# Why do people want to use their religion to hurt you?



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This goes for any religion? They say they are doing it for good and righteousness. They say you need it but they use it as an excuse to taunt and belittle and much worse and then are surprised when people retaliate after periods of abuse.

I have so many good friends, coworkers and family that only use their religion for good.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

It is not religion, per say, it is ideology. That ideology can be, but, is not necessarily based in religion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> It is not religion, per say, it is ideology. That ideology can be, but, is not necessarily based in religion.


They use their religion. It is pretty clear.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

And I have seen the same type of hurtful things from those who claim no religion, or, are even anti-religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I don't know. I've seen, and experienced the religious of all stripes using their faith as a weapon, time and time again. The thing is that there are more good than bad, but the bad leave such a lasting impression. It's sad, and totally unfair to the caring, helpful, and kind religious people.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Because religous beliefs and the faith in one's god must be absolute. Anything less and the whole construct falls apart. Any acknowledgement that another's beliefs may have validity call into question the validity of one's own beliefs. Self doubt is doubt about one's god. How better for the doubter to dispel any appearance of doubt than to attack other's beliefs and trumpet their own? I've found those most secure in their beliefs to be the most accepting of other's. They have no doubts and no need to prove themselves.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think it's because those who use religion to hurt others are not happy in themselves and are using religion as an excuse to project their own insecurities on others. If they didn't have religion they would use some other way to do it.

I know quite a few good Christians and, although a couple can be a bit preachy at times, they are good people and would bend over backwards to help you. I also know a lot of other Christians who are brainwashed to the point that they willfully hurt others and justify it by using the good/evil idea.

A large number of people I know are non-religious or keep their religion to themselves so if they are good or bad I can't associate it with any particular faith.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> And I have seen the same type of hurtful things from those who claim no religion, or, are even anti-religion.


It doesn't matter whether you're talking about whose god is the best or whose barbecue sauce is tastiest, the same human dynamics are at play.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Why do people want to use their religion to hurt you?

Because they are hypocrites.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It has nothing to do with religion. The same influences are in play in politics, high school football games and any other group whose members believe themselves to be special. It is basic human nature. You're fooling yourself if you think because religion, and a higher power, is involved that it is different.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Because religous beliefs and the faith in one's god must be absolute. Anything less and the whole construct falls apart. Any acknowledgement that another's beliefs may have validity call into question the validity of one's own beliefs. Self doubt is doubt about one's god. How better for the doubter to dispel any appearance of doubt than to attack other's beliefs and trumpet their own? * I've found those most secure in their beliefs to be the most accepting of other's. They have no doubts and no need to prove themselves.*


I think you've hit the nail on the head right there.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I've actually been watching something like this play out on Facebook. My cousin's daughter exercised bad choices and a couple of women who claim strong faith have taken the opportunity to slander her and anyone who dares to express concern for her very publicly, including calling her a liar for having told some the manner in which her father died, which in fact is the truth. 

I believe that those that do these things feel they are doing right by their faith but I also believe that in some cases and feel that the truth they claim justifies the negativity.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cause some people are mean and small minded. 

Some people even cut off heads.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I guess I've never witnessed someone using their religion to taunt and belittle anyone.
Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I've never seen it.
Most religions are actually supposed to be the opposite of that, and I think the people who do things like that would be like that no matter what church they went to.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I cannot understand how people can be so offended about something as trivial as someone wanting to "one-up" them, regardless of what is "used" to do this. The "oh, you offended me" card is getting a lot of use these days. Back when I was younger, I did not see so many people getting offended so easily, now it is almost like a trump card, your rights are superseded by someone's ability to hear or see something and then walk away, "Oh, well..." - what I call the "whatever, dude[dudette]" capacity.

I guess that there is no level playing field anymore. We must all walk on eggshells around others to be careful to not say or do something that might offend them.

lol... the adults have left the building.

ETA: I wonder if those that get so offended realize that by being offended so easily that you 1. insult those that genuinely wish you well and 2. provided those that do it purposely with an easy "mission accomplished" award.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I don't feel offended when I see (or experience) people using their religion as a weapon to hurt or belittle another person. It makes me sad, I'm sure that is not what the tenets of their faith have taught them. There must be something lacking in their life or faith that makes them want to hurt another human being with something that should be a comfort. 

No, I'm not offended but I do feel pity for them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't feel offended when I see (or experience) people using their religion as a weapon to hurt or belittle another person. It makes me sad, I'm sure that is not what the tenets of their faith have taught them. There must be something lacking in their life or faith that makes them want to hurt another human being with something that should be a comfort.
> 
> No, I'm not offended but I do feel pity for them.


Good for you, I also pity those that cannot rise above the fog of being offended.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Offended means to me that you take it as a personal insult. I don't take others using their religion as a hammer as an insult.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

To answer the question: Why do people want to use their ________ to hurt you? (fill in the blank with anything, Religion, race, creed, science, taste in movies, car, etc. ) Short answer: People suck.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

My faith IS a weapon AND a shield. It is described in the bible in terms of the garments and implements of war... but my enemy is not humanity.
*
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:*

Eph. 6:11-17


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I agree that many people need to grow a thicker skin but I think that we need to recognize the difference between taunting and belittling and the real life consequences of differing beliefs. When it starts to split marriages, separate families, marginalizes and alienates people and cost lives it has crossed the line into abuse and needs to be defended against.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't feel offended when I see (or experience) people using their religion as a weapon to hurt or belittle another person. It makes me sad, I'm sure that is not what the tenets of their faith have taught them. There must be something lacking in their life or faith that makes them want to hurt another human being with something that should be a comfort.
> 
> No, I'm not offended but I do feel pity for them.


The more that people use their religion against others, from bombing or beheading all the way down to knocking on doors and disturbing and annoying people, the more that it reinforces that all religion is bogus.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It's easy to miss the forest for the trees. Religious intolerance is a subset of something much larger and pervasive. Identify that and you are on the way to understanding.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Agriculture said:


> The more that people use their religion against others, from bombing or beheading all the way down to knocking on doors and disturbing and annoying people, the more that it reinforces that all religion is bogus.


People have the right to religion, and many find comfort in their faith. I'm glad for them, but that doesn't mean I agree with the few that use their faith to hammer (psychologically or physically) on others in a threatening or belittling manner. 

Most of the people I love have faith to one degree or another. It's the people that use it as a weapon to hurt, disparage, mock, or degrade that are wrong, and give all others of faith a bad name.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess I've never witnessed someone using their religion to taunt and belittle anyone.
> Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I've never seen it.
> Most religions are actually supposed to be the opposite of that, and I think the people who do things like that would be like that no matter what church they went to.


I've not seen it either, Poppy, unless you count WBC, who are about a dozen mean spirited idiots-and I've never 'seen' them, only read about them.

If this was an intro into Islam, I'll say again, its not, or maybe no longer, a religion, its a theocratic political movement bent on conquering all those in their path & establishing a world caliphate.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Because they confuse the toddler like desire for power over others with rational adult behavior.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Because they confuse the toddler like desire for power over others with rational adult behavior.


There's something about tearing others down in order to feel good about yourself that is not uncommon to conflict.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

painterswife said:


> This goes for any religion? They say they are doing it for good and righteousness. They say you need it but they use it as an excuse to taunt and belittle and much worse and then are surprised when people retaliate after periods of abuse.
> 
> I have so many good friends, coworkers and family that only use their religion for good.


"Goes for any religion?"
I only see one religion that uses violence to exist. 
The "everybody does it" rationalization does not work for me in this case.
I am not seeing any tauntting or belittlement from any of the other religions.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Darren said:


> There's something about tearing others down in order to feel good about yourself that is not uncommon to conflict.


I think I'm going to just stick to what I said. Look at ISIS. From the guy who just wants someone to justify the desires he already has; violence, rape, torture, destruction.... To the guy who just can't stand living in a world where people don't believe what he believes. They all use religion to justify their means, for no other reason than they needed one and there's no greater justification than an all powerful god. The right to leverage power over others....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

OffGridCooker said:


> "Goes for any religion?"
> I only see one religion that uses violence to exist.
> The "everybody does it" rationalization does not work for me in this case.
> I am not seeing any tauntting or belittlement from any of the other religions.


I have seen it from people of all religions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> This goes for any religion? They say they are doing it for good and righteousness. They say you need it but they use it as an excuse to taunt and belittle and much worse and then are surprised when people retaliate after periods of abuse.
> 
> I have so many good friends, coworkers and family that only use their religion for good.


Why do some people use their size/intelligence/car/dog/farm/etc. for 'bad' not good? Because these people are human and living a human, as opposed to true Godly, life.

No one who is truly following the teachings of Christ would do any more than tell you about Christ and stop doing so if you tell them you don't want here it and living their life as an example before you.

If someone claiming to be a Christian is bothering you just ask them if they believe they should follow what Christ say to do, then tell them to read Matthew 10:14 and Luke 9:5 before they talk to you again.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I have seen it from people of all religions.


Is there a list of "all"? What have those gosh darn, mean old Buddhists been up to?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Religion

noun

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

2 *a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or **sects*: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.*the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and **practices*: a world council of religions.

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 

6.*something one believes in and follows **devotedly*; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The bold definitions can also include:

LGBT community
BLM
KKK
PETA
RNC
DNC
Pro Life
Pro Choice

And the list can go on and on.
"Why do people use their religion to hurt you?"
1 word in that sentence answers your question.

People.
They love and desire to be powerful and important.
Their intense desire to control others.
People, with rotten hearts, hurt people.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I have seen it from people of all religions.


I Have seen it from people that eat vegetables. Why do vegetarians what to hurt people?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Vegans are the meanest


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

OffGridCooker said:


> I Have seen it from people that eat vegetables. Why do vegetarians what to hurt people?


The motives are the same

It gives them a false sense of superiority, and then they gather with their cohorts and gossip about anyone who isn't in lockstep with them.

The thing I don't understand is why they think it isn't apparent to most folks


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

The main reason is you let them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Religion is an extension of humanity, essentially. Good and evil comes from that. Ideally, religion functions as a vector of good. Unfortunately, it is frequently used as a tool to control people at the base level. Convincing them that someone is watching them always and is all-knowing is a great behavioral motivator. 



Woolieface said:


> Vegans are the meanest


There's recently been a somewhat odd insurgence of people who redirect their religiosity towards eating excessively healthy diets and than enforcing them onto others. I enjoy trying to maintain a healthy diet, but I'm willing throw in a Big Mac now and then.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> Vegans are the meanest


THAT'S because they are hungry!!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I think I'm going to just stick to what I said. Look at ISIS. From the guy who just wants someone to justify the desires he already has; violence, rape, torture, destruction.... To the guy who just can't stand living in a world where people don't believe what he believes. They all use religion to justify their means, for no other reason than they needed one and there's no greater justification than an all powerful god. The right to leverage power over others....


 Look at the oppressive communist governments from the 20th century. Millions upon millions killed and they largely reject religion in all forms. Humans don't need religion as an excuse to be major a-holes.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Religion is an extension of humanity, essentially. Good and evil comes from that. Ideally, religion functions as a vector of good. Unfortunately, it is frequently used as a tool to control people at the base level. Convincing them that someone is watching them always and is all-knowing is a great behavioral motivator.
> 
> 
> 
> There's recently been a somewhat odd insurgence of people who redirect their religiosity towards eating excessively healthy diets and than enforcing them onto others. I enjoy trying to maintain a healthy diet, but I'm willing throw in a Big Mac now and then.


Seriously, I've seen vegans be the meanest people in conversations about their chosen diet. Most of those also had an animal rights mental issue, so that was probably a contributing factor. That and low blood sugar.....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Old Vet said:


> The main reason is you let them.


That is called grow a pair. Stick and Stones can break my bones but WORDS will never HURT ME. They LET people hurt them by not letting things be, and let it go into one ear and out the other Without Having to argue and make some kind of smart aleck remark with whomever the conversation or post was.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> Seriously, I've seen vegans be the meanest people in conversations about their chosen diet. Most of those also had an animal rights mental issue, so that was probably a contributing factor. That and low blood sugar.....


 I recently had a run in with a Vegan fascist. I was eating my lunch that consisted of a hamburger made from a mix of venison and ground pork. She made a snide comment about how I would feel differently about eating that meal if I only knew how the animal was treated. I quickly ended the conversation when I told her that the pork portion of my burger came from a pig that I raised, then shot in the head, and the venison portion came from a deer that my wife had shot in the spine.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> I recently had a run in with a Vegan fascist. I was eating my lunch that consisted of a hamburger made from a mix of venison and ground pork. She made a snide comment about how I would feel differently about eating that meal if I only knew how the animal was treated. I quickly ended the conversation when I told her that the pork portion of my burger came from a pig that I raised, then shot in the head, and the venison portion came from a deer that my wife had shot in the spine.


That's a good one... :rotfl:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Look at the oppressive communist governments from the 20th century. Millions upon millions killed and they largely reject religion in all forms. Humans don't need religion as an excuse to be major a-holes.


Never said they did. I answered the question. I'm not going to not talk about the problem we have in this world with religion and the psychopaths who use it as a tool to convince themselves that what they're doing is okay, just so religious folks don't get upset.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Look at the oppressive communist governments from the 20th century. Millions upon millions killed and they largely reject religion in all forms. Humans don't need religion as an excuse to be major a-holes.


But religion should be the reason they're not. It's amazing how often it fails.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Never said they did. I answered the question. I'm not going to not talk about the problem we have in this world with religion and the psychopaths who use it as a tool to convince themselves that what they're doing is okay, just so religious folks don't get upset.


 No matter if it is a secular government or religious terrorists, the real issue is the belief that the ends justify the means.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> That is called grow a pair. Stick and Stones can break my bones but WORDS will never HURT ME. They LET people hurt them by not letting things be, and let it go into one ear and out the other Without Having to argue and make some kind of smart aleck remark with whomever the conversation or post was.


Hitler accomplished quite a bit with words.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> No matter if it is a secular government or religious terrorists, the real issue is the belief that the ends justify the means.


And again, I'm not going to sugar coat it for religious folks just because it upsets them. When "the belief" that the ends justify the means is based in religion, I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not. I'm not going to turn it into a less offensive abstract for you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> And again, I'm not going to sugar coat it for religious folks just because it upsets them. When "the belief" that the ends justify the means is based in religion, I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not. I'm not going to turn it into a less offensive abstract for you.


 
Again, you are not capable of offending me. In this country, for now, you are free to talk about whatever you wish.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Again, you are not capable of offending me. In this country, for now, you are free to talk about whatever you wish.


And you're free to keep right on trying to enlighten me, but this conversation was about religion and I spoke my mind. Any time this comes up you and others like to say, "Yea but these people do it too." Yea we know, and that isn't what we're talking about.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

wiscto said:


> And again, I'm not going to sugar coat it for religious folks just because it upsets them. When "the belief" that the ends justify the means is based in religion, I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not. I'm not going to turn it into a less offensive abstract for you.


And again, I'm not going to sugar coat it for *VEGAN* folks just because it upsets them. 
When "the belief" that the ends justify the means is based in *VEGANISM,* I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not. 
I'm not going to turn it into a less offensive abstract for you.

You can take the two bolded words and insert any "religion" based upon the DEFINITION of 'religion'.

Finally. I agree with you!!!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> And again, I'm not going to sugar coat it for *VEGAN* folks just because it upsets them.
> When "the belief" that the ends justify the means is based in *VEGANISM,* I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not.
> I'm not going to turn it into a less offensive abstract for you.
> 
> ...


LOL okay. And I'm not going to sugar coat it when you bring up "veganism" because you're feeling defensive when someone talks about one of the very real, very disturbing side effects of religion. You know it's true, but you don't like people talking about it, so instead you redirect the conversation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I think its because your posts are interesting if not downright amusing to read.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

wiscto said:


> LOL okay. And I'm not going to sugar coat it when you bring up "veganism" because you're feeling defensive when someone talks about one of the very real, very disturbing side effects of religion. You know it's true, but you don't like people talking about it, *so instead you redirect the conversation.*



The OP is titled "Why do people want to use their religion to hurt you?"

I posted the definition, per Websters dictionary, of "Religion".

I merely agreed with you.
ALL religions (from spiritual types to food choices) are used to hurt others.
Because PEOPLE are the common denominator.

Slow down and read what I said pages ago......PEOPLE use whatever 'religion' they practice to hurt other people.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> The OP is titled "Why do people want to use their religion to hurt you?"
> 
> I posted the definition, per Websters dictionary, of "Religion".
> 
> ...


