The new problem is there is no problem

I have a policy with my guys-

If you want extra money, you can work whatever you choose over the weekend - and not only are you paid extra, you get paid Monday- everyone always shows up monday.

So I take the cash to this guys place- and I see nice company tools scattered in the yard-

His instability means constantly shuffling tools, showing up unprepared and all manner of uh ohs.

I was like “ get every tool to the shop monday”. My point is store them there, whatever...but we ain’t leaving tools out in the rain and scattering them.

Good grief.

And he is a skilled worker, or would not be here.

That sounds like my Son-In-Law. Doesn't take care of anything. If you don't work for it, you don't value it, and you won't take care of it. Drives me nuts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyG
I was, but religion has never been a big part of my life.

You were probably lucky then. My point being most modern religion is part of the problem- of all places, churches should not be the places where people are told it is ok to do wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColoJeep
We may be related- this is sooooo typical. Sounds like my brother.

Oh and I forgot to mention the cherry on top...he drives a JKU.

IMG_20220710_171031.jpg


🤣
 
You were probably lucky then. My point being most modern religion is part of the problem- of all places, churches should not be the places where people are told it is ok to do wrong.
I'm no Christian, but "one would think", huh? My mother had her Bible, of all things, swiped at church. Wife had her jacket stolen at church. Both when they were children.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: ColoJeep and AndyG
I'm no Christian, but "one would think", huh? My mother had her Bible, of all things, swiped at church. Wife had her jacket stolen at church. Both when they were children.

Precisely. There is something seriously wrong when forgiveness turns into the right to do wrong. I know this rocks the boat, because the modern religious world hinges on the concept of unlimited grace. Even common sense will tell you life doesn’t work that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
That's been going on for thousands of years.

Absolutely- selling indulgences - got to love it. It basically changed religion into what it is today, because it includes more people, and money from sinners spends just as well. Why raise the bar when it is easier to lower the standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
Ah, but everything is relative. Ask Einstein. I've never held with absolutism or absolutists, although I suspect we're in a semantic quandary more than actual disagreement. I also don't particularly care for the word "Morality", but there again I think its more semantics than actual disagreement.

Speaking as a Christian, Relativism is a threat to the Christian faith because it undermines the idea of universal truth on which the latter is based. The reason I bring up Christianity is because this country (and one could argue modern civilization as a whole) was founded upon Christianity.

The idea of the university and academia has long been that of a community dedicated to discovering truth and its application to life. Guided by this mission, students and teachers were enabled to find the noble and beautiful things in the world, discover their relationship to one another, as well as establish a concrete structure from which all thoughts, words and actions flowed in their proper order.

However, many Western universities forsook their original purpose as they became increasingly permeated by relativism. Ambivalence toward truth claims over time, gave way to the outright rejection of the potential for discovering objective truth.

According to relativism, there is no absolute right or wrong, and no situation will ever be black or white. Instead, each individual sculpts their own personal vision of truth and consents to the idea that everyone’s truth is simultaneously correct, at least for themselves.

As a Christian, I refuse to dismiss the idea of truth as relativists do. For me, truth is something much bigger. As Christians, we believe in moral laws and in doctrine. We believe in a moral order and in rules about how we are to conduct ourselves, physically and otherwise. For example, we believe that marriage is sacred and that adultery is wrong. Sounds crazy, right?

To treat truth as authoritarianism and fundamentalism is to set up a straw man. The Bible itself strongly condemns the Pharisees, who were full of moral rules and judgment but had no love and grace for those who struggled morally. Those who try to turn the God of the Bible into an authoritarian figure who merely thunders judgment may find themselves surprised when they learn about Jesus. For example, Jesus famously showed grace to the woman taken in adultery and did not condemn her as the Pharisees did. Clearly Jesus was no authoritarian or fundamentalist, neither was he a relativist. He said to the woman, “Go and sin no more.” He didn’t wink at sin; he acknowledged it as sin and then he forgave it. To have only half the truth is to have none.

Most American colleges and universities today are steeped in relativism. It may be assumed by many fellow students, professors, and even by the curriculum. Students will undoubtedly be inundated with the idea that truth is a matter of perspective, and to say anything more definitive than that is positively unenlightened.

