User Profile: IONNES

IONNES

Member Since: April 05, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123
  • November 7, 2013 at 12:51pm

    continued
    For example when the WHO did a study to determine which countries had the best health care they decided that if in country A there were two people who had heart attacks, one who could afford good insurance and one who couldn’t so one died and one lived, That country is doing worse than a country where both people died (rich and poor) because there was equity. Tell me which country would you rather live in? Where some people survive heart attacks or where all die? I realize that’s an over simplification but it goes to the heart of the matter. How do you determine what is, or is not beneficial?
    That’s the crux of it. How do you decide without a standard?

  • November 7, 2013 at 12:50pm

    continued
    And you then miss the character building that comes with actually dealing with hurting people. But you get the sense of self-righteousness (not speaking of you specifically) that can be so dangerous to your salvation.
    “So, no capital punishment then?”
    Capital punishment is not murder.
    “What if someone is threatening your family, or an innocent?”
    There’s a difference between homicide (the non-natural taking of a life) and murder. Again the commandment is to not murder, not kill. It’s an important distinction.
    “Bottom line: The Bible was written by men,”
    Men as they were inspired by God. It is a matter of faith to believe that, but not blind faith.
    “… but it should not be your only source”
    What other source then? I’ve demonstrated how logic is not a reliable guide. Neither is consensus. Harm is also not definable in a strict fashion. And what about harm for society vs. harm for the individual, which takes precedence? Without an objective source, morals are only opinions. There is really no way to get around that. For example, when you site studies (or allude to studies) that say that gay parenting might be better than straight parenting, what standards did they use to judge better? Is more excepting of homosexuals part of that?
    to be continued…

  • November 7, 2013 at 12:49pm

    Harry,
    “ If man truly has free will, this has to be true.”
    If man has free will then it is equally true that they could have written exactly as they were inspired. I would also argue that those who wrote it, because of the inspiration were not likely to mess with the message. If God said to you that you should tell someone something, would you change the message? Unlikely due to the power God would express in inspiring you. It’s not like I told you to write it and you decide, whatever, I’ll write what I want. We are talking about the holy, omnipotent God here.
    “I happen to like the overall message of love and helping your fellow man.”
    That’s not the overall message. It’s in there, but that’s not the main point the Bible is trying to make.
    “the Bible does not give enough direction on modern issues either”
    Well first of all, that’s not its purpose. Its purpose is to explain God’s plan of salvation. Part of the issue with interpretation is when people try to apply its principles where they never were intended to be applied. For example, people use the “give to the poor” message to justify government redistribution of wealth. That wasn’t the point. The point was that YOU should give to the poor. Not that you should take money from others and give that to the poor. If you push that off on the government you’re actually ignore the admonition to you personally. It makes it someone else’s job. to be continued…

  • November 6, 2013 at 7:00pm

    Harry,

    I would agree that non-religious people have morals, but as I said, without a objective source for your morals, they are really no more than opinion (even if I do agree with them).
    And again, it is your opinion that the Bible was written by fallible men. Man can have free will and the Bible can be God’s Word. The two aren’t mutually exclusive (at least I don’t see a reason for them to be).
    As to beard trimming, I’d be happy to discuss the finer points of theology with you (or anyone really, I do enjoy it) however this forum doesn’t really allow for the space necessary, nor is this the subject of this particular thread. I’m not sure if the Blaze’s forum allows for private messages but if it does you could send me a message and I’d be happy to trade emails with you. I’m not too thrilled at the prospect of trading them out in the open (I’m sure you’d agree that may not be wise). I will say that things like beard trimming aren’t really difficult to understand when you look at the Bible as if it is God’s word and not as though it’s a collection of things written by different people.

  • November 6, 2013 at 1:42pm

    continued…

    For example, personally I am not bothered by homosexual behavior. I’m not interested in it, but it doesn’t make me uncomfortable, or change my opinion of a person. I’ve always had gay friends (for well over 20 years). My brother is gay. Personally it’s a non-issue for me. However I do recognize that God calls it sin. My opinion doesn’t change that. My opinion doesn’t change the fact that God calls lying sin. They both are regardless of how I feel about them. If God calls it sin, then it’s wrong. That doesn’t mean that I think this country should legislate against it though (no bans on it). Gay marriage is different in that it is, at least from what I’ve seen, is more a matter of social acceptance than actual rights. I’m ok with everyone having the same rights. I just don’t want people to legislate acceptance of any behavior, and that’s what a large part of “the homosexual agenda” is about (again from what I’ve read).

  • November 6, 2013 at 1:41pm

    Harry,

    I agree that if your main goal in following any set of morals or rules is to avoid punishment then yes you’re not doing it for the right reason. In Christianity that’s generally referred to as legalism and is not a genuine path.

    You are also correct when you say that religion (or religious texts) have been misused to do harm to people. But if God is the source of what is and what isn’t moral then our response to Him should be to at least figure out what He wants. If He is our source we owe Him that. Our own logic is not capable of figuring it out. This is because people, all people, will justify things they like as not immoral. For example if you asked a racist if racism is wrong he would obviously not think so. People tend to draw their own moral lines where they are comfortable and then deciding that is what God is ok with. That in reality is idolatry. Once a person starts trying to decide what’s right and wrong based on their own comfort level they’ve created a god to suite themselves rather than the true God. It’s about them not him.

  • November 6, 2013 at 11:39am

    Harry,

    I’m sorry I was not trying to say that Atheists can’t be moral or aren’t moral. I tend, particularly in this format, to focus on the minutia of an argument rather than the big picture. Atheists, generally speaking, certainly are moral. They help in their communities, love their families, don’t steal or murder. And they believe those things are wrong. My point was that in an atheistic worldview there is really no reason for them to hold those positions. Their morals are inconsistent with their worldview.

    Logic or consensus don’t fit the bill as far as morals are concerned because they have, over the years, lead to things which we would both agree are not moral. Not to mention the fact that if morals are just rules that the society agrees on, then they really are not a moral standard but rather convention. And we certainly would have no right to say what another society decided was moral was immoral. Syria using chemical weapons on its own people is not immoral, it is just something we don’t like. Neither is Saudi Arabia oppressing women, or Hitler killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc., or Russia having strict anti-homosexual laws. I could go on for a while but I think you get the point.

    You have to have a universal, objective standard before something can be called immoral or moral. Without that it’s reduced to opinion.

  • November 5, 2013 at 8:53pm

    Harry,

    “I have arrived at through logic and reasoning.”

    Most of the world’s genocides were arrived at using logic.

    “Not harming others”

    What if harming one is helpful to others?

    “As to who dictates what is harm, … (scientists) should give a consensus.”

    So morality would be up for a vote and if scientists reasoned out that, say, group A needs to be eliminated (be that based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) that is moral?

    “Do any of you believe that an Atheist cannot be moral?”

    That actually isn’t the issue, the issue is why would an atheist believe in such things. All that counts to an atheist (or all that should). is survival value not how he/she interacts with others. If being nice increases your survivability than be nice. If killing others does, then kill. It’s not immoral for one animal to kill another for dominance of its group. If we are just animals there is no morality.

    “I know that the book was written by man, and is not the infallible word of God.”

    You believe this, you do not know it.

    “I base my morality on something beyond this book”

    You base it on your opinion. You have set yourself up as the arbitrator

    Don’t take this as an attack, I’m just presenting a different perspective to you. Clearly I am not saying any specific person is immoral, only that morality only exists as it relates to some objective source. Without the objective source morality is opinion, and if al

  • November 5, 2013 at 5:37pm

    @VoteBushIn12

    Being legal or illegal is not the same as being moral or immoral. For example, until recently there was a law in Texas that said sodomy was illegal. Did that law make it immoral? No, the law is a reflection of a morality.

    As far as your “things moral in the Bible are immoral in our society” thing, first of all, that’s irrelevant. If the Bible says that something is immoral (or moral) a person who believes the Bible would reject the society’s morals. As to some of the specifics, I’ll deal with the first one. The same author (Moses) who said that Abraham married his half sister also said that siblings shouldn’t marry. Either he believed two things were correct or reported something that happened without rendering a moral judgement or something that was once ok was now forbidden. The problem here isn’t the book itself, just the fact that you don’t want to understand it (and I can’t properly explain it given the confines of this forum). If you did those things wouldn’t be confusing to you.

    But the facts still remains that moral is not the same as legal (as I’m sure you would agree). So what makes something moral? Who defines what is good and bad without religion? Again, not legal or illegal, but moral and immoral.

  • November 5, 2013 at 2:20pm

    Harry,

    Who decides what is harm and what isn’t? Many insist that sex between adult men and young boys does no harm at all to the children. So, what is harm? How do we objectively decide that? Why is doing harm immoral? To a child a series of injections, or perhaps some other medical treatment is harm, but to the parent they might see it as necessary. Who decides? Harm can’t strictly be pain, because sometimes pain in necessary. But again, in brief, who decides what is harm and why is harm immoral?

  • November 5, 2013 at 11:56am

    Harry,

    Can you give me one non-religious reason why anything is wrong? Not illegal, but morally wrong. For something to be morally wrong there has to be a moral standard on which to base that on. Without an objective standard it simply becomes opinion.

  • September 10, 2013 at 4:23pm

    KANG: If that’s true why didn’t they arrest GZ? If he was beating his father in law wouldn’t there have been evidence that would have caused them to hold GZ? I think you spend too much time listening to left wing bloggers. According to CNN she called because he threatened her and her father. Not that he beat either one of them.

  • August 29, 2013 at 11:32am

    Philly,

    Clearly you think it’s still relevant. But you can’t demonstrate it is. You can’t even demonstrate that your spin on it was Atwater’s intent. As far as Matthews’ point, he has none. It’s all innuendo and projection. He says to oppose him you must be racist but never gives any real tangible reasons. Essentially you must prove your reasons aren’t based on race, his default assumption is that they are. Like the birther thing. I don’t think Mitt or Ted Cruz ever made any sort of suggestion that the President is an illegal alien (I don’t even think birthers make that claim). His arguments only pass muster if you agree with them before he says them.

  • August 28, 2013 at 2:03pm

    Philly,

    A couple things. First if you read the quote he’s essentially saying their policies could be used in a coded fashion. Not that they are code, not that he endorsed that idea (notice the use of the word if).

    Second, that quote is from an interview done 32 years ago from a man who died 22 years ago. Were you even old enough to vote when it was said? The President barely was able to vote. I was 9. So saying that the theorizing of a what a political strategy could be used for more than 3 decades ago is not exactly iron clad evidence that anyone who opposes the President is a racist.

    And on another note, do you subscribe to the idea that the only way for certain minorities to be able to make it in our society is for the government to spend money on them? Because that view seems inherently racist.

  • May 22, 2013 at 2:08pm

    Mick,

    Before I start I want to be clear that I’m not saying this was a good shoot. It may be a bad kill. I however want to question your statement, “He should have let himself be CHOKED to death first, that was his DUTY!”

    It’s his duty to allow himself to be murdered by a dirt bag, not to protect some innocent, but to protect the dirt bag? That’s essentially what you’re saying. Why do agents have guns? This seems like an unreasonable demand on the agent. How do you come up with the idea that it’s his duty to lay down and die rather than resist?

  • May 8, 2013 at 6:54pm

    Well I don’t know about Las Vegas but while it probably is technically illegal to park a motor cycle on the sidewalk of a shopping center I see it relatively frequently here. And I have never seen one with a ticket on it.

    I do have a problem with the way the officer handled the interaction with the child. He certainly displayed a “I can do it because I say so” attitude. That makes me think that if he saw someone else do it he would ticket the other person. He seemed to have disdain for the notion that he would be questioned by “one of the rabble.” As if it was wrong to ask him.

  • April 30, 2013 at 2:30pm

    Locked,

    Another thought on the translation. It seems to me that it makes more sense to command someone to go somewhere “within three days” than to rise from the dead “within three days.” The first is “hey get a move on and get there quickly” the second implies that the dead has some choice as to when they will rise from the dead. If Gabriel had said “rise in three days” you could view it that way but by using within instead of in it makes the second interpretation less likely.

  • April 30, 2013 at 1:17pm

    Locked,

    It may not mention Simon because the stone doesn’t actually say that Simon is the one who was commanded to rise. At least not in any part that is legible. Israel Knohl assumed that it referred to Simon.

    It should also be noted that there are those who believe the word “rise” could also be translated “show up” or “arrive” so the passage may be Gabriel commanding someone to go to a certain location.

  • April 30, 2013 at 1:06pm

    Not to be picky but it’s the Loch Ness monster. A loch is a lake (gaelic) and Ness is the loch’s name.

    I realize it’s a minor point and you were making a joke. Still…

  • April 29, 2013 at 7:44pm

    Encinom,

    What is a “good person” and how do you define “evil things” outside of God. Without God there is no good and evil there is only opinion. If there is no God then murder is no more evil then disliking a mango. Your position is logically flawed because it has no substance as it’s base. To argue that a good person does a bad thing you have to establish what makes a person good and the thing bad but without God those choice are only opinion.

123