| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2012 04:39:07 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by myqyl:
... But don't they have a right to be a stick in the mud and to read their rules from a stone tablet as long as they can't apply those rules to you and I? |
Like a wedding photographer refusing to photograph your wedding? |
I would certainly NOT want someone to shoot anyone/anything/any event of importance to me who did not want to shoot it. I doubt the photos would be great.
I don't shoot stuff I don't like to shoot (events, mainly) because I know I don't enjoy it, and my heart would not be in it.
If I vehemently disagreed with whatever I was shooting, I'm sure my photographs would not be up to even their normal level of [in]adequacy.
So... WHY would anyone want to hire someone to do ANY job that they knew the person didn't want to do? Why force them to do it? Do you think that that will force them to do a good job of it?
I think the opposite. |
|
|
|
12/07/2012 07:04:29 PM · #52 |
I'm not sure why it is always asked if a person would shoot a same sex wedding.
But as long as the General is asking... Should a gay owned advertising firm be forced to do an ad campaign for a group that wants to maintain heterosexual marriages?
If something is against your personal beliefs, then it should be a real matter of need if you are going to be asked to violate them.
A patient has a right to medical care. The doctor better step up.
Employment opportunities are a right. Employers better not discriminate.
I'm not sure having your picture taken by a specific imdividual is a right.
At the same time, I'd take the picture. Child rescue or not. (Though they may wish to have used a real photographer.). I do not believe ther is a test of worthiness to have me take your picture. I also believe that my taking your picture says nothing about my feelings about you, other than your poor taste in photographers.
Humor aside, I would not glorify gangs, drugs, hate, crime, or war. And no nekkid stuff. |
|
|
|
12/07/2012 08:25:55 PM · #53 |
I always thought the church was there to help the community and do what they can for the people especially people in need.
WELL in my neck of the woods (Bklyn) we got hit very hard buy hurricane Sandy.
WELL two religious groups really stepped up and helped in a HUGE way.
One group gave one person in each home renters included $600 (over 2000 people). The other group sent teams of people and spent
hundreds maybe even thousands of hours of time doing demo works on peoples house and helping them get back on with there lives.
Neither one of these groups asked for a dime nor did they try to convert anyone.
The ones that came and gave us money were the Buddhists the ones that donated all their time and hard work were the Mormons.
It really open my eyes and made me think.
We have 2 churches in our community one protestant and the other catholic.
I'm eternally grateful for what the Buddhist's and the Mormon's did for my friends, family and entire neighborhood. |
|
|
|
12/07/2012 09:07:49 PM · #54 |
| Was the Buddhist temple and Mormon ward local? |
|
|
|
12/07/2012 09:33:44 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'm not sure why it is always asked if a person would shoot a same sex wedding.
But as long as the General is asking... Should a gay owned advertising firm be forced to do an ad campaign for a group that wants to maintain heterosexual marriages?
If something is against your personal beliefs, then it should be a real matter of need if you are going to be asked to violate them.
A patient has a right to medical care. The doctor better step up.
Employment opportunities are a right. Employers better not discriminate.
I'm not sure having your picture taken by a specific imdividual is a right. |
like!
|
|
|
|
12/07/2012 09:39:03 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I always thought the church was there to help the community and do what they can for the people especially people in need.
WELL in my neck of the woods (Bklyn) we got hit very hard buy hurricane Sandy.
WELL two religious groups really stepped up and helped in a HUGE way.
One group gave one person in each home renters included $600 (over 2000 people). The other group sent teams of people and spent
hundreds maybe even thousands of hours of time doing demo works on peoples house and helping them get back on with there lives.
Neither one of these groups asked for a dime nor did they try to convert anyone.
The ones that came and gave us money were the Buddhists the ones that donated all their time and hard work were the Mormons.
It really open my eyes and made me think.
We have 2 churches in our community one protestant and the other catholic.