In any case, my doctrine may be different than your doctrine and I can respect that. When it comes down to it, I truly believe that self-worship, relativism, and nihilism--to name only a few--are the cause of a lot of the problems we see in this country today.

Consider that in this modern day and age, a man can say he's a woman and most of society will not only affirm him in his declaration, but they'll celebrate him. He'll probably tell you that according to his "lived experience", he sees himself as a woman and therefore society must accept him as such. When everything is relative to the individual, truth is subverted, perverted, distorted, and deceived.

I believe that truth should always be spoken. I look to God himself for that truth.
 
Speaking as a Christian, Relativism is a threat to the Christian faith because it undermines the idea of universal truth on which the latter is based. The reason I bring up Christianity is because this country (and one could argue modern civilization as a whole) was founded upon Christianity.

The idea of the university and academia has long been that of a community dedicated to discovering truth and its application to life. Guided by this mission, students and teachers were enabled to find the noble and beautiful things in the world, discover their relationship to one another, as well as establish a concrete structure from which all thoughts, words and actions flowed in their proper order.

However, many Western universities forsook their original purpose as they became increasingly permeated by relativism. Ambivalence toward truth claims over time, gave way to the outright rejection of the potential for discovering objective truth.

According to relativism, there is no absolute right or wrong, and no situation will ever be black or white. Instead, each individual sculpts their own personal vision of truth and consents to the idea that everyone’s truth is simultaneously correct, at least for themselves.

As a Christian, I refuse to dismiss the idea of truth as relativists do. For me, truth is something much bigger. As Christians, we believe in moral laws and in doctrine. We believe in a moral order and in rules about how we are to conduct ourselves, physically and otherwise. For example, we believe that marriage is sacred and that adultery is wrong. Sounds crazy, right?

To treat truth as authoritarianism and fundamentalism is to set up a straw man. The Bible itself strongly condemns the Pharisees, who were full of moral rules and judgment but had no love and grace for those who struggled morally. Those who try to turn the God of the Bible into an authoritarian figure who merely thunders judgment may find themselves surprised when they learn about Jesus. For example, Jesus famously showed grace to the woman taken in adultery and did not condemn her as the Pharisees did. Clearly Jesus was no authoritarian or fundamentalist, neither was he a relativist. He said to the woman, “Go and sin no more.” He didn’t wink at sin; he acknowledged it as sin and then he forgave it. To have only half the truth is to have none.

Most American colleges and universities today are steeped in relativism. It may be assumed by many fellow students, professors, and even by the curriculum. Students will undoubtedly be inundated with the idea that truth is a matter of perspective, and to say anything more definitive than that is positively unenlightened.

In any case, my doctrine may be different than your doctrine and I can respect that. When it comes down to it, I truly believe that self-worship, relativism, and nihilism--to name only a few--are the cause of a lot of the problems we see in this country today.

Consider that in this modern day and age, a man can say he's a woman and most of society will not only affirm him in his declaration, but they'll celebrate him. He'll probably tell you that according to his "lived experience", he sees himself as a woman and therefore society must accept him as such. When everything is relative to the individual, truth is subverted, perverted, distorted, and deceived.

What is noteworthy is we have gone from “go and sin no more” to a world where you can be involved in any sin and you can find a church that will accept you. Hence this thread, people don’t want to believe you can do better or that you might be required to- people will fight you to stay at a substandard level of existence rather than pay the price to be the person they should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColoJeep
What is noteworthy is we have gone from “go and sin no more” to a world where you can be involved in any sin and you can find a church that will accept you. Hence this thread, people don’t want to believe you can do better or that you might be required to- people will fight you to stay at a substandard level of existence rather than pay the price to be the person they should be.

Correct

Many of these progressive churches have come along and distorted the word of God. Come judgement day, those churches and the people running them will have to answer to the Lord himself for this.

Can anyone honestly say that after removing God from our institutions that this country has become a better place? All it's left is a gaping hole within people. A massive void that yearns for something to take its place. Sadly, that something has become the idea of self-worship and relativism.
 