I agree. People are the common denominator. The real question is, why you all don't feel the need to make that distinction when you're flipping out about "socialists" "communists" "liberals" and whatever else, but if someone here specifically brings up religion you all act like we pantsed you in front of the principal... Anyway, you can pretty much count on me using the first two, meaning, primary definitions of the word religion when I use the word. And yes, you do have to know which meaning the author was intending to invoke. And that is true when you are reading the CONSTITUTION.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

"veganism certainly isn't a freaking religion."

The practice often includes moral standards regarding what life is ok to eat and many of them get pretty darn spiritual about it...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I agree. People are the common denominator. The real question is, why *you all* don't feel the need to make that distinction when you're flipping out about "socialists" "communists" "liberals" and whatever else, but if someone here specifically brings up religion *you all *act like we pantsed you in front of the principal... Anyway, you can pretty much count on me using the first two, meaning, primary definitions of the word religion when I use the word. And yes, you do have to know which meaning the author was intending to invoke. And that is true when you are reading the CONSTITUTION.


Well this is really different than your first post! Good Catch!

"Who is *you all*" 

And you are free to pick and choose whatever form of the definition fits your chosen agenda.

Are you saying the OP was 'bashing on spiritual religions' only?
It's not like her to allow others to put words in her mouth......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Religion to me is a group of people who together practice a belief in a higher being. Vegetarians don't believe in a higher being of vegetables.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you saying the OP was 'bashing on *spiritual religions*' only?


That's the only kind there are.
It's really not all that complicated

Some use their religion as a means to demean or discriminate against others, and to make themselves feel superior. 

It's just a simple fact, and examples are all around everywhere one goes.

There are even laws that are in place to prevent such things


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Religion to me is a group of people who together practice a belief in a higher being. Vegetarians don't believe in a higher being of vegetables.


Ok, well I posted the actual definition, not 'what it means to me'.
And Vegans most certainly do fit the definition.

Post 33
Religion

noun

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

2 *a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or **sects*: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.*the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and **practices*: a world council of religions.

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 

6.*something one believes in and follows **devotedly*; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The bold definitions can also include:

LGBT community
BLM
KKK
PETA
RNC
DNC
Pro Life
Pro Choice

And the list can go on and on.
"Why do people use their religion to hurt you?"
1 word in that sentence answers your question.

People.
They love and desire to be powerful and important.
Their intense desire to control others.
People, with rotten hearts, hurt people.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Religion to me is a group of people who together practice a belief in a higher being. Vegetarians don't believe in a higher being of vegetables.


They believe in higher beans


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> They believe in higher beans


And they pray for Whirled Peas


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

So then is it safe to say the purpose of this entire thread was to *single out a specific type of person* and bash them, start quarrels and arguements, sling well disguised personal insults, and just all around break every rule that HT hands out infractions for??? 




Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that wouldn't even be close, although that could describe many of the threads started here.





painterswife said:


> I asked a real question. Why would anyone use their religion to hurt others? I would assume their god would not approve.


Well, in her own words, she has singled out religions that have a god.
So all other religions, by definition, are excluded.....
So um, yeah, a single type of person/persons were targeted.
When we move away from the target......everyone gets in an uproar.

Do we just not care about actual definitions in the dictionary?
Or are we singling out a type of person to bash, and insult?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> So then is it safe to say the purpose of this entire thread was to *single out a specific type of person* and bash them, start quarrels and arguements, sling well disguised personal insults, and just all around break every rule that HT hands out infractions for???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not bashed anyone. I asked a question.

I will now ask another one. Are you trying to get this thread closed?


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Why do people want to use their religion to hurt you?


Ya know, a great person to have asked this question to would have been Jihad John. But, I guess it's too late for that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Well this is really different than your first post! Good Catch!
> 
> "Who is *you all*"
> 
> ...


Biggest things to remember, and what a lot of people seem to forget, about the constitution are:

One, it only applies to the government and two, it set limits on the government power, i.e. if it is not given a power it does not have that power.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are even laws that are in place to prevent such things


Elaborate, please...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> Ya know, a great person to have asked this question to would have been Jihad John. But, I guess it's too late for that.


It would have been. I am asking that of anyone of any religion. There have been some very thoughfull answers as well.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I asked a real question. Why would anyone use their religion to hurt others? I would assume their god would not approve.


You know what they say about assumptions. There are/were plenty of religions out there where the god greatly approve of harming others. Both followers of the religion and non-believers. 

Was it the Mayans, Aztecs or Incas who not only sacrificed their war prisoners but would sacrifice their own willing believers to their gods?

IIRC, there some American Indians would torture their prisoners to death as a sign to their great spirit.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I asked a real question. Why would anyone use their religion to hurt others? I would assume their god would not approve.


Let me ask you a question?

Why do you want to understand people who use religion to hurt others? 

If you understand those people and their motives will it make any difference to you or to their actions? Does the tool they use change your perceptions about people who hurt other people?

People who hurt other people use all sorts of tools as weapons, religion is just one of those tools. I think the religion used as a tool isn't important. What's important is the state of mind of the persons causing harm, by whatever means.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> You know what they say about assumptions. There are/were plenty of religions out there where the god greatly approve of harming others. Both followers of the religion and non-believers.
> 
> Was it the Mayans, Aztecs or Incas who not only sacrificed their war prisoners but would sacrifice their own willing believers to their gods?
> 
> IIRC, there some American Indians would torture their prisoners to death as a sign to their great spirit.


Good points.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I asked a real question. Why would anyone use their religion to hurt others? I would assume their god would not approve.


I wish I could help you with an answer. But, I have not experienced anyone using his/her religion to hurt me. Nor have I used my religion to hurt someone else. So, any response I might provide would be purely assumption and/or conjecture.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> So then is it safe to say the purpose of this entire thread was to *single out a specific type of person* and bash them, start quarrels and arguements, sling well disguised personal insults, and just all around break every rule that HT hands out infractions for???
> 
> Well, in her own words, she has singled out religions that have a god.
> So all other religions, by definition, are excluded.....
> ...


You're taking the definitions out of *context.*
The first one is the only one that applies here:



> 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Elaborate, please...


Anti-discrimination laws prevent using ones religion to harm others


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

The initial question is very deep. My answer, however, would not be accepted by many. Mankind is naturally sinful and thus will hurt others. Religion is often used as a facade or even a vehicle to aid in hurtful actions. Or not. I don't think Ivan the Terrible was a regular "attender". But some might claim Hitler and Stalin were "Christian" because they were, as children, raised in the church. Being raised in the church, or even regularly attending church as an adult means nothing. One's actions and private thoughts (especially) validate one's beliefs. Personally, I have been "saved" and made a New Creation in Christ. If you knew the "old me" you would better understand what I mean. I believe that you are in service, either knowingly or unknowingly, to one kingdom or the other, and that goes for churchgoers or non-churchgoers. Again, I don't expect all reading this to accept this.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MichaelZ said:


> The initial question is very deep. My answer, however, would not be accepted by many. Mankind is naturally sinful and thus will hurt others. Religion is often used as a facade or even a vehicle to aid in hurtful actions. Or not. I don't think Ivan the Terrible was a regular "attender". But some might claim Hitler and Stalin were "Christian" because they were, as children, raised in the church. Being raised in the church, or even regularly attending church as an adult means nothing. One's actions and private thoughts (especially) validate one's beliefs. Personally, I have been "saved" and made a New Creation in Christ. If you knew the "old me" you would better understand what I mean. I believe that you are in service, either knowingly or unknowingly, to one kingdom or the other, and that goes for churchgoers or non-churchgoers. Again, I don't expect all reading this to accept this.


Thank you. A very thoughtful answer.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Well this is really different than your first post! Good Catch!
> 
> "Who is *you all*"
> 
> ...


See... The thing is, no one is free to pick and choose which definition fits their agenda if they're reading what someone else said. You should call Merriam-Webster and ask them how the dictionary works. Or call your local English professor. The use of the word depends on the sentence and the person who wrote the sentence. 

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding my "first post." I edited the one you quoted because the first one was too long, and frankly, I didn't think I should have to show you the definition since you already saw it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Here. Let's end the conversation. Painterswife was referring to the CONSTITUTIONAL use of the word religion. In that sense. Veganism is not a religion. Goodbye.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anti-discrimination laws prevent using ones religion to harm others


Then it doesn't exist. Or it is in court.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anti-discrimination laws prevent using ones religion to harm others


Just like gun free zone laws prevent people from shooting others.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Here. Let's end the conversation. Painterswife was referring to the CONSTITUTIONAL use of the word religion. In that sense. Veganism is not a religion. Goodbye.


I'm sorry but I seem have missed just where in the USC it defined the exact meaning of "religion". Could you point that out to me? If its not there then we have to determine what the word means.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

MichaelZ said:


> The initial question is very deep. My answer, however, would not be accepted by many. *Mankind is naturally sinful and thus will hurt others.* Religion is often used as a facade or even a vehicle to aid in hurtful actions. Or not. I don't think Ivan the Terrible was a regular "attender". But some might claim Hitler and Stalin were "Christian" because they were, as children, raised in the church. Being raised in the church, or even regularly attending church as an adult means nothing. *One's actions and private thoughts (especially) validate one's beliefs. *Personally, I have been "saved" and made a New Creation in Christ. If you knew the "old me" you would better understand what I mean. I believe that you are in service, either knowingly or unknowingly, to one kingdom or the other, and that goes for churchgoers or non-churchgoers. Again, I don't expect all reading this to accept this.


Yes. I've held much of what you wrote as a truism for a long time. Also however, unlike you, I'm not a member of any religion. But then, that's because I agree that belonging doesn't have much to do with trying to be a good person. Unfortunately, being a part of said mankind, I've back-slided more than I'm happy to admit.

I do believe the two bolded sentences above are intrinsically connected, and go hand in hand with, wrong doing, guilt, atonement, _and _forgiveness. 

Pretty much, all religions have a dogma, or doctrine, unique to that religion. It's followers are supposed to accept that doctrine, which mainly deals with rules about how to worship that particular deity; what's not allowed, what is, etc. 

Then there are some concepts, or rules to live by, that predate the establishment of organized religions. These concepts, which advised on the best ways to live in harmony with others, were incorporated into the teachings. Over time, those 'rules to live by' became accepted by the religion's followers as part and parcel of the particular religion's doctrine. And, because of the reasons in your _first_ bolded, anyone who didn't 'belong' was often held in disdain. Given that a lot of beliefs, _the world over_, have many of those original(bedrock) rules in common, I don't agree with that.

Everyday I see people labeling others, or marginalizing others, because of a particular opinion on only one issue. With a bit of observation, or sometimes conversation, it becomes evident that they're conveniently forgetting that they, themselves, regularly make exceptions in their own behavior, to the rules they expect others to follow. 

I don't believe I have any need for _any_ religion's doctrine or dogma if I spend my time trying hard to follow the 'rules to live by'. They're the _important_ part of living because everything else stems from them. And that, for me, ties into your _second_ bolded. Because, from the first bolded, most anyone with what would normally be considered a conscience, moves on to guilt. Then, frequently atonement. And finally, hopefully forgiveness by your fellow man... (Or woman, for any PC nazis out there. ) And for me, that completes the circle of 'the rules'. 

No matter what religion you are, it's not what deity you believe in; or if you're right and they're wrong. It's how you treat others. Including how you make amends and live your life after the inevitable mistakes you're _going_ to make along the way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Just like gun free zone laws prevent people from shooting others.


And like "religion" makes everyone behave well :shrug:
Rules only affect those who truly adhere


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And they pray for Whirled Peas


Lettuce pray for Whirled Peas


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

There are those in this thread who say hurtful things to Christians, wonder why they do that? Is it to demean them, is it a power trip, is it to belittle them, hmmm, wonder why...


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

So why do people without religion want to hurt others?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> So why do people without religion want to hurt others?


Because they are humans too.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but I seem have missed just where in the USC it defined the exact meaning of "religion". Could you point that out to me? If its not there then we have to determine what the word means.


Sure. By using the word religion in the context of the Constitution, the meaning they were using was pretty clear. See... If they were using the nice broad definition of the word as y'all like to use it today, they would have been contradicting themselves when they established the Constitution in the first place, or any law for that matter. That's how we know that the Constitution doesn't treat government, political ideologies, or anything else as religion. They were referring to the usual form of the word. You know... Back before your agenda existed. And since we have a nice handy thing called the Library of Congress, we can read what they all were talking about when they used the word religion, and that's how we know that they weren't talking about food choices, hair products, or anything else. They were talking about religion as everyone generally recognizes the word. Everyone without an agenda of attempting to assert their religious authority over the rest of the nation, anyway.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> I know you wish that were true. You funny fella you.


You wish you were right too, but you arent, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. I'm not sure what you are, egotistical maybe!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but I seem have missed just where in the USC it defined the exact meaning of "religion". Could you point that out to me? If its not there then we have to determine what the word means.


The Constitution has a different meaning to some! They see it as they want to, not what it really says.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> You wish you were right too, but you arent, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. *I'm not sure what you are, egotistical maybe!*


Looks like somebody's a little upset. Want a tootsie pop? Maybe a bowl of warm Spaghettios? Come on little fella, we'll cheer you up.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> There are those in this thread who say hurtful things to Christians, wonder why they do that? Is it to demean them, is it a power trip, is it to belittle them, hmmm, wonder why...


Perhaps I'm a bit less literal but I didn't interpret this as a Christian bashing thread but more questioning why some people chose to take any religion to the point of fanaticism and harm others. 

Isn't that technically what cost lives in Paris recently?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> So then is it safe to say the purpose of this entire thread was to *single out a specific type of person and bash them, *start quarrels and arguements, sling well disguised personal insults, and just all around break every rule that HT hands out infractions for???





painterswife said:


> I asked a real question. Why would anyone use their religion to hurt others?* I would assume their god would not approve.*


HE / SHE has singled out 'religions' that have 'gods'.



painterswife said:


> It would have been. *I am asking that of anyone of any religion.* There have been some very thoughfull answers as well.


Untrue, based upon the definition, posted, veganism is a religion, along w/ all the other's groups mentioned. So, THIS is a total contridiction.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You're taking the definitions out of *context.*
> The first one is the only one that applies here:


The first definition he mentioned was the one that dealt w/ religions with "gods".



wiscto said:


> See... The thing is, n*o one is free to pick and choose which definition fits their agenda i*f they're reading what someone else said. You should call Merriam-Webster and ask them how the dictionary works. Or call your local English professor. The use of the word depends on the sentence and the person who wrote the sentence.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding my "first post." I edited the one you quoted because the first one was too long, and frankly, I didn't think I should have to show you the definition since you already saw it.


BUT pick and choose which definition that fits this agenda (that would be 'christian' bashing) is EXACTLY what was done.



> Perhaps I'm a bit less literal but I didn't interpret this as a Christian bashing thread but more questioning *why some people chose to take any religion to the point of fanaticism and harm others.*
> 
> Isn't that technically what cost lives in Paris recently?



Why do Vegans shove their religion in your face?
Why do LGBT's shove their religion in your face?
Why do Pro Liferes shove their religion in your face?
Why does PETA shove their religion in your face?

Vegans? Their god is food.
LGBT? Their god is making everyone bend to their will.
Pro LIfers? Their god is making everyone think their way.
Pro Choicers? Their god is human women
PETA? Their gods are animals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This has been a very good discussion. You might call it trolling but I thing that is a bias. Asking people questions about religion should not be off limits.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> If you're not going to call out the person I was responding to right along with me, when I posted to make the point that he wasn't behaving much like an adult (deciding to call me egotistical because I had an opinion he didn't like), why would I bother having any kind of discussion with you at all? Is this that bias I've been hearing about? I went back to page 5 and bolded it for you, since you missed it. And by the way, prior to JefferyD's childish little pokes, I had already explained my points at length. You can read all about it, and enjoy some "adult" posts from your friends.



I did call them out, I just have not learned to double quote. Please re-read my observation.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> This has been a very good discussion. You might call it trolling but I thing that is a bias. Asking people questions about religion should not be off limits.


 
I agree


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> That is called grow a pair. Stick and Stones can break my bones but WORDS will never HURT ME. They LET people hurt them by not letting things be, and let it go into one ear and out the other Without Having to argue and make some kind of smart aleck remark with whomever the conversation or post was.


Not calling you out personally on this, AK, but this has been said before. It's an easy thing to say to someone to grow a pair or just get over it but it depends on what is being said and who is saying it. As discussed in other threads a while ago, we're not simply talking about calling a person a poopy head or stupid. Words can be used to cut deeply and cause lasting pain and grief when they are used to alienate and isolate people. As I said earlier, when families are separated, people are shunned and relegated to the fringes of society it can destroy a person for no other reason than a difference in beliefs. When a parent tells a child to leave the home and never contact them again because the child is "sinful" or "evil" it can destroy the child. Conversely, I've seen it countless times when people prevent the grandparents from seeing their grandchildren because the grandparents don't follow the same spiritual path as the parents. Words, because of the people who say them and the context in which they are used, can be extremely destructive and hurtful. Unless you have been shunned by family and friends you were close to you cannot possibly understand the depth of hurt that can cause. I've been a truck driver for a long time and worked in construction for most of that. I've been in conflicts with a lot of people who called me many names I can't print here, yelled at and insulted in various ways and I don't care. However, if my father had ever quietly said he was disappointed in me it would have cut me deep to the core and probably hurt me for the rest of my life. Words definately can hurt.

