, it is logical not ...I think your missing the point, it is logical not to push the person to maintain a sense of safety for oneself. This is not a moral discussion.<BR/><BR/>Self preservation is the best way for us all to survive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44735915090340477312007-02-11T21:28:00.000-05:002007-02-11T21:28:00.000-05:00suf, "Without a background of moral feelings, man'...suf, <BR/>"Without a background of moral feelings, man's logic would have nothing to work with.<BR/>As for God's Law, is something good because it is God's law? or is it God's law because it is good? If the former, then anything could be justified, if we thought God "told us to do it". If the latter, then it is good anyway regardless of whether it is God's law."<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, my husband taught on a related matter this morning. He was referring to the fact that by appearances, fewer laws in Vegas Nevada are broken per capita. I.E. it tends to look like crime rates are lower in Vegas then other states as so much of what tends to be considered lawless behavior is permissible. <BR/><BR/>Now even common sense tells us that something is wrong with that method of putting "facts" and stats together.<BR/><BR/>BTW, This is part of what we studied today. I think it is wiser to not get into offhandedly saying... "GOD this...and the Law that" without quoting some of the things that scripture literally does say on these matters. Pitfalls and presumption there. As you can see, however, 1st John ch. 3 is primarily directed at believers. Not to forget tho that the Lord does write "His law" on the heart of every human being. <BR/><BR/>1Jo 3:3 <BR/><BR/>Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.<BR/>1Jo 3:4 <BR/><BR/>Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.<BR/>1Jo 3:5 <BR/><BR/>But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.<BR/>1Jo 3:6 <BR/><BR/>No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.<BR/>1Jo 3:7 <BR/><BR/>Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.<BR/>1Jo 3:8 <BR/><BR/>He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.<BR/>1Jo 3:9 <BR/><BR/>No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.<BR/>1Jo 3:10 <BR/><BR/>This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.<BR/>1Jo 3:11 <BR/><BR/>This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another." <BR/><BR/>http://www.blueletterbible.org/<BR/>cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.<BR/>pl?book=1Jo&chapter=3&version=niv<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37719402940998676322007-02-11T18:35:00.000-05:002007-02-11T18:35:00.000-05:00"We are discussing where ones morality comes from,..."We are discussing where ones morality comes from, Mans Logic vs Gods Law."<BR/><BR/>Neither answer would be wholly satisfactory. Without a background of moral feelings, man's logic would have nothing to work with.<BR/>As for God's Law, is something good because it is God's law? or is it God's law because it is good? If the former, then anything could be justified, if we thought God "told us to do it". If the latter, then it is good anyway regardless of whether it is God's law. [I believe this is called Euthyrpo's dilemma. It's just the theistic version of the Naturalistic fallacy. It is very difficult, regardless of your philosophy, to get from "is" to "ought" in any simplistic fashion. It is more a question of judgement and persuasion, than it is of logic.]<BR/><BR/>I probably won't have much more to say, because you are already having one pretty full discussion. I say "probably".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35120653062142496042007-02-11T18:24:00.000-05:002007-02-11T18:24:00.000-05:00I might find it easier to push the lever to save t...I might find it easier to push the lever to save the 5 but not inclined to push the person because the person might try and take me with them. Extra risk to me<BR/><BR/>If I were to push someone who is in the same position as me i.e. not in danger, onto the track, the precedent set is - no one is safe.<BR/><BR/>If the people on the track could talk to you before the train comes, I wonder what would happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78631257993264557642007-02-11T18:18:00.000-05:002007-02-11T18:18:00.000-05:00"See what the majority tell you."What, is morality...<I>"See what the majority tell you."</I><BR/><BR/>What, is morality now a democratic process? If the majority of people have a different stand on a moral issue that the Bible, which do you go with, the majority or the Bible?Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8071976433875655412007-02-11T18:15:00.000-05:002007-02-11T18:15:00.000-05:00Jim,Wow, I don't even know where to start. So much...Jim,<BR/><BR/>Wow, I don't even know where to start. So much of what you said was incorrect, my own post would have to be three times as long just to respond. I'll try to keep it short and sweet.<BR/><BR/>You really need to read your Bible a little more closely. Jesus does say to follow the laws of the Old Testament:<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."<BR/><BR/>Matthew 5:18-19 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. <I>Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven</I>; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Italics mine.)<BR/><BR/>And don't even get me started on the sabbath. My wife is a devout Seventh-Day Adventist, and they have some very good biblical arguments for keeping it. It was one of the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never specifically said that it was changed. Wouldn't changing one of the Ten Commandments require an explicit order from Jesus? Christians simply take "they met on the first day of the week" to mean that one of the Ten Commandments is suddenly null and void. The truth is the Catholic Church changed it (and they admit it). If you are Catholic and you recognize the authority of the Church, then I suppose this wouldn't be a problem for you. But if you're a Protestant, then you don't recognize the authority of the Catholic church and you better be observing the Sabbath. <BR/><BR/><I>"Would it be wrong to steal a dollar from Bill Gates to feed your starving family? if you know he would never find out? If it is, why?"</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're just giving me softball questions, Jim. Which would be worse between stealing from a billionaire or letting my family starve? Are you kidding me? Letting my family starve to death would obviously be worse, so I would choose to steal from the billionaire. It would still be wrong, but it's nothing compared to letting my family starve to death. Again, most of the time it's just common sense. Christian morality, however, doesn't have this kind of flexibility. You would be obligated not to steal (and therefore let your family starve to death), because this is the rigid moral code by which you live (regrettably the Ten Commandments do not have footnotes, addendum, or exceptions). Now I know you wouldn't let you family starve, of course. You would use your reason, ignore the commandment, and save your family. Again, the power of your reason will supersede the rules of the Bible. (If I assume too much and you would let your family starve, then please let me know.) <BR/><BR/>Regarding your question about the baby, I think it is a flawed question from the beginning, but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, it was wrong to kill the baby. It was simply done out of convenience (to avoid a tough life). The father and mother were apparently concerned about their happiness, not the happiness or suffering of the child.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3189072947703015032007-02-11T17:53:00.000-05:002007-02-11T17:53:00.000-05:00Your thought experiment is defective, because it a...<I>Your thought experiment is defective, because it already assumes that "I" want to kill the baby.</I><BR/><BR/> I thought I was clear that it wasn't "you" per se. I am not comparing the thought experiment to M's, forget about his. Its just a thought experiment. Lets say that you are the only to know of this couple. Would that work better for you? I just want an answer if this couple is immoral or not?<BR/>We are discussing where ones morality comes from, Mans Logic vs Gods Law.<BR/><BR/>As far as most peoples parental obligation being formed at birth. I seriously doubt that. Ask any pregnant woman if she feels her moral obligation does not begin until her baby is born. See what the majority tell you.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6499843612960429902007-02-11T16:46:00.000-05:002007-02-11T16:46:00.000-05:00JimThe thought experiment that Massimo mentioned w...Jim<BR/><BR/>The thought experiment that Massimo mentioned was designed to discover how people felt about certain moral actions, regardless of whether they could "justify" them or not.<BR/><BR/>Your thought experiment is defective, because it already assumes that "I" want to kill the baby.<BR/><BR/>Most people feel it would be wrong to actively push a person in front of a train. I think most people would also feel that the parental obligation would have formed at the birth of the baby.<BR/><BR/>If people did not have these kind of feelings, it would never matter what the Bible or anything else said about it, because it would all seem like a bunch of gobbledygook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51583267119458154772007-02-11T15:56:00.000-05:002007-02-11T15:56:00.000-05:00Let me give another exapmle of an immoral act that...Let me give another exapmle of an immoral act that would not have consiquences. Say you were a hermit, you and your wife moved away from society and lived off the land. Your wife gives birth to a severly handicapped baby. This baby makes your already tough living that you once loved, unbearable. You want to end the life of the baby but are afraid of your wifes feelings. She then comes to you begging you to end the life, so that you can try for another. So you now, in the most humane way you can think of kill the baby. Now you can start over and you and your wife are much happier. No one is ever the wiser, since only you and your wife ever knew. <BR/> Is this wrong or not? This is a thought experiment like Massimos, so I do not want to hear that you would never do such a thing (its not really you per se). Is what was done wrong or not?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48608156914065964082007-02-11T15:29:00.000-05:002007-02-11T15:29:00.000-05:00Of course it would have consequences. Even if I am...<I>Of course it would have consequences. Even if I am not caught, the person from whom I stole would suffer.</I><BR/><BR/> Your evading the question. No stealing does not always have consiquences. Would it be wrong to steal a dollar from Bill Gates to feed your starving family? if you know he would never find out? If it is, why?<BR/><BR/> I have heard this garbage before, that the bible tells me I must kill for things like <BR/><BR/>Homosexuality:I believe you are refering to Romans 1:24-32 <BR/> I think this is the phrase you are refering to? And the verse does not talk just about homosexuality, it talks about people turning from God, worshipping other things, ect.. No God does not say that I should kill homosexuals.<BR/>If you are taliking about Leviticus 20:13, These are Moses orders for the Isrealites. I am hardly in his company.<BR/><BR/> Working on the Sabbath: I believe you are refering to Exodus 31:12, Where God orders Moses to kill, or put out of the community those who work on the Sabbath. he is speaking to Moses So again, I should not kill people for working on the Sabbath. Not to mention Jesus not only changes what day the Sabbath is, he himself heals on the Sabbath to the dismay of the Jews. As he changes the convenant to important tasks may be performed on the Sabbath. Today many people interpet that to mean doctors and firefighters and such. <BR/><BR/>Adultary: I believe again you are refering to Leviticus 20:9 Where god is giving orders for how Moses should rule his people. <BR/><BR/>With the comming of Jesus is a new covenant where he tells us new laws, many different than the old testament, this upsets many Jews at the time. So you can't just go flipping through the bible and say that I must follow everything it says or I am not obtaining my morality from it. <BR/><BR/>The story of Moses I believe to be true. When I say I struggle with the old testament. That does not mean I do not place value on all of it and its storys. I just am not sure if stories like Genesis are literal or not. I don't think every phrase of the old testament is meant to be literal (but I may change my thinking the more I learn about it).Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88262741224289811232007-02-11T11:04:00.000-05:002007-02-11T11:04:00.000-05:00"What about a case where you can steal and know yo...<I>"What about a case where you can steal and know you will not be caught. Its effect will not bear any consiquence to you or anyone else."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course it would have consequences. Even if I am not caught, the person from whom I stole would suffer. And as a response, what if they also decided to steal to replace what they lost? You can see where this is going, right? I certainly don't want to live in a world where everyone is constantly stealing from each other.<BR/><BR/>You may claim that the word of God is your moral guide, but I'm not buying it. You use reason just like anyone else. For example, the Bible gives you orders to kill for a number of petty offenses: heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, etc. You don't believe this is right (you implied this, anyway, when you said that you struggled with the Old Testament) and you ignore these commands. If your reason conflicts with your moral guide, you go with your reason. Surely you can understand, then, how the rest of us use reason to determine our everyday actions.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65293015804491853092007-02-11T09:02:00.000-05:002007-02-11T09:02:00.000-05:00None of us need God or a holy book to point these ...<I>None of us need God or a holy book to point these things out, it is easily deduced using the mind.</I><BR/><BR/>What about a case where you can steal and know you will not be caught. Its effect will not bear any consiquence to you or anyone else. Why would that be wrong?<BR/><BR/>Not all of we consider moral has a cause and effect. This is why as a society we allow things like abortion. Even though it stops a beating heart, its effect on the rest of the population is not apparent. <BR/><BR/>When you start with mans natural logic for morality, can't you really explain anything he does naturally? "yeah he killed his friend, but he was more fit, and was just insuring survival of the species". <BR/> As crazy as the above statement sounds. couldn't it be seen as logical. Who's to say that that murder did not really benifit future generations of people from sickness. We have already started the process of exchanging human embryos for remote potential of less sickness in the future. Even though other types of stem cells are making paramount breakthroughs and actually helping people all the time and embryonic stem cells have not helped even one person in years and years of research. Once we cross that line, we will only continue to go in that direction. <BR/><BR/> Why would stealing all the money from the execs of Enron and leave them the way they left their employees be wrong? Wouldn't teaching these A-holes a lesson benifit society over all and perhaps put some fear into other execs and help keep them legit? Isn't some types of stealing OK. Wouldn't this be logical?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56434324374997868152007-02-10T23:22:00.000-05:002007-02-10T23:22:00.000-05:00Jim,Thank you for your reply. I am very happy to h...Jim,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your reply. I am very happy to hear that you follow the teachings of Jesus and look skeptically at the rest of the Bible. Jesus had some very good things to say, and I think he was a great moral teacher. The teachings of Jesus were not new, however, so why have you chosen him as your authority? Why not those that came before him: Buddha, Confucius, etc.?<BR/><BR/>How do I know what is right and wrong? Common sense in most cases. Stealing is the example you gave, so let's address that. I do not steal, because I do not want to live in a society where everyone steals. Our actions have results. Buddhists call it karma, but in reality it is simply cause and effect. None of us need God or a holy book to point these things out, it is easily deduced using the mind.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52621837096194714792007-02-10T21:55:00.000-05:002007-02-10T21:55:00.000-05:00If you truly believe that God will send me to hell...<I>If you truly believe that God will send me to hell, and if you believe that he is a just God, then you would agree with him that I deserve to go there. If you really think I deserve to be tortured for all eternity, do you really expect me to believe that you respect me in this life? I'm sorry, but that simply isn't believable. </I><BR/><BR/> I thought I just got done explaining that I cannot judge you, meaning I have no idea if your going to hell or not. You have a lifetime to live. I must treat you the way Jesus tells me to treat other men, even my enimies (not that your my enimie). <BR/><BR/> The bible has a lot of verses. I personally do not take it all literally, and also personally struggle with the old testament.I am not a young earth creationist (perhaps I should have made this clear earlier). I do not go to, or belong to any church. when I read the 4 gosphels however, I find more truth than I ever have. So I am not interested in a whole biblical debate, since I can't even tell you where I stand. When I read the 4 gosphels, I feel I find every tool I need for my own morality. <BR/> I do not yet submit to total biblical authority. I do however submit to Jesus's authority. <BR/> <BR/> Mans moralty however is ever changing. He strives to defend why he himself knows what is right and wrong. I see you like to call it "enlightenment" as if it some majic force nature gave to man. Others call it the golden rule. Some say that it can be logically reasoned. So I dare ask, how do you know what is right and wrong. How do you know stealing is wrong?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39481412210291839802007-02-10T18:11:00.000-05:002007-02-10T18:11:00.000-05:00Jim,If you truly believe that God will send me to ...Jim,<BR/><BR/>If you truly believe that God will send me to hell, and if you believe that he is a just God, then you would agree with him that I deserve to go there. If you really think I deserve to be tortured for all eternity, do you really expect me to believe that you respect me in this life? I'm sorry, but that simply isn't believable. History shows us how Christians and Muslims treat unbelievers, and I'm convinced they couldn't do that without their faith, especially their belief regarding hell.<BR/><BR/><I>"It doesn't mean a Christian must submit to his government."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course you are. The Bible clearly says in Romans 13, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." It doesn't get any clearer than that. <BR/><BR/>Does this sound like the founding fathers? Not quite. The founders of this country were heavily influenced by Locke, not scripture. We often forget how radical these ideas were back then. I mean, the idea that individuals were born with inherent rights, that we are all born equal, was something new and outrageous. These ideas were not found in scripture, but are the offspring of the enlightenment.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25567578613200750942007-02-10T17:04:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:04:00.000-05:00Michael, I agree totally that there should be a ...Michael,<BR/> I agree totally that there should be a seperation of church and state. Otherwise there can be no religious freedom. But I do believe while this country was being founded, it wasn't so much as secularism or theism that gave rise to our constitution). The first amendmant on the bill of rights was made because I think our forefathers could see that a time may come when our government may fear its own religions. Fo r some reason they felt it was worth protecting.<BR/> As far as how I treat someone going to hell. I am not allowed to judge, and I am specifically told not to. So how can I treat that person different. So a belief in heaven and hell in no way makes me any more immoral as you say. It makes me think much more of my own personal conciquences.<BR/> I noticed you bring up the "give ceasar what is ceasars" line in refence as to how Christians should think they should govern themselves. When Jesus says this, he is basically telling them that money is not important. It doesn't mean a Christian must submit to his government. Many thought he was there to free the Jews from the Romans. At this point he was letting them know his purpose was far more important. It wasn't advice that must be followed through the ages when your trying to set up a system that would be good for your fellow manJim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18080449593673688802007-02-10T16:06:00.000-05:002007-02-10T16:06:00.000-05:00On the topic of the Founding Fathers, their belief...On the topic of the Founding Fathers, their beliefs, and so on:<BR/><BR/>While what they believed is important insofar as how those beliefs may have informed their political judgment, even more important to the conversation is what was left out of their crowning achievement - that being, the Constitution. The law of the land is notably God-less; moreso, it is actively secular in that it repudiates the idea of a religious test to hold public office and confers the protections of the First Amendment to citizens. I don't care if the Founders were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or members of the Church of the Raving Loony; the Constitution they constructed keeps faith a matter of private conscience and not public necessity.<BR/><BR/>To Cal's point: Revisionism is a word that is bandied about a little too cavalierly. Are we revising our views of the Founders? Yes, and for the better, because we are getting a MORE factual picture of them and their beliefs, rather than the same old simplistic "they were Christian Democratic saints". Revisionism can be good OR bad where it comes to history. Cal is right that we should examine the agendas of those doing the revising. But we should also cast a critical eye upon the agendas of those who resist any re-interpretation of history. There's nothing wrong with revisionism, if such revisions are based upon facts, rather than wishful thinking.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, behavior motivated by the fear of hell (or the reward of heaven) all too often denies justice to those who are suffering right now, at this very instant; or inspires those who would cause others to suffer in pursuit of their own selfish rewards in the afterlife. For example, the promise of heavenly rewards and diabolical punishments kept generations of religious believers mired in poverty and squalor, slavery and peasantry. And certainly those faithful who carry out suicide missions believe they will be rewarded by God for their willingness to die in "His" service.<BR/><BR/>The Golden Rule is a little harder to twist into something that justifies murder, whereas history has shown that the dictates of Gods (or their megalomaniacal mortal stand-ins, such as the oft-mentioned Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) can easily motivate the irrational believer to commit mass slaughter - all the while believing that such actions ensure his ultimate reward in the heaven of his choosing (ethereal or earthly).<BR/><BR/>~ BobThe NE Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976297512830947379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42833595959343527342007-02-10T14:35:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:35:00.000-05:00"Don't trust everything you read."Cal,That's great...<I>"Don't trust everything you read."</I><BR/><BR/>Cal,<BR/><BR/>That's great advice, and I hope you follow it when you're reading your bible. Most unbelievers got to be that way because they don't believe everything they read or hear. Doubt everything. Test all claims against reason and science. <BR/><BR/>Now, back to your point. When reading about the founding fathers, I always like to see what they actually wrote themselves. For example, John Adams once wrote, "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."<BR/>-The Treaty of Tripoli, January 4, 1797<BR/><BR/>If he was one of the few Christians in that first generation of presidents and said this, what do you think someone like Jefferson wrote? I hope you have the courage to find out.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70445932428220301912007-02-10T14:23:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:23:00.000-05:00"One of the most important freedoms that our count...<I>"One of the most important freedoms that our country was founded on is religous freedom."</I><BR/><BR/>Christopher Hitchens once wrote, "The secular state is the guarantee of religious pluralism. This apparent paradox...is the simplest and most elegant of political truths." <BR/><BR/>You will never find religious freedom in a Christian government or a Muslim government. Only a secular government can guarantee the equal treatment of people from all walks of life. This is the essence of that great principle of separation of church and state.Michael Fiedlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17936461897357255504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26708719408780228092007-02-10T14:21:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:21:00.000-05:00"How much respect can you really have for someone ..."How much respect can you really have for someone whom you think is going to hell, especially since you think they deserve it? Belief in hell is one of the most immoral things a person can believe, and it definitely effects how you act in this life."<BR/><BR/>The concept of "hell" or eternal judgment is to be met with humility. As it is has been said by some, "But for the grace of God, there go I." The sincere Christian knows this one fact, if nothing else.<BR/><BR/>As for your comments about the founding fathers, there is this thing called "revisionism". It has occured to many of countries, cultures and people all the through time, especially when there is a social transformation that is wished (by x?) to be implemented. <BR/><BR/>Don't trust everything you read. One must ask what the motive of the writer is. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I gotta git!<BR/>you guys have good afternoon!<BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com