Have you guys noticed people in life that are a complete wreck- I mean completely ridiculous- and totally happy with their circumstances?

you may have heard of 'Lying Flat', pretty interesting phenomenon that started in China, takes this all to an extreme


seems like we had a huge head start in all this, but credit to them for naming it :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyG
you may have heard of 'Lying Flat', pretty interesting phenomenon that started in China, takes this all to an extreme


seems like we had a huge head start in all this, but credit to them for naming it :ROFLMAO:

Brilliant- Proof that China is leading the way! Great stuff man!
 
I reject - vehemently - that our nation was founded on Christianity, or even so-called "morals" (depending on one's definition of same). Founded on "Universal truth" and "Ethics" - ABSOLUTELY, but Christians didn't invent "Universal truth" or "Ethics". My problem with "morals" is that it means completely different things to different people (relativism again). Abrahamic monotheists generally regard the "10 Commandments" as both "universal" and "moral". I do not. They're a combination of some "Universal Truths" coupled to some "Morals"; the latter of which apply to Abrahamic monotheists and Abrahamic monotheists *ONLY*. Yet we have the Judge Moores of the world trying to impose this on everybody - these types think their "Morals" are absolute when they are anything but - thus my dislike of absolutism.

That's why I prefer "Ethics" to "Morals". To avoid a semantic argument (I hate semantic arguments, they just waste everybody's time), I'll define "Ethics" as "Who gets hurt?" and "Morals" as "Arbitrary rules that are often VERY relativistic."

Even "Universal Truths" are often relative: "No killing other people", "No stealing", etc, etc - each with 10,000 different exceptions...

I wouldn't want to go back to a 1957 "Morality" under ANY circumstances! "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." which applies to every time. People are freer now than they were in '57 by far. BUT - "With great power comes great responsibility" which is missing under many circumstances. To quote Peter Beagle: "The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties – they merely reaped the Fifties’ foul harvest..." The Sixties brought us many things, both good and bad - I blame the "Sixties Generation" (Those that came of age then) for much of the crap we're putting up with now, yet at the same time I wouldn't be free to follow my own spirituality if it weren't for what happened then as but one example. Like everything else, a two edged sword...

Its nice to be able to discuss these kinds of things without people getting defensive!
 
I reject - vehemently - that our nation was founded on Christianity, or even so-called "morals" (depending on one's definition of same). Founded on "Universal truth" and "Ethics" - ABSOLUTELY, but Christians didn't invent "Universal truth" or "Ethics". My problem with "morals" is that it means completely different things to different people (relativism again). Abrahamic monotheists generally regard the "10 Commandments" as both "universal" and "moral". I do not. They're a combination of some "Universal Truths" coupled to some "Morals"; the latter of which apply to Abrahamic monotheists and Abrahamic monotheists *ONLY*. Yet we have the Judge Moores of the world trying to impose this on everybody - these types think their "Morals" are absolute when they are anything but - thus my dislike of absolutism.

That's why I prefer "Ethics" to "Morals". To avoid a semantic argument (I hate semantic arguments, they just waste everybody's time), I'll define "Ethics" as "Who gets hurt?" and "Morals" as "Arbitrary rules that are often VERY relativistic."

Even "Universal Truths" are often relative: "No killing other people", "No stealing", etc, etc - each with 10,000 different exceptions...

I wouldn't want to go back to a 1957 "Morality" under ANY circumstances! "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." which applies to every time. People are freer now than they were in '57 by far. BUT - "With great power comes great responsibility" which is missing under many circumstances. To quote Peter Beagle: "The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties – they merely reaped the Fifties’ foul harvest..." The Sixties brought us many things, both good and bad - I blame the "Sixties Generation" (Those that came of age then) for much of the crap we're putting up with now, yet at the same time I wouldn't be free to follow my own spirituality if it weren't for what happened then as but one example. Like everything else, a two edged sword...

Its nice to be able to discuss these kinds of things without people getting defensive!