I'm eternally grateful for what the Buddhist's and the Mormon's did for my friends, family and entire neighborhood. |
I am glad you got the help you required. No matter where it came from, helping is a good thing to do. It is unfortunate but the christian churches missed an opportunity to serve in the name of Jesus.
The rest of my statement here is not directed right at the person I quoted above, But what everyone must understand about the church is it is full of sinners. Sinners saved by the grace of a loving God. Church goers are not perfect, in fact they are very messy people in regard to relationship. It is kind of like any family. You would think that blood is thicker than faith, but how many of you have difficult people in your families? How many gay people have been shunned by their own families? If the family that one is born into has a hard time getting along, how do you think that a community of people, made up of unrelated, sinful people will be made perfect in this present time?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2012 09:46:22 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Was the Buddhist temple and Mormon ward local? |
The were from both local and abroad. |
|
|
|
12/07/2012 10:25:39 PM · #58 |
| I appreciate the good press for all faith-based religious organization. I wondered if the parishioners of the local churches, being local, weren't just as overwhelmed by Sandy and in need of as much help as the rest of the neighborhood. |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 05:54:47 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate the good press for all faith-based religious organization. I wondered if the parishioners of the local churches, being local, weren't just as overwhelmed by Sandy and in need of as much help as the rest of the neighborhood. |
In these parts, the church is usually located on the highest part of the land (a beacon of sorts) and thus would probably not suffer the same types of damages normally caused by rising waters.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 09:38:23 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate the good press for all faith-based religious organization. I wondered if the parishioners of the local churches, being local, weren't just as overwhelmed by Sandy and in need of as much help as the rest of the neighborhood. |
I have to step up and say that I have seen and been part of many good things done by churches and the people that populate them. My problem, and it is most certainly mine, is that I cannot tolerate absolute authority. And sometimes when I see someone dig their heels in and try to get others' to do their bidding in the name of God, the church, or pretty much anything else that's a justification, I get hard-headed.
It's funny, 'cause the Unitarian church I attended for a while had the most liberal, wonderful, and idealistic outlook I've ever seen from a church. They worked really hard organizing, planning, and communicating their ideals and projects.
Problem was, they were so busy organizing, planning, and communicating that they spent at least twice the amount of time doing that as actually serving the community. They also got themselves wrapped up in these big world projects, which were wonderful, I went to Honduras on a mission because of them, but they don't know their neighbors across the street.
I ended up attending an inner-city church after that for some time, and that was where I learned what real service was all about. The old church is not in the best of repair, the people that work there, and I don't mean on Sunday mornings, are tireless and giving. These are not wealthy people, they're "ordinary" folks, though to me they appear as angels. They work with a half dozen local food banks to get their neighbors food, they run a clothing bank right on the premises, they have a small budget that they use for bus tickets to get people to welfare, doctor appointments, and job interviews. The pastor is there on these community days, Monday, Wednesday, & Friday, and this church doesn't care who you are or where you come from. If you're in need, genuine need, they're there for you.
This old church has been right where it is in the 'hood for about a hundred years, it's had who knows how many people in the pulpit, and I couldn't begin to tell you how many different denominations on the sign. What it is for many people is a place of help and hope.
For me, the building is God's house. He's had many caretakers, and many helpers, and the lines are blurred as to who and where the teachings come from......right now it's United Methodist & United Church of Christ for one service, and a later service by Unitarians. But what strikes me is that this church seems to be a haven of goodness and decency no matter whose name is on the sign.
The neighbor thing was never so apparent to me as it was one day a couple winters ago. The sky had dumped another 14" or so on the ground, and I left early for church figuring I'd help shovel. Well, it was so bad in town that services were cancelled. So I started to shovel. Nobody else from the congregation was there. I shoveled for about three hours.
Every......single.....person......who.....walked......by.......smiled.......and.....said.....hello.
When I see what a tremendously wonderful thing a church can do, and is so pure and simple, the crazy stuff makes me nuts. And that it's the exception rather than the rule.
