Monday, July 14, 2008

Who's hurt most by moral failure?

We've talked before in this blog about how some believers insist on concrete answers about matters of faith while others have a greater comfort with leaving some questions up in the air. Naturally, that first group tends to think of moral rules as black and white. The others are more likely to see shades of gray.

But could these differences be based less on upbringing, theological preference or personality traits and more on what these groups stand to lose?

In a mostly political column in The Dallas Morning News, Rod Dreher makes this interesting observation in passing: "The poor and working class tend to prefer non-squishy religion prescribing a stark moral code — even if they struggle to live up to its demands. It's not hard to see why. Unlike ... social elites, folks living nearer the economic margins have far more to lose from individual and communal moral failure."

Is it true that moral failure hurts the lower classes more than it does those with wealth?

The individual moral failure of a man who abandons the children he fathered hurts those children and their mother, whatever their circumstances. The loss of his guidance and love will be felt by rich and poor alike. But the loss of monetary support can be devastating to a family living on the edge.

The communal moral failure of a nation that, for example, condones a corrupt judiciary will fall more heavily on those who are unable to pay bribes or pull strings.

But does that really account for the appeal of "non-squishy" religion? What do you think?

297 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 297   Newer›   Newest»
Iztok said...

I don't think this has anything to do with religion as much as it does with education and knowledge itself. Teen pregnancy is direct result of parents failure to educate kids to protect themselves. It is example of parents setting their kids for failure. The worst thing is that usually when that happens they blame kids and tell them how much disappointed they are with them.

It is absolutely easier to deal with black and whites. It is easier to tell kids "because I/god/Bible/whatever told you so" then to take time and actually explain things. This explains why religion is more influential amongst less educated people and hardly present with highest educated people.

So no, it is not a moral failure, it is failure of parents to properly educate our kids.

Anonymous said...

I think it's more to do with income than education. It's pretty much a truism that wealthy nations become less hardline-religious and are usually perceived as "decadent". Pick whatever example you prefer -- the late Roman Empire, all the way up to present-day Europe and increasingly the United States. Look at the South in recent years -- blue laws disappear immediately when an area starts to generate wealth.

In poor communities, especially rural ones, churches are the "glue" that holds everything together. In those communities, the guy who doesn't show up to church is almost always already a social washout -- the wealthy often underestimate how closely the two go hand-in-hand for those lower on the economic chain. It's closely related to strict bans on alcohol, sexual promiscuity, and other social ills. Those are issues that the wealthy can address with lawyers or therapists, but the poor must avoid them completely or be consumed by them. And the most effective way of keeping people on the "straight and narrow" is through religion -- whether it be in a low-income black community in Charlotte or a migrant tribe in Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is more focus on communicating moral certitude among those who may struggle economically. The difficult thing is that moral failure (e.g. greed, lack of concern, etc) on the part of the larger community, either those in the government or the business community or those that are better off, can affect those who struggle dis proportionately, because the less fortunate do not have the same level of control and access and have fewer options for remediation.

Iztok said...

"I think it's more to do with income than education."

I would say that there is a high proportional correlation between education and income. On the other hand we see high inverse correlation between education and religiosity.

Rebecca said...

It hurts EVERYONE - as the recent business failures show, moral failings -- like greed -- can topple an entire economy. In last Sunday's paper, there was an article about a life insurance provider who refused to pay a widow her benefit -- even though she had always paid premiums -- on a technicality that her late husband was never informed of. In another story, a credit-card company provided an injured war vet with a credit card with a $300 limit, and charged $285 in fees! When she cancelled w/o using the card, they continued to charge her, running the charges and fees up to over $1000.00 dollars! Then there is the mortage crisis - does anyone wonder why these "sub-prime" borrowers are too "risky" to be given a fair mortgage at a market rate, but at loan shark interest rates they were a "good investment"? GREED is why - "I'll get mine and when the axe falls I'll be long gone" kind of thinking that is all too prevalent in personal and business life these days. They preyed on the most vulnerable. I think the bank failures are a direct result of greed, lack of caring for others, and downright lying -- Why do you think they "bundled" these subprime mortgages? So they could hide the risk from the regulators and the buyers of the bundled securities - I would consider that lying. And the ones in charge have paid themselves so heavily that they will walk away unscathed.

Bob said...

Strict religion has a more favorable exchange ratio for the uneducated than for the educated. The uneducated enjoy more of religion's social-psychological benefits because they are better positioned to believe nonsense with sincerity. And the social costs of believing are reduced by the relative absence of peer disapproval. For uneducated people whose lives are in existential turmoil, strict religion is a rational choice over either liberal religion or its wiser brother, atheism.

Gamecock said...

Rebecca

The entire economy has not been toppled and the greed is on both sides of the housing bubble burst, although much of what the media calls greed is really people taking risks to achieve the American dream of home ownership.

Greed is a one of the seven deadlies and it has existed since Eve bit the apple and will till Jesus comes.

Our system is the worst system in all of world history to limit and channel that greed except for

ALL THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIED.

more later
much more

Gamecock said...

One more thought this evening on greed. Man is fallen and is under conviction in his sin. No social system can cure individual man. Only Jesus can do that, and the process can only be completed on the other side of eternity.

pornstudent said...

I agree that those living nearer the economic margins have more to lose from communal moral failure. The poor people who join the military because they need a job suffer when a president lies in order to justify war. The poor in countries around the world suffer when the corporate rich get them addicted to nicotine.

Often the poor don't benefit from an individual morality. The mother who takes her family to a Pentecostal church partly to keep her daughter from getting pregnant isn't benefited when the daughter gets pregnant anyway. The family would have been better off going to a liberal church that taught birth control.