Actually correct- it is pretty easy to see that the “ freedom to assemble” without government interference was what the founding fathers wanted and succeeded at- and even today all religions here benefit from that. I’m also certain government religion would have been as effective as Government HealthCare 😂. Welcome to hell.

My ‘57 analogy really means the overall value peak is past- the 60’s sure weren’t a climb up, at the same time some broader thinking brought some needed change and positive impact ...and still can be seen today.

As proof of your statement that all was not rosy in the 50’s , We also had some very scary thinking toward communism and the McCarthy Era proved that...as well as black only water fountains, and much more.


On the first paragraph, I believe Christianity being the dominant religion did affect American values, at the same time we had slavery up til 1860, and racism lasted over a century - so no one needs to say that America needs to be host Sunday School for the rest of the world.

America is a phenomenon, and it could be argued that Providence can be attributed for its’ success....at the same time many will swear it doesn’t work at all - so go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
I’m also certain government religion would have been as effective as Government HealthCare 😂. Welcome to hell.
Yet we have many who are pushing for exactly this - in several different versions. I can't think of an evil greater than Theocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TurboTJ
I reject - vehemently - that our nation was founded on Christianity, or even so-called "morals" (depending on one's definition of same). Founded on "Universal truth" and "Ethics" - ABSOLUTELY, but Christians didn't invent "Universal truth" or "Ethics". My problem with "morals" is that it means completely different things to different people (relativism again). Abrahamic monotheists generally regard the "10 Commandments" as both "universal" and "moral". I do not. They're a combination of some "Universal Truths" coupled to some "Morals"; the latter of which apply to Abrahamic monotheists and Abrahamic monotheists *ONLY*. Yet we have the Judge Moores of the world trying to impose this on everybody - these types think their "Morals" are absolute when they are anything but - thus my dislike of absolutism.

That's why I prefer "Ethics" to "Morals". To avoid a semantic argument (I hate semantic arguments, they just waste everybody's time), I'll define "Ethics" as "Who gets hurt?" and "Morals" as "Arbitrary rules that are often VERY relativistic."

Even "Universal Truths" are often relative: "No killing other people", "No stealing", etc, etc - each with 10,000 different exceptions...

I wouldn't want to go back to a 1957 "Morality" under ANY circumstances! "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." which applies to every time. People are freer now than they were in '57 by far. BUT - "With great power comes great responsibility" which is missing under many circumstances. To quote Peter Beagle: "The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties – they merely reaped the Fifties’ foul harvest..." The Sixties brought us many things, both good and bad - I blame the "Sixties Generation" (Those that came of age then) for much of the crap we're putting up with now, yet at the same time I wouldn't be free to follow my own spirituality if it weren't for what happened then as but one example. Like everything else, a two edged sword...

Its nice to be able to discuss these kinds of things without people getting defensive!

I got to thinking about this post yesterday and does anybody remember back when the Kingsmen came out with the song Louie Louie-Before it ran it’s course as a hit the FBI was trailing them from hotel to hotel wire tapping and trying to find out what this subversive message was- This is the same mentality that got innocent people burned at the Salem witch trials-

On a tangent -

If anybody is really looking for significant meaning in rock ‘n’ roll lyrics they’re probably not going to find much....Every now and then as a teenager I would find something I could hang onto but as a rule a lot of times things just get put in there to make the lyrics work out- Jimmy quit and Jody got married just happened to be based on the fact that Jimmy quit and Jody got married so they threw it Summer of 69-

The pompotous of love is a term that Steve Miller made up- I recently saw it on a church billboard and nearly split my gut-
 
So check out this picture and this goes back to the worker that I was indicating doesn’t take care of his property-

In four years, he is on vehicle number 10 in addition to the ones he’s destroyed that belong to other people that just happen to be trying to occupy the same space in traffic -

I helped his father purchase this vehicle as a gift to his dad for his hard work and he loaned it to his son and within a day or two of driving it he ran over a Prius with no insurance- Keep in mind this is 10 destroyed vehicles one right after the other- He is absolutely confident that there’s nothing wrong and can’t understand why my company would not furnish him a vehicle-

02925781-C0C2-46D4-A9AD-09039B772C6D.jpeg
 
Last edited: