Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to clarify, to me wisdom is what should apply to all people regarding of which faith they are, or if they have no faith (atheism, e.g.).
Things like resurrection and heaven and hell and God cannot -- at least at this time -- be proven. Therefore, to talk about them is the opposite of wisdom. The Golden Plates? If you want me to believe that, show me the Plates. The Ten Commandments? If you want me to believe that, show me the tablets. Jesus resurrected? Prove it. Until you can, that's not wisdom.
Not killing...wisdom. Not lying...wisdom. Treating others with kindness...wisdom. Etc.
Just to clarify, to me wisdom is what should apply to all people regarding of which faith they are, or if they have no faith (atheism, e.g.).
Things like resurrection and heaven and hell and God cannot -- at least at this time -- be proven. Therefore, to talk about them is the opposite of wisdom. The Golden Plates? If you want me to believe that, show me the Plates. The Ten Commandments? If you want me to believe that, show me the tablets. Jesus resurrected? Prove it. Until you can, that's not wisdom.
Not killing...wisdom. Hot lying...wisdom. Treating others with kindness...wisdom. Etc.
You can easily prove those things to people who are willing to spend enough time in study, if a person is not willing to study, you can't prove anything to them.
You can easily prove those things to people who are willing to spend enough time in study, if a person is not willing to study, you can't prove anything to them.
You can easily prove those things to people who are willing to spend enough time in study, if a person is not willing to study, you can't prove anything to them.
Just a variation on 'if you don't believe, you simply haven't prayed hard enough'. No amount of study will prove anything for which evidence cannot be provided.
In that case, Freedom to choose (within due consideration for what really must be considered children) and freedom of (and from) religion ought to appeal to you. Perhaps it does.
Just to clarify, to me wisdom is what should apply to all people regarding of which faith they are, or if they have no faith (atheism, e.g.).
Things like resurrection and heaven and hell and God cannot -- at least at this time -- be proven. Therefore, to talk about them is the opposite of wisdom. The Golden Plates? If you want me to believe that, show me the Plates. The Ten Commandments? If you want me to believe that, show me the tablets. Jesus resurrected? Prove it. Until you can, that's not wisdom.
Sure, yeah maybe. Unless they are right by accident.
"If faith is right about anything, it would only be right by accident." ~ Dr. Samuel Harris, atheist neuroscientist.
Quote:
Not killing...wisdom. Not lying...wisdom. Treating others with kindness...wisdom. Etc.
These are the sort of platitudes and aphorisms that I would consider "not really true wisdom." Such simplistic platitudes imagine a perfect world where everyone follows rules and there is never any negative consequences for doing a good thing. But in truth and evidently, the good often die young: those who think others everywhere already follow their example do not ready themselves to defend their lives properly, become naive and believe lies easily, and don't prepare themselves mentally well enough and thus feel greater suffering when others don't treat them with kindness. The mostly bad persecute the good and the bad, the mostly good persecute the bad and the good.
Don't kill, another man might kill you or others. Don't lie, you might get yourself or others in trouble for keeping secrets or telling truths. Treat others with kindness, you or others might be unawarely abused. Etc.
It is never as simple as three or four words.
You can easily prove those things to people who are willing to spend enough time in study, if a person is not willing to study, you can't prove anything to them.
Have you spent enough time studying Empiricism, Hannibal? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm simply trying to demonstrate to you that "spend enough time in study" is a vague criteria that could only mean "you've only studied it enough once you believe it hook, line, and sinker."
But this is the same logic as "believing through faith"...
which in other words is "believing by trying your best to become/stay loyal to the believe."
Empiricism will be easily proven to you if you are willing to spend enough time in study.
Just like I wish people would stop wanting the government to own women's uteruses, I also wish people would let spiritual people walk their OWN path.
Government has a deep investment in keeping the population breeding properly (not just to fill up the quota of canon fodder and ignorant workers). That is why so much of power-based culture is straight-hell-bent on subjugating women, keeping children in the dark, and disliking homosexuals. Importing foreigners as a cultural practice has not often been too successful. Foreigners don't usually have the type of culture and tendencies that a static society would try to keep.
Anyway, as a liberal person myself, I am of course more pro-life than conservatives.
1) I am against the death penalty (everyone should live until they die, whether or not their death is appointed by Jesus, the Redeemer).
2) I am against the wanton war and social policies of our military-industrial complexed society, police, businesses abroad, government, and military.
3) I am against a woman aborting wantonly and would support better sex education for both sexes (and also educate on the oppressed minority that doesn't fit into those two generalized categories), paying woman not to abort by accepting money from rich "pro-life" Liberals and Conservatives,voluntarily and publicly (see if they put their money where their mouth/heart is), changing the culture of shaming and fear, forcing the well-monied "pro-life" to support anti-rape programs, and then paying women and men to raise their children if they can't otherwise (programs like this last one are probably already targeted for demolition by the faux "pro-life" party). There'd still be "freedom to chose to abort" but only based on qualified reasons such as Medical, Severe Social-Stigma, Rape, and further others that people could lobby for. But it would be urged (even moniteraliy) to carry to term and put in a "well-funded pro-life orphanage" if there would ever be such considering the two-faced nature of the current "pro-life" movement.
4) I am against privatized medicine that would look out for itself first before looking out for the LIVES of the people, unless the privatized medicine is capable of competing properly with a good and well funded government/public program. Again, could be paid publicly by the supposed "pro-life."
The only real "pro-life" movement would be the liberal one thus outlined.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-08-2017 at 12:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even as a believer, I can go along with you on that.