The moral failure of a man who abandons his children may benefit the man even though it's not good for the family. Another morally questionable choice the father could make is to sell overpriced, inferior, defective or nonexistent stuff to whatever fool he could find. He could likely better take care of his family being a legal con-artist than as a "non-squishy" Christian. Or, he could become a hired killer for the US government.

The appeal of "non-squishy" religion has to do with an individual's need to find relief from the many anxieties that come with living. Sometimes the "non-squishy" religion works, sometimes it doesn't. It is more likely to work for the poor and working class because they are less educated, not because it has more of a material benefit.

Anonymous said...

Having worked in the financial industry for a few years, I can say that I think that greed coupled with a removal of bad consequences for bad decisions had a lot to do with our current mess.

People could make a lot of money pushing loans on unqualified borrowers and then remove themselves from suffering any consequences of those bad loans by packaging and selling them in what looked like high-yield "secure" investments to outside investors.

This went on for years, all the while being cheered on as helping people achieve "The American Dream" of home ownership. And, of course, no one could dare attack that dream.

Well, as is obvious now, some people just didn't deserve to participate in that "dream".

Banks have justified charging extremely high interest to the poorest people by saying that they are making credit more "accessible".

While true, perhaps these people shouldn't have had such easy access.

And there was no shortage of snake-oil salesmen out there to help them ignore the real risks of their dreams.

The fact that the average American doesn't understand compound interest or much of anything regarding money or investments doesn't help, either.

Anonymous said...

One thing that often comes into play in various misfortunes is the concept of "God's Will". In the West, "God's Will" is usually reserved for natural disasters and untimely deaths.

But, the more someone feels like they are at the mercy of circumstances, they more likely they are to invoke this explanation.

You can see this a lot in Muslim countries where EVERYTHING is considered the will of God. As a consequence, they don't do as much to help their situation as someone who thinks there is a little less divine intervention in everyday life.

As a further consequence of their sense of fatality, they end up being ruled by dictators, "strong" leaders, and people who tend to see things in black and white.

I'm not sure which came first, but at this point, general attitudes about who is "really" in control of things has a lot to do with how
people are able to resolve their problems and the kinds of lives they end up living, both individually, and as a group.

Gamecock said...

smutcontemplator

You insult the patriotic volunteer armed forces of the United States and I denounce you for it. They fight and die so that you can keep your anti-theist neck in place.


You think the advent of birth control has improved the lot of the poor? You are blind to the explosion of out of wedlock birthed fatherless wild animals; and degradation of the population of civilizing wait till marriage women to the level of, well...men; since said advent.


One can get relief from anxieties in God (rather than drugs, alcohol or license). What we need is a Shame comeback so that people get relief by changing their hedonistic, civilization destroying behavior.

Gamecock said...

anonymous

agreed

I would add that the push at the threat of civil rights lawsuits to make sure one can't be accused of race discrimination also added fuel to the fire and Greenspan's FED leaving int rates too low for too long after 911.

But, and I am intimately involved and knowledgeable about this thru my legal work, most of the people losing their homes were renters that put zero of very little down, KNEW what an ARM was, and took the risk. Now they rent again. This ain't Sudan.

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of comments insinuating that religious faith is simply a form of escape from anxiety.

While that may be true to some extent for some people, that is not the general function of religion in a poor community.

In poor communities, people go to church not because they hate their lives but because they want to be "better" people -- better in the sense of moral alignment with the will of God. Poor-community churches rarely address "squishy" issues like the purpose of life. Their sermons focus on the destructiveness of alcoholism, the necessity of having a healthy family structure, the benefit of prayer, the importance of hard work, etc.

In communities where the easiest escape from one's problems is to pick up the bottle and abandon the family, churches work to keep people moving forward in a morally- and socially-responsible lifestyle. It's hard for a wealthier, more liberal person to understand that a shot of alcohol can be the difference between life or death for a 13-year-old farm kid... but that is the reality for that child. His entire future depends on his ability to resist the temptation to simply crumble under the weight of poverty.

For a current example, look at inner-city African-American communities. 50 years ago they were under MUCH worse political conditions, but they were capable of making incredible advances by organizing through church communties (both Christian and Muslim) and keeping their primary values in plain view. Today, church membership among urban blacks is in a downward spiral... and we see the result in the headlines every day. The family structures in those communities have crumbled, working single mothers are unable to care for their children, therefore the children find a more supportive "family" in their friends' gangs, therefore they are often initiated into a criminal lifestyle before they even reach high school. The same cycle is occurring in rural white areas as well. It starts in the church community and proceeds outward.

Let's not forget that the most intellectually-accessible topic of religion is morality, not the meaning of life.

Anonymous said...

It may not be Sudan, but a lot of people still aren't very bright with money.

They take unnecessary and foolish risks, are overconfident, and will believe what salesmen tell them rather than take a realistic look at their situation.

Some of them are probably opportunists, but a lot of them simply don't/can't analyze their risks very well.

Gamecock said...

agreed

But they lost little, they have a right to take risks and the real problem is, as you first identified, the selling of mtgs, esp in bundles.

Daniel Boone fell down the mountain a lot before he got over it, and with overall and minority, esp black home ownership at record levels in 2003-even today, the only people left to sell houses to were the high risk.

But the government doesn't need to "protect" people from themselves in this area. If they do, they will make things worse.

I do agree some new regs are needed given that the original system was meant for banks, the whole idea of "predatory" lending is extremely overblown.

Bush and Paulson have done a good job so far. The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been positives for many decades.

Too many people imagine a perfect system can be devised that produces no bubbles and no pain for more than 5 seconds.

Can't be done.

People produce bubbles. In socialist countries they don't have bubbles and not much else.