On the other hand, telling someone that they are "born in sin" implying that we are somehow evil, dirty, lost, going to Hell for all eternity, etc. is a pretty nasty thing to say to someone, implying that we are no good from the get go and so worthless that we caused someone to kill their son. Those of us who are able to "grow a pair" will tell you that, no, in fact we were born innocent, are pretty good people with a few flaws that we can deal with and learn from while growing to be better people. We are strong enough to stand on our own two feet and will get through life while supporting each other at times when needed. I was born out of love and raised with love and that's a pretty good way to begin life.

Of course, there are other ways to marginalize and alienate people but religion seems to have an extra depth of impact. As to why people do it, I suppose they have personal issues and do it to empower themselves and religion is an established way to do it. They can follow the already existing examples of others.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Shine said:


> There are those in this thread who say hurtful things to Christians, wonder why they do that? * Is it to demean them, is it a power trip, is it to belittle them,* hmmm, wonder why...


Yes it is


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

We have become a society that believes in freedom of speech and will fight for it. However, in many matters including freedom of religion we get confused and believe more that it is freedom of speech as long as you think the same way as I. 

When did we as a people become so thin skinned. If someone says something to you such as, "you should really come to church, it is important and God wants you there" but you do not believe and choose not to then what happened to just saying, "I prefer not to" and leave it at that. 

On the other side if someone says, "you folks are crazy Bible beaters who don't know what you are talking about." Why not just smile and say, "I'm sorry you feel that way," and leave it at that?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And like "religion" makes everyone behave well :shrug:
> Rules only affect those who truly adhere


Yep, so why worry about others and how they think you should behave? As long as you allow other's actions to have an effect on you they have control of you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Sure. By using the word religion in the context of the Constitution, the meaning they were using was pretty clear. See... If they were using the nice broad definition of the word as y'all like to use it today, they would have been contradicting themselves when they established the Constitution in the first place, or any law for that matter. That's how we know that the Constitution doesn't treat government, political ideologies, or anything else as religion. They were referring to the usual form of the word. You know... Back before your agenda existed. And since we have a nice handy thing called the Library of Congress, we can read what they all were talking about when they used the word religion, and that's how we know that they weren't talking about food choices, hair products, or anything else. They were talking about religion as everyone generally recognizes the word. Everyone without an agenda of attempting to assert their religious authority over the rest of the nation, anyway.


Ok, say there was a group which believed there was no 'god', the universe had just always existed, believe that good and evil came from inside the individual and had no devotional and ritual observances. Could the government pass laws preventing this group from practicing its beliefs or require all government employees to follow it because it doesn't meet the definition of a "religion"?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Not calling you out personally on this, AK, but this has been said before. It's an easy thing to say to someone to grow a pair or just get over it but it depends on what is being said and who is saying it. As discussed in other threads a while ago, we're not simply talking about calling a person a poopy head or stupid. Words can be used to cut deeply and cause lasting pain and grief when they are used to alienate and isolate people. As I said earlier, when families are separated, people are shunned and relegated to the fringes of society it can destroy a person for no other reason than a difference in beliefs. When a parent tells a child to leave the home and never contact them again because the child is "sinful" or "evil" it can destroy the child. Conversely, I've seen it countless times when people prevent the grandparents from seeing their grandchildren because the grandparents don't follow the same spiritual path as the parents. Words, because of the people who say them and the context in which they are used, can be extremely destructive and hurtful. Unless you have been shunned by family and friends you were close to you cannot possibly understand the depth of hurt that can cause. I've been a truck driver for a long time and worked in construction for most of that. I've been in conflicts with a lot of people who called me many names I can't print here, yelled at and insulted in various ways and I don't care. However, if my father had ever quietly said he was disappointed in me it would have cut me deep to the core and probably hurt me for the rest of my life. Words definately can hurt.
> 
> On the other hand, telling someone that they are "born in sin" implying that we are somehow evil, dirty, lost, going to Hell for all eternity, etc. is a pretty nasty thing to say to someone, implying that we are no good from the get go and so worthless that we caused someone to kill their son. Those of us who are able to "grow a pair" will tell you that, no, in fact we were born innocent, are pretty good people with a few flaws that we can deal with and learn from while growing to be better people. We are strong enough to stand on our own two feet and will get through life while supporting each other at times when needed. I was born out of love and raised with love and that's a pretty good way to begin life.
> 
> Of course, there are other ways to marginalize and alienate people but religion seems to have an extra depth of impact. As to why people do it, I suppose they have personal issues and do it to empower themselves and religion is an established way to do it. They can follow the already existing examples of others.


Two things here. One, words only hurt if you allow them. You can call me stupid all day long for a year and I'm not going to lose my ability to do higher level math. 

Two, anyone who thinks humans are not born 'evil' has never raised a child nor been around small children much. I have NEVER met a child which had to be taught to lie or be selfish or to disobey. Has anyone here ever seen such a child?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> Not calling you out personally on this, AK, but this has been said before. It's an easy thing to say to someone to grow a pair or just get over it but it depends on what is being said and who is saying it. As discussed in other threads a while ago, we're not simply talking about calling a person a poopy head or stupid. Words can be used to cut deeply and cause lasting pain and grief when they are used to alienate and isolate people. As I said earlier, when families are separated, people are shunned and relegated to the fringes of society it can destroy a person for no other reason than a difference in beliefs. When a parent tells a child to leave the home and never contact them again because the child is "sinful" or "evil" it can destroy the child. Conversely, I've seen it countless times when people prevent the grandparents from seeing their grandchildren because the grandparents don't follow the same spiritual path as the parents. Words, because of the people who say them and the context in which they are used, can be extremely destructive and hurtful. Unless you have been shunned by family and friends you were close to you cannot possibly understand the depth of hurt that can cause. I've been a truck driver for a long time and worked in construction for most of that. I've been in conflicts with a lot of people who called me many names I can't print here, yelled at and insulted in various ways and I don't care. However, if my father had ever quietly said he was disappointed in me it would have cut me deep to the core and probably hurt me for the rest of my life. Words definately can hurt.
> 
> *On the other hand, telling someone that they are "born in sin" implying that we are somehow evil, dirty, lost, going to Hell for all eternity, etc. *is a pretty nasty thing to say to someone, implying that we are no good from the get go and so worthless that we caused someone to kill their son. Those of us who are able to "grow a pair" will tell you that, no, in fact we were born innocent, are pretty good people with a few flaws that we can deal with and learn from while growing to be better people. We are strong enough to stand on our own two feet and will get through life while supporting each other at times when needed. I was born out of love and raised with love and that's a pretty good way to begin life.
> 
> Of course, there are other ways to marginalize and alienate people but religion seems to have an extra depth of impact. As to why people do it, I suppose they have personal issues and do it to empower themselves and religion is an established way to do it. They can follow the already existing examples of others.


That's not what people say...that's what the bible says. If the bible is the problem, the problem is on the part of those that don't want to deal with that message. Every believer had to personally deal with that fact and believe it about ourselves, first.

*"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> Ok, say there was a group which believed there was no 'god', the universe had just always existed, believe that good and evil came from inside the individual and had no devotional and ritual observances. Could the government pass laws preventing this group from practicing its beliefs or require all government employees to follow it because it doesn't meet the definition of a "religion"?


Personally, I think you just went off the tracks. I'm not going to let you drag me into the Kim Davis argument until I know you understand what I just said. So you can answer this question, and if you do, I'll answer yours and we can go back and forth over Kim Davis again.

So here's my question. If the word religion as it was used in the Constitution means, "scrupulous conformity; or a cause, _principal,_ or system of belief held to with ardor and faith," are they not then establishing a religion by creating a constitution? If that is the form of the word they chose to use, does the First Amendment not undo the Constitution on the grounds that the Constitution would then be a set of laws establishing a religion? The answer is yes. Logically if that's what you believe, then you also have to believe that the Constitution violates the First Amendment. But give me an answer and I guess we can for some reason diverge back into the Kim Davis thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> *That's not what people say*...that's what the bible says. If the bible is the problem, the problem is on the part of those that don't want to deal with that message. Every believer had to personally deal with that fact and believe it about ourselves, first.
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


The "Bible" has never posted anything here.
It's always been people saying those things in a deliberately hateful manner. 

Some still encourage it just to stir things up


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Two things here. One, words only hurt if you allow them. You can call me stupid all day long for a year and I'm not going to lose my ability to do higher level math.
> 
> Two, anyone who thinks humans are not born 'evil' has never raised a child nor been around small children much. I have NEVER met a child which had to be taught to lie or be selfish or to disobey. Has anyone here ever seen such a child?


Yeah, we've been through this before on other threads. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this but I'll try again: we are not talking about simple name calling. I'm talking about people being rejected by those they care about based on religious teachings. If you expect a young person who has just been told by their parents to leave the house, that they're evil and their parents regard them as dead to them, to just "grow a set" and not let it bother them then I really see no point in continuing this line of conversation. That's about as cold and stone hearted as it gets. The day that we stop caring what people we love say about us is the day the human race dies.

Your second point really makes me shake my head and wonder what kind of kids you have been around. Of course children need correcting and guidance on how to live in society but it hardly makes them evil, sinful or deserving of spending eternity in Hell. Good grief!


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> That's not what people say...that's what the bible says. If the bible is the problem, the problem is on the part of those that don't want to deal with that message. Every believer had to personally deal with that fact and believe it about ourselves, first.
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


So if I say I wasn't born in sin you're going to tell me that I'm just lying to myself? Can you see how condescending that is? You're basically telling me that my views are wrong but I just can't see it. Can you not see why many people have a very dim view of Christianity?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> So *if I say I wasn't born in sin you're going to tell me that I'm just lying to myself?* Can you see how condescending that is? You're basically telling me that my views are wrong but I just can't see it. Can you not see why many people have a very dim view of Christianity?


The Bible says that. Do you want me to disagree?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Trying not to be disrespectful but I have never understood born in sin.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

no really said:


> Trying not to be disrespectful but I have never understood born in sin.


It simply means that since the fall of the first humans, we have all had an inborn instinct to sin and we all do it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> *The Bible says that*. Do you want me to disagree?


Many don't really care what the Bible says, or if you agree or disagree.

In fact, most people in the world don't because most *aren't* "Christians"

The Koran says lots of things, but you'd be irritated if people kept insisting you should be following it, and if you don't you're a "heathen".


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Truckinguy said:


> So if I say I wasn't born in sin you're going to tell me that I'm just lying to myself? Can you see how condescending that is? You're basically telling me that my views are wrong but I just can't see it. Can you not see why many people have a very dim view of Christianity?


Weird how those who have a dim view of Christianity can't seem to get a dim view of Islam


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

no really said:


> Trying not to be disrespectful but I have never understood born in sin.


If you ever want to know, I will be more than happy to explain as best I can via PM!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Weird how those who have a dim view of Christianity can't seem to get a dim view of Islam


People have a dim view of those who seem to use their religion mostly to claim their superiority over anyone who doesn't follow the same beliefs.

The name of the religion doesn't matter since the actions are identical.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Personally, I think you just went off the tracks. I'm not going to let you drag me into the Kim Davis argument until I know you understand what I just said. So you can answer this question, and if you do, I'll answer yours and we can go back and forth over Kim Davis again.


To me a religion can be anything a person uses to guide his life to the near exclusion of everything else. This could be anything from believing that there is a spaceship behind a comet that is coming to take you to another planet if you neuter yourself and die wearing Nike shoes to science to any of the major "accepted religions"




wiscto said:


> So here's my question. If the word religion as it was used in the Constitution means, "scrupulous conformity; or a cause, _principal,_ or system of belief held to with ardor and faith," are they not then establishing a religion by creating a constitution? If that is the form of the word they chose to use, does the First Amendment not undo the Constitution on the grounds that the Constitution would then be a set of laws establishing a religion? The answer is yes. Logically if that's what you believe, then you also have to believe that the Constitution violates the First Amendment. But give me an answer and I guess we can for some reason diverge back into the Kim Davis thing.


Yes the law and government can, and many would say has, become a religion. Which is why the USC was written in such a way to limit the power of government.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Yeah, we've been through this before on other threads. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this but I'll try again: we are not talking about simple name calling. I'm talking about people being rejected by those they care about based on religious teachings. If you expect a young person who has just been told by their parents to leave the house, that they're evil and their parents regard them as dead to them, to just "grow a set" and not let it bother them then I really see no point in continuing this line of conversation. That's about as cold and stone hearted as it gets. The day that we stop caring what people we love say about us is the day the human race dies.
> 
> Your second point really makes me shake my head and wonder what kind of kids you have been around. Of course children need correcting and guidance on how to live in society but it hardly makes them evil, sinful or deserving of spending eternity in Hell. Good grief!


I've been around all kinds of kids. From all races, cultures and economic backgrounds. And I can tell you I have never met one which needed to be taught to lie or be selfish. Have you? If you haven't you will have to admit humans are born 'evil'.

As for what you think is right or wrong has nothing to do with it because you don't make nor enforce the rules. You might think that is wrong for American League pitchers to not bat but its MLB who makes the rules and enforces them.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> To me a religion can be anything a person uses to guide his life to the near exclusion of everything else. This could be anything from believing that there is a spaceship behind a comet that is coming to take you to another planet if you neuter yourself and die wearing Nike shoes to science to any of the major "accepted religions"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. To you, okay. You can think it means whatever you want. What you can't do is change what it means in the Constitution. And if y'all are going to walk into someone else' thread and force them to adhere to your meaning of the word, then you're not really hearing what they're saying, you're hearing what you want them to have said. That isn't their problem. That's your problem.

2. You're still failing to acknowledge the point. You're clinging to a meaning for the word religion that does not apply to the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't written the way it was because they were afraid the government could become a religion unto itself. And they sure didn't write the First Amendment with that in mind. Constitutionally, the First Amendment was written regarding religion as it is defined by the two primary entries; deities, gods, etc.

Which by the way, means that you can call the government a religion all you want....Constitutionally it isn't. And your state still doesn't get to offer a service, such as marriage, only to those who fall within the bounds of a certain religion. Because that would be in effect writing a law that institutionalizes one religion and outlaws people behavior based on that religion. 

You don't get to just mix and match all 4 definitions of the word religion however you want whenever it suits you. Religion in the Constitution deals with religious believes in a god, deity, spiritual essence....etc. And that's it. That's all.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> Two things here. One, words only hurt if you allow them. You can call me stupid all day long for a year and I'm not going to lose my ability to do higher level math.
> 
> Two, anyone who thinks humans are not born 'evil' has never raised a child nor been around small children much. I have NEVER met a child which had to be taught to lie or be selfish or to disobey. Has anyone here ever seen such a child?


Do you really, seriously believe that when children lie, disobey or are selfish that they are being evil? All living beings (not only humans) are naturally born being capable from an early age of selfishness, disobedience, deception, cruelty and much more that their elders will usually attemp to teach them not to do. It is part of the nature of being a living being with a will of its own and none of it is recognized as being wrong until others in their society curb them, teach them that it is wrong and teach them the reason why. But evil? Natural born wrongfulness, especially ignorant wrongfulness whereby a being doesn't know they are being/doing wrong, is never the same thing as evil.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> Perhaps I'm a bit less literal but I didn't interpret this as a Christian bashing thread but more questioning why some people chose to take any religion to the point of fanaticism and harm others.
> 
> Isn't that technically what cost lives in Paris recently?


Well, I accept the source and temper it with her [their] past intentions. It is clear what is going on here. But that was not the intention of my reply there. I attempted to turn the tables and see what people would say, I notice that those that wish to point fingers at Christians, any Christians, did not wade into that puddle and splash around a bit, wonder why is that?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

For some reason, I am unable to get past page 5, I see that there is a page 6 but it will not let me go there.

lol, now I can see page 7, but not page 6. Alice??? is that you?

all good now, plugged in the URL with a 6 instead of a 5 or 7 and it worked - can now go back and forth with the navigate keys...


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Shine said:


> For some reason, I am unable to get past page 5, I see that there is a page 6 but it will not let me go there.
> 
> lol, now I can see page 7, but not page 6. Alice??? is that you?


The forum has a glitch. It's been doing that and more to me for weeks now.

What I've been doing to counteract it is click on the page number (or thread, or sub-forum, or submit, or reply button, or whatever) that you want, wait a couple of seconds and then immediately double-click on the refresh button. If it doesn't work within another 2 or 3 seconds then double-click on the refresh button again. It should take you to the page you want. If not you need to clear out your cache and start again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Well, I accept the source and temper it with* her [their] past intentions*. It is clear what is going on here. But that was not the intention of my reply there. I attempted to turn the tables and see what people would say, I notice that those that wish to point fingers at Christians, any Christians, did not wade into that puddle and splash around a bit, wonder why is that?


You once told me I shouldn't claim to know someone's "intentions" (or something to that effect).

I see nothing in the OP that specifies any one religion


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> For some reason, I am unable to get past page 5, I see that there is a page 6 but it will not let me go there.
> 
> lol, now I can see page 7, but not page 6. Alice??? is that you?


I only see 4 pages...?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> The Bible says that. Do you want me to disagree?


You can think what you like but using the Bible to back up your argument against me doesn't legitimize what you say to me one bit. I don't recognize that Bible as having any authority whatsoever. As has been mentioned in other threads, if you want to live by the Bible I respect your decision to do so. I know many people who take comfort in Christianity and are very happy. Some are very close to me and I don't challenge their beliefs and try to talk them out of it. Those of us who don't follow the Christian path rarely even bring up the subject as it is irrelevant to us. We usually only react to someone who is trying to get in our face about it. Sure, there are militant atheists out there, nobody said there isn't but they don't represent the vast majority of the rest of us.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Weird how those who have a dim view of Christianity can't seem to get a dim view of Islam


I feel the same way about Christianity as I do about Islam or any other spiritual path that one chooses to take. I support anyone's decision to live any way they want to live until it negatively affects others in any way. If someone kills in the name of their religion or marginalizes, subjugates or dehumanizes anyone in any way I have a problem with that.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> I've been around all kinds of kids. From all races, cultures and economic backgrounds. And I can tell you I have never met one which needed to be taught to lie or be selfish. Have you? If you haven't you will have to admit humans are born 'evil'.
> 
> As for what you think is right or wrong has nothing to do with it because you don't make nor enforce the rules. You might think that is wrong for American League pitchers to not bat but its MLB who makes the rules and enforces them.


I have never met a child that did not need to be corrected or guided. As far as I know most kids that I have known have lied and been selfish at one time or another. I know pretty much every adult has too. However, the notion that it makes us "evil" is ridiculous.

I never said that I make or enforce the rules. I am subject to the rules of Nature. Most of Mother Nature's rules I can live by or adapt to but I can prep all I want and if she wipes me out with a big storm or other natural disaster there's not much I can do about it.

I don't believe in baseball so I don't recognize any of the rules. I follow the spiritual path of hockey and worship at the arenas as often as I can. The rules of hockey apply to me as soon as I step on the ice.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> You can think what you like but using the Bible to back up your argument against me doesn't legitimize what you say to me one bit. I don't recognize that Bible as having any authority whatsoever. As has been mentioned in other threads, if you want to live by the Bible I respect your decision to do so. I know many people who take comfort in Christianity and are very happy. Some are very close to me and I don't challenge their beliefs and try to talk them out of it. Those of us who don't follow the Christian path rarely even bring up the subject as it is irrelevant to us. We usually only react to someone who is trying to get in our face about it. Sure, there are militant atheists out there, nobody said there isn't but they don't represent the vast majority of the rest of us.


Is it your opinion that I should never quote this to an unbeliever?

*"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> Is it your opinion that I should never quote this to an unbeliever?
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


You can quote any line from any book to whomever you like to, it has nothing to do with my opinion. I support your right to freedom of speech. However, the person you quoted that to also has the right to tell you how they feel about it and if the reply is not what you would like to hear you would have to "grow a set" as has been suggested earlier and deal with it. According to Watcher, words only hurt if you allow them to.

This is not just about Christians. If someone quoted something from the Koran or Torah I would have the same issue with them. I don't recognize either one as any authority over me so I would probably be having the same discussion with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Is it your opinion that I should never quote this to an unbeliever?
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


What's the point in quoting it to anyone *who doesn't ask*?

Why just insert it into a conversation when it makes no difference?
How about this one?:



> âDo not turn your face from others with pride, nor walk arrogantly on earth. Verily the Almighty does not like those who are arrogant and boastful.â


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> Is it your opinion that I should never quote this to an unbeliever?
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


My faith is different than yours but if you were to quote that to me within a discussion, I'd certainly reflect upon the point you were making without taking offence. 

I've attended many churches for various reasons and still believe that if I'm going to be there, the least I can do is pay attention and leave with some sort of learning experience.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Woolieface said:


> Is it your opinion that I should never quote this to an unbeliever?
> 
> *"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - 1John 1:8*


Oh. Oh. I want to give an opinion on this.

The answer is no, you should not "quote" that to somebody who doesn't believe in the same religion that you believe in. I won't use the word _unbeliever_ because that word is literally a willing lie that both Christians and Muslims use to deceive themselves about other people .... a literal lie because there literally is no such thing anywhere in the world as an unbeliever .... and also because the word unbeliever is used by Christians and Muslims as an intentional insult and is perceived as an intentional insult by non-Christians/non-Muslims. So if you want to have sincere and honest discourse with non-Christians and non-Muslims without barriers going up then don't use that bad word.

But .....

The message is true but it needs to be delivered in a manner that will be well received if you don't want a barrier slammed in your face. So you _can_ give the same message to somebody if you speak for yourself without saying where it came from or naming whoever else originally said it and that would be okay. That's because the essential message is irrefutably true and if you speak it from your own self and preferably in your own words instead of quoting it from a source that's already being rejected then it shows you have initiative and a mind and thoughts of your own and aren't being a brainwashed drone who has to rely on the thoughts and words of others and quotes from a book.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Scripture says: Be ready to give AN ANSWER.
That means, someone has to ASK.

If Believers want to have a 'revival' and invite folks to a message?
Great. 
It's like a birthday invite.
Mail it, the end.
Then those who choose to come, can hear the message.

Giving pearls to swine (Scripture) gets you no where.
They stomp on your pearls (His Word) then come after you.......
Pearls are precious. That's why we are not supposed to 'cast' them just any old where.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Scripture says: Be ready to give AN ANSWER.
> That means, someone has to ASK.
> 
> If Believers want to have a 'revival' and invite folks to a message?
> ...


Y'all aren't calling us swine, now, are ya Laura? :lookout:

The OP was about why people use religion to hurt others and i think that has more to do with any issues the individual has rather then the actual religion. Religion is just a tool and can be used and abused just like any other tool. I've seen Christianity used for some very good things and I've seen some very happy Christians who would give generously and selflessly to anyone who needed it. There are a lot of Christian charities that help many people in need. I've also personally experienced the dark underbelly of Christianity, with excommunication, abandonment, internal politics, manipulation and judgement. 

Is there a good side to Islam? I honestly don't know. A lot of barbaric things done in the name of Islam are being broadcast around the world right now so it's obvious there is an evil side to it. Are there Muslim charities? A quick google search shows that there are but I don't know about their validity. Just like cars, guns and food, when they are used properly they are of great benefit to everyone, when abused, they can be the cause of great harm. It's the individual who wields the tool that decides whether it's use is for good or bad.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Hitler accomplished quite a bit with words.


Was he a religious figure? A preacher? Used religion?
How 'bout Pol Pot? Mao? Che?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And they pray for Whirled Peas


ACK! 
Post of the day award.
And spew alert!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Sure. By using the word religion in the context of the Constitution, the meaning they were using was pretty clear. See... If they were using the nice broad definition of the word as y'all like to use it today, they would have been contradicting themselves when they established the Constitution in the first place, or any law for that matter. That's how we know that the Constitution doesn't treat government, political ideologies, or anything else as religion. They were referring to the usual form of the word. You know... Back before your agenda existed. And since we have a nice handy thing called the Library of Congress, we can read what they all were talking about when they used the word religion, and that's how we know that they weren't talking about food choices, hair products, or anything else. They were talking about religion as everyone generally recognizes the word. Everyone without an agenda of attempting to assert their religious authority over the rest of the nation, anyway.


Religion as in: Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Jehova Withesses...?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

grandma12703 said:


> We have become a society that believes in freedom of speech and will fight for it. However, in many matters including freedom of religion we get confused and believe more that it is freedom of speech as long as you think the same way as I.
> 
> When did we as a people become so thin skinned. If someone says something to you such as, "you should really come to church, it is important and God wants you there" but you do not believe and choose not to then what happened to just saying, "I prefer not to" and leave it at that.
> 
> On the other side if someone says, "you folks are crazy Bible beaters who don't know what you are talking about." Why not just smile and say, "I'm sorry you feel that way," and leave it at that?


Wow, I like that.
(Maybe its a grama thing.  )
How 'bout if you offer to pray for someone? Be careful what/who you say it to b/c it COULD get you deleted here...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Weird how those who have a dim view of Christianity can't seem to get a dim view of Islam


Post of the century award.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow, I like that.
> (Maybe its a grama thing.  )
> How 'bout if you offer to pray for someone? Be careful what/who you say it to b/c it COULD get you deleted here...


If you offer to pray for me I will respectfully let you do it. It's no different than wishing someone well, sending good thoughts, spell casting or any other way people have of gathering good energy in whatever form they believe and sending it my way. If I invite you to come to my house for dinner and you feel the need to thank your Lord for providing dinner I will respectfully bow my head while you do that. We should all be thankful for what we have and most cultures have a way of doing that. I have no problem accommodating people if it doesn't affect my life adversely. However, as I continue to seem to have to repeat myself, if the path anyone chooses begins to affect anyone else's life in any negative way that is an issue.

There have been times when I've visited people in the hospital who have been in some serious circumstances and the other visitors there were moved to join hands and pray for the person. I held hands with the people on either side of me and bowed my head while they said their prayer. Religion can be extremely beneficial to many people who find comfort in it. When it is used in a hurtful or destructive way it needs to be stood up to.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Truckinguy said:


> *You can quote any line from any book to whomever you like to, it has nothing to do with my opinion. I support your right to freedom of speech.* However, the person you quoted that to also has the right to tell you how they feel about it and if the reply is not what you would like to hear you would have to "grow a set" as has been suggested earlier and deal with it. According to Watcher, words only hurt if you allow them to.
> 
> This is not just about Christians. If someone quoted something from the Koran or Torah I would have the same issue with them. I don't recognize either one as any authority over me so I would probably be having the same discussion with them.


Ok, thank you. Your first post on the matter of being born in sin said that you found it to be nasty and condescending.... but I want to clarify that Christians Are called to give the gospel to others. In doing that, it's impossible to not mention the problem of sin because it's the problem of sin that brings people to understand the impact of Jesus' sacrifice. It's not condescending because we aren't discussing a problem that You have that We do not.

I don't begin any conversation about the gospel with "you're a sinner" I have never personally met a Christian who did...but you're as free to walk away as we are to speak.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's always been people saying those things in a deliberately hateful manner.
> 
> Some still encourage it just to stir things up


It's not "hateful" just because you pronounce it "hateful" - Your perception is only your version of reality, you do not get to tell someone else what they meant.

You are correct, people sometimes use their "perception" of things or their suggestion of their "perception" of things to stir things up...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You once told me I shouldn't claim to know someone's "intentions" (or something to that effect).
> 
> I see nothing in the OP that specifies any one religion


That does not change the perception of you ranting on the Spirit based religion but not weighing in on the reciprocal position of why people with no religion want to force their absolute views upon others... [thereby forbidding them from open and free speech on that topic]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What's the point in quoting it to anyone *who doesn't ask*?
> 
> Why just insert it into a conversation when it makes no difference?
> How about this one?:



Ah, but the OP is asking that directly, he just supplied an explanation regarding why it happens so your point is moot. He had said multiple times that he would not open a conversation with the quoting of verse and chapter, he advised he would only do so when asked. I guess you missed that.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> If you offer to pray for me I will respectfully let you do it. It's no different than wishing someone well, sending good thoughts, spell casting or any other way people have of gathering good energy in whatever form they believe and sending it my way. If I invite you to come to my house for dinner and you feel the need to thank your Lord for providing dinner I will respectfully bow my head while you do that. We should all be thankful for what we have and most cultures have a way of doing that. I have no problem accommodating people if it doesn't affect my life adversely. However, as I continue to seem to have to repeat myself, if the path anyone chooses begins to affect anyone else's life in any negative way that is an issue.
> 
> There have been times when I've visited people in the hospital who have been in some serious circumstances and the other visitors there were moved to join hands and pray for the person. I held hands with the people on either side of me and bowed my head while they said their prayer. Religion can be extremely beneficial to many people who find comfort in it. When it is used in a hurtful or destructive way it needs to be stood up to.


I find your words to be comforting. What you have written is the road to respectfulness. It is an honorable way of life. Other than telling others that I try to be a follower of Christ's teachings, if the subject does not get brought up, then, for the most part it remains outside of whatever conversation that is being had.

When someone brings up a topic and it includes religion, I find it ironic that those same people then become offended when someone does answer their questions with religious quotations or their interpretation of the Bible. I too feel that many people suffer from thin-skinnedeness.

ETA: I will offer this and to be true to myself, will offer this observation: Many Christians suffer from being hypocrites, I must admit that I too suffer from the malady called Hypocrisy. It is often my prayer to strike hypocrisy from my entire being because when you are called on it and it is a truthful calling, it is a bitter pill to take. I will not wind away from it's evidence should it be presented in a loving fashion, if true, I will admit to it. That being said, there are hypocrites in all walks of life so for those of you that think that this is an "Ah HA!!" moment, I provide this observation with both an inward and an outward eye.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.religiousstudiesproject....eligion-transformed-cooperation-and-conflict/



> How do we explain the transition from small, tight-knit communities (the norm from a historical perspective) to the large-scale societies we know today? In answering this question Norenzayan puts the idea of Big Gods front and center, Big Gods being those that are omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and act as moralizing agents.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.religiousstudiesproject....eligion-transformed-cooperation-and-conflict/


FYI, this site totally dispenses with the Spiritual side of Religion, stating that Religion is completely the tool and a construction of mankind. I know this to be outright incorrect as I have experienced a real-life spiritual event. It would be interesting to find out how they dispense with the Spiritual side of Religion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> FYI, this site totally dispenses with the Spiritual side of Religion, stating that Religion is completely the tool and a construction of mankind. I know this to be outright incorrect as I have experienced a real-life spiritual event. It would be interesting to find out how they dispense with the Spiritual side of Religion.


I have had spiritual events as well. I interpret them as being events of extreme self-awareness and an understanding of the universe. However, I do not profess to understand these events from an intellectual standpoint, nor do I particularly care to try, for I feel it would be somewhat pointless. Not meaningless, not at all, just an acknowledgment that some things are beyond our comprehension, and also that some things exist purely in form of thought to make our lives easier, thus making it more practical to merely experience these things for oneself, and move on from there.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I have never met a child that did not need to be corrected or guided. As far as I know most kids that I have known have lied and been selfish at one time or another. I know pretty much every adult has too. However, the notion that it makes us "evil" is ridiculous.
> 
> I never said that I make or enforce the rules. I am subject to the rules of Nature. Most of Mother Nature's rules I can live by or adapt to but I can prep all I want and if she wipes me out with a big storm or other natural disaster there's not much I can do about it.
> 
> I don't believe in baseball so I don't recognize any of the rules. I follow the spiritual path of hockey and worship at the arenas as often as I can. The rules of hockey apply to me as soon as I step on the ice.


I think in this regard I find the word 'evil' too strong.
Its just that humans 'err'. Or ya could say 'sin'. No one is perfect. The just man falls 7 Xs a day.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have had spiritual events as well. I interpret them as being events of extreme self-awareness and an understanding of the universe. However, I do not profess to understand these events from an intellectual standpoint, nor do I particularly care to try, for I feel it would be somewhat pointless. Not meaningless, not at all, just an acknowledgment that some things are beyond our comprehension, and also that some things exist purely in form of thought to make our lives easier, thus making it more practical to merely experience these things for oneself, and move on from there.


I agree with your summation on the most part, I am unable to offer up my experience as proof to others, that event was only for me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> If you offer to pray for me I will respectfully let you do it. It's no different than wishing someone well, sending good thoughts, spell casting or any other way people have of gathering good energy in whatever form they believe and sending it my way. If I invite you to come to my house for dinner and you feel the need to thank your Lord for providing dinner I will respectfully bow my head while you do that. We should all be thankful for what we have and most cultures have a way of doing that. I have no problem accommodating people if it doesn't affect my life adversely. However, as I continue to seem to have to repeat myself, if the path anyone chooses begins to affect anyone else's life in any negative way that is an issue.
> 
> There have been times when I've visited people in the hospital who have been in some serious circumstances and the other visitors there were moved to join hands and pray for the person. I held hands with the people on either side of me and bowed my head while they said their prayer. Religion can be extremely beneficial to many people who find comfort in it. When it is used in a hurtful or destructive way it needs to be stood up to.


Good to know, Guy. I see you as a good person.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The next time you believe someone is wanting to hurt you with their religion, ask them to watch this:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nXGPZaTKik[/ame]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> 1. To you, okay. You can think it means whatever you want. What you can't do is change what it means in the Constitution. And if y'all are going to walk into someone else' thread and force them to adhere to your meaning of the word, then you're not really hearing what they're saying, you're hearing what you want them to have said. That isn't their problem. That's your problem.
> 
> 2. You're still failing to acknowledge the point. You're clinging to a meaning for the word religion that does not apply to the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't written the way it was because they were afraid the government could become a religion unto itself. And they sure didn't write the First Amendment with that in mind. Constitutionally, the First Amendment was written regarding religion as it is defined by the two primary entries; deities, gods, etc.
> 
> ...


My reading of the USC tells me that the writers meant the word religion to mean a set of beliefs an individual uses to lead his life. This means if you believe the direct opposite of what you define as religion (i.e. that there is no god, the universe just popped out of nothing and all life came from some strange chemical reaction) then the federal government should not pass a law preventing you from living your life based on this nor forbid you from accessing any part of the federal government. Just as if you believe that there is an all knowing all powerful god, that he created everything in the universe the then the federal government should not pass a law from leading your life based on this belief nor bar you from governmental access because you do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> Do you really, seriously believe that when children lie, disobey or are selfish that they are being evil?


We have to first define evil. Is not evil basically the lack of good? Or usually considered the opposite of good? Now do you consider lying, disobedience and selfishness "good". If not they they must be evil.



Fennick said:


> All living beings (not only humans) are naturally born being capable from an early age of selfishness, disobedience, deception, cruelty and much more that their elders will usually attemp to teach them not to do.


Thank you for proving my point. If humans are not born evil then why must elders have to teach them to do good?




Fennick said:


> It is part of the nature of being a living being with a will of its own and none of it is recognized as being wrong until others in their society curb them, teach them that it is wrong and teach them the reason why. But evil? Natural born wrongfulness, especially ignorant wrongfulness whereby a being doesn't know they are being/doing wrong, is never the same thing as evil.


You are not saying that people are not born evil you are just saying that they are not born what you consider really, really, really evil. 

Would you say that an adult who lied to a lot of old people, disobeyed the law and conned those old people out of their life savings/retirement funds because he selfishly wanted more money was an evil person? What is the real difference in that and child who lies and disobeys the rules and takes the toy of another child?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> The forum has a glitch. It's been doing that and more to me for weeks now.
> 
> What I've been doing to counteract it is click on the page number (or thread, or sub-forum, or submit, or reply button, or whatever) that you want, wait a couple of seconds and then immediately double-click on the refresh button. If it doesn't work within another 2 or 3 seconds then double-click on the refresh button again. It should take you to the page you want. If not you need to clear out your cache and start again.


I haven't had this problem, what browser are you using?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I have never met a child that did not need to be corrected or guided. As far as I know most kids that I have known have lied and been selfish at one time or another. I know pretty much every adult has too.


Thank you for proving my point. It being good was inborn in humans then why should children need to be "corrected or guided"?




Truckinguy said:


> However, the notion that it makes us "evil" is ridiculous.


I'll repost this in case you miss my reply to another.

We have to first define evil. Is not evil basically the lack of good? Or usually considered the opposite of good? Now do you consider lying, disobedience and selfishness "good". If not they they must be evil.

You are not saying that people are not born evil you are just saying that they are not born what you consider really, really, really evil. 

Would you say that an adult who lied to a lot of old people, disobeyed the law and conned those old people out of their life savings/retirement funds because he selfishly wanted more money was an evil person? What is the real difference in that and child who lies and disobeys the rules and takes the toy of another child?




Truckinguy said:


> I don't believe in baseball so I don't recognize any of the rules. I follow the spiritual path of hockey and worship at the arenas as often as I can. The rules of hockey apply to me as soon as I step on the ice.


But the fact you don't believe in nor recognize the rules doesn't mean they don't exist. Might not you be in for a rude surprise if you showed up with your stick and skates and discover the game being played is baseball?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Scripture says: Be ready to give AN ANSWER.
> That means, someone has to ASK.
> 
> If Believers want to have a 'revival' and invite folks to a message?
> ...


This is just what Christ told us to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Was he a religious figure? A preacher? Used religion?
> How 'bout Pol Pot? Mao? Che?


All falls back on how you define religion does it not?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Religion as in: Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Jehova Withesses...?


Atheism, science. . .


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think is this regard I find the word 'evil' too strong.
> Its just that humans 'err'. Or ya could say 'sin'. No one is perfect. The just man falls 7 Xs a day.


I put to you what I have put to others:

We have to first define evil. Is not evil basically the lack of good? Or usually considered the opposite of good? Now do you consider lying, disobedience and selfishness "good". If not they they must be evil.

You are not saying that people are not born evil you are just saying that they are not born what you consider really, really, really evil. 

Would you say that an adult who lied to a lot of old people, disobeyed the law and conned those old people out of their life savings/retirement funds because he selfishly wanted more money was an evil person? What is the real difference in that and child who lies and disobeys the rules and takes the toy of another child?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> We have to first define evil. Is not evil basically the lack of good? Or usually considered the opposite of good? Now do you consider lying, disobedience and selfishness "good". If not they they must be evil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the main thing here is the baseline human existence. If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, we used to just be animals, right? So ultimately only survival is on the horizon, not how to create a Philanthropic empire. Morality emerged later in history as a form of societal and emotional evolution. As soon as our brains became capable of rudimentary understanding, it is likely at that point we understood brutality and animalian behaviors were not conducive to holding groups of people together. For example, not killing is basic - but even now we still do it for survival. Not stealing is basic - members of the tribe don't like having their work taken away from them, in general. More complex laws, such as water rights, came about as society became more complex.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> My reading of the USC tells me that the writers meant the word religion to mean a set of beliefs an individual uses to lead his life. This means if you believe the direct opposite of what you define as religion (i.e. that there is no god, the universe just popped out of nothing and all life came from some strange chemical reaction) then the federal government should not pass a law preventing you from living your life based on this nor forbid you from accessing any part of the federal government. Just as if you believe that there is an all knowing all powerful god, that he created everything in the universe the then the federal government should not pass a law from leading your life based on this belief nor bar you from governmental access because you do.


Your reading is wrong. Your reading is wrong because logically, if that's what the word means in the Constitution, then the Constitution itself cannot exist because it is a religion by that definition. Failure to understand that shows a weakness in one's ability to reason. It is also wrong because the creation of the Bill of Rights has been documented, and we know what the intended definition of the word was. Again. You can't just pick which of the 4 meanings in Websters was the meaning the author intended. They don't actually co-exist. That is not how language works. The author's intent and the context of the sentence means everything. You don't get to just decide for yourself what the First Amendment means. It means what it meant when it was written, and it always will until another amendment alters it. Get over it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think the main thing here is the baseline human existence. If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, we used to just be animals, right? So ultimately only survival is on the horizon, not how to create a Philanthropic empire. Morality emerged later in history as a form of societal and emotional evolution. As soon as our brains became capable of rudimentary understanding, it is likely at that point we understood brutality and animalian behaviors were not conducive to holding groups of people together. For example, not killing is basic - but even now we still do it for survival. Not stealing is basic - members of the tribe don't like having their work taken away from them, in general. More complex laws, such as water rights, came about as society became more complex.


You are again proving my point of humans being inherently evil. If we were not we would not need to teach our children to not do 'evil' things they would have to be taught how to be 'evil'.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> My reading of the USC tells me that the writers meant the word religion to mean a set of beliefs an individual uses to lead his life. This means if you believe the direct opposite of what you define as religion (i.e. that there is no god, the universe just popped out of nothing and all life came from some strange chemical reaction) then the federal government should not pass a law preventing you from living your life based on this nor forbid you from accessing any part of the federal government. Just as if you believe that there is an all knowing all powerful god, that he created everything in the universe the then the federal government should not pass a law from leading your life based on this belief nor bar you from governmental access because you do.


And the SC has to QUIT Legislating form their bench. Period~!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> You are again proving my point of humans being inherently evil. If we were not we would not need to teach our children to not do 'evil' things they would have to be taught how to be 'evil'.


If that it is how you choose to interpret it. However, I was not really attempting to prove any point. If I'm right, than evil is merely anything that runs contrary to what is necessary for a healthy life. We're pretty sure we know what a good life is. Free from worry, strife, pain... Evil. So what is evil? Now I express an opinion: I think evil is an encompassing term that defines anything bad which would create strife and suffering for other life, be it human or animal.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Your reading is wrong. Your reading is wrong because logically, if that's what the word means in the Constitution, then the Constitution itself cannot exist because it is a religion by that definition. Failure to understand that shows a weakness in one's ability to reason. It is also wrong because the creation of the Bill of Rights has been documented, and we know what the intended definition of the word was. Again. You can't just pick which of the 4 meanings in Websters was the meaning the author intended. They don't actually co-exist. That is not how language works. The author's intent and the context of the sentence means everything. You don't get to just decide for yourself what the First Amendment means. It means what it meant when it was written, and it always will until another amendment alters it. Get over it.


 Not so wrong. Watcher used the word "individual", the Constitution doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to the Government. It tells us what the Government can and cannot do. The government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms. The Government can write laws making slavery illegal. Government cannot make a law establishing a religion. etc.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Your reading is wrong. Your reading is wrong because logically, if that's what the word means in the Constitution, then the Constitution itself cannot exist because it is a religion by that definition.


No, it sets up and limits the power of a government. It does not tell an individual how to live his life. There's not a thing in there which specifically tells you as an individual how you must live your life.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> If that it is how you choose to interpret it. However, I was not really attempting to prove any point. If I'm right, than evil is merely anything that runs contrary to what is necessary for a healthy life. We're pretty sure we know what a good life is. Free from worry, strife, pain... Evil. So what is evil? Now I express an opinion: I think evil is an encompassing term that defines anything bad which would create strife and suffering for other life, be it human or animal.


So would you say lying to someone to get them to give you their stuff because you are selfish is evil?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> So would you say lying to someone to get them to give you their stuff because you are selfish is evil?


The obvious answer is yes, of course. The less obvious question is, why? Ultimately it will depend on the person, but I would warrant this falls into a universal truth. The whys and how's are likely endlessly debatable. However, lying cheating and stealing are very good ways to cause societal collapse, loss of prestige/honor, and create strife and suffering. Thus we see the likely reason why we can consider that action "evil."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The obvious answer is yes, of course. The less obvious question is, why? Ultimately it will depend on the person, but I would warrant this falls into a universal truth. The whys and how's are likely endlessly debatable. However, lying cheating and stealing are very good ways to cause societal collapse, loss of prestige/honor, and create strife and suffering. Thus we see the likely reason why we can consider that action "evil."


Ok since you admit that action is evil then you must also admit that children are naturally or instinctively or "born" evil because they do this w/o any training. An example of human nature supporting what the Bible tells us.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Not so wrong. Watcher used the word "individual", the Constitution doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to the Government. It tells us what the Government can and cannot do. The government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms. The Government can write laws making slavery illegal. Government cannot make a law establishing a religion. etc.





watcher said:


> No, it sets up and limits the power of a government. It does not tell an individual how to live his life. There's not a thing in there which specifically tells you as an individual how you must live your life.


Don't forget we were talking about the official definition of the word (according to Webster). So now you're telling me Watcher is coming up with his own definition?



> 3
> archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
> 4
> : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Dance dance dance, fellas. Keep on dancing. The definition says nothing about the "individual." It does say cause and principle. The cause of a more perfect union. The cause of the republic. The principle of republic. The principle of checks and balances. The principle "rights." The belief that we should HAVE rights. Held to with ardor and faith.... Everything about the creation of this country and our Constitution was "religious" by the subordinate definitions of the word. 

But how? How can they do that if they are not to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion? 

Because they used the primary definition of the word religion, and you don't have the right to twist their words. We have historical evidence. We have logical evidence. And you, sirs, are just wrong.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Ok since you admit that action is evil then you must also admit that children are naturally or instinctively or "born" evil because they do this w/o any training. An example of human nature supporting what the Bible tells us.


Again, this is the way in which you choose to interpret my words. As a Christian, I'm inclined to agree. Otherwise, I might say that you were misconstruing my words. However, are modern humans actions the results of nature or nurture? Which one is stronger? You are obviously claiming that nature is stronger, i.e. We are born evil. This also, however, contrasts with other biblical teachings that all children Are inherently innocent. Which one is it? What happens if you lock a theoretical child in a cell until they grow up?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Don't forget we were talking about the official definition of the word (according to Webster). So now you're telling me Watcher is coming up with his own definition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is your evidence that the USC is a set of beliefs that an individual follows?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Again, this is the way in which you choose to interpret my words.


Not difficult when you say things such as "_The obvious answer is yes, of course."_ when I ask you if you think lying to get take what you want is evil.




Heritagefarm said:


> As a Christian, I'm inclined to agree. Otherwise, I might say that you were misconstruing my words. However, are modern humans actions the results of nature or nurture? Which one is stronger? You are obviously claiming that nature is stronger, i.e. We are born evil. This also, however, contrasts with other biblical teachings that all children Are inherently innocent. Which one is it? What happens if you lock a theoretical child in a cell until they grow up?


Not to be snarky but what Bible do you use which tells you that children are innocent? Mine says we are all born sinners. Kinda hard to be innocent and a sinner at the same time isn't it?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> Where is your evidence that the USC is a set of beliefs that an individual follows?


Obviously you didn't read my post. You and what's his name think the word "individual" is important. It isn't. You thought you had an argument, but you have is irrelevant. You have now made up your own definition to the word religion, and that is complete BS.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Not difficult when you say things such as "_The obvious answer is yes, of course."_ when I ask you if you think lying to get take what you want is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what exactly is a sin? Is it sinful to simply be human? That always seemed like a punitive assessment to me. I only said I considered that action evil under your stipulations, that is, the action itself. Is it still evil if a person goes it for "good?" Is committing evil the name of good more evil than using evil to commit actions of good? This is why I often have a problem with Biblical simplicity - the world is, oddly enough, not black and white.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> And what exactly is a sin? Is it sinful to simply be human? That always seemed like a punitive assessment to me. I only said I considered that action evil under your stipulations, that is, the action itself. Is it still evil if a person goes it for "good?" Is committing evil the name of good more evil than using evil to commit actions of good? This is why I often have a problem with Biblical simplicity - the world is, oddly enough, not black and white.


Simply put sin is the rejection of God's rules. And as we have shown you do not need to teach a child to reject them, its born into them. 

Evil is like darkness. You don't make darkness, you remove light and what you have left is darkness. IOW, darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. 

Would you say killing a person evil? I would say the act of killing itself is not necessarily evil. If someone is trying to harm you then killing that person would not be evil. But killing someone because you want to take something they have is evil.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Not to be snarky but what Bible do you use which tells you that children are innocent? Mine says we are all born sinners. Kinda hard to be innocent and a sinner at the same time isn't it?


KJV.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Romans 3:20
Romans 5:13
While we are BORN into a sinful nature, it is only when we are old enough to KNOW the law that we are held accountable.
I doubt a child under the age of 1 or 2 has any self realization of the Law or sin.

It's like the ability to walk. We are born with it, but only when we take our first steps can we be called a "walker".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You are again proving my point of humans being inherently evil. If we were not we would not need to teach our children to not do 'evil' things they would have to be taught how to be 'evil'.


Some are. The incidences of abuse and mistreatment of children seem to run higher among those who were abused and mistreated as children. Were those that grew up to abuse born "evil" or did they learn to be "evil"? Yet some of these children grow up not to abuse their children. How did they learn not to be "evil"? Or were they just born not "evil"?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Don't forget we were talking about the official definition of the word (according to Webster). So now you're telling me Watcher is coming up with his own definition?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Both of the definitions for "religion", you listed, apply to individuals. The Constitution is rules for government. The Cause of the Republic is separate from the rules of the Republic. The "Cause" is intangible, the rules are not. The "belief" is intangible, the Bill of rights is not.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> KJV.
> Deuteronomy 1:39
> Romans 3:20
> Romans 5:13
> ...


It's why many of the more fundamental sects don't believe in infant baptism. No one can speak to what's in their heart except the individual themself. Infants can't speak for themselves. I've found belief to be firmest among those who made a conscience decision as an "adult" which path to follow.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Some are. The incidences of abuse and mistreatment of children seem to run higher among those who were abused and mistreated as children. Were those that grew up to abuse born "evil" or did they learn to be "evil"? Yet some of these children grow up not to abuse their children. How did they learn not to be "evil"? Or were they just born not "evil"?


Again, evil is the lack of good. If you are not taught good the evil we all have in us will become dominate and grow. For a poor analogy think of a cave. Being born as being just inside the entrance of a cave. You are not in the light but neither are you in complete darkness. As you go through life you have three options. You can stay where you are, walk toward the exit/light or you can walk deeper into the cave and farther into darkness. As a child you are lead by those around you if your leader is walking deep in the cave you probably, but not surely, will choose to walk there yourself. But the key factor is its your CHOICE.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Again, evil is the lack of good. If you are not taught good the evil we all have in us will become dominate and grow. For a poor analogy think of a cave. Being born as being just inside the entrance of a cave. You are not in the light but neither are you in complete darkness. As you go through life you have three options. You can stay where you are, walk toward the exit/light or you can walk deeper into the cave and farther into darkness. As a child you are lead by those around you if your leader is walking deep in the cave you probably, but not surely, will choose to walk there yourself. But the key factor is its your CHOICE.


If you can choose you must first have choices. If all are born evil what choice is there but to be evil, no matter what is taught. But, if as I believe, we're born with a balance of good and evil no matter what is taught one can choose which path to follow. If all one is taught is that abuse and mistreatment are "right" how does one learn that not abusing and mistreating children or others is right? How does one find the good instead of the evil path? Do bad people come from good families because they were taught wrong or good people from bad families because the learning didn't take? I'll agree we are free to choose our path. But I'd say we're free to choose it from the evil, and good, inherent in everyone.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I would not necessarily say that we are born "evil" but I would state that we are born carnal. To state some well founded principles, almost all things follow the path of least resistance. For humans, it is more likely to do things that benefit only themselves, that is the path of least resistance in this life. For one person to respect the life of another means that they are not "allowed" to do what they wish to do always. We see this in a pronounced fashion in our children, they do not yet understand that it is not always their desires that are fulfilled just the way that they want them. 

To seek out the path of goodness is quite difficult, there are many [including myself] that will falter in that endeavor. The path to sin is quite a simple path to follow, you just have to place yourself before others, to think that whatever you desire is what you should have.

How many children think that whatever they desire is what they should have?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Both of the definitions for "religion", you listed, apply to individuals. The Constitution is rules for government. The Cause of the Republic is separate from the rules of the Republic. The "Cause" is intangible, the rules are not. The "belief" is intangible, the Bill of rights is not.


No. No they don't. Do you know how I know they don't? Because it doesn't say that in the definition. If you actually read it carefully, you will see that it can be a group of people doing those things, it can be a nation, yes sure it can be an individual, but it doesn't have to be. You have crossed into the Twilight Zone. I guess you need the facts to be twisted in order for your worldview to be logical.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> No. No they don't. Do you know how I know they don't? Because it doesn't say that in the definition. If you actually read it carefully, you will see that it can be a group of people doing those things, it can be a nation, yes sure it can be an individual, but it doesn't have to be. You have crossed into the Twilight Zone. *I guess you need the facts to be twisted in order for your worldview to be logical*.



I was thinking the same thing about you!!!! :happy:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> I was thinking the same thing about you!!!! :happy:


Yea I'm sure you were. The problem is, the dictionary is on my side. Y'all just thought it was on yours because you think everything in the world is subject to your slippery self serving "reading."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> It's why many of the more fundamental sects don't believe in infant baptism. No one can speak to what's in their heart except the individual themself. Infants can't speak for themselves. I've found belief to be firmest among those who made a conscience decision as an "adult" which path to follow.


Naturally.
I was baptized as a young child, and did it as a result of a misunderstanding. I didn't bother to correct the mistaken assumption by the adults, because I had the intention to do so, but it wasn't yet my time. The details aren't important.
But years later when I WAS called by God Himself, I made the conscience choice at age 23 and it was the right time and the decision all mine.
The funny thing about this, when did Christ ask John to baptize Him?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Thank you for proving my point. It being good was inborn in humans then why should children need to be "corrected or guided"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't prove any such point. Nobody is arguing that we don't have bad tendencies within us when we're born. We have both good and bad (you can call it evil if you want to) in us and we learn or are taught what behaviors are acceptable to live with others in society. Nothing wrong with that. We're not so bad that we deserve eternal torment or that somebody had to die for us. If we mess up, most of us either realize the error of our ways or have it pointed out to us, make reparations or amends in some form and move on having learned our lesson. Will we do it again? It's pretty likely given human nature but, again, it's not bad enough to deserve an eternity in Hell. If someone constantly commits horrible crimes against society they should be removed from society. The rest of us go on.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> I would not necessarily say that we are born "evil" but I would state that we are born carnal. To state some well founded principles, almost all things follow the path of least resistance. For humans, it is more likely to do things that benefit only themselves, that is the path of least resistance in this life. For one person to respect the life of another means that they are not "allowed" to do what they wish to do always. We see this in a pronounced fashion in our children, they do not yet understand that it is not always their desires that are fulfilled just the way that they want them.
> 
> To seek out the path of goodness is quite difficult, there are many [including myself] that will falter in that endeavor. The path to sin is quite a simple path to follow, you just have to place yourself before others, to think that whatever you desire is what you should have.
> 
> How many children think that whatever they desire is what they should have?


I know many adults with the same attitude. In fact, it's what drives a lot of very successful people. As long as it's done legally what's wrong with fulfilling one's every desire? Are those people inherently evil, or just privileged?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I know many adults with the same attitude. In fact, it's what drives a lot of very successful people. As long as it's done legally what's wrong with fulfilling one's every desire? Are those people inherently evil, or just privileged?


It's impossible to get everything you want in life without ignoring or stepping on the needs of others. Legality has no bearing on morals...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> It's impossible to get everything you want in life without ignoring or stepping on the needs of others. Legality has no bearing on morals...


The guy who invents the next fun game app for your phone and sells it for millions may not have stepped on anyone but can now afford anything his heart desires. He used the talent you might say god gave him. Is he evil? Amoral? Or just fortunate?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> The guy who invents the next fun game app for your phone and sells it for millions may not have stepped on anyone but can now afford anything his heart desires. He used the talent you might say god gave him. Is he evil? Amoral? Or just fortunate?


That being one event in an entire life, it could have come about by any means, but it's not the whole life of this hypothetical person. It's not the time he ate the last cookie that his little brother wanted, or the time he stabbed his best friend in the back to get the girl he wanted, or the the time he lied to his wife to have the affair he wanted. 

Of course all of this is as hypothetical as the person we're talking about, but the point is we are presented with occasions every day that give us the choice between self service and service to others when the two are not compatible. It's not possible to go through life without that choice presenting itself and in those cases, if we get Everything we want....someone else doesn't.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> That being one event in an entire life, it could have come about by any means, but it's not the whole life of this hypothetical person. It's not the time he ate the last cookie that his little brother wanted, or the time he stabbed his best friend in the back to get the girl he wanted, or the the time he lied to his wife to have the affair he wanted.
> 
> Of course all of this is as hypothetical as the person we're talking about, but the point is we are presented with occasions every day that give us the choice between self service and service to others when the two are not compatible. It's not possible to go through life without that choice presenting itself and in those cases, if we get Everything we want....someone else doesn't.


My hypothetical app developer always shared his cookies, let his best friend have the girl and is a confirmed bachelor because she was his one true love. Aren't hypotheticals fun?

But what makes taking the last cookie evil or immoral. Isn't his brother who wanted the cookie just as evil and immoral for wanting it instead of letting his brother have it? There were five marked down roasts in the grocery store's meat counter earlier this week. I bought them all. Was it an evil, immoral act? I'm sure there must be someone in the area who wanted them just as much, if not more, than I. But how am I to know if it would be a more deserving person who would get them if I walked away or the town drug dealer? Should it even have factored in my decision? I was just lucky to get there first. I didn't knock any old ladies aside in my rush but I have taken the last cookie on occassion. I must be truly evil.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The guy who invents the next fun game app for your phone and sells it for millions may not have stepped on anyone but can now afford anything his heart desires. He used the talent you might say god gave him. Is he evil? Amoral? Or just fortunate?


Talented!


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> My hypothetical app developer always shared his cookies, let his best friend have the girl and is a confirmed bachelor because she was his one true love. Aren't hypotheticals fun?
> 
> But what makes taking the last cookie evil or immoral. Isn't his brother who wanted the cookie just as evil and immoral for wanting it instead of letting his brother have it? There were five marked down roasts in the grocery store's meat counter earlier this week. I bought them all. Was it an evil, immoral act? I'm sure there must be someone in the area who wanted them just as much, if not more, than I. But how am I to know if it would be a more deserving person who would get them if I walked away or the town drug dealer? Should it even have factored in my decision? I was just lucky to get there first. I didn't knock any old ladies aside in my rush but I have taken the last cookie on occassion. I must be truly evil.


His brother didn't take it.. 

evil is simply doing wrong. It isn't some extreme version of doing wrong....it's just doing wrong. Little wrongs ...big wrongs... my God doesn't set His standard to degrees of it. He wants better for his people in the future.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

But his brother would have. Thus his brother would have committed the evil act. By taking the last cookie and committing the evil act one brother actually saved the other brother from committing evil. How much more altruistic can you get? 

Now what of my buying of roasts? Was it evil?

Evil is much more than doing wrong. Its wrong of me to roll through the stop sign at the intersection a mile from my house. Society says so. This time of year with the corn down I can see at least a half mile in either direction when approaching the intersection. It's perfectly safe most of the time not to come to a complete stop before proceeding through. It's still wrong to do so in the eye of the law. And breaking the law is wrong so by your definition rolling through that stop sign in a safe manner is an evil act. I think even your god would make a distinction between that and participating in a genocide. 

I tend to think evil is a much overused word today. Most human failings and the acts committed by humans aren't evil. Evil acts require the intent to harm another. They may even include having a blatant disregard of others. But just because you act in your own self interest and you get something another doesn't doesn't make you evil. Taking the last cookie at the company christmas party isn't evil because Betty from accounting didn't get it. Snatching a sandwich from the tray designated for the local soup kitchen when you can afford your own food has a touch of evil. Stealing a truck load of food destined for the refugee camp to sell on the black market in order to buy fancy consumer goods for your own comfort is evil. I'm guessing even your god can make that distinction. If he can't all the more reason for me not to believe in a being with such a lack of discernment.

Labeling any act we dislike or disagree with as evil dilutes the meaning of the word and blinds us to the truly evil.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> But his brother would have. Thus his brother would have committed the evil act. By taking the last cookie and committing the evil act one brother actually saved the other brother from committing evil. How much more altruistic can you get?
> 
> Now what of my buying of roasts? Was it evil?
> 
> ...


His bother would have? He didn't...there's no would have...he just didn't and no one but God knows if he "would have"...some people actually do give up what they really want for someone else sometimes. Problem is, all of us also behave selfishly sometimes. Being sometimes selfish is not measuring up to a perfect standard of justice. 

It's interesting to me that probably most people would say, if given the choice, they would prefer a world with a Perfect standard of justice...where the innocent are always vindicated and the unjust are always punished. The problem is, people have no idea what they're asking when they think that. Trust me, not one of us on this planet really wants to be judged according to perfect justice.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> His bother would have? He didn't...there's no would have...he just didn't and no one but God knows if he "would have"...some people actually do give up what they really want for someone else sometimes. Problem is, all of us also behave selfishly sometimes. Being sometimes selfish is not measuring up to a perfect standard of justice.
> 
> It's interesting to me that probably most people would say, if given the choice, they would prefer a world with a Perfect standard of justice...where the innocent are always vindicated and the unjust are always punished. The problem is, people have no idea what they're asking when they think that. Trust me, not one of us on this planet really wants to be judged according to perfect justice.


You said his brother wanted. Now you say he wouldn't have taken it. Nice try at having it both ways but I'm not buying. Maybe rather than the hypothetical you can answer whether I was evil for purchasing all the on sale roasts. My act did theoretically deprive someone else of them which seems to meet your definition. Or maybe you can answer my stop sign dilemma. I do save a fractional bit of gas with each rolling stop so I'm conserving a finite resource by breaking the law. Evil or good? 

You may be right about justice. But most people don't see taking the last cookie as unjust or evil. It would seem in your world there must be a lot of stale cookies lying around as no one is allowed to take them so as not to deprive another. Any justice meted out by man will be as imperfect as man himself. I have no expectations otherwise.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Some will not study the situation without rose colored glasses or blinders on...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> It's impossible to get everything you want in life without ignoring or stepping on the needs of others. Legality has no bearing on morals...


I call foul on this one.... I have everything I want and have never stepped on anyone's needs to get it. I have a comfortable home I mostly built by myself, the few hired hands I employed were well paid for their efforts, my Yvonne was a single girl when I met her, no strings, no ties, no toes to be stepped on and she was a willing participant in making another of my dreams come true. our dog was a rescue dog saved from the gas chamber. No harm, no foul there. Our pantry is full as well as our freezer, all paid for with the proceeds earned by either my personal investments or Yvonne's hard earned wages. I have plenty of smokes and the liquor cabinet is full, again thanks to either my years of hard work, scrimping saving and doing without in order to invest surplus during my productive years, or the efforts of my Yvonne who has an equal share in "the spoils". I do stock the liquor cabinet with a bit better grade than I might thanks to my SS benefits that I spent over forty years paying into. I got where I am by being industrious, frugal and treating people fair and right throughout my life. The best way to have everything you want without stepping on others is to trim your wants to the level you can afford and being careful where you put your feet.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I call foul on this one.... I have everything I want and have never stepped on anyone's needs to get it. I have a comfortable home I mostly built by myself, the few hired hands I employed were well paid for their efforts, my Yvonne was a single girl when I met her, no strings, no ties, no toes to be stepped on and she was a willing participant in making another of my dreams come true. our dog was a rescue dog saved from the gas chamber. No harm, no foul there. Our pantry is full as well as our freezer, all paid for with the proceeds earned by either my personal investments or Yvonne's hard earned wages. I have plenty of smokes and the liquor cabinet is full, again thanks to either my years of hard work, scrimping saving and doing without in order to invest surplus during my productive years, or the efforts of my Yvonne who has an equal share in "the spoils". I do stock the liquor cabinet with a bit better grade than I might thanks to my SS benefits that I spent over forty years paying into. I got where I am by being industrious, frugal and treating people fair and right throughout my life. The best way to have everything you want without stepping on others is to trim your wants to the level you can afford and being careful where you put your feet.



Ok, I'll grant you that. But, you absolutely cannot say that have everything that you've ever wanted and I would bet that you cannot say that you've never been selfish.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Ok, I'll grant you that. But, you absolutely cannot say that have everything that you've ever wanted and I would bet that you cannot say that you've never been selfish.


You would win that bet on the first part.... I didn't "get" that little gal i wanted in the fifth grade. On the second part I do not ever recall being selfish, according to my Yvonne I tend to be a bit too generous. :shrug:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You would win that bet on the first part.... I didn't "get" that little gal i wanted in the fifth grade. On the second part I do not ever recall being selfish, according to my Yvonne I tend to be a bit too generous. :shrug:


Well then, I certainly hope that you get to the front of the line on a number of things just before everyone shows up! :angel:

If you are telling the truth and I do not doubt it then you are one of the absolute few... I can't even boast of what you have... I can only consider myself as one that tries to do good...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If you can choose you must first have choices. If all are born evil what choice is there but to be evil, no matter what is taught.


Do you still drink nothing but milk to get your nutrition? Why not that's all the 'choice' you had when you were born was it not? But as you grew you were taught and learned there was more out there. Not a great analogy but it kinda makes the point. Just because you start out without something doesn't mean you can't acquire it later.




mmoetc said:


> But, if as I believe, we're born with a balance of good and evil no matter what is taught one can choose which path to follow. If all one is taught is that abuse and mistreatment are "right" how does one learn that not abusing and mistreating children or others is right? How does one find the good instead of the evil path? Do bad people come from good families because they were taught wrong or good people from bad families because the learning didn't take? I'll agree we are free to choose our path. But I'd say we're free to choose it from the evil, and good, inherent in everyone.


Yes you do choose but you start out w/o "good" then make choices. You have admitted that children do not need to be taught to be 'bad' but must be shown what the 'good' thing to do is. As they get older they can choose to allow good into their live or they can choose to keep it out. Good people come from bad places all the time and people from a good place choose bad as well.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> Ok, I'll grant you that. But, you absolutely cannot say that have everything that you've ever wanted and I would bet that you cannot say that you've never been selfish.


Ultimately it's psychological. We are inherently social creatures, so it's perfectly logical to assume that some of us may have tried at some point or another to come out ahead on a transaction. That's not an evil.



watcher said:


> Do you still drink nothing but milk to get your nutrition? Why not that's all the 'choice' you had when you were born was it not? But as you grew you were taught and learned there was more out there. Not a great analogy but it kinda makes the point. Just because you start out without something doesn't mean you can't acquire it later.
> Yes you do choose but you start out w/o "good" then make choices. You have admitted that children do not need to be taught to be 'bad' but must be shown what the 'good' thing to do is. As they get older they can choose to allow good into their live or they can choose to keep it out. Good people come from bad places all the time and people from a good place choose bad as well.


Overall, I've found your interpretation of evil to be rather simplistic. (I'm not saying that to be rude.) Ultimately, we are our brains, which are a collection of hardwired evolution, learned traits, environmental "switches," and then there's a thin layer of social habits. These social habits are the major thing we use for interaction, yet they are a thin sliver of the total human. Underneath all this is mere neurons, firing electrical impulses all over the place at an alarming rate.
You say we start out inherently evil, but this is primarily a Biblical teaching. I don't care to try to make someone stray from their religion - I will, however, feel free in pointing out that that major religions existed until around 6000+ years ago. Before that, there were only wandering tribes, and every single one had a different idea of diety(s), religion, and spirituality. How many of them were evil? I'm sure there was still war and everything else, but now we've made the equation very simple, as we've basically eliminated religion from it. Can morality exist without religion?
HF


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> You said his brother wanted. Now you say he wouldn't have taken it. Nice try at having it both ways but I'm not buying. Maybe rather than the hypothetical you can answer whether I was evil for purchasing all the on sale roasts. My act did theoretically deprive someone else of them which seems to meet your definition. Or maybe you can answer my stop sign dilemma. I do save a fractional bit of gas with each rolling stop so I'm conserving a finite resource by breaking the law. Evil or good?
> 
> You may be right about justice. But most people don't see taking the last cookie as unjust or evil. It would seem in your world there must be a lot of stale cookies lying around as no one is allowed to take them so as not to deprive another. Any justice meted out by man will be as imperfect as man himself. I have no expectations otherwise.


I know for sure that you understand the concept of choosing your own desires to the disadvantage of another. I know you understand that choice, all analogies aside. I know you, as everyone else on earth, have done it at one point or another. I've just always been a little perplexed at what is so hard for the human race to admit that they do wrong and it's not acceptable. We all know it. We just do.

The justice I am speaking of...Perfect Justice, would never be meted out by man. Can't get perfection out of imperfection. We would never want to get what we deserve out of truly perfect justice.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I call foul on this one.... I have everything I want and have never stepped on anyone's needs to get it.


Never? Never ever? I think folks don't think hard enough on this one. This is something we do on a more or less daily basis without even recognizing it. It's a pretty high claim to say you've never done anything selfish in your entire life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've just always been a little perplexed at what is so hard for the human race to admit that they do wrong and it's not acceptable


They convince themselves it's always the other ones who are "wrong", and they themselves are the righteous parties.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They convince themselves it's always the other ones who are "wrong", and they themselves are the righteous parties.


...and you try to convince others that we are the offenders and you are of the Righteous sort... care to chat?

Why would you try to ridicule others? Can you not have a conversation where you consider the points of another and then engage in somewhat of a rational discussion?

Why do you not do this?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The simple fact is, the title of this thread was focused on people who use religion to hurt others, and that is just one of many weapons of choice used by people to hurt others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> ...and you try to convince others that we are the offenders and you are of the Righteous sort... care to chat?
> 
> Why would you try to ridicule others? Can you not have a conversation where you consider the points of another and then engage in somewhat of a rational discussion?
> 
> *Why do you not do this?*


I don't need to convince anyone of anything, since the behavior is quite noticeable.

Some rely too much on emotions and rhetoric to remain "rational" about simple concepts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> Never? Never ever? I think folks don't think hard enough on this one. This is something we do on a more or less daily basis without even recognizing it. It's a pretty high claim to say you've never done anything selfish in your entire life.


If I have stepped on anyone else's toes in order to obtain what possessions I own today I honestly have no recollection of it. If you beleive that taking a fair days pay in exchange for an honest day's work, or paying someone their asking price for the things I want or selling a product for an agreed fair price is being selfish then I stand guilty as charged.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Do you still drink nothing but milk to get your nutrition? Why not that's all the 'choice' you had when you were born was it not? But as you grew you were taught and learned there was more out there. Not a great analogy but it kinda makes the point. Just because you start out without something doesn't mean you can't acquire it later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My grandson didn't have to be taught to be good to his baby sister. He didn't have to be taught to miss her and feel the pain of her loss. There is plenty of natural goodness in him. I've watched children interact and play and share and get along with each other regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, religion and many other differences. Toddlers in the play yard may want the best toy . That makes them no different than most adults. I've seen those same toddlers ignore all differences between them and hug and laugh and show affection and friendship. Something many adults learn to put aside in their quest to differentiate themselves and learn to please their less tolerant elders. Good and bad equally exist. Good and bad can be equally taught. Choose to see the evil and you'll find it. Choose to see the good and you'll find it also. Your choice. I've made mine and it came from no archaic book written by men seeking control.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> My grandson didn't have to be taught to be good to his baby sister. He didn't have to be taught to miss her and feel the pain of her loss. There is plenty of natural goodness in him. I've watched children interact and play and share and get along with each other regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, religion and many other differences. Toddlers in the play yard may want the best toy . That makes them no different than most adults. I've seen those same toddlers ignore all differences between them and hug and laugh and show affection and friendship. Something many adults learn to put aside in their quest to differentiate themselves and learn to please their less tolerant elders. Good and bad equally exist. Good and bad can be equally taught. Choose to see the evil and you'll find it. Choose to see the good and you'll find it also. Your choice. I've made mine and it came from no archaic book written by men seeking control.


This reminded me of one of my grandpa's stories. As he was sitting in a park one day watching a bunch of kids of various nationalities playing he asked one of the English speaking kids how they dealt with the language problem... The kid looked up at him and replied "Oh, that's not a problem... We all laugh the same!". Amazing how smart kids can be!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Do you still drink nothing but milk to get your nutrition? Why not that's all the 'choice' you had when you were born was it not? But as you grew you were taught and learned there was more out there. Not a great analogy but it kinda makes the point. Just because you start out without something doesn't mean you can't acquire it later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Woolieface said:


> I know for sure that you understand the concept of choosing your own desires to the disadvantage of another. I know you understand that choice, all analogies aside. I know you, as everyone else on earth, have done it at one point or another. I've just always been a little perplexed at what is so hard for the human race to admit that they do wrong and it's not acceptable. We all know it. We just do.
> 
> The justice I am speaking of...Perfect Justice, would never be meted out by man. Can't get perfection out of imperfection. We would never want to get what we deserve out of truly perfect justice.


I've never said I've done no wrong. I've made mistakes. I've even hurt people, both physically and emotionally. I'll probably do it again. I've also had harm done to me by others. But I don't think of one person who harmed me as being evil or doing what they did because of evil. Selfish, self centered, short sighted, uncaring or any of a thousand human failings, yes. They and I are guilty of all of those. You can choose to put whatever motive or reason for your or others actions you wish. Call it evil with no distinction. It was selfish of me to take all the marked down roasts. You still haven't told me why, or even if, it was an evil act. The same with rolling the stop sign. Legally wrong, self centered because I value those extra seconds I save, but rooted in evil? You gave your world view, I have mine. I like mine better.

The only justice I worry about is what is meted out by man. Any other is a hypothetical construct designed to control. If you only do good because you expect the reward, or lack of punishment, in the next realm how altruistic are you? But if you do it knowing there's no wings and harp waiting, only the warm feeling inside from doing the right thing? You decide.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I have stepped on anyone else's toes in order to obtain what possessions I own today I honestly have no recollection of it. If you beleive that taking a fair days pay in exchange for an honest day's work, or paying someone their asking price for the things I want or selling a product for an agreed fair price is being selfish then I stand guilty as charged.


Naw, none of that is selfish...I think you and others are missing the point. No one has ever gotten "everything" they want at every moment, in all occasions. Kids who have parents that try to give them that are called spoiled, and even spoiled kids have a tantrum once in a while because they didn't get what they wanted.

This is not about being happy or contented in life in general...it's about that sense of entitlement we all have at some times to do something or have something when someone else would benefit from us not having or doing it. Such as...maybe I could have let that car in that was trying to merge on the highway but I'm late for work. Perhaps they were too...

But hey...maybe I've just met people who have never acted selfishly once in their whole lives from the moment of birth. If it becomes a trend this should shape up to be a perfect world after all.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I've never said I've done no wrong. I've made mistakes. I've even hurt people, both physically and emotionally.


Well that's all my point is. We're all guilty.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> Well that's all my point is. We're all guilty.


But are we all evil? You're guilty of not answering direct questions. I don't think that makes you evil. I do think answering honestly voids much of your argument.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> But are we all evil? You're guilty of not answering direct questions. I don't think that makes you evil. I do think answering honestly voids much of your argument.


I don't think there's a difference between a natural tendency to do wrong and evil. I did say that evil was not a high degree of wrong....it's just doing wrong. So yes, humans are inherently doers of evil. It takes no effort to do evil. It takes effort to do right...it takes conscious thought and a willingness to follow a moral standard even when it doesn't get you what you want...and still after all that, we all sometimes fail. If moral standards are subjective, then the world remains a place where some suffer for what others justify. That's evil.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Woolieface said:


> I don't think there's a difference between a natural tendency to do wrong and evil. I did say that evil was not a high degree of wrong....it's just doing wrong. So yes, humans are inherently doers of evil. It takes no effort to do evil. It takes effort to do right...it takes conscious thought and a willingness to follow a moral standard even when it doesn't get you what you want...and still after all that, we all sometimes fail. If moral standards are subjective, then the world remains a place where some suffer for what others justify. That's evil.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of evil. Moral standards, even in the bible, are inherently subjective. Thou shall not kill............except. For some it's just as difficult to do something wrong as it is for others to do something good. All are human. None are all anything.

Still waiting on whether I'm evil for those roasts.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

To differing degrees, all people are evil. How does one gain the label of "Sinner" - one commits a sin. While there are many different levels of "sin" to become a "Sinner" means that you have, at that point, become unworthy of the reward of Heaven. To get there, you need an intermediary, someone who is without sin.

Now, I've probably gone and offended some on this board, by somehow insinuating that they cannot get to Heaven without an intermediary such as Jesus. Who wants to be the first to tell me that I am insensitive to them, that I must make allowances, - well, sorry, not my rules to alter.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> It's pretty likely given human nature but, again, it's not bad enough to deserve an eternity in Hell.


That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR standards. You make think that a black and white spotted Bull Terrier with a pointed muzzle is the best look for the breed. But if you take one that looks like that to an AKC show you won't even get into the ring because their standard says both of those are not allowed for the breed. IOW, your opinion and standards don't matter when it comes to having your dog judged.

God's standards are quite different than yours and He's the one who is going to be judging in the end.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> My hypothetical app developer always shared his cookies, let his best friend have the girl and is a confirmed bachelor because she was his one true love. Aren't hypotheticals fun?
> 
> But what makes taking the last cookie evil or immoral. Isn't his brother who wanted the cookie just as evil and immoral for wanting it instead of letting his brother have it? There were five marked down roasts in the grocery store's meat counter earlier this week. I bought them all. Was it an evil, immoral act? I'm sure there must be someone in the area who wanted them just as much, if not more, than I. But how am I to know if it would be a more deserving person who would get them if I walked away or the town drug dealer? Should it even have factored in my decision? I was just lucky to get there first. I didn't knock any old ladies aside in my rush but I have taken the last cookie on occassion. I must be truly evil.


Have you ever lied to get what you wanted?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR standards. You make think that a black and white spotted Bull Terrier with a pointed muzzle is the best look for the breed. But if you take one that looks like that to an AKC show you won't even get into the ring because their standard says both of those are not allowed for the breed. IOW, your opinion and standards don't matter when it comes to having your dog judged.
> 
> God's standards are quite different than yours and He's the one who is going to be judging in the end.


Assuming your god is in charge of that decision. I've got different assumptions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> His brother didn't take it..
> 
> evil is simply doing wrong. It isn't some extreme version of doing wrong....it's just doing wrong. Little wrongs ...big wrongs... my God doesn't set His standard to degrees of it. He wants better for his people in the future.


I disagree. Evil is not doing wrong, its NOT doing right/good.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I call foul on this one.... I have everything I want and have never stepped on anyone's needs to get it. I have a comfortable home I mostly built by myself, the few hired hands I employed were well paid for their efforts, my Yvonne was a single girl when I met her, no strings, no ties, no toes to be stepped on and she was a willing participant in making another of my dreams come true. our dog was a rescue dog saved from the gas chamber. No harm, no foul there. Our pantry is full as well as our freezer, all paid for with the proceeds earned by either my personal investments or Yvonne's hard earned wages. I have plenty of smokes and the liquor cabinet is full, again thanks to either my years of hard work, scrimping saving and doing without in order to invest surplus during my productive years, or the efforts of my Yvonne who has an equal share in "the spoils". I do stock the liquor cabinet with a bit better grade than I might thanks to my SS benefits that I spent over forty years paying into. I got where I am by being industrious, frugal and treating people fair and right throughout my life. The best way to have everything you want without stepping on others is to trim your wants to the level you can afford and being careful where you put your feet.


I have NEVER met anyone who had everything they wanted. Even the very well off people I know always want a bigger or faster or newer thing. I knew a guy who spent years designing his house to be JUST what he wanted yet after a few months he told me he wish he had put the master bath on the other side of the bedroom.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Have you ever lied to get what you wanted?


I sure have. I claim no perfection in thought or deed. I've lied to others to not offend them, ensuring I stay in their good graces, and on other occasions to do good for others. Lying, like most things in life can be good or bad. Intent is important.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Overall, I've found your interpretation of evil to be rather simplistic. (I'm not saying that to be rude.)


I wouldn't have taken it that way. Always feel free to say what you want to me. I'm a big boy, its not going to bother me. 

It is simplistic because it is, IMO, simple. In almost every case the right thing and the wrong thing are very clear with a sharp line separating them. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Ultimately, we are our brains, which are a collection of hardwired evolution, learned traits, environmental "switches," and then there's a thin layer of social habits.


But it the start there are no learned traits and no social habits learned. In that state how does it function? Does it act 'good' and offer to share the nice things around it? Or does it act evil and want to keep all the nice things for itself? As I have pointed out I have never met a child which had to be taught to be selfish and lie. These are 'hardwired' into our very being. If someone lies to an old person to get that person's money its looked at as 'evil'. Now in reality what's the difference in that and someone lying to another child to get that child's cookie?




Heritagefarm said:


> You say we start out inherently evil, but this is primarily a Biblical teaching. I don't care to try to make someone stray from their religion - I will, however, feel free in pointing out that that major religions existed until around 6000+ years ago.


Have I mentioned the Bible or religion when saying we are born evil? I don't believe so, I have used nothing but logic which even those who are trying to say we are not born evil have admitted is correct.




Heritagefarm said:


> Can morality exist without religion?


Depends on your definitions of "morality" and religion. But we'll keep religion out of for now. 

If by it you define moral living to mean following a standard set by others or society, sure we can live moral lives. But you run it to all kinds of problems. Were the Nazis acting morally? Based on their standards and the standards of the society they were in, they were because they were following those standards.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They convince themselves it's always the other ones who are "wrong", and they themselves are the righteous parties.


And when you have morals based on human standards they can be correct because they can 'adjust' those morals to fit what they want.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> My grandson didn't have to be taught to be good to his baby sister.


So he was never 'mean' to her. He were just 'good' right from birth and you never had to correct a 'bad' behavior of his. I'm sorry but that's just a little difficult for me to believe.




mmoetc said:


> He didn't have to be taught to miss her and feel the pain of her loss.


Ah. . .but why did he miss her and feel pain? Was it not because he liked her and wanted her, IOW he was being selfish and thinking of how the situation was making HIM feel.




mmoetc said:


> Good and bad equally exist. Good and bad can be equally taught. Choose to see the evil and you'll find it. Choose to see the good and you'll find it also. Your choice. I've made mine and it came from no archaic book written by men seeking control.


Again I disagree. Bad does not need to be taught, and IIRC you have admitted that as well because you have said children do not need to be taught to be selfish. You can either feed the good or starve it. If you feed it you will usually get more good, but now always.

BTW, I don't remember bringing anything but logic into this argument.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> I disagree. Evil is not doing wrong, its NOT doing right/good.


Not doing right is, well....wrong. :shrug:
It's all just semantics if you ask me.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You gave your world view, I have mine. I like mine better.


And your's is flexible depending on what's best for you. I'm sure you think stop signs are good things, until they slow YOU down then you think they should just "yield" signs. And I'm sure there are other things like this. A lot of people would never steal a computer from work but they have no problem with taking a few paperclips or pens.




mmoetc said:


> The only justice I worry about is what is meted out by man. Any other is a hypothetical construct designed to control. If you only do good because you expect the reward, or lack of punishment, in the next realm how altruistic are you? But if you do it knowing there's no wings and harp waiting, only the warm feeling inside from doing the right thing? You decide.


W/o the threat of punishment of some kind, how many people do you think would "do the right thing"?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So he was never 'mean' to her. He were just 'good' right from birth and you never had to correct a 'bad' behavior of his. I'm sorry but that's just a little difficult for me to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're free to believe whatever you wish about my grandson's behavior and his motivation. I'd say those beliefs are shaped by your view that all are born bad and you are rendered incapable by your unflagging adherence to that view from seeing anything else. We'll just have to disagree on this as we do much else. I'll look for the good, you can see the bad. Life goes on.

Your logic works if I accept your premise of your god and all people being born evil or bad(words i dont find interchangable). Since I accept neither premise and neither can be proven I don't have to accept any logic based on them. And I don't.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> And your's is flexible depending on what's best for you. I'm sure you think stop signs are good things, until they slow YOU down then you think they should just "yield" signs. And I'm sure there are other things like this. A lot of people would never steal a computer from work but they have no problem with taking a few paperclips or pens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I pointed out earlier, even your holy books grant exceptions. There are no absolutes in life.

Likely more than you think.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> I wouldn't have taken it that way. Always feel free to say what you want to me. I'm a big boy, its not going to bother me.
> 
> It is simplistic because it is, IMO, simple. In almost every case the right thing and the wrong thing are very clear with a sharp line separating them.
> 
> ...


You're kidding, right? The entire basis for the concept of evil is based on the Bible and you're continually telling people that God will judge in the end. This entire discussion is based on religion. Now you say evil is based on logic?

You said to Heritage Farm in post 170:

"Ok since you admit that action is evil then you must also admit that children are naturally or instinctively or "born" evil because they do this w/o any training. * An example of human nature supporting what the Bible tells us*."

Let's not try to pretend that this isn't completely based on religion. Telling people they are born in sin is just one example of people using religion to hurt others which is the original premise of this thread.

Many other religions teach people to better themselves in some way, in fact, we should grow and improve during the course of our life and that has nothing to do with religion. As far as I know only the Bible tells us that we start off in such poor shape. Nobody is denying that we have bad tendencies in us from birth to death but we have equal amounts of good in us and we are taught or figure out the behaviors that are acceptable in society.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You're free to believe whatever you wish about my grandson's behavior and his motivation. I'd say those beliefs are shaped by your view that all are born bad and you are rendered incapable by your unflagging adherence to that view from seeing anything else. We'll just have to disagree on this as we do much else. I'll look for the good, you can see the bad. Life goes on.
> 
> Your logic works if I accept your premise of your god and all people being born evil or bad(words i dont find interchangable). Since I accept neither premise and neither can be proven I don't have to accept any logic based on them. And I don't.


My views on people were formed LONG before I became a Christian. I knew from an early age that people are NOT born good and must be taught to be. As I have pointed out and everyone seems to agree no one has to teach a child to be bad you must teach him to not be bad aka good. 

You can look for all the good you want but that doesn't mean its all beer and skittles. Most of the people in the world are 'good' but I'm willing to bet you don't leave the keys in your car when you park at the mall or in a big city. Why not if you are always looking for the good?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A child must be taught what is right and what is wrong because those are human constructs. If it lived on it's own nothing would be wrong. It would just be survival.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I'm more in the camp of children test limits set by society to see what the boundaries might be, I just don't see evil in the toddlers I have had experience with.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Truckinguy said:


> You're kidding, right? The entire basis for the concept of evil is based on the Bible and you're continually telling people that God will judge in the end. This entire discussion is based on religion. Now you say evil is based on logic?
> 
> You said to Heritage Farm in post 170:
> 
> ...


In watcher's defense, it's only natural for religion to heavily influence ideology and philosophy. Religion is nothing if not a set of complex doctrines, rules, and philosophies. The only problem is that, in my opinion, people run the risk of never questioning themselves or their ideologies. Conversely, it's also very easy to twist religion to suit your own interpretations, and then convince others it's correct. It generally actually easier to convince and motivate with religion than with regular methods - your audience is almost partially convinced if your message is religious and you're claiming to be religious as well.



watcher said:


> My views on people were formed LONG before I became a Christian. I knew from an early age that people are NOT born good and must be taught to be. As I have pointed out and everyone seems to agree no one has to teach a child to be bad you must teach him to not be bad aka good.
> 
> You can look for all the good you want but that doesn't mean its all beer and skittles. Most of the people in the world are 'good' but I'm willing to bet you don't leave the keys in your car when you park at the mall or in a big city. Why not if you are always looking for the good?


But we're still back to the fundamental question, which is what is good and what is evil? Your interpretation, as previously stated, is much different than mine. Your interpretation seems primarily religious - correct me if I'm wrong - in that it's following Christian ideologies most strongly. However, the Bible tell us what is and what isn't evil. This is all well and good, and most of the Biblical doctrine follows general societal norms - in general. Much of it is just plain old good advice, no one's going to argue with that. My interpretation of evil is looser: Evil is anything that harms people or animals in such a way that society is damaged. And the term "society" is further elaborated to simply mean human existence and cooperation in all forms, from NY City to nomadic tribes. This definition would include murder, rape, and stealing under the evil definition because it upsets the balance. Giving, sharing, and helping are under the "good" label because they promote society growth and functionality. Homosexuality becomes a non issue because under normal conditions, it will do very little to upset the balance. But what about the nuances? Is it evil for your neighbor to move his fence onto your property by a foot? Your immediate answer is (probably) yes. But why? In nomadic times, fences didn't exist, and if they did they were mobile. Thus, society must be allowed to set the limits and boundaries. Now to slap my own assessment in the face: Society is full of people, and people are often stupid. Right now people are becoming increasing narcissistic. At what point is our excessive narcissism harmful and 'evil?' It's already having harmful effects on the environment; is that evil? I'm throwing too many red herrings out there now. Don't bother about those details; just focus on my main argument if you would. 



watcher said:


> But it the start there are no learned traits and no social habits learned. In that state how does it function? Does it act 'good' and offer to share the nice things around it? Or does it act evil and want to keep all the nice things for itself? As I have pointed out I have never met a child which had to be taught to be selfish and lie. These are 'hardwired' into our very being. If someone lies to an old person to get that person's money its looked at as 'evil'. Now in reality what's the difference in that and someone lying to another child to get that child's cookie?


Well I'm getting tired now, so this answer may not be my most stellar, but here goes. Ultimately, is the assessment a fair one? Children are generally considered to be innocent due to inexperience. And some children will inherently act more kind and caring than others. Children are non-developed humans, and as a result their wiring is not all in place. At birth, most of their actions are going to be the hardwired ones, the ones passed down through genetics. Thus, are genetics evil? For the child is acting out it's genetic coding, not good or evil actions. From a scientific perspective, these are evolved traits and thus are neither good nor evil; they just are.

Fascinating discussion; I'm enjoying the currently civil tone everyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> My views on people were formed LONG before I became a Christian. I knew from an early age that people are NOT born good and must be taught to be. As I have pointed out and everyone seems to agree no one has to teach a child to be bad you must teach him to not be bad aka good.
> 
> You can look for all the good you want but that doesn't mean its all beer and skittles. Most of the people in the world are 'good' but I'm willing to bet you don't leave the keys in your car when you park at the mall or in a big city. Why not if you are always looking for the good?


I hate to burst your bubble but the only time I take the keys out of my car or truck is when my Yvonne is with me and insists I do so.... For my part if they can figure out how to get my vehicles to run as far as across a parking lot... My hats off to them!



watcher said:


> I have NEVER met anyone who had everything they wanted. Even the very well off people I know always want a bigger or faster or newer thing. I knew a guy who spent years designing his house to be JUST what he wanted yet after a few months he told me he wish he had put the master bath on the other side of the bedroom.


hi there! Yvonne's hubby here... Pleased to meet you!  now you have met someone who is quite content with what they have.  I don't need a bigger better anything. I built my house the way I wanted it to begin with... As to vehicles, I have more "bombs" than hitler already... A good truck, three cars, three motorcycles (that I can no longer ride) not counting Yvonne's rig... Oh yeah, nearly forgot the boat.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The vast majority of people just aren't very intelligent. When they get ideological ideas in their heads, they are very wide and not very deep. It's an old story. 
You know gold leaf? Gold can be pounded so thin that you could cover your house in it, for pennies. Most people's religion is like that. They would have you believe, as they do, that they live in a gold house.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> hi there! Yvonne's hubby here... Pleased to meet you!  now you have met someone who is quite content with what they have.  I don't need a bigger better anything. I built my house the way I wanted it to begin with... As to vehicles, I have more "bombs" than hitler already... A good truck, three cars, three motorcycles (that I can no longer ride) not counting Yvonne's rig... Oh yeah, nearly forgot the boat.


The think the Buddhists would say you had attained Nirvana.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> My views on people were formed LONG before I became a Christian. I knew from an early age that people are NOT born good and must be taught to be. As I have pointed out and everyone seems to agree no one has to teach a child to be bad you must teach him to not be bad aka good.
> 
> You can look for all the good you want but that doesn't mean its all beer and skittles. Most of the people in the world are 'good' but I'm willing to bet you don't leave the keys in your car when you park at the mall or in a big city. Why not if you are always looking for the good?


Then it's probably good that you found a religion to follow that aligned with those views of good and evil. It's easier to believe in something when you're already predisposed to those beliefs.

Looking for the good is different than recognizing there is bad in the world. Optimists can be realists, too.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> I'm more in the camp of children test limits set by society to see what the boundaries might be, I just don't see evil in the toddlers I have had experience with.


I'll ask you. If someone lied to a retiree to get their life savings from them would you call that person evil?

Now what's the real difference in that and a child lying to another child to get a toy or piece of candy?

Is the first "evil" and the second just "naughty"? Are they both not just lies told to get what the liar wants?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

watcher said:


> I'll ask you. If someone lied to a retiree to get their life savings from them would you call that person evil?
> 
> Now what's the real difference in that and a child lying to another child to get a toy or piece of candy?
> 
> Is the first "evil" and the second just "naughty"? Are they both not just lies told to get what the liar wants?


I have never witnessed a child lie to another to get a toy, so I have no frame of reference. 

I have witnessed children just grab another's toy, but also witnessed said child's parents in action so I stick with learned behaivor.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> In watcher's defense, it's only natural for religion to heavily influence ideology and philosophy. Religion is nothing if not a set of complex doctrines, rules, and philosophies. The only problem is that, in my opinion, people run the risk of never questioning themselves or their ideologies. Conversely, it's also very easy to twist religion to suit your own interpretations, and then convince others it's correct. It generally actually easier to convince and motivate with religion than with regular methods - your audience is almost partially convinced if your message is religious and you're claiming to be religious as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As has been pointed out good and evil do not, for the most part, need a religious component. Unless you count the 'Golden Rule' from the Bible. Evil is defined as someone doing something which harms another. 

It seems everyone here agrees that children do not need to be taught to do things which harms another. Which is my point, humans are clearly born evil and must be taught good.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Then it's probably good that you found a religion to follow that aligned with those views of good and evil. It's easier to believe in something when you're already predisposed to those beliefs.
> 
> Looking for the good is different than recognizing there is bad in the world. Optimists can be realists, too.


But ignoring that there is bad in the world is foolish. Assuming that everyone is good is just as foolish. This is why people lock their doors and don't leave cash laying around.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> The think the Buddhists would say you had attained Nirvana.


Naw, I ain't nervous normally, but I do get a bit edgey when I am down to my last carton of smokes or when the liquor cabinet is running low, both conditions are pretty rare around my house.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> But ignoring that there is bad in the world is foolish. Assuming that everyone is good is just as foolish. This is why people lock their doors and don't leave cash laying around.


If I had locks on my doors I would prolly lose the keys! 
I have found the majority of folks in my area to be pretty good people with just enough knot heads around to give the cops something to do.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> As has been pointed out good and evil do not, for the most part, need a religious component. Unless you count the 'Golden Rule' from the Bible. Evil is defined as someone doing something which harms another.
> 
> It seems everyone here agrees that children do not need to be taught to do things which harms another. Which is my point, humans are clearly born evil and must be taught good.


Hmm, well, I seem to have run out of creative ways of disagreeing with that. But really it's just a technicality, perhaps.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I had locks on my doors I would prolly lose the keys!
> I have found the majority of folks in my area to be pretty good people with just enough knot heads around to give the cops something to do.


Back when we sold our house in TN I had to get new locks because I didn't know where the keys were for the current ones. In the 10+ we lived there we never locked the doors. On the other hand when I first met my wife I couldn't understand why she had a chain with a padlock on her car. Come to find out where she lived in Chicago if you did't padlock your hood you'd come out to find someone had stolen your battery. Not long after my son moved to the Atlanta area someone broke into his car. A few years before my dad died someone kicked in the door of his house and took the TV and his weapons.

And here's the kicker. We lived about a hour from a major city in TN and I had a buddy who lived in the city. He was telling me about how his car was stolen out of his driveway and all the trouble it was causing then he stopped and looked at me. Then he said; "You do not have problems like this out there where you live, that's because the crooks know if the owner didn't shoot them the neighbor probably would."

Criminals FEAR armed victims.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Back when we sold our house in TN I had to get new locks because I didn't know where the keys were for the current ones. In the 10+ we lived there we never locked the doors. On the other hand when I first met my wife I couldn't understand why she had a chain with a padlock on her car. Come to find out where she lived in Chicago if you did't padlock your hood you'd come out to find someone had stolen your battery. Not long after my son moved to the Atlanta area someone broke into his car. A few years before my dad died someone kicked in the door of his house and took the TV and his weapons.
> 
> And here's the kicker. We lived about a hour from a major city in TN and I had a buddy who lived in the city. He was telling me about how his car was stolen out of his driveway and all the trouble it was causing then he stopped and looked at me. Then he said; "You do not have problems like this out there where you live, that's because the crooks know if the owner didn't shoot them the neighbor probably would."
> 
> Criminals FEAR armed victims.


And is shooting the thief good or evil? Thou shalt not kill..... Except. Once again, even your holiest books are a bit ambiguous. We'll continue to disagree about our definitions of evil. Yours differs greatly from most common dictionary definitions. You would likely consider the drug addict stealing your battery to be evil and his actions evil. Neither are good and the absence of good, in your eyes, is evil. I might see an otherwise good person who made the mistake of putting a needle in his arm for the first time and who's actions are driven by addiction and desperation. I might see an otherwise good person who with some help might be good again. Chances are I won't see a dead body because of the evil that led them to steal a battery.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And is shooting the thief good or evil? Thou shalt not kill..... Except. Once again, even your holiest books are a bit ambiguous.


If you read better translations you will see it says not to murder. Killing one who is trying to harm you is not murder. BTW, God tells the Israelites there are some actions which are to be punished with death. 




mmoetc said:


> We'll continue to disagree about our definitions of evil. Yours differs greatly from most common dictionary definitions. You would likely consider the drug addict stealing your battery to be evil and his actions evil. Neither are good and the absence of good, in your eyes, is evil.


Wrong again. Good would be to not take what is not yours. I don't think 'good' people have to think about if they are doing the right thing and have no need to justify their actions. If you do not have good inside you then you can easily justify any action. You need another hit of meth/heroin/booze and have no money so stealing a battery get money for it is OK. You want that toy so its OK to take it from that other child.




mmoetc said:


> I might see an otherwise good person who made the mistake of putting a needle in his arm for the first time and who's actions are driven by addiction and desperation.


Interesting, you seem to be saying people who have something missing in their lives are the ones who turn to drugs. Now what is it you think they are missing? For me I'd say its the good that should be in their lives.




mmoetc said:


> I might see an otherwise good person who with some help might be good again. Chances are I won't see a dead body because of the evil that led them to steal a battery.


People will only be good if they want to be. I have dealt with plenty of drug users who have been forced or coerced into being 'good' and going into treatment. I can tell you that as of today exactly ZERO of them are clean and 'good' members of society.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I had locks on my doors I would prolly lose the keys!
> I have found the majority of folks in my area to be pretty good people with just enough knot heads around to give the cops something to do.


Sounds like my county exactly. And I am not sure I have a house key anymore.


----------

