Statler Waldorf
Member
And a leader, corrupt or otherwise, who does not recognize a deity will ascribe that role to himself. Not only must the leader recognize a deity, he must recognize a benevolent one.
Anybody up for a random meme dump?
- Thread starter Bofa-Deez
- Start date
And a leader, corrupt or otherwise, who does not recognize a deity will ascribe that role to himself. Not only must the leader recognize a deity, he must recognize a benevolent one.
Without a transcendent lawmaker/lawgiver that everyone is bound by the nature of existence to obey, the only morality is the one with the biggest stick, the strongest army, ultimately the most powerful and quickly deployed bombs.
In a similar discussion in a recent forum, someone said that "people's morality" determines what is right. I rightly asked, "Which people?"
Last edited:
That does not discredit the belief system; it discredits the person abusing it; much like capitalism is not the problem, unbridled greed and amorality are.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
The people with the most numbers and the biggest sticks! (bombs)
As you should (ask). With that said, I'm not much on "morality" as it means exactly what anyone wants it to mean. I'm more into ETHICS. Who gets hurt and why?
I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying that people use their particular belief system to justify "whatever" - as soon as someone says that their belief system is the basis/justification for an action that affects other people, I'm out. Talk to me about ETHICS, not what you believe and certainly not so-called "morality", because I don't give a damn. Some belief systems are more subject to abuse than others, but none are immune - including mine. All it takes is one "True Believer (tm)" in anything and atrocities will ensue. I rail on about monotheism and its 2,000+ year bloodstained history, and I sure as fuck don't want any part of it - BUT - I can say the same for many of those whose beliefs are similar to mine.
If said leader is ETHICAL, it does not matter. Now with that said, I don't know of an ethical leader, belief in a deity or not. In other words, parroting that they are oh-so-devout/pious doesn't mean a damn thing. In fact, that puts me - and a shit ton of other people - into an immediate distrust of the person/situation.
Ethics is simply applied morality. It's rules about HOW to behave, while morality is the WHY. Ethics don't exist in a vacuum, even if the why has been forgotten.
Is it? History shows plenty of polytheistic cultures committing atrocities.
I think your claim comes mostly because monotheistic cultures are so dominate, which stems from their success.
No doubt humanity has never lacked atrocities, no mater the belief system.
from AI but...not Yankee owned at all
Buc-ee's is privately owned by its co-founders, CEO Arch "Beaver" Aplin III and Don Wasek. Aplin opened the first location in Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1982, while Wasek joined as a business partner shortly after. The pair continue to operate the record-breaking travel center empire together. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
@Zorba or anyone else in Florida.
More than 40 insurers lower Florida home and auto insurance rates | FOX 13 Tampa Bay https://share.google/HQZ1E7CoD1qge6Bne
More than 40 insurers lower Florida home and auto insurance rates | FOX 13 Tampa Bay https://share.google/HQZ1E7CoD1qge6Bne
The issue I have with that is, what's the difference between morality and ethics?
Morality is one's personal beliefs of right and wrong, where as ethics are rules of conduct typically derived from the collective's shared moral beliefs.
Sigh... Check your history man, check your history. Then listen to today's rhetoric. Nothing whatsoever has changed. Morality, ethics, and laws seldom intersect. Morality is meaningless, laws are completely inadequate because they attempt to codify the uncodifiable: Ethics. That leaves raw ethics - who gets hurt? That is my ONLY concern - if the situation violates someone's arbitrary "morality", too bad. I've had enough of moralists to last me two lifetimes.
Monotheism was "successful" for one reason: The sword. I have spent a lifetime studying this crap, it is VERY ugly. Remember, the victors get to write the history - you have to dig to find the buried truth.
On a more serious note, Bucees sucks and I can not for the life of me understand the infatuation with it.
Your use of the phrase "true believer" belies the fallacy of your argument. Someone calling their own self a "true believer," even an entire movement claiming some adherence to some belief system and calling someone or some group "true believer(s)" does not make them true believers.
Many have come in the name of Jesus Christ claiming to be "true believers," but if one looks at the actions and fruits of many of those, one understands that they follow neither the precepts nor the spirit of biblical Christianity. Jim Jones claimed foundations in the historical Christianity, but any idiot can look at his acts and compare them to the acts of Jesus and of the early church and see that he had no relation to those.
Matthew 7:16-20 quotes Jesus as saying, "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."
See, you are trying to judge by words and claims. Jesus says to look beyond claims and words to the actual fruit of the lives. Do they represent the spirit and deeds of the system they claim to follow?
Christ said, "I came to give life, and to give it more abundantly." John 10:7-11 is clear on this account:
So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
So, that is the question: Do the acts and fruit of those who claim to be true believers lead to life more abundantly, or death, pillage and destruction. That is the test, not what people claim. Words have very little value.
On a more serious note, Bucees sucks and I can not for the life of me understand the infatuation with it.
Hell, yeah! No biscuits. Damned yankees!
Ethics must b e grounded in morality. My morality informs my ethics. Without an established moral code, my ethics can be whatever I want them to be. If there is a transcendent moral code, my ethics must be grounded in that. There is not way around this fact.
You tell me (or better, show me by your actions) what moral foundations your ethics are based on and I will know if I can trust your ethical code.
ETA: Dang, this meme thread has gotten heavily philosophical here!
Similar threads