There's an Evangelical Free church here in the area that just spent &10 million on what is one of the most ostentatious buildings I've seen in a long time. It saddens me every time I see it just thinking about how so much of that money could have been put to better use....
|
|
|
|
12/08/2012 10:08:27 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
But as long as the General is asking... Should a gay owned advertising firm be forced to do an ad campaign for a group that wants to maintain heterosexual marriages? |
I think a lot of the issue is the small business thing where the business and the person are not separated compared to a large company full of employees..... MOST (not all) people would think that services should not be withheld by large national companies because of the clients view or whatever but again most would think that a person should not be forced to do something against their belief's.
To me the answer is pretty simple but most don't agree.... If your in business and accepting money then you should not be able to refuse for personal beliefs. Personally, I would not want a person that does not want to be there either because it's not going to be good especially in a creative type environment. A business with one person... well... just needs to suck it up or arrange for tmp employees to step in or whatever. |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 11:34:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate the good press for all faith-based religious organization. I wondered if the parishioners of the local churches, being local, weren't just as overwhelmed by Sandy and in need of as much help as the rest of the neighborhood. |
In these parts, the church is usually located on the highest part of the land (a beacon of sorts) and thus would probably not suffer the same types of damages normally caused by rising waters.
Ray |
Who knows? But I wasn't talking about the churches, I was talking about the parishioners who attend the churches. Having able "boots on the ground" is often the hardest part of service. |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 06:16:38 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate the good press for all faith-based religious organization. I wondered if the parishioners of the local churches, being local, weren't just as overwhelmed by Sandy and in need of as much help as the rest of the neighborhood. |
In these parts, the church is usually located on the highest part of the land (a beacon of sorts) and thus would probably not suffer the same types of damages normally caused by rising waters.
Ray |
Who knows? But I wasn't talking about the churches, I was talking about the parishioners who attend the churches. Having able "boots on the ground" is often the hardest part of service. |
I can appreciate that, and I would have thought that when caught in a predicament such as this that they would congregate at the church and work from there.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/08/2012 07:10:57 PM · #64 |
| Maybe they did. It's hard to know. |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 12:29:35 AM · #65 |
I think your frame of reference has quite an influence on your behavior as based on your beliefs.
If I believe that the God in the Pentateuch declares homosexual behavior to be wrong, I have a choice - either agree with Him, or disagree with Him. That will, most likely, influence my behavior.
If I believe that there is no God, except as invented by humans to explain phenomenon they did not understand, then there is no ethical or moral dilemma - just personal preference. That also will influence my behavior.
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, I'd argue that you are held responsible for your behavior, regardless of your orientation. For example, if you are genetically oriented towards violent anger (and there is pretty good evidence this may be the case), you are still held responsible if you kill someone.
Failing that, we have such nonsense as "hate crimes" that are made illegal based on imputed thoughts (unknowable for certain), rather than observable, verifiable behavior (knowable, relatively certain).
It seems to me the ultimate hubris to judge God's rules, actions and motives, which according to the Judeo-Christian scriptures is the original sin, the downfall of the evil one, as well as the original temptation of Eve - to be like God, knowing good from evil.
But, even Paul, one of the major leaders of early Christianity, described himself as the "chiefest of sinners" - at least in part because of his killing early Christ-followers because he thought they were wrong and he was right (and better than them) - based on his religious beliefs.
Jesus was criticized (by the Jewish religious leaders) for eating with sinners and prostitutes - eating with someone was a form of social approval in his lifetime.
He asked a favor of a woman from Samaria (Samaritans did not even exist for good Jewish people - they would not even acknowledge their existence, let alone talk to one). Not only was the woman a Samaritan, but a woman who had been married five times, and was living with her boyfriend at the time.
Was Jesus' acceptance of the people an indication of his approval of their behavior? No.
Perhaps the modern day religious (and perhaps, even the non-religious) could learn a few things from Jesus.
But, just remember, all this was simply made up by men, because having a God who condemned peoples' behavior while accepting them as people is the surest way to have unlearned, ordinary folk believe in the fakers' fairy tales - regardless of the obvious inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2012 07:56:36 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
If I believe that there is no God, except as invented by humans to explain phenomenon they did not understand, then there is no ethical or moral dilemma - just personal preference. |
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument here.
Are you suggesting that those who do not believe in a God are unethical and/or amoral?
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/09/2012 08:48:49 AM · #67 |
For those who believe morals can be self appointed--I now believe it is moral to cheat in the end of the world challenge (your final entry). You should be fine with that because it is my moral belief, and if you disagree you are immoral.
Message edited by author 2012-12-09 08:57:30. |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 09:13:03 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
If I believe that there is no God, except as invented by humans to explain phenomenon they did not understand, then there is no ethical or moral dilemma - just personal preference. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument here.
Are you suggesting that those who do not believe in a God are unethical and/or amoral? |
I can't believe that's what he meant, but I have heard this sentiment before from God fearing folk. For some of them, there's no reason to be ethical or moral if there's no fear of divine repercussion. To me, that's just so absurd it's beyond comprehension. In order to exist within any society, you must maintain a balance of community and individualism. I believe that the human animal is fundamentally good and that given the opportunity to be good and decent to his fellow man, will do so, and lend a hand in need.
When there's strictures and guidelines, i.e., the person in need is somehow lesser because of differing doctrine, then judgement comes into play......which kind of steps all over the "All men being equal" thing. I truly don't believe that either the golden rule, or the concept of equality are specific to religion......both these ideals truly are simple common sense, and easily provable to oneself empirically.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2012 09:44:34 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by dtremain:
If I believe that there is no God, except as invented by humans to explain phenomenon they did not understand, then there is no ethical or moral dilemma - just personal preference. |
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument here.
Are you suggesting that those who do not believe in a God are unethical and/or amoral?
Ray |
No. I am suggesting all are unethical and amoral. Most folks are unable or unwilling to admit that about themselves. It is amazing what behaviors and attitudes people can excuse for themselves, but condemn in others.
That, precisely, is why we reject an external standard of behavior. It sets requirements we cannot meet. Our solution is to rid ourselves of the external, objective standard.
Does this mean no one can do what is right, helpful, and good? Not at all. It does mean that our first instinct is to do what is best for ourselves and damn the consequences for everyone else. We love to point out the exceptions to this as representative of typical goodness. Don't know about you, but if I am honest with myself, they are more often exceptions rather than the rule.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2012 10:07:06 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I believe that the human animal is fundamentally good and that given the opportunity to be good and decent to his fellow man, will do so, and lend a hand in need. |
There is no evidence in the history of human kind that the human animal if fundamentally good. We are clearly sinful in nature. I believe we all share a common knowledge of what is right and wrong--and the free will to decide how we apply that knowledge. I believe this common knowledge of what is right and wrong is of divine origin. There is no where else it can come from. (with apologies to CS Lewis) |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 10:23:20 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I believe that the human animal is fundamentally good and that given the opportunity to be good and decent to his fellow man, will do so, and lend a hand in need. |
There is no evidence in the history of human kind that the human animal if fundamentally good. We are clearly sinful in nature. I believe we all share a common knowledge of what is right and wrong--and the free will to decide how we apply that knowledge. I believe this common knowledge of what is right and wrong is of divine origin. There is no where else it can come from. (with apologies to CS Lewis) |
You don't think that the experience of groups who cooperate ultimately faring better than those which freely allow the murder of others could lead intelligent beings to the conclusion that cooperation is better in the long run than selfishness? |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 10:35:07 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The neighbor thing was never so apparent to me as it was one day a couple winters ago. The sky had dumped another 14" or so on the ground, and I left early for church figuring I'd help shovel. Well, it was so bad in town that services were cancelled. So I started to shovel. Nobody else from the congregation was there. I shoveled for about three hours.
