Much of the left will tell you they are deeply humanist and have a strong sense of right-v-wrong, so there's plenty of room for common understanding here, if you ask me. This "attack," however, I just don't agree with. If I could try to convey what I see in the far left (and hey, I live in San Francisco, where I am considered a right-leaning moderate somehow ), I'd say the following. A lot of the far left is wondering how they can re-access, if you will, religion. Some ask, why do people assume Christians are conservatives? In terms of peace, love and understanding, they would say the far left has a lot in common with all sorts of religions, including in particular the teachings of Christ. And as for "attacks," I believe the far left feels demonized and attacked by the extreme branches of the right (including the extreme segments of the Christian right). I must say that it is indeed frightening when you come up against someone who tells you that you are absolutely wrong and sinful and that they know what's best for you and society and CASE CLOSED there is no room for discussion. When you hear that, you feel attacked of course, no matter your background.
i certainly understand that logic. a friend and i have been recently discussing how Jesus' preferred form of government, minus the abuses that seem almost inherent, would be socialism. ok..that's a conjecture put out there like a positive assertion...but i think it's likely true. i'm not sure, given the imperfections of man, that it's workable...but in a bubble, i think it's true.
i would agree....the church has, in many respects, failed to live to its calling. regrettably, so have i.
I think that socialism would indeed be the system most consistent with JC's teachings. By far. And while I am not convinced it is possible as a pure system, I also would suggest that the abuses are not so much inherent in the system as endemic to almost any violent revolution based movement conducted by human beings.
In the case of the civil rights movement. In the case of fighting the oppression of the Samosa regime in Nicaragua and other Central American dictatorships. In the case of the battle against Apartheid in S. Africa in which Bishop Desmond Tutu won a Nobel Peace Prize. In the case of a particular denomination of Christianity apologizing for the atrocities done to American Indians in the name of Christianity and then setting up four different special schools to teach four different tribal languages to these tribes. The list could go on and on.
Of course church is going to fail to live up to its callings....the churches of this world are made of humans. Humans fail...churches fail. The fantastic thing is that both the people and the churches have a way to get their failures erased. Really...if churches were perfect...you wouldn't really need a church...because that means that the people that made the church were perfect...so they wouldn't need Jesus or God's salvation....so they wouldn't make a church...ect.
The silliness of this is that we have conservatives trying to break up a region from using their religion in their laws, and I'd be willing to bet that you are in favor of that action.
I agree that government should not promote a specific religion, as the doctrine of separation of church and state suggests. I disagree that government should encourage the quashing of morality. Therefore, I support the ending of Islamic dicatorships while somehow still finding that certain conduct and behavior is so immoral that it should be prohibited and/or limited.
Great point. As a result of my research on the various religions, I have come to the conclusion that there is a single, overriding moral law that governs the entire universe. The Bhuddists call it karma, the Wiccans refer to "thrice good, thrice bad," and the Christians have the Golden Rule. One way or another, if you cause harm to another (person, animal, whatever), you will have that harm revisited upon you, usually amplified.
Not unless it involves someone unwilling or incapable of making the choice for themselves (children, mentally handicapped, etc.). Wrong in the sense that one will have to repay the karmic debt, but not to the point that it should be legislated. Nope. If you take offense to my language, don't hang around me. If you attend an event where the general public congregates (especially an event that draws rabid, energetic fans like sporting events), you do not have the right to legislate someone else's language (sticks and stones). Nope. Some "authority" deserves disrespect. As far as my definition of "morality" goes, polygamy wouldn't qualify as long as all parties are amenable. However, there are societal issues that I see are worthy of regulation wrt polygamy. In general, the incest that I would see as morally "wrong" is the type where children are involved. Incest draws a HUGE "EEEEEWWWWW" from me, but if both parties are adults and consenting, whatever (dry heave). The moral wrong here is the fact that a child does not have the capacity to make an adult decision about sex. As such, they do not fit into the category of "consenting adults."
First, I think the black and white definitions of right and wrong are impossible to assign outside of religion because they all require context to define them. Religion can give them that context, but other things can as well. I'd kinda like to take these one at a time... p*rnography If you mean two consenting adults engaged in acts of sexuality for the pleasure of others via videos, etc, than I'm not sure this could be defined as "wrong" by non-religious standards. Is it healthy for society? Probably not, but that isn't the argument. Adultery Again, similar to p*rnography, it certainly isn't healthy, but people have tried to make laws regarding it before with pretty poor results. Foul Language Now, this is something I personally don't see as a moral issue at all outside religion. Language is language. Only context allows us to assign terms like "foul" and "bad" to it. Besides the fact that there are many curse words with dual meanings (ass and b**** for example), what is considered acceptable when it comes to language varies wildly even by decade. As I mentioned above, it was once thought that you could never mention the word "pregnant" on television. And as much as the kid raised by an English teacher in me agrees that there are many effective ways to communicate with people without using "colorful" language, sometimes, "please be quiet" just doesn't convey the message that "shut the **** up" does. Disrespectful behavior towards authority This is one that is almost impossible to define. What is disrespectful? Should we not question the government when we think they are doing something wrong? Should we not call people older than us by their first names? I love this exchange... George Bush: Y'know, in my day... little boys didn't call their elders by their first names. Bart: Yeah, well... welcome to the 20th Century, George. It is just too difficult to define what is ok because the standards change and neither religion nor social standards can define this well enough to call it right or wrong. Polygamy This is a tough one because I see this like I see p*rnography. If these are three (or four or five) people who genuinely love each other and feel that this is acceptable for them, I'm not sure any of us has a right to define that as wrong. There are plenty of horribly destructive two-person relationships to warrant saying even being in a relationship at all can be harmful. Incest No question this is harmful all the way around, but it is more about degrees of how bad rather than simply wrong. Humans likely, at one point, had to procreate with family members because no one else was available. Was that wrong or just survival? Statutory Rape Again, this is situational. A girl who is 16 years and 300 days old having sex with a boy who is 17 and a half is statutory rape, but is it really rape? I am all for protecting kids from adults and rape, but there are way too many variables to simply define statutory rape as "wrong." I think my point is that the braodest definitions of "right" and "wrong" rarely apply in every circumstance and it is up to us as a society to define where the line between ok and not ok is. That cannot be assigned with a blanket assessment because it is just too broad.
(1)do you think that moral laws are a part of the natural world (have always been a part of the universe)? (2)or do you think that moral laws come from a god? (the supernatural) (3)or do you think moral laws are man-made and only have come into existence as a result of the rise of intelligent rational beings ? if you believe 1 or 2, why are moral laws different from natural laws? Natural laws are descriptive: they describe how something will behave under different circumstances. But moral laws are prescriptive: they describe how something should behave under different circumstances. This is why a law of nature like the law of gravity cannot be violated, but a moral law like "Thou shall not kill" can be. Nothing else in the universe has this strange prescriptive quality--nothing we know in nature gives any part of the natural world a "duty" to behave in a certain way.
Hi! I am a Christian Conservative! I am in favor of beating my children with tennis rackets, forcing my beliefs on all who are too stupid to see the error of their ways, Making the United States Government run only on the teachings of the Bible, and sending all gays and minorities to live in a fenced in area in Western Utah guarded by German Sheppards and Ninjas.
I'm suddenly conflicted here. How do I balance my hate for being put in concentration camps with my love for ninjas? Ooohh.... I just don't know what to do! *walks quietly into camp* What can I say? Ninjas are awesome! ^.^
And when NInjas aren't flipping out and killing people they are usually flying or jamming on the badest electric gutiar around!!
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength?
