This is exactly what, I believe, is meant by that scripture in James 1:27. It's a personal thing. Not delegated by a government entity.
This is exactly what, I believe, is meant by that scripture in James 1:27. It's a personal thing. Not delegated by a government entity.
Good, I'm glad we agree on something, patriot! I thought that little snippet, if it represented your actual views, was a bit contradictory of some of the other views you expressed, and I always like to try to get people to consider the inconsistencies in their beliefs. That particular sentiment is unfortunately a commonly-held belief among those calling themselves conservatives... "Oh, I only support redistribution of wealth for those who REALLY need it -- but not those lazy loafers who are just abusing the system."
If you concede the point that ANY form of forceful appropriation of property is acceptable, you concede the moral point to the statists, and then it is just an argument over how much and who gets to decide. That type of argument is lose/lose for anyone who seriously believes in individual rights.
Being a collectivist is kind of like being a whore... a man asked a lady, "would you sleep with me for $15 million dollars?" She said "yes, I guess so." He said "OK, how about $10?" She said, "what kind of woman do you think I am?" He said, "We already established what you are, now we're just dickering over price." Never give up the moral point.
I have no problem with voluntarily helping others, as long as you rationally value those whom you are helping more than that which you are giving away. For instance, I would be willing to give a lot to my loved ones, since they provide great meaning and value to my life... whereas to a random stranger I would only be willing to give an amount that is of very little consequence to me, merely out of recognition of our shared humanity and his potential for rationality and possible future cooperation to mutual benefit. I am also willing to give to causes that promote things I value in the world, or which might make my life more enjoyable. But the key is that I give according to MY chosen values, which are determined by the judgment of MY own mind through MY own capacity for reason. I never surrender the judgment of my own mind to that of others, and I don't consider the needs of others to be a claim on my abilities.
patriot, I will PM you about Appleseed... it is a little off topic, and I try to avoid mixing my personal politics with my duties as part of that organization, as it is a strictly non-partisan outfit!
If you concede the point that ANY form of forceful appropriation of property is acceptable, you concede the moral point to the statists, and then it is just an argument over how much and who gets to decide. That type of argument is lose/lose for anyone who seriously believes in individual rights.
Being a collectivist is kind of like being a whore... a man asked a lady, "would you sleep with me for $15 million dollars?" She said "yes, I guess so." He said "OK, how about $10?" She said, "what kind of woman do you think I am?" He said, "We already established what you are, now we're just dickering over price." Never give up the moral point.
I have no problem with voluntarily helping others, as long as you rationally value those whom you are helping more than that which you are giving away. For instance, I would be willing to give a lot to my loved ones, since they provide great meaning and value to my life... whereas to a random stranger I would only be willing to give an amount that is of very little consequence to me, merely out of recognition of our shared humanity and his potential for rationality and possible future cooperation to mutual benefit. I am also willing to give to causes that promote things I value in the world, or which might make my life more enjoyable. But the key is that I give according to MY chosen values, which are determined by the judgment of MY own mind through MY own capacity for reason. I never surrender the judgment of my own mind to that of others, and I don't consider the needs of others to be a claim on my abilities.
patriot, I will PM you about Appleseed... it is a little off topic, and I try to avoid mixing my personal politics with my duties as part of that organization, as it is a strictly non-partisan outfit!
I don't doubt what you say, but my question is this. Without a system of beliefs, or a guideline to follow, how do you ensure that your future generations will follow the same moralistic standards that you claim to hold to? Without a baseline, or plumbline to measure against how does one stay true? Many things that are considered fine today would be thought of as outrageous by older generations. Without a standard to abide by, and compare to humans will drift away from what is right. Hence why the founders wrote the Constitution, and why God gave us the Bible. Try building a wall without a level, you will be close or even right on at the bottom, but it will inevitably stray from true as it builds. That is the whole reason our country is in the mess it finds itself in now. Politicians stopped using the Constitution as a plumbline or level, and instead followed what they thought would be best.
Those are the people who want the attention for the wrong reasons. Can't lump the rest of us in with the Pharisees you see.
Well said Mitch. BTW are you Mitch due to an affinity for the character?
Ha, you like Flynn's books?
I picked the name originally because I thought it would be funny, and I was never really going to post on the forum so why put much thought into a name. 7 years later......
we finally agree on something jb,I too wish he were more eveident in all who claim to be his followers (myself included at times)
It's not as complicated as you think, it's actually very simple. Treating people right is an ideal that's timeless and universal and the old cliche very much applies here -- "Do unto others as you'd want others to do unto you." Just because they don't come from a book, it doesn't mean my family doesn't have a system of beliefs. Many religious teachings today are considered fine, but outrageous by older generations. This is inevitable as time goes on and applies to many teachings and beliefs, religious or not. It wasn't long ago that we thought the earth was flat, it wasn't long ago we thought the earth was the center of the universe, it wasn't long ago that we believed in witchcraft, that the sun, moon, seas, storms, etc were controlled by a specific God, sometimes out of anger. We now know different.
As a parent, I can only do my best to instill a system of morals and encourage my children to keep these beliefs rolling down hill. Indoctrinating children into certain religious systems does not guarantee a successful future for those individuals any more or less than my plan does for my children.
In response to your comment about a specific God controlling sun, moon, seas, storms etc let me relate a personal experience. My father at one time was a roofer. I am not going to say how young I was but suffice it to say, the child labor nazi's would have gone into a raging, foaming at the mouth fit over it. At any rate I loved to go to work with him tearing off shingles and cleaning up. One day we had a roof half torn off when a sudden storm came in over the mountains. At the rate it was coming in, there was no way we could have closed it up before it hit us. My dad and the guy that was working for him took a minute to pray that God would keep the rain off until it was closed in. Perhaps ten minutes later it was pouring all around us but not a drop in an area about a city block. We got it closed up about 15 to 20 min later and hadnt even made it to the truck with the tools when it was raining on us the same as it had been around us. Say what you will, as God is my witness and eternal judge, this account is true.
Well, now we're getting into the discussion of evidence of higher powers and that's not what I was trying to accomplish with my statements. I'd be more than willing to discuss this in another thread or, better yet, in private, as those types of threads aren't necessarily against the rules here, they are frowned upon for reasons they rarely stay civil.