Every......single.....person......who.....walked......by.......smiled.......and.....said.....hello. |
Okay, I need to know - Is this a good thing or a bad thing? i.e. are you making the point that they walked by without helping, or that they smiled at you shovelling the snow?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2012 11:33:20 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
Does this mean no one can do what is right, helpful, and good? Not at all. It does mean that our first instinct is to do what is best for ourselves and damn the consequences for everyone else. We love to point out the exceptions to this as representative of typical goodness. Don't know about you, but if I am honest with myself, they are more often exceptions rather than the rule. |
I can agree with your premise, with the exception of the part in bold.
What I remember most from my family background is that from the onset I was told that the family unit is the most important factor to be considered, and not the individual in it.
As a young man I worked in the mines and on paydays I would stop at the credit union and the teller would put my pay, (with the exception of $2.00) in a small envelop, seal it and give it back to me. At dinner time, I would pass that envelope to my father, as my contribution to the family... and we all did that.
In the environment that I grew up in, you were responsible not only for yourself, but those around you, and that was something that seemed to prevail in the community. Maybe I was luckier than most in that I lived in a small community that shared this altruistic belief.
I can also assure you that my parents would not have been pleased with me had I failed to intervene whenever someone considered doing something detrimental to the well being of others.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-12-09 12:12:10. |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 11:37:25 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I believe that the human animal is fundamentally good and that given the opportunity to be good and decent to his fellow man, will do so, and lend a hand in need. |
There is no evidence in the history of human kind that the human animal if fundamentally good. We are clearly sinful in nature. I believe we all share a common knowledge of what is right and wrong--and the free will to decide how we apply that knowledge. I believe this common knowledge of what is right and wrong is of divine origin. There is no where else it can come from. (with apologies to CS Lewis) |
...and of course your beliefs regarding these divine origins are replete with empirical evidence right? :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-12-09 11:43:02. |
|
|
|
12/09/2012 10:08:21 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by dtremain:
Does this mean no one can do what is right, helpful, and good? Not at all. It does mean that our first instinct is to do what is best for ourselves and damn the consequences for everyone else. We love to point out the exceptions to this as representative of typical goodness. Don't know about you, but if I am honest with myself, they are more often exceptions rather than the rule. |
I can agree with your premise, with the exception of the part in bold.
What I remember most from my family background is that from the onset I was told that the family unit is the most important factor to be considered, and not the individual in it.
As a young man I worked in the mines and on paydays I would stop at the credit union and the teller would put my pay, (with the exception of $2.00) in a small envelop, seal it and give it back to me. At dinner time, I would pass that envelope to my father, as my contribution to the family... and we all did that.
In the environment that I grew up in, you were responsible not only for yourself, but those around you, and that was something that seemed to prevail in the community. Maybe I was luckier than most in that I lived in a small community that shared this altruistic belief.
I can also assure you that my parents would not have been pleased with me had I failed to intervene whenever someone considered doing something detrimental to the well being of others.
Ray |
Wow! That sounds like a tough but good way to be brought up. And I bet you saw it work time and time again. In a mining community, everyone's life depends on NO ONE doing something that endangers others.
I don't believe that is a common experience growing up in America. Our society has evolved into isolationism - many of us don't even know our neighbors' names, let alone feel any responsibility for them. I believe we are a poorer society (and, for that matter, poorer individuals) because of it.
A question, though - was it easy to keep everyone focused on working together as a community? Or was it a constant struggle? Perhaps that isn't a fair question - depending on your age during that time of your life. My guess would be that it was very tough. Folks quit and left town, others (for a whole host of reasons) would temporarily forget community to satisfy themselves.
Community, historically, lasts about three generations, with lesser and lesser commitment in each succeeding generation.
|
|
