SPLIT TOPIC: Churches and Morality in Crown Heights — Brooklynian

SPLIT TOPIC: Churches and Morality in Crown Heights

MOD NOTE: Split from the tree branch break thread here
whynot_31 wrote: Here are the various possibilities we had after his arrest:


[My opinion is shared by a well meaning, overworked, Deputy Warden who runs one of the mental health units on Rikers. To paraphrase past conversations I have had with him: "They don't give us what we need to help these guys. Why are they paying us to do this over and over without the support of OMH and community based care? What do they think my guys and a once a week psychiatrist are going to accomplish? This is stupid."]
.
Absent a system of justice based on a moral code, this is what we get. Given that morality is "out", then I would suggest that social irresponsibilty is "in". Witness the lack of response by the system to Maynard's actions. If this were the "good ol' days", some civic minded, church people would have probably have had a coalition of clergy slap Steve in a psych ward months ago.
Now we have just average disorganized citizens chasing after disorganized elected officials tryiing to get demoralized and under-funded state institutions to do something, despite numerous well-intended laws that make it nearly impossible.
Is this progress?
«134

Comments

  • Capt. Planet wrote: Witness the lack of response by the system to Maynard's actions. If this were the "good ol' days", some civic minded, church people would have probably have had a coalition of clergy slap Steve in a psych ward months ago.

    Now we have just average disorganized citizens chasing after disorganized elected officials tryiing to get demoralized and under-funded state institutions to do something, despite numerous well-intended laws that make it nearly impossible.
    Is this progress?
    No, this is desperation and resignation.

    Sadly, I feel your depressing post underestimates the problem.

    As MHA points out on the first post in this thread, he was told that Steve has been doing this for years.

    Indeed, I have a vague memory of when I first saw a guy I believe was Steve: several years ago he was breaking branches while I walked my dog one night on EP. (I am not certain it was Steve given the time elapse). At the time, I saw what appeared to be a clearly mentally ill man destroying a tree, who then stopped and muttered at me as he walked away. Acting under my moral code (admittedly a jaded one based on work in the mental health field) I did nothing because I perceived him as harming no one, and not meeting the strict criteria for an EDP that would be admitted.

    But here's the irony: It seems literally dozens of people felt he met the criteria for an EDP, and the police and EMTs brought him to local ERs on numerous occasions.

    ....it's not like this guy suddenly became mentally ill and got arrested. afterall.

    As you point out, this situation did get to the level that we had
    just average disorganized citizens chasing after disorganized elected officials tryiing to get demoralized and under-funded state institutions to do something, despite numerous well-intended laws that make it nearly impossible.
    But, as a leader in the above effort, I point out that this approach didn't work. Despite education, experience and a team of concerned people that I will not detail here, we were unable to get him the care he needed.

    Despite their efforts, the politicians of CD8 and the police of the 77th were not powerful enough to get him into to the custody of OMH.

    Although I have not worked with Mr. Maynard, I have worked with enough people in this situation to bet that HE was unable to get HIMSELF the quantity and quality of care HE needed in either outpatient or inpatient settings.

    The system failed him.
    The system failed his family.
    The system failed us.

    As a small group, we were patient.

    We were organized.

    ...and then we were creative.

    Creativity that can not be accurately described here. But I truely believe that only as a result of that creativity did he end up getting the care he needed.

    Despite noble efforts to address it, the "Andrew Goldstein Problem" is alive and well. Please read the bottom of this link for an explanation

    http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=622

    P.S. I feel the authors overstate the potential impact of Outpatient Treatment to meet the needs of folks like Andrew Goldstein and Steve Maynard, but post it because I feel AOT is certainly a step in the right direction.
  • Capt. Planet wrote: Absent a system of justice based on a moral code, this is what we get. Given that morality is "out", then I would suggest that social irresponsibilty is "in". Witness the lack of response by the system to Maynard's actions. If this were the "good ol' days", some civic minded, church people would have probably have had a coalition of clergy slap Steve in a psych ward months ago.
    Now we have just average disorganized citizens chasing after disorganized elected officials tryiing to get demoralized and under-funded state institutions to do something, despite numerous well-intended laws that make it nearly impossible.
    Is this progress?
    As whynot said, Steve is getting the help he needs now because of coordinated efforts of local concerned citizens to work within the limits of our system.
    "Church people" aren't the only answer here, and "church people" =/= morality.

  • Just saw the Dawkins piece. Independent of a critique of theology, my own feeling about all of the churches in this neighborhood is based on their seeming absence in community involvement. They whoop and wail on Sundays, but Monday through Saturday, their doors tend to be closed. The ministers don't attend community meetings. They had absolutely nothing to do with complaints about Steve, nor his eventual internment. What irks me about ALL of the churches around here is how socially ILLITERATE they are. Surely, when these guys attended theological training they took a class on fostering growth in their churches. Surely they learned about fostering community involvement, right? Wrong.
  • MHA wrote: Just saw the Dawkins piece. Independent of a critique of theology, my own feeling about all of the churches in this neighborhood is based on their seeming absence in community involvement. They whoop and wail on Sundays, but Monday through Saturday, their doors tend to be closed. The ministers don't attend community meetings. They had absolutely nothing to do with complaints about Steve, nor his eventual internment. What irks me about ALL of the churches around here is how socially ILLITERATE they are. Surely, when these guys attended theological training they took a class on fostering growth in their churches. Surely they learned about fostering community involvement, right? Wrong.
    first of all i want to apologize if i came off as arrogant or rude. that certainly was not the motive, but i can see how that came be perceived over the internet. again, I apologize. :oops:

    That leads me to some serious questions, mha: how is the church to be socially literate when in a society that claims to be tolerant continues to mock and isolate them? Is it based on preconceptions, experience, et al? How is the church to be socially literate when people who have great ideas about doing things say they wont meet face to face because they stated they wont "breach the boundary between flesh and avatar"?

    Bro, I'm saying lets work this out and get it in, on something serious. it may be slow, it could even get worse before it gets better, but im saying lets go get it my friend.
  • I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about HCH. I am referring simply to the churches in the neighborhood. There social relevance is shrinking. It seems like anyone with a tambourine and a loud voice can open up a church. I see absolutely no community involvement by any of the churches in this neighborhood. What that has to do with who I am, flesh and bone, escapes me. Your need to know who I am also escapes me. This has already been covered ad nauseum. It ain't gonna happen, 'bro'.

    Jesus Christ could come from the sky and proclaim himself, but it's not going to stop these brothers from bussin' shots...And on cue someone is bussin' shots in the neighborhood as I write this... Wow. I heard 5... These brothers are at the end of their rope, spiritually and materially. These churches have access to more capital than I can imagine, and they fail to use it productively. I can't stand the whole lot of them. Christianity has ruined the African, in this hemisphere as well as on the continent. It's a religion used to make the African passive, and it worked. But I digress. That has nothing to do with trees, or Steve -- which NO church had anything to do with by the way.
  • Jesus Christ could come from the sky and proclaim himself, but it's not going to stop these brothers from bussin' shots..
    in a way you are right man. even when Jesus comes back people will be shaking their fist at him. I just want to say this man.

    1. You have a legitimate frustration with what is happening in the streets [clarification]. You do. But from what I've heard some of the solid churches dont even have enough members or money to fix their own buildings to help care for the community. 1 church had their building burned down. They had been doing some very good things. Now they are gonna be on the street worshiping until 2011. And some churches are STILL doing food pantries. im friends with the presbyterian church on the corner of nostrand & dean, so holla at me if you want to get some inroads. if not, go visit and share your heart.

    2. The pastors aren't even supposed to be the ones at the community board meetings if I'm correct. it wouldnt hurt, but from what ive learned they are supposed to be praying for and shepherding their flock. Deacons biblically were the ones who went out to care for the widows, etc and community. Some churches have designated people to be there. At the very least, there are people who are parishioners who are at the community board meeting, i know that 100%. they are concerned. the pastors are concerned.

    3. I know there's been 57 + shootings (thought I heard one last night, a whole bunch of sirens close to my block) MHA I listen to your ideas because they are good about community development. And we've been putting our money and time where our mouth is too.

    Have a great Saturday fam....
  • my wife reminded me also of pastor ken bogan whom ive met. he works at the kingston ave mediation center. he also is very active with save our streets. in fact. two other pastors came down to be a part of the last save our streets event. come out to the next one if u want to talk to him. i think the next one is wednesday at 6 or 630pm. itll be posted im sure. stuff is being done fam
  • I'm sorry but I'm convinced after years of watching the Methodist church become more and more irrelevant and self-absorbed, that main stream denominations simply have become part of the problem. They're taking good space talking about that happened 2,000 years ago as if nothing has happened since then. Find me a reference to climate change in the Bible and I'll shut up.
    If you want to hear something more relevant, come to the talk on Permaculture at Imani Garden today at 4 pm. 87 Scchenevtady at Dean Street
  • A reference to climate change?

    Wasn't there something about rain for 40 days and 40 nights endangering all life on earth?

    And me a nonbeliever!
  • Hey don't get me wrong, Jesus was hardly a conformist. But don't tell your pastor. It's a big secret.
  • ?

    i'll say this. there are no perfect churches. If that was case, we would not proclaim that we need Jesus. right? and I think that was the disconnect with our other dialogue. To God, a master's degree means nothing if it's not for His glory. I'm weak. Barack Obama at least recognizes that he's weak. Bill McKibben, weak. I pray that by the Holy Spirit you will or maybe you have recognized that you are weak. Limited. Not to discredit intelligence. But I believe its all given by God. So, at least on here, because this is a community forum, not an apologetics forum, im not going to debate over climate changes and eschatology. That's misplaced. You call the Methodist Church on the carpet. Last time I checked, they've set up and financed large hospitals in every
    major city in America. You can't fault them there. Am I right? (srs qst?)

    All I'm asking is to consider the positive. The church is concerned. And if taking into consideration what you or MHA have to say makes a conformist, so be it. We believe that the greatest need we all have is Jesus, God-man, who provides reconciliation with a just, sovereign and loving God. I pray that you will read this in love. I look forward to meeting you in the future. Hope to see you at the Basil Meet-Up :)

    BACK TO THE TOPIC! we saw a tree branch broken while we were walking down St Johns headed towards Washington Ave on a fairly new planted tree. :O buttttttt... it was quite possibly a machine.

    Pausing for a Long Break:
  • My response to this is almost like a catechism: 325 A.D., Council of Nicene; stop believing in fairy tales. They once had a purpose, but now we are living in the 21st century and the only thing that can save us are the aliens.

    Steve saw DEMONS in the nooks of tree branches, and not one of these right reverends blessed any of the trees.
  • That depends on whether you consider Peter Venkman a Reverend....

    I consider him to be at least a Saint.

    image
  • MHA wrote: My response to this is almost like a catechism: 325 A.D., Council of Nicene; stop believing in fairy tales. They once had a purpose, but now we are living in the 21st century and the only thing that can save us are the aliens.

    Steve saw DEMONS in the nooks of tree branches, and not one of these right reverends blessed any of the trees.
    If you believe that, you might as well kiss your sweet petutie good-bye.

    Consider the possbility that we might actually change our behavior?!?!?!

    What would that look like? How would it happen? In a latte bar, an Ethiopian restaurant, at Launchpad? Would there be a psychic shift brought about a ciritical level of new mass consciousness. Being alive now is such fun, don't you agree, MHA.
  • Wait, I don't get what you're saying. Are you implying that MHA should kiss his sweet petutie goodbye because he "believes" in the extremely fateful Council of Nicene, organized by then Emperor Constantine on order to stop the warring factions within the Church? Believe what, that it happened?

    Cause, you know, it kinda did.
  • I'm with Ntfool here. I have no idea what you're talking about Capt. Planet.

    Maybe you're referring to what I said about Steve; it's possible I mis-phrased. I should have said 'Steve BELIEVES he saw demons in the nooks of tree branches...'

    But if you want to continue the theological debate, here we go. I will take it one further: I don't CARE if God exists or not.

    Let's say he does exist, let's say he created the universe, his son died on the cross, yada yada yada; let's say for YOUR sake ALL of that is FACT. Where in all of that should my WORSHIP or LOVE follow? How SICK is it that an all powerful being wants ME to WORSHIP it? Why need I placate the ego of a god??? Seriously. Why would you want to be around anyone or anything like that?

    It sounds to me that the story (or fact) of your god evinces the ego of a SOCIOPATH, and history has proven that to be the case. All gods are sociopaths. When I hear people say give god the glory, I say, "I ain't givin' god shit. So believe in your fairy tales, if it makes you feel better. One could argue I believe in my own ( I am a layperson UFO-ologist), but despite all of the power I ascribe to aliens from other planets, I am not bestowing worship or love upon them just because they have that power.

    And here is my point to you. The worship of God is akin to the slave's worship of the SLAVEMASTER, who seeks the gratitude of his captives for THEIR captivity. He does this because of his GUILTY CONSCIENCE about the level of brutality he has subjected them to.

    I think it was Milton who wrote of a protagonist that he would rather live on his feet in Hell than on his knees in heaven. I agree wholeheartedly.

    And here's the epilogue: It's a philosophical question. If I only have a hundred dollars to my name and I lend you ten, and a millionaire has a hundred million dollars to his name and he also lends you ten, whose endeavor is of more value, mine or the millionaire's? Similarly, Jesus, the son of GOD died on the cross, purportedly for the sins of man. Also, Spartacus, Malcolm X , and Martin Luther King --- all mortal men -- died for no lesser reasons. I would rather WORSHIP them, and bestow my love unto THEM and people like them than your god, or his son, who has more lives than Super Mario. Jesus knew that he was going to 'die', but he had so much 'spiritual bling' he could afford to do so with barely a ho-hum.

    What irks me to no end is that the churches in this community do absolutely nothing for the physical betterment of it. My Sundays are constantly polluted with the voices of people and the clamor of musical instruments, ''...givin' god da glory -- hallelujah!'' and when they are all sweaty and leave exhausted they walk by litter and squalor and do absolutely nothing about it. I have no room or tolerance for people who pay no property taxes, extort money from the poor, and call themselves righteous.
  • Funny, MHA. You remind me of something I saw on reddit today:

    image

    http://imgur.com/dGOHD.jpg
  • That's too small for me to see, unfortunately.
  • MHA wrote: That's too small for me to see, unfortunately.
    I added a link now. The site won't let me post it any larger because it would break the margins.
  • Hah! Seen! Wow! Funny!
  • Obviously the council of Nicene happened, producing the Nicean Creed, and the Holy Trinity, among other politically inspired documents.
    My petutie reference was about being saved by aliens, a far more sketchy proposition.
  • This is totally ripe for a poll:

    Who will ultimately save and/or destroy us?
    a. The holy trinity
    b. Aliens
    c. I have no idea

    to vote, go here:
    http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=710354#710354
  • MHA, whatever beef you may have with the church, which seems to be a big one, it's the current absence of any organizing moral principle that I am decrying, not the absence of the Christian church per se.
    It's easy to pick apart the ruins of the Christ movement, but do you have any suggestions with what to replace it? As the world rapidly rots around us, it seems you'd rather spend your time dancing on the grave of Christ than coming up with an alternative.
    As I said before, I don't see a quest for the perfect tiramisu as a worthy purpose in life. In the end, I feel it is only ethics that have a ghost of a chance of saving our sorry asses from climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, etc.
    If this isn't real for you, because the dead dolphins aren't flopping on your front porch, and the dying polar bears aren't rolling over in your backyard and the dead coral reefs are turning up in your fish soup at the corner bistro, then I would put you in the same league as the great masses who don't respond to calamity until it's way too late.
    Only a gifted few have the ability to forsee the future and have the courage and resources to act while they still can make a difference.
    It seemed like you might be one of them. Perhaps I was wrong.
  • You know, I will defer from one of my pith-filled opinions. Not up to it these days.

    There are many capable people who can speak to your response above. There was a wonderful Dawkins excerpt that someone inserted earlier; I suggest you loop that and watch it.
  • Sorry to hear you have other priorities. Dawkins is going nowhere, just down, with the rest of us.
  • Capt. Planet, are you suggesting that MHA should find another religion to replace the "Christ movement", or that he find another, non-religion-based ethical system?

    If the former, why would we need a religion to develop an "organizing moral principle"? Why is it necessary to believe in a Supreme Being in order to live a moral and ethical life?

    Why must humans continue to act as primitive tribes (called "Jews", "Christians", "Muslims" etc.) and to war against the other tribes?

    I believe that religion generally has a negative affect on human society; it separates us and breeds fear, anger and contempt of persons who follow other religions. I think we'd all be much better off without it.
  • Would you say Buddihism or Jainism or The Society of Friends have a negative effect on people?

    Where if not in a religious context do we discuss issues of morality and ethics? Without regular attendance at moral events, my sense is that humans behave badly. It is only moral principles that prevent the worst in human nature from expressing itself. The current climate of immorality has expressed itself in some most heinous crimes imaginable. The probable loss of the human species is the most flagrant example.

    I wonder what Dawkins would advocate?
  • booklaw wrote: Capt. Planet, are you suggesting that MHA should find another religion to replace the "Christ movement", or that he find another, non-religion-based ethical system?

    If the former, why would we need a religion to develop an "organizing moral principle"? Why is it necessary to believe in a Supreme Being in order to live a moral and ethical life?

    Why must humans continue to act as primitive tribes (called "Jews", "Christians", "Muslims" etc.) and to war against the other tribes?

    I believe that religion generally has a negative affect on human society; it separates us and breeds fear, anger and contempt of persons who follow other religions. I think we'd all be much better off without it.
    Couldn't say it better myself.

    @Planet- Why do we need to replace religion with anything? Do we not have (for the most part) an innate sense of right and wrong that is further cultivated by good parenting, good teachers, society as a whole (as opposed to fragmented), etc.?

    And why do you speak as though we're on the verge of apocalypse and we're all "going down" with Dawkins?
  • booklaw wrote: Why must humans continue to act as primitive tribes (called "Jews", "Christians", "Muslims" etc.) and to war against the other tribes?

    I believe that religion generally has a negative affect on human society; it separates us and breeds fear, anger and contempt of persons who follow other religions. I think we'd all be much better off without it.
    But isn't this a function of human nature and not religion? Its not like there weren't tribes or wars in isolated societies where everyone had the same beliefs. Religion is just another reason for us to hate, not the only reason we hate.
  • I have to admit that is true... people hate others over their color, their sexual preference, their socioeconomic status... but you don't see wars starting over those issues.

    Consider the Sunni versus the Shia in Iraq, the Christians versus the Muslims in the Crusades, and of course the "Aryans" versus the Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe.

    The only other factor I can think of that has similar power is, literally, tribes... such as the Hutu versus the Tutsi in Africa.
  • Capt. Planet wrote: Would you say Buddihism or Jainism or The Society of Friends have a negative effect on people?

    Where if not in a religious context do we discuss issues of morality and ethics? Without regular attendance at moral events, my sense is that humans behave badly. It is only moral principles that prevent the worst in human nature from expressing itself. The current climate of immorality has expressed itself in some most heinous crimes imaginable. The probable loss of the human species is the most flagrant example.

    I wonder what Dawkins would advocate?
    Interesting that the most vocally religious segment of our society (the religious right) is also the most in denial about climate change (or maybe they just don't care because they're look forward to the "end times"). I think Dawkins made it quite clear what he would advocate in the video I posted above.

    A relevant link regarding morality in Christian mythology:
    http://i.imgur.com/PTpOj.jpg
  • I was once on a train and heard a very muscular man collecting money for the United Homeless Organization. At the end of his pitch he talked about how Jesus Christ, his lord and savior, rescued him from a life of mugging, robbery, and crack addiction. This dude was easliy 6 feet 2 inches tall, 240 pounds. I looked him up and down and said to myself, 'Jesus H. Christ, thank Gawd for Jesus!' If HE needs Jesus to keep him on the straight and narrow, then let him pray until his head hurts. Me, I don't need Jesus to forestall raping, robbery, and crack use. I think that human beings can use the law and rational thought to determine what is ethical behavior, and what is socially productive behavior. EVERY moral tenet of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam, and EVERY religion you can think of can be found in earlier cultures that PRECEDED those religion's existence. This doesn't necessarily mean that those religions borrowed from other cultures and civilizations -- though in many cases such is the case, but it infers that humanity does not need the word of any god to determine what is right and what is wrong. Jesus didn't come down from the sky and write the Constitution of the United States, which, I contend, is one of the most sacred documents every created.

    If Captain Planet needs the concept of an all powerful god that will punish him/her if he does wrong, then let him have it. God forbid we prove to him there is no god, and he runs up and down Franklin Avenue robbing, raping, and killing.

    What an incredible ahistorical irony to be living in the United States of America, a nation whose laws were founded by individuals who for the most part valued rational thought, and who saw the wisdom of limiting religious influence in the law; to live in this country and see that people like Captain Planet believe that only the church has an authority on morality. Is it me or is that truly a HUGE contradiction??
  • MHA, you are entirely correct. The only minor caveat I would add is where you say, "If Captain Planet needs the concept of an all powerful god that will punish him/her if he does wrong, then let him have it."

    I would add the following to that, "(unless, of course, that all powerful god defines 'wrong' as 'living in harmony with people who believe in other all powerful gods, or in no gods at all')."
  • agreed. In the latter situation, one should create a different god.
  • Agreed....
  • Aliens won!

    http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59844

    They got twice as many votes as "I don't know".

    The Holy Trinity gone none!
  • So we don't have to worry about going to Hell...

    just anal probes (oy!)...
  • booklaw wrote: So we don't have to worry about going to Hell...

    just anal probes (oy!)...
    On the Simpson's, Homer was about to be abducted and dropped his pants in preparation ....they told him they had learned everything they had needed through prior research on other abductees.

    ....so I'm not worried about the anal probes.
  • In response, I give you Newton Minnow:
    But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day... Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
  • Making your way in the world today takes everything you've got.
    Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.

    Wouldn't you like to get away?

    Sometimes you want to go

    Where everybody knows your name,
    and they're always glad you came.
    You wanna be where you can see,
    our troubles are all the same
    You wanna be where everybody knows
    Your name.

    You make recognize these words from the TV show Cheers. Many of us fantasize about a place "where everybody knows your name".

    Sadly, most bars are more interested in your money than your inner life, the same can be said of most prostitutes, for that matter.

    When it comes to real community, I think you need to look elsewhere. One obvious place is a church. A church can be come a real community. It does require however, unlike a bar or a prostitute, certain sacrifices, other than just money, though that may be required too. It requires giving up some of your freedom, your range of opportunities, realizing that certain behaviors are off-limits. I believe that only through sacrifice of freedom can we obtain real commitment and connection. Those of you who are married or in a commited relationship have some idea of what I speak.

    Freedom is in my opinion, just an illusion, as in Kristofferson's classic line "Freedom is just having nothing left to lose".

    If we agree to sacrifice some of our freedom for the betterment of the community, wonderful things can happen.

    Last week I was walking down Park Place near the Franklin Shuttle when I heard this sustained blast of a car horn. I looked down on the street below and saw one car following another just inches from its bumper with the owner laying on the horn continuously.

    To me, that car owner's childish temper tantrum is a classic case of someone refusing to give up their freedom to create a better community. My almost being run over on Carlton Avenue last week by a motorist running a red light is another example.

    As Prof. Dawkins waxes philosophical about a "rational discourse on ethics", our expectation of what constitutes civil behavior is just getting lower and lower.

    Does it take fear of an all powerful Creator to prevent chaos in society. Historically I would argue, such was the case.

    If that's no longer true, how do we create an alternative? To do nothing is just a cop out, like relying aliens or having some fantasy that a rational discourse on ethics will somehow just happen of its own accord.
  • OSJ....
  • OSJ Opera San Jose (San Jose, California)
    OSJ Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (SEC)
    OSJ Order of St. John of Jerusalem (Knights of Malta)
    OSJ Orchestra of St John's (London, UK)
    OSJ Oblates of St. Joseph (religious order)
    OSJ Ocean Science Journal (Korea)
    OSJ Open Stub J-Pole (amateur radio antenna)
    OSJ Order of the Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes, and Malta
    ?????????
  • No,
    Oh Sweet Jesus, someone (besides Steve) needs thorazine and a straight jacket

    and,

    Oh Sweet Jesus look at this judgmental holier than thou screed.
  • MHA, I am truly impressed... I had no idea you had a sense of humor!
  • Damn, now you did it MHA. You hurt my feelings. I guess I'll have to abandon my post to the gutter snipers and self-appointed cognizantees.
    Lurkers, here's your chance to join the fray. Gird up your loins and jump into these snark-infested waters. You've got nothing to lose but your self-respect and common sense.
    Enjoy. I'm out of here.

    PS. Don't bet on it :)
  • So CP, do I understand correctly that you are arguing not in religion as a source of "morality" but as a useful means of social control? If so, you have a point.

    However a rational discourse on ethics happening on its own accord leading to changes in morality that conflict with traditional Abrahamic "morality" is something that has already occurred. Dawkins provided several examples of this (belief in women's equality and rights, belief that slavery is wrong, belief that people shouldn't be killed for apostasy). Many of the current battles going on today, such as the battle to end discrimination against homosexuals in our society, continue this process of rational discourse on ethics trumping traditional Abrahamic "morality." This is hardly a "cop out."
  • CP said -- "...gird up your loins..."?
    OSJ

    CP - I'm a 'gutter sniper' because I am critical of fairy tales??! You've got to be kidding. For those not in the know, being called a 'gutter sniper' is akin to be called filthy human being. I think the etymology is British, so I am thinking CP is British, or from the Eastern Caribbean -- likely Barbados. IF CP is from Barbados then it makes sense that s/he and I would have protracted conflict. I am from an isle genetically predisposed to absolutely loathe Eastern Caribbean people. That being said, what an irony that CP thinks that to engage in DISCOURSE with said gutter-snipes like me would lead to a loss in self-respect and COMMON SENSE; wow.

    Ad hominem never works bub. Rational discourse always prevails. As I said, '325AD, Council of Nicene' look it up.
  • booklaw wrote: And why do you speak as though we're on the verge of apocalypse and we're all "going down" with Dawkins?
    From our favorite paper of record, the NY Times:

    Scientists warn that unless more is done quickly to protect species, extinctions will spike and the intricately interconnected natural world will be damaged with devastating consequences.

    Read more at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/world/asia/19tokyo.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=biodiversity&st=cse
  • Carnivore wrote: So CP, do I understand correctly that you are arguing not in religion as a source of "morality" but as a useful means of social control? If so, you have a point.

    However a rational discourse on ethics happening on its own accord leading to changes in morality that conflict with traditional Abrahamic "morality" is something that has already occurred. Dawkins provided several examples of this (belief in women's equality and rights, belief that slavery is wrong, belief that people shouldn't be killed for apostasy). Many of the current battles going on today, such as the battle to end discrimination against homosexuals in our society, continue this process of rational discourse on ethics trumping traditional Abrahamic "morality." This is hardly a "cop out."
    A church meeting is a regularly occuring event that provides a forum for reflection on ethics and morality.

    If the church is dead or dying, where do we get a recurring opporunity to disucss these matters?

    Is it this forum?

    OMG!!!
  • MHA wrote: CP said -- "...gird up your loins..."?
    OSJ

    CP - I'm a 'gutter sniper' because I am critical of fairy tales??! You've got to be kidding. For those not in the know, being called a 'gutter sniper' is akin to be called filthy human being. I think the etymology is British, so I am thinking CP is British, or from the Eastern Caribbean -- likely Barbados. IF CP is from Barbados then it makes sense that s/he and I would have protracted conflict. I am from an isle genetically predisposed to absolutely loathe Eastern Caribbean people. That being said, what an irony that CP thinks that to engage in DISCOURSE with said gutter-snipes like me would lead to a loss in self-respect and COMMON SENSE; wow.

    Ad hominem never works bub. Rational discourse always prevails. As I said, '325AD, Council of Nicene' look it up.
    You might consider actually responding to my observations, rather than labelling them a "holier than thou screed".

    Carnivore seemed to rise to the occasion. How about MHA?
  • MHA rises to all of the occasions.

    You seem to poo-poo the idea that ideas about what's right and wrong can be discussed on this forum. I disagree with you of course. The absolutism you seem so wedded to, seems best chipped away in such a forum as this where NOBODY knows your name (to allude to your Cheers reference), and where there can be a give and take without the hallelujahs, the thrashing, the tambourines, without the rawed-throat screams, and the discordant noise of 'worship' and prostrations.

    You don't raise the notion that if more people were to turn to THEIR spiritual beliefs that would aid the world, but that if they turn to YOUR spiritual belief, it will. Implicit in such a perspective is an arrogance that has always been in Christianity, and ironically, while you claim it's the key to our salvation, it has been for quite some time the cause of most of the world's pain.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Maynard, the young man who saw demons sitting on tree limbs
  • MHA-

    I think the Capt is ok with me disclosing that several people on this forum know his real name. He does not hide.

    ....I say that as a fellow moral atheist. One whom played a role in hopefully getting Mr. Maynard into a better spot.
  • And?

    What does knowing Cap's real name have to do with anything?

    What's a 'moral atheist'? Heck, what's an immoral atheist? Or an amoral atheist? Atheists come in flavors now? Any country and western atheists out there?
  • To me the term "moral atheist" suggests someone who lives by a moral code, in spite of (or because of) his lack of religious belief.

    I would like to think the term applies to me as well.
  • We ALL live by a moral code. It's called 'The Law'. There is the NY Penal Code, which is available online, there's the U.S. Constitution -- also available online. Neither one of them requires worship, or interpretation from some other language. They are both written in English.
  • Well, MHA, you allege that this is a forum wherein no one knows each other's names.

    As I have before, I am pointing out that you are incorrect.

    You also seem to allege that Capt is somehow forcing his beliefs on others, or judging them to be inferior to his. I have yet to pick up this vibe from his writing.

    To me, he seems to say when it comes to church, "you take the good with bad". I.E In exchange for listening to someone try to instill religion in him, he gets the benefit of a community which he feels is very positive to his well being, and makes him think.

    As someone who is not religious, and doesn't believe there is a god, I clearly don't feel the need to make such a tradeoff. .....but you should not infer that I think less of those who do.

    It's getting close to lunch time, so here's a food analogy:

    Religions and churches are like restaurants, all serving different flavors.

    Many of us have a consistent preference (i.e. a religion), but we all must eat. I have rarely met anyone who is able to eat the same thing their entire life.

    Even though I am an atheist and believe man invented religion (aka "god as he is known by a given culture"), who am I to tell someone that they should not go to church/temple/mosque?

    ...In fact, I often think the opposite. Usually I am just psyched that people (in this case, Capt Planet) have found someplace to get their needs met.

    Yes, as Booklaw points out, my use of the terms "moral atheist" comes from the vibe on this thread that someone needs an outside force to make them moral. With regard to myself, I don't feel the need for any such outside force.

    With regard to others, I'm willing to watch people try out whatever religions, yoga positions, and therapies available until their needs are met.

    [exploitive cults would be an obvious exception]

    If I ever feel the gaul to judge religious people, I hope it'll be when I'm at the end of my life. ....only then will I be confident enough to state that I won't someday need to participate in religion in order to feel a sense of self and purpose.

    I believe the saying is "fake it until you make it". ....and I think we are all faking it.
  • MHA wrote: OSJ
    You are free to worship him if you want.

    He's the spanish guy who sweeps the floor at my office.
  • Dude, can't we keep the peace? Must you start up with me again? Seriously. Can't you just chill out?
  • I'm talking about religion, god, and morality.

    Above, you said you'd rise to the occasion.
    MHA rises to all of the occasions.
  • Yeah, I'll rise up on the the high road and you can take the low road.
  • Take whatever road you want. ....just don't tell others they can't take their own.
    Capt. Planet wrote:
    As Prof. Dawkins waxes philosophical about a "rational discourse on ethics", our expectation of what constitutes civil behavior is just getting lower and lower.

    Does it take fear of an all powerful Creator to prevent chaos in society. Historically I would argue, such was the case.

    If that's no longer true, how do we create an alternative? To do nothing is just a cop out, like relying aliens or having some fantasy that a rational discourse on ethics will somehow just happen of its own accord.
    Capt seems to believe that such discourses can only happen in person.

    ...he has a point.

    P.S. The law sucks as a moral code. History is rife with example of things being The Law, yet being completely immoral.
  • He has 'a' point. That's right; one of many points to have. I'm not telling CP what to do. In fact, I said in an earlier post, do what works for you.
  • really?
    MHA wrote: No,
    Oh Sweet Jesus, someone (besides Steve) needs thorazine and a straight jacket

    and,

    Oh Sweet Jesus look at this judgmental holier than thou screed.
    That's not how you this came across to me in response to the Capt's "where are we going to hash this crap out, if not in church?" Cheers post.

    He seems to find his church to be a place where he can find people who care about the world.....
  • I believe it is important that one's moral code extend beyond legal obligations. We have duties to one another which are not prescribed in statutes or the Constitution.
  • booklaw wrote: I believe it is important that one's moral code extend beyond legal obligations. We have duties to one another which are not prescribed in statutes or the Constitution.
    Yes, while it provides a framework, it is a living document.

    ....for example, once we as a society "realized" that blacks were fully human, we interpreted the Constitution to cover rights for "them".

    Ditto women.

    ...and a bunch of other folks.

    We also passed things like the Civil Rights act ....because apparently people needed it spelled out, even though it was already in the Constitution.

    .....yes, if we all merely relied on the law for our sense of morality, our laws would never evolve. There would never be the conversation that Capt envisions.

    ....the same goes for religion: If we all merely relied on ONE religion for our sense of morality, and/or that religion did not welcome debate and discussion, our society would never evolve.

    ...There would never be the conversation that Capt envisions. (we've already pointed out that religion has slacked throughout history as well).

    Sticking with my Civil rights analogy, MLK used religion to awaken the country's moral conscience. .....on the other hand, Malcolm X was clearly not a big fan of religion and god, yet got lots done as well.

    So, while I am lunch, please let me know whether I am more like Malcolm than MLK.

    k thx
  • Malcolm X was clearly not a big fan of religion and god, yet got lots done as well
    I think its fairer to say he wasn't a big fan of Christianity as it is taught to blacks in this country. He was a deeply religous man, especially after his break from Elijah Mohammad and his movement towards more mainstream Islamic teachings.
  • homeowner wrote:
    Malcolm X was clearly not a big fan of religion and god, yet got lots done as well
    I think its fairer to say he wasn't a big fan of Christianity as it is taught to blacks in this country. He was a deeply religous man, especially after his break from Elijah Mohammad and his movement towards more mainstream Islamic teachings.
    agreed.

    ...now must go to lunch and wait for MHA to rise.
  • While I love the idea of having a forum to discuss morality (even if this forum is supposed to be about Steve Maynard), I am disappointed in the above squabbling. If ad hominem is fallacious, and rational discourse the apex of logic and reason, few here have demonstrated this to be so.

    That said, CP is nuts.
    But I swear to god I'm kidding!
  • alas, such productive discourses can only happen in person.
  • PittieCity wrote:
    That said, CP is nuts.
    But I swear to god I'm kidding!
    How am I nuts, all kidding aside?
    I'd love details.
    And yes I agree this forum would work better in person.


  • *walks in*

    second & last of third verse! love Braille! cheap promo! :P found the IV! (sorry Im just goofy)

    *exits dapping everyone up*
  • booklaw wrote: I believe it is important that one's moral code extend beyond legal obligations. We have duties to one another which are not prescribed in statutes or the Constitution.
    As in "you can't legislate morality". Unless society is interested in putting a camera at every traffic signal and stop sign. Sounds prohibitatively expensive.

    In all but the most extreme cases, society of necessity must rely on a social contract to ensure basic civility.

    I have been arguing, with little apparent sucess, in the forum at least, that the social contract is unraveling.

    If we can accept the premise that the social contract is in need of repair and that law enforcement is hopeless if a signficant percentage of the population has no respect for the law, then my question is: how do we restore respect for the law and repair the social contract?

    Many would say they have a moral code, as WN31 has, but personally I think that unless there is some regular reinforcement, the moral code takes a backseat to self-interest. There are a million and one things that we know we should do, like avoid fatty food, or drive our car less, or smoke fewer cigarettes, or not cheat on our wife/girlfriend, etc. , But how many of us are capable of doing this without some regular encouragement? How many alcoholics need AA to stay sober?

    So ultimately we can all talk trash here on this forum. But I think in your heart, you know it's just that: trash.

    Seriously.
  • responded via PM

  • Subject: Self Interest and Morality


    Captain Planet, you write as if there is some necessary conflict between self-interest and morality. I respectfully disagree. At one point in my life, I was a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I read everything she wrote, including the newsletter that she started, the Intellectual Activist. She coined a phrase that I think says it all: 'Rational Self Interest'. She also compiled some of her essays, and speeches on the subject, as well as excerpted one of her novels (I believe it was Atlas Shrugged) into a thin reader-friendly book titled 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.




    Simply put CP, it's in my SELF INTEREST to say 'good morning' to you and to treat you and your property with respect, because I want MY PROPERTY and myself to treated with respect as well; that behavior, is RATIONAL (ergo, rational self interest).




    I think Rand was one of the last century's most interesting people. She had major flaws, but I appreciate how she linked interest with morality, and came up with a philosophical theory as to why one's morality can flow from one's (selfish) interests.




    Take an owner of a piece of property; let's say a house, or a small restaurant. It is in that person's interest to keep her house/restaurant clean because the cleaner it is, the more it would likely attract people to come inside who appreciate the fact that the house/restaurant is clean, and likely the food cooked there is cooked with care. Now, IDEALLY, the owner might appreciate things that look clean over things that don't look clean. But INDEPENDENT of what the owner appreciates, there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between cleanliness and the likelihood of guests/customers patronizing her home/business. So here, morality can be seen as an act of RATIONAL (self interested) THOUGHT.




    Rationality is the act of deducing EFFECT from cause, and inducing the correct CAUSE from effect. There is no need of church, or god here. Our proprietor doesn't need Jesus to tell her that if she keeps her house/business clean, and respects her guests/customers, that they will have high regard for her home/business and give her respect. HER BRAIN CAN DO THAT. The guests/customers themselves don't need a god to tell them to do the same thing either. Likewise any property owner -- of any SORT of property -- does not need to treat other property with respect because IDEALLY, that is what they want to do. They need to respect another's property because they want their property respected as well. 'Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you'. Again, this is rational self interest. This rational self interest principle is applicable to everything. To how we treat ourselves, and how we treat our fellow man.




    In my opinion where there has been a break down in morality (and civility) it has a great deal to do with the fact that there is a breakdown in a sense of propriety for the world that we live in. I could go on about this, but I have so far written much...

  • Hahaha... Write a whole book about it! I'd read it.
  • But PittieCity, would you buy it? It's not worth writing if there is no gain from it, and why ought it to be written just because I want to? I need to write it in presumption that there is a willing market for it.

    The problem with those whom we call liberals is that there is a separation of ideals from propriety. Propriety is a concept that can have as its base property, or a 'sense of property', or both. It has been my experience as a resident of this community that concern of it is based upon ownership primarily. That being said, the primary cause of Brooklyn's woes is that many of those who own property have little sense of propriety. They are, for the most part, absentee landlords and landladies, and they have no sentiment for that which they have title, so of course, the serfs on their land follow suit...

    Just imagine if they took a vested interest in the property - and when they do -- i.e. when the market dictates that they do -- then things begin to change. What if they were impelled to? What if there was a constant vigilance that the law obligated, whether the market was lucrative or not? Then, like every aspect of the social contract we make with our fellow man, the prospect of ownership would take own Uncle Ben-like proportions: "With great power comes great responsibilities..." -- NOT only when the market dictates...

    There are laws against HOW property is managed. There are laws that govern the TYPE of property and businesses which exist in proximity to schools, and churches. I contend that there ought to be laws which govern HOW commercial property is owned in close proximity to residential property. If your commercial property is fallow for too long a time, then something besides market forces ought to dictate whether it remains that way. There are collateral effects that result because of a closed shutter... Ought we not to govern that?

    Listen to the rhetoric of the free marketeers that will follow... I ask you, where doth there meat come from? There corn and their grain, their fowl and their beef? The same sheep that bleat about the sanctity of the free market no doubt ate meat procured at bargain basement prices as a result of government subsidy and artificial prices. There rhetoric is as specious as can possibly be imagined. They have no argument. We all live in a government-subsidized yellow submarine, and that is just the way it is. CTK is correct: It is all economic, but the economic dictates are arbitrary, and they function to serve the interests of a specific class of people.

  • Subject: Re: Self Interest and Morality


    "MHA" wrote: Rationality is the act of deducing EFFECT from cause, and inducing the correct CAUSE from effect. There is no need of church, or god here....


    Right about the time that Ayn Rand was concocting her compelling if superficial theories, a guy down the road at Princeton was working on another set of theories, the theories of relativity.


    They along with subsequent musings like quantum mechanics and string theory, laid to rest forever the quaint ideas of Rand about the absolute connection between cause and effect. In a world where energy and matter are interchangeable, where a rock (of plutonium) can be changed into a staggering amount of energy in an instant, what makes you so smuggly certain that you or anyone can comprehend the workings of the universe.


    Now we have movies like the Matrix and Inception that are beginning to interpret the implications of the new reality. Movies that play games with what is real, that state, like the Matrix, that reality is an illusion planted in our brains by outside controllers, and Inception, that suggest dreams can be a real as waking experiences.


    Interestingly, the Bible predates all of these discoveries. Job is made a fool of because he assumes he understands the workings of the universe. He wrongly assumes that all of his worldy success is the result of his own hard work. In a test put to him by Satan, God takes away all of Job's worldly success and Job is eventually forced to realize that his only source of strength is God. At one point, God taunts Job (Chapter 38, verse 4) "Where did you happen to be when I founded the Earth?"


    As is often the case in the Old Testement, human pride swiftly leads to human downfall. I'm sure the current excesses of society will be dealt with similarly.

  • Would that also include talking about Albert Einstein and the Wachowski brothers? Just trying to get the guidelines clear here.
  • Capt. Planet wrote: Would that also include talking about Albert Einstein and the Wachowski brothers? Just trying to get the guidelines clear here.
    There's no need to be deliberately obtuse.
  • The difference is that you aren't preaching about Einstein or Ayn Rand... you are proselytizing about religion (and I think you know that).
  • Carnivore wrote: [quote=Capt. Planet]Would that also include talking about Albert Einstein and the Wachowski brothers? Just trying to get the guidelines clear here.
    There's no need to be deliberately obtuse.

    Precisely what do you mean? I'm a little illiterate on Mondays.
  • Capt. Planet wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=Capt. Planet]Would that also include talking about Albert Einstein and the Wachowski brothers? Just trying to get the guidelines clear here.
    There's no need to be deliberately obtuse.

    Precisely what do you mean? I'm a little illiterate on Mondays.
    Read Booklaw's comment above.
  • Ok. let me review the rules here.

    I can't talk about real estate because as I broker, I might benefit financially. Check, got it.

    I can't talk about religion because as an avowed Christian, I might convert somebody, which we Christians get points for, or so someone thinks. Check, got it.

    Let's check out some other possibilties.

    As a permaculturist, I can't talk about saving the planet. Reason, see above.

    As someone who ate a burger at Dutchboy last week, I can't talk about how scumptious it was because I might be a Carnivore. Reason, see above

    Geez, guys, don't you all have lives out there?

    I mean you must all reside in some hip dead zone, where the price of admission is checking all of your passions at the door.

    Sorry to awaken you from your reveries, but real things are happening in the world, whether you choose to participate or not.
  • non sequitur.
  • MHA wrote: non sequitur.
    Succinct and accurate. :lol:
  • Perhaps if you thought about it a bit you might see the connections.

    I reflected on MHA's Ayn Rand post for two days before responding.
  • Maybe you ought to start a new thread CP. Seriously. As our discourse about religion has no bearing on the tree branch breaker thread.

    MOD NOTE: This discussion has now been split off to its own thread. For more tree branch breaker discussion, that thread continues here.
  • CP, you have Bill O on your side...



    Check out the part starting at 1:38. It sounds a lot like some of the points you've made here.
  • You can point to it Bill?
  • Interesting. I was just watching Cate Blanchette portray Queen Elizabeth I. While being tortured in the Tower of London by her half-sister Mary's henchmen, Kate pleads "why can't we just believe in God, not a Protestant God or a Catholic God." This was of course heresy at the time, and many a good Protestant was burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy.

    Of course that was mid-16th century, and we are now far more civilized. Instead we have idealogues arguing that if you're a rational modern progressive you know that science trumps religion and that the two are incompatible.

    Yet many advanced scientists seem to be leaning in just the opposite direction. I'm not talking about your high school biology teacher, but astronomers, astro-physicists and the like. The more you learn about the smallest particles and the largest expanses of the universe, the more you understand that you don't understand.

    Rather than taking the position of Dawkins, that eventually science will figure it all out, why not accept that science and religion, rather than being incompatible, can actually co-exist, just as Catholics and Protestants do now?
  • Yawn.

    I don't think science will figure it all out. I don't think Dawkins believes we'll figure it all out either.
  • Well here's the thing: Let us say, for the sake of argument, there is a god -- and by that we mean that a sentient being who created the world and all on it -- where in any of that is there a NEED for worship? My mother and father, in a sense, created me, and there is no worship there. There is, if anything a DIALOGUE with them to discern the inherent and learned things that make up me; i.e. RATIONAL exchange.

    What you contend is that just because we are 'created', we are to be prostrate and say continually, 'Behold, the creator!'. That's not even a jump of FAITH Capn' Planet, that's a jump in REASONING.

  • MHA, relax no one would ever want you to do something you didn't want to do, certainly not prostrate yourself before a creator.


    I'm only suggesting that religion was developed by folks as a way of strengthing their tribe against other tribes, among other reasons.


    I would propose that the Jews prevailed over their peers because of their superior moral code. The ten commandments, the Torah, etc., set them apart from the other tribes in the region and as it turns out, improved their survival chances. I mean the A'iites, the Lachishites and the Libnahites are hardly household names, yet few would say they've never heard of Jews.


    All of the restrictions embodied in the Torah, the kosher laws, the many laws and covenants in Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, all kept the Jews walking the straight and narrow while other tribes partied and hung out.


    So, sure, submitting to a Creator is a pain in the butt, but it works, if you're goal is long term survival.


    Right about now, I'd say the majority of the human race seems to be a death march. If you want to be a part of the party hardy crowd, then keep on your prideful path. It seems you want have long to wait to see the consequences.


  • Capt. Planet wrote:


    religion was developed by folks as a way of strengthing their tribe against other tribes, among other reasons.


    Among those other reasons are often these:


    1) To explain the existence of earth, the sky and all other things, giving a beginning to it all (noble myth or otherwise)


    2) To explain how we as humans fit in that context and to establish some sort of purpose to peoples' lives and connection to others.


  • yes, folks get their PhDs in discussing the origin of the various religions.


    I've always found the various theories/analysis regarding why specific religions were formed as related to their time in history and their place of origin to be interesting.


    ....Basically, those who study such things posit that the various religions evolved in order to meet the specific issues and questions that their stakeholders wrestled with.


    Here's a paper that discusses the present evolution of religion in the US. I'm not sure I agree with it all, but it certainly seems topical:


    http://www.ku.dk/satsning/religion/indhold/publikationer/working_papers/what_is_happened.pdf


    Just a little light reading :)


  • jeffrey wrote:


    Capt. Planet wrote:


    religion was developed by folks as a way of strengthing their tribe against other tribes, among other reasons.


    Among those other reasons are often these:


    1) To explain the existence of earth, the sky and all other things, giving a beginning to it all (noble myth or otherwise)


    2) To explain how we as humans fit in that context and to establish some sort of purpose to peoples' lives and connection to others.


    Jeff:


    I totally agree. I was merely trying to respond to the practical issue of how we as a species survive into the next century. All of the reasons you sight are great and probably a lot more engaging to folks than the fear of imminent destruction that seemed the preferred motivator of the Old Testament God. When times are hard, as they often were for the early Israelites, and for modern humans, the fun stuff drops away and the instinctive drive for self-preservation kicks in.


  • Yeah, since the topic kind of opened up there I was just fleshing out some of the "among other reasons" you alluded to...the basic ontological stuff that's existed since humans first pondered things in their caves and has occupied peoples' thoughts ever since.


    Lots of other reasons in addition to all these for the origins and rise of religion and spirituality, naturally.


  • I would propose that the Jews prevailed over their peers because of their superior moral code.


    Not with how awful they were (and we as Christians even are!). They prevailed over their peers mostly because: GOD SAVES. I just read Jeremiah 29 with my wife yesterday. Man, the Jews should of been obliterated times and times again. I think we both agree with that, but I don't anyone thinking lawkeeping is a determining factor in presevering or prevailing. The Book of Job?


    So, sure, submitting to a Creator is a pain in the butt, but it works, if you're goal is long term survival.


    I'm going to post the following for a number of reasons:


    • It will address what prompts my worship of God. Jesus saved me from sin, death, and Hell. I love to say "Thank You" often. but even my "thank you" is fallen. I am SO not holier than thou. lol. Worship is every second not just Sunday in a building. It's hard cuz I'm prideful, but where sin abounds, His grace abounds all the more.

    • With that, it will address why I take Eph 2:8-10 serious: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

    • With that, it will address my little involvement in this thread. And how I long to carry on a face to face conversation of this magnitude with Capt Planet, MHA, etc.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV5muLJzlzc


    Actions Speak Louder is a song that will be sold on iTunes on 11/16/10, with 100% of the proceeds being donated to His Voice Global to build a fourth orphanage in a war torn country that has left over 2 Million dead and many orphaned. Speak loud for orphans in Southern Sudan!



    Peep It! Peace. :D

This discussion has been closed.