Anonymous said...

I don't think predatory lending issues are overblown. They work fine when everything is getting better, but not when things are getting worse.

Banks charge higher interest because of higher risk. If you have to pay higher interest, you should realize that you are a high risk borrower and cut back, if you have good sense.

I don't so much think the government should protect the stupid as think they should make sure good information is out there and that laws are followed.

I don't know which "socialist" countries you are referring to as not having bubbles, though. That sounds pretty generic.

Gamecock said...

anonymous

The vast majority of these people had all the information they needed. They knew the payment would go up. They hoped to make more money of re-fi.

Similar to women that know what will happen when they spread their legs. Its not an information problem.

Iztok said...

"You insult the patriotic volunteer armed forces of the United States and I denounce you for it. They fight and die so that you can keep your anti-theist neck in place."

Nah, mostly nowadays they are killing other type of theists, you know - the wrong kind.

"You are blind to the explosion of out of wedlock birthed fatherless wild animals;"

That is perhaps due to the fact that they are not well educated in safe sex practices. Ever wondered why teen pregnancy is much higher in bible belt then rest of the country? Certainly not because of higher use of birth control.

"What we need is a Shame comeback so that people get relief by changing their hedonistic, civilization destroying behavior."

Perhaps you should move to more "civilized" theocratic state such as Iran or join Talibans. Their mentality fits you perfectly.

Lucky for the rest of us our founding fathers were smart enough to foresee such events and crafted our constitution very secular to safeguard our civilization from savage backwardness of theocracy.

Gamecock said...

Iztok says:

1-"Nah, mostly nowadays they are killing other type of theists, you know - the wrong kind."

Yes, suicide bombers that target civilians are the wrong kind.

2-"That is perhaps due to the fact that they are not well educated in safe sex practices."

ROFLMAO - Still ROFLMAO!!!

'tok, men don't like taking showers with raincoats on.

ROFLMAO

Try again to explain away why people want abortion rights - so they can have cake and eat it too. And the mistake we made in the late 60's by kicking the man out the house and making Uncle Sam Daddy.

They don't know about birth control?

ROFLMAO

3-"What we need is a Shame comeback so that people get relief by changing their hedonistic, civilization destroying behavior."

You are not a serious person. How old are you? Was the US from 1776-1965 Iran-like? No, and So you admit Iran is evil. Thanks.

The Founders believed our system only suited for a moral and religious people and specifically favored judeo-christian principles and ethics, even the deists

Anonymous said...

Gamecock.

Oh, well, if they were that greedy and stupid, they deserved what they got when the market collapsed and left them holding the bag.

I don't work with housing, just stocks/banking/etc., and a lot of those people who got seriously hurt (I don't mean 20% loss, but much more) simply do not understand the basics of money and investing at all.

Gamecock said...

Yes, anon, I can understand your view because I think stocks are more complicated, but not ARMs on mtgs, and yes, they "deserve" (and I rarely use that word) what they got, but I think you are too harsh in your judgment (and that may be due to the ridiculous MSM treatment of the issue. I don't think its greed to try and move up and own a home nor were all of them stupid. The main fact the MSM leaves out is how little if any, the borrowers put down on this gamble. Basically most are out moving costs, ect.

Iztok said...

"The Founders believed our system only suited for a moral and religious people and specifically favored judeo-christian principles and ethics, even the deists"

Which principles and ethics are specifically judeo-christian? Give me one good example of a good deed or principle that is only found in judeo-christians and not found in say atheists?

I bet you can't find a single one. On the other hand if I would ask name one bad deed or principle it would be another story, people would raise their hands.

Anonymous said...

Well, people tend to forget that housing is market driven, too, so the assumption that values always go up is not too smart.

Neither is borrowing for all you are "qualified" for. Apparently, a lot of people thought differently, and now they are suffering for it.

There are similarities in the stock market, as when you buy on margin. Works great when the market goes up, but it can be a killer when it goes down.

The way I look at it, those "investors" in housing just got a humongous margin call and couldn't cover it.

The securities industry has regulations requiring those who buy on margin to pony up some cash when their stocks drop.

Maybe the housing market needs some similar rules since the market for housing goes UP and DOWN (not always UP like some were apparently told - and believed).

I know lenders used to require mortgage insurance for people who borrowed with less than 10% down.

What happened to that safeguard?

Gamecock said...

Anon

There is no insurance for can't afford. But my main message is that most of the so-called "suffering" is not much. They were renting. They got a zero down or very little down loan and moved. Now they are renting again. No big whoop. They tried to grab the dream and failed. They will try again. meanwhile they have cable and a/c.

America

Anonymous said...

Heh, just answered my own question, the PMI insurance which was required for anything less than 20% down was stricken down by something called:

The Homeowners Protection Act.

How ironic.

Gamecock said...

Jane

I will have a more comprehensive and thoughtful response later to the issues you raise, but for now, two thoughts:

1 - WOW! can you pack so much content in so few words. I am in awe and jealous. I am praying for humility, etc.

2 - I think most of the comments are way over the top in the emphasis on income as a factor.

more later

Anonymous said...

So they walk away mostly unscathed?

Then you can bet it will happen again.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

What is the atheist creed? The Hebrew people encountered pagans that eschewed the law. The Jews civilized.

Christians were renowned in the Roman world for their ethical and moral behavior. See fairness, monogamy, aversion to sex before marriage, aversion to virgin sacrifice and drunkeness.

Jefferson attended Christian services in the Capitol and voted to fund Bibles for the States despite his non-believing deism.

What book did the atheists contribute that the Founders could have considered?

All I know about Atheists is what they claim not to believe, and ONE (you wanted one?) of the main things that made our Revolution unique and the most successful in history is that our rights come from a Creator. They deemed it self evident. This was progress away from tyranny by Kings and Dictators.

The most prominent contribution of Atheists were Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and the subsequent slaughters in the 20th C that dwarfs all of the killings in the name of God millions fold in 500 centuries of History.

Gamecock said...

Anon

"It"? I'll come back to that.

Yes, if we remain a free people, people will make poor choices, take risks and fail.

But if we imagine that we can pass just the right laws that can prevent "it" from happening again, then we will create another USSR.

This is maybe THE main lesson.

Of course all this is a matter of degree, but one of the main flaws of the left is that every time we have a real or imagined crisis, they want to pass new laws as if new laws can prevent future transgressions.

And in the process, the left moves inexorably towards tyranny.

Please read Friedman's Free to Choose and Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

I have a lot to say on this. You have touched on THE DIVIDE.

The difficulty from my side, the right is that it is a matter of degree and must always be viewed in the light of world history and American history.

I will say more later, but one of THE linchpin reasons the USA is such a departure from the misery of 5000 years is that our system provides the incentive to achieve, to keep the fruits of success.

more later

good discussion

Bob said...

The atheist contribution to the Revolution inculuded Thomas Paine's Common Sense. I'll leave it to the next poster to make the obvious sarcastic comment.

Iztok said...

'cock, Hitler was Catholic. Stalin had good old Christian upbringing too. They've both goth their doctrines from Christian roots.

Again, you did not give a single deed that one can attribute to judeo-christians that can't and is not performed by an atheist.

Yes that is exactly what atheist means. We don't believe that there are any gods. That is all there is to it. Basically main difference between you and an atheist is that atheist believes in one less god then you. You are an atheist when it comes to all other possible gods (that one can't disprove either).

Yes there is a progression away from polytheistic religions towards mono and further non-theistic. As well as progression from tyrants and kings to democracy. However considering you still hold onto your belief towards ultimate tyrant (God of OT) and king (Jesus) I don't get that. Unless you will evoke another exception that sometimes there is "good king"?

Gamecock said...

Bob

There is no conflict between Common Sense, i.e, Reason and the Bible. In fact, as the Pope made clear, they are congruent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/15/religion.uk

But that does not bolster what passes for Iztok's "argument." The Founders based what they founded on judeo-christian vales and the Enlightenment. There is no atheist values.

Iztok said...

Oh, here is an example of a moral failure in NC. Christians are opposing school anti bullying law that will protect our kids from being bullied.

Way to go!

Gamecock said...

When was Hitler's last communion?

seriously?

But, Ok, for the sake of argument let's add Hitler's slaughter to the God side.

Communism is the closest thing we have to an atheist creed and it led to what? 20million in USSR and 40 million in China?

Who is most hurt by the moral failure of nations? Depends. If its Christian, millions less are hurt.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

a)Thou shalt not bully people that want to have sex with the opposite sex.

or

b)Thou shalt not bully people that pull the wings off flies.

or

c)Thou shalt not bully people that use drugs.

or

d)Thou shalt not bully people.

I choose D. Which is "the law", see common sense for people that aren't spooked by PC BS, ie adults that can use judgment.

Iztok said...

'cock: "But, Ok, for the sake of argument let's add Hitler's slaughter to the God side."

Let's start with the Bible and compare God's side vs. Satan's side. Guess who wins in number of dead? Let's start with population just before Noah's trip on his boat. So what percentage of people and innocent animals were killed by God? How does that compare to population percentage killed by Stalin and Mao? I think Stalin and Mao are amateurs in comparison.

Iztok said...

"When was Hitler's last communion?"

I guess you failed to read Hitler's work? Perhaps pictures would help people like you?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Probably the only reason why Hitler didn't receive last communion was because Russians got there first. Otherwise I am sure Catholics would make sure he got one. They didn't seem to fail celebrating his birthday in Churches.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

I know I've won this ongoing body count debate when you resort to shaking your fist at God that dares be God. God gets to be God. He created us and he sets the rules. He has a plan to make us sons of God that could live forever but you reject that plan because everyone must die.

Your choice. God is pro-choice.

Gamecock said...

Name one Catholic Church celebration of Hitler outside Germany or Nazi controlled territory.

Any in Sheboygan circa 1934-1944?

Pete said...

Jesus wants us to love each other. When loving there aren't many concrete answers. There are so many circumstances in our many relationships that there is no way there can be a concrete answer about what is the most loving thing to do. But we know when we want the best for someone. We know when we are jealous and angry. With a little honesty we know when the reason for our lack of love is prejudice.

Iztok said...

"Name one Catholic Church celebration of Hitler outside Germany or Nazi controlled territory."

I guess it depends on the definition. If we go strictly by definition then all the things coming from Vatican were outside of Germany and Nazi controlled territory.

Your "God gets to be God" is very pathetic. You are making excuses for mass murderer and killer because you feel some connection to it. Dictator gets to be dictator yes that is my whole point. Hence we see atrocities committed by dictators throughout history. God, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and many others. It gets to show you what I am trying to say... no matter what your religious creed is absolute power corrupts absolutely and that does include celestial dictatorship.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

Maybe you should try and gather support for impeaching God. But even if you succeed, enforcment would be a bi*ch.

I guess in onse sense what happened in Eden was Man impeaching God. We impeached God while in Paradise.

Anonymous said...

Gamecock and Iztok, you are two of the biggest windbags I've ever encountered. Every time either of you enters a conversation, it immediately shifts off-topic and becomes a clash between your respective fringe-right and fringe-left political ideologies.

If I wanted to listen to that kind of cattiness, I'd turn on AM talk radio. Please let the conversation remain civil and on-topic for the rest of us... take it outside if you need to.

Iztok said...

Gamecock: As with any other dictator impeachment is risky. Many people died fighting dictatorship. Some were burnt at stake, some were burnt in crematoriums and some were sent to various concentration camps for their "sins" against dictatorship. At least people condemned to death under Hitler didn't suffer past their death, with your dictatorship those who don't submit to it when they die the "fun" just begins in Hell.

Wow, your celestial dictator sounds more like any other earthly dictator come to think of (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, God, Great Leader, Dear Leader,...). At least some of us have some sense of morals and oppose any type of dictatorship. You on the other hand are just like those Stalinists who didn't see flaws in their leader and allowed him to play god as you allow yours.

Gamecock said...

Anonymous, get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning pal?

I disagree with you, about me and I'm staying inside.

Professional blog critic, was that a threadjack?

Btw, when did you buy out Jane's ownership interest in Sacred Space?

I'm thinking maybe a moral failure on your part is at the root of your unsubstantiated charge against me. On topic enough for you and hey, your indictment against me couldn't get past a grand jury. (And I know as I have achieved "no bills" from same.) Write it up with examples and make sure you have clean hands.

God bless

Gamecock said...

Iz', as wrong as you are, I consider you on topic, given your defense of moral failures!

Iztok said...

Gamecock, thank you.

I however don't see where I am wrong. Take a moment and forget the fact that you believe in God, take that out of the picture and evaluate the deeds of God performed in OT. Now tell me if you would still approve those killings (flood)?

The thing is simple. What actions of the animals killed in flood were so bad that they deserved punishment like that? Would such killings of animals be considered good now? Do you think animals deserved such punishment? What I am looking at is how you would justify killings of animals as moral act. (God can do whatever is not the answer unless you also consider that dictator can do whatever.)

Bob said...

He saved the whales.

Anonymous said...

Gamecock,

FWIW, I am not exactly a full-blown leftist liberal.

Socially, I am probably a bit on some issues from your perspective, but not quite as much economically.

Remember I voted for Bush I and Ronnie.

Also, while not a full-blown Randroid Objectivist, either, I am more in line with her pro-capitalist leanings than most others of my "persuasion".

Anonymous said...

The writers of our Constitution were heavily influenced by John Locke and other philosophers of the so-called Enlightenment where reason began to replace divine authority.

Gamecock said...

Iztok, your post gave me the insight to answer Jane's blog question: Individuals and mankind are equally hurt by moral failure. Why? The Fall of Man. It is moral failure, i.e. our individual and collective refusal to let God be Lord and make us into the creatures he intended and to, rather, be our own Gods, that hurts equally, as the wages of sin are death for us individually and fallen individuals can't make a utopian society and Creation fell, hence floods 'tok - Like that segue-way

You said:

"What actions of the animals killed in flood were so bad that they deserved punishment like that? Would such killings of animals be considered good now? Do you think animals deserved such punishment? What I am looking at is how you would justify killings of animals as moral act. (God can do whatever is not the answer unless you also consider that dictator can do whatever.)"

Iztok

There is no equivalence between a God that created us and other created creatures that choose to be dictators and slaughter people.

But on your own terms, where do you get this notion that animals and humans "deserve" to live forever?

Gamecock said...

Anon

Good!

First of all, are you the only anonymous here? Didn't you or the other? say that I was confusing you with the other.

Certainly, our discussion yesterday (in which you went way off topic! smile)revealed to me that you are certainly not a leftist! Praise God.

But given the implication of your post, you seem to be moving left, given that Ronaldus Magnus last ran in 1988 and the last repub you voted for ran in 1992. (FTR, Dubya was the first repub I voted for for Prez in 2004. I was a dem party official in SC for 18 years before the conservative epiphany.)

Are you moving in the wrong direction? Need more reality mugging? smile

Gamecock said...

I understand that Anon, bet the Founders also saw no conflict between reason and judeo-christian principles and morality in producing the best societal results both economically and socially. In fact, they deemed the system they fashioned only workable by a judeo-christian principled moral or religious people.

And did you see what the Pope told the secularists in Europe? Not all religions are equal!

Anon, I am a phi beta kappa summa cum laude econ major who has tried big cases all over the US. My brother in a phd theology professor and pastor and published author. We are So Baptist evangelicals.

I have always looked askance at avowed atheists and questioned their intelligence or their honesty.

Christians founded most institutions of higher education.

The attack on Christians is because people don't like to adhere to moral standards, but it is those standards that make civilization possible.

Seriously, read the Pope's Regensburg speech - link upthread.

And notice I echo the founders re J-C PRINCIPLES, not necessarily belief in God. Faith is an issue for a much more important matter than government and culture.

more later

Iztok said...

Gamecock: "But on your own terms, where do you get this notion that animals and humans "deserve" to live forever?"

Where did I say that?

I am asking you when do animals deserve to be drowned?

Is it ever moral action to drown animals or not?

Gamecock said...

Is it moral to create a creature that can't live forever? By whose standard do we judge if its moral? My question to you is the flip side of yours to me. You are concerned with when animals deserve to die, with an underlying assumption that they deserve to live. To answer your question one has to agree with the premise. I don't, but am open to being persuaded that animals and Iztok "deserve" to live forever.

give it your best shot

Bob said...

And don't forget to give Him credit for saving the whales. (I think I nailed him with that one, Gamey.)

Gamecock said...

Bob, are we talking two on (or under?) the Ark?!

Bob said...

No. God didn't kill ANY of the whales1 They just swam alongside and made those squeak sounds. So HE didn't kill ALL the animals, as Izzie so falsely claimed! And the whales weren't even endangered back then, so it was pure goodness, plain and simple! He didn't even kill the dolphins, even though he knew how annoying they would later become at aquatic-themed parks. You're really missing some good arguments here on this important issue!

Bob said...

Of course, I bet Izzie comes back with that lame atheist argument about how, if God was really benevolent, He would have given Noah a pre-boarding revelation about kitty litter. We've got to keep one step ahead of his twisted logic!

Gamecock said...

Bob, you are true Christian to call what Iztok issues any kind of logic, given how he defines away any foundation for what follows. But I am thinking of hiring him as a paralegal because he does a good job on steps 3 and 4. As my employee, I will be the God that determines steps 1 and 2!

And at DeVine law we kill animals for food and allow killing them for sport! Especially cockroaches

Iztok said...

Bob, I never claimed God killed ALL animals. Obviously he didn't kill all and from my perspective he didn't kill any anyways (since he doesn't exist but that is another story).

I am just asking if it is ever moral to drown animals on purpose or not.

As far as 'cocks question. I never said one deserves to live forever. I just said one deserves to live until one dies of natural causes (of an old age) provided one is not punished for some deeds committed (like murder). So I wonder what did animals that God drowned did to deserve being drowned. So in essence what was so moral and good about drowning animals.

Honestly if you all agree that drowning animals is not moral we can all move past that.

Bob said...

Ha! I knew he'd duck the whales thing! Typical. Look, from the point of view of the humans and the animals and non-skeeter bug insects, the Flood had a downside because of the drowning aspect. Granted. But you can't be so drylandocentric. For the whales, it was like, whoa, Eddie, look! More room! Finally! And that can be a big deal when you eat in the same place where you, well, you get the idea. So you sometimes you have to look at the big moral picture. If I had been God, I would have bored everyone to death by making them read your posts! It would have taken only 39 days, still it would have been crueler!

Gamecock said...

Iztok

You are welcome for my praise of your logic abilities re 3 and 4. That was high praise coming from a rooster that aced logic behind Ivy Towers and has used it to feed scores of people for 20 years.

Be nice while you pretend not to believe in God. (Fact is you are mad at God but can't leave him alone. I suspect you could be one of the elect and that all your sound and fury leads to a Damascus Road. I may be your Ananias.

Now, to the animals and your underlying argument that anyone that believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can't pass judgment on terrorist sponsoring Iranian mullahs.

[You are going to like some of this, and I expect you to admit it later or I will be very disappointed in your character.)

I forget if it is Job or Paul that rebukes the Iztoks of his day with (paraphrase) "shall the created instruct the creator"?

God has a purpose in his creation. He wants to make sons that he can love and that freely love him back. Apparently a process is required with part of that process being that God had to lower himself to become a creature and die. Cosmic calculus. The process takes thousands or millions of years. Animals serve a purpose. We see thru a glass darkly now.

But 'tok, all will die, the question is how and when.

The God that sentenced all of us to death due to sin, also issued commandments that we have dominion over creation and be stewards (includes animals) and that we not murder other men. I think the principles of scripture indicate that it is wrong to torture animals. So I agree that if man drowns an animal that is not suffering (like a lame horse) and is not going to eat it, it is probably wrong.

A flood is a natural cause, and I know what you are going to say, so save it. The point is Iztok, that you cannot compare a creator to a dictator creature and you are still left with the dilemma of the morality of creating a creature that can't live forever.

One more thing. I seem to recall that the gravamen of your complaint against God, the Church, Christianity and Christians is a personal experience with intolerant people acting in God's name.

Iztok, imagine a rock under a hat. People debate whether a rock is under the hat. Some Rock people act the fool. Some anti-rock people disbelieve the rock exists based on how some rock people act.

But how rock people act, whether the braves win on Friday or whether you hold your tongue a certain way affects the existence of the rock not a whit.

Think about it

Iztok said...

Bob, I am not avoiding. It is you who claimed I said "all animals".

So tell me what is so moral to kill majority of animals living on this planet (except say whales and dolphins and few saved on the ark)? What did those animals that drowned did to deserve it?

Since you are avoiding the answer all I can deduct is that you agree that drowning majority of the animals living at the time wasn't moral. (If you disagree, feel free to explain why it was moral.)

Gamecock said...

Bob

You made my day! LOL

Gamecock said...

I very rarely use the word "deserve." Contract rights are about it (The Constitution is a contract.)

To use it in any other way requires that one make a moral judgment devoid of an agreement between parties.

see my point Iztok?

Iztok said...

Gamecock, you are one bringing up why anyone would deserve to live forever.

"The point is Iztok, that you cannot compare a creator to a dictator creature"

Sure I can. If the shoe fits. You never provide any reason why your creator is not a dictator.

Here is definition:

a: one granted absolute emergency power;

b: one holding complete autocratic control

c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

"imagine a rock under a hat."

Imaginary rock is still imaginary. I agree with you here. Until you provide me clear evidence that rock is not imaginary.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

That the rock exists is a given in my post.

Human dictators don't create their subjects.

But yes, Iztok, God gets to be God but also allows you to be your own God. Save yourself if you can. Have at it.

I'm disappointed that you didn't tank me for the compliment to you.

You weren't spanked enough as child.

Anonymous said...

Gamecock,

I don't think our discussion on mortgage/interest rate was way off topic.

As someone who has studied economics, surely you have heard the term "moral hazard".

It is used to describe exactly the situation we find ourselves in today in which risks are removed from decisions.

I was going to tie that together at some point, but there it is for consideration.

And FWIW I am probably the same anonymous who has been an irritant for some time now ;).

And you aren't going to get me to ignore the Enlightenment influence on our Founding Fathers.

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason is a fine example of their influence. David Hume was even said to have had some influence on Madison's Federalist papers.

As for your educational credentials, don't bother trying to impress. We've been down that road before with little productive results.

Besides, I am not impressed by "authority".

Gamecock said...

GREAT ANSWER ANONYMOUS

and I agree. Loved the "moral hazard" reference and the non-moved by "authority". I have said that before myself. Arguments must stand and fall on the merits.

Good man. You make it worth my while to come here (as do others, esp Jane of course).

I am appropriately humbled. truly

Ever watch Kudlow at 7pm?

Iztok said...

Gamecock, I did say thanks for the compliment on being on topics of morals, didn't I?

About logic one? It is hard to take compliment from someone who doesn't adhere to logical thinking himself. Sorry so no go there.

"You weren't spanked enough as child."

I am sure you are beating your child already but some of us and our parents progressed from barbaric treatment of kids, thanks! Thankfully in NC there are rules that prohibit spanking kids in order to protect kids from people like you.

"That the rock exists is a given in my post." Sure it exists... in your mind. No evidence is provided. Hence imaginary.

"Human dictators don't create their subjects." Neither do celestial dictators. Just in case you didn't learn anything from biology class, mom and dad create their offspring. Considering you being a father one would think you knew that. But I guess one can't assume nowadays.

"God gets to be God but also allows you to be your own God."

That is weird statement that makes no sense at all. Which particular property of God are you referring to in your case when you say "being God"? Dictator gets to be dictator but also allows you to be your own dictator in your own house and beat/kill your wife(s) and child(ren) in good old fashioned Christian tradition (Matthew 15 and other horrors).

Sorry but I am not fan of Proverbs 23:13-14 like you seem to be.

I just hope your kids will be able to recover from your abuse.

Iztok said...

"Be nice while you pretend not to believe in God. (Fact is you are mad at God but can't leave him alone."

I don't pretend. Why would I be mad at something that I don't believe it exists? (Mind you I didn't say I believe it doesn't exist, big difference.)

Here is the thing. I don't think it is morally right to teach kids something we don't have any evidence of. Things are simple, if you tell your kids there is a rock under the hat then lift the hat and show them the rock. If you claim rock is under the hat but you are unwilling to lift the hat and find all sorts of excuses why you can't lift the hat you are teaching your kids something that is morally wrong. You are teaching them wishful thinking. You can tell the kid that there is a rock under the hat because if you move the hat one feels something heavy under the hat, but that doesn't rock make. It could be any number of other things, perhaps a piece of ice or any other substance). But the fact is that it is morally wrong to tell something you don't have evidence for.

Gamecock said...

My condolences for your family's burnt hands from touching hot stoves.

more later

Iztok said...

"My condolences for your family's burnt hands from touching hot stoves."

You do know that humans invented thermometer?

While on the subject of stones and morals. It is not moral to tell kids there is a magic soup stone. We owe it to them that stone is just a stone and soup is good because of all the rest of the things that goes into the water.

Gamecock said...

Iztok

All children (including little Izzy) hear the voice of God independently of their parents and we have a book with testimonies of people that witnessed the resurrected savior.

Iz', are your children being deprived of affirmation of the existence of love because we can't see it? Histories of figures with less modern authentication than the Bible?

Ever show your child animal footprints and tell them that said animal walked that way?

Earth and the Universe exists.

You surely teach your child things you affirm as true that you believe in on a faith devoid of a 66 book compilation that you deem moral to teach.

Depriving them of Santa Claus too I guess. sad

Iztok said...

Gamecock: "All children (including little Izzy) hear the voice of God independently of their parents and we have a book with testimonies of people that witnessed the resurrected savior."

No most of us don't hear any voices in our head. I understand that some sick people do and so do some on drugs but healthy non drugged people don't hear voices in their heads. As far as the book is concerned. Can you name such a book written by a person who witnessed resurrection? As far as I can tell they are hearsay at best.

"Iz', are your children being deprived of affirmation of the existence of love because we can't see it?"

Are you saying that your "God is intangible just as love"? Because love is not intangible. Unlike God love is a physical thing.

"Earth and the Universe exists."

Sure they do. What does this say about God? Nothing. Even if I would admit that there has to be creator (which there is no need/evidence for it) it is far fetched that this is your God. You have to do more then that. On top of that, you claim God exists therefore there has to be something that created it. (If you tell it always existed you could just easily say universe always existed as well.)

"You surely teach your child things you affirm as true that you believe in on a faith devoid of a 66 book compilation that you deem moral to teach."

No, I don't teach my kids anything on faith. We trust reason and evidence.

"Depriving them of Santa Claus too I guess."

Sure. My kids know Santa Claus is not real either. I am surprised you still believe he is real however. Perhaps all the voices in your head?

Only moral stance is to teach kids reason based on evidence. Wishful thinking is just that, wishful thinking. It serves our young no good. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Also extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So far none is provided thus it is morally wrong to teach that emperor has clothes when in fact he is naked.

Gamecock said...

I'm just thankful that your pathologies from the trauma didn't cause you to turn against men, women or both but only turned you against Christians.

I'm also thankful that I know that if I meet other Iztoks I will remain objective.

Brother, can I buy you some coffee at the Starbucks on Hwy 51 near Carmel Road tomorrow? (Not a venti, we are in a depression)

Iztok said...

Gamecock: "I'm just thankful that your pathologies from the trauma didn't cause you to turn against men, women or both but only turned you against Christians."

You are wrong. I love Christians it is Christianity that is the issue. (As far as big part of moral decay in our society is concerned that is. Now granted many other religions are worse off, but that is no excuse.)

I just can't imagine people this day and age as adults still believing in Santa! Amazing how cruel were their parents never telling them the truth. No wonder our society is going morally bankrupt considering all the deceiving parents are doing.

BTW: Did you ever substantiate your allegations you brought up together with movie Expelled about people fired for their religion? If I remember correctly you never did after asked. You just announced that as a fact but when asked which particular person was a "victim of science" you gone quiet.

Anonymous said...

Gamecock,

You mentioned Jefferson attending Christian churches and funding Bibles.

As you may know, that doesn't make him a Christian as much as a politician.

If you want to know what he really thought, look into the so-called "Jefferson Bible".

He edited it to take what he considered the nonsense out.

Probably much of the stuff you and your fellow Christians actually believe made Jesus "special" was removed from his version.

That book will give you a better insight into what Jefferson REALLY thought about Christianity.

Now you have to remember as well, that people in England were still being killed for being atheists/blasphemers around that time (like the Taliban now), so people who valued their lives were somewhat oblique in voicing their criticisms of Christianity.

Even David Hume, the famous Scottish skeptic/atheist had to publish works anonymously.

Anonymous said...

While our Founding Fathers did hold some Christian teachings in high regard, the were not fundamentalists.

It was over 200 years ago, but some of them still had the guts to question much of religion in public.

And they were probably showing quite a bit of restraint considering the consequences of blasphemy at that time.

You will not find "Jesus Christ" mentioned in the Constitution or D of I.

Quite an omission for an alleged "Christian Nation".

Gamecock said...

Anon

Yes, I am aware of all that about Jefferson. He favaored judeo-christian principles to organize a society. He wasn't a believer in miracles.

Gamecock said...

Anon, you are wrong.

In the year of our Lord is mentioned in the date.

You ought to read On two wings : humble faith and common sense at the American founding / Michael Novak.

Iztok said...

"In the year of our Lord is mentioned in the date."

Sure is. Many people also say "Holly Cow". It is just an expression.

Iztok said...

"In the year of our Lord is mentioned in the date."

Some people actually use this as their evidence that our constitution is not secular in its nature. This term is derived from AD and was commonly used term in 18th century in regards to dating. One shouldn't read past that and in fact it would be very stupid to do so. Using the same argument one could use the fact that January and Sunday are also used in constitution. That doesn't mean that those who drafted believed in Janus or Sunne as pagan gods. Sometimes expression is just that, an expression and interpreting "In the year of our Lord" as any type of evidence of non-secular nature of our constitution is taking things out of context.

Gamecock said...

No Iz', it is what A.D. means. They could have put A.D. or not put A.D. or the translation. They chose to say it that way for a reason. Read books. See upthread.

I am going to the Waffle House now. Meet you there. I'm the real good looking guy that struts like a rooster!

And 'tok, I'm not saying the Constitution is not a secular document and no one else is. That is your lazy talking point about anyone that points out that the Framers were influenced by judeo-christian principles, Plato, Rome and the Enlightenment. Its not Christians that distort the record, rather, its radical secularists like you that do.

But History is.

Iztok said...

Gamecock, by your logic Janus, Sunne, and Mars were also mentioned in constitution on purpose to show the pagan influence. They could have chosen not to put them there.

Gamecock said...

Iztok, are you truly completely ignorant of the devotion to and influence of judeo-christian principles as relates to the form of government we have of ALL the Founders and Framers and that the overwhelming majority were believers and that those that were not still considered the J-C principles necessary for us? Ever read the Novak book I linked to upthread? Federalist papers? Newt's book on the founders and faith?

I suspect you are not ignorant but rather are trying to sell the big lie to evangelize for atheism.

Therefore, go read the books and/or confess or leave me alone till Tuesday.

you bore me

Iztok said...

Gamecock, you seem to fail to realize that democracy and republicanism are pagan concepts to the core. Our founding fathers based the United States government on the Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon ideas along with freethought ideas from the Enlightenment.

You never substantiated your insinuations you brought a while ago with movie Expelled. Never gave a single example of expelled.

Go talk to Santa now. Rest of us moved on from such belief. Even my kids know Santa is not real.

Bob said...

Didn't the English Reformation and its aftermath figure in there somewheres?

Danbo59 said...

You guys are wasting your time. People like Izzie can't see the forest for the trees. Pray for him and others like him, as I do.

By the way, what is a Holly Cow, Izzie? Is that some kind of topiary?

Gamecock said...

Great point Bob.

Danbo59 said...

Gamecock said of Iztok, "Fact is you are mad at God but can't leave him alone."

Bingo. I've said this all along. Someday -- hopefully before it is too late -- Iztok will have the courage to admit it and seek a reconciliation. His vitriol places the children he claims he has at risk, as well.

Iztok said...

Danbo: care to back your claim about at risk children? I teach my children reason and logic and don't spank. On the other hand we can already see that Gamecock plans to use violence on his children (by claiming I wasn't spanked enough it is obvious he plans to hit his kids).

BTW: It is not legal for me to use any type of physical force on my kids (goes the same for every foster care parent).

If anyone here seeds violence is your religions. Look at conservative Christians in NC opposing bullying law and death threats from Catholics to people who reasonably claim Host is just a wafer/cracker. Not to mention other faithful flying airplanes in buildings.

No Kings,
Iztok

Anonymous said...

Gamecock,

The "Year of Our Lord" thing was pretty funny. I think I'll use that to show just how IMPORTANT Jesus Christ was to the writers of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

When I checked the Constitution the score was:

Janus - 3
Jesus - 1

And the winner is....

Janus.

Lisa E. said...

Morality aside, the greatest social indicator for whether a child will take drugs, drop out of school, end up incarcerated, become sexually active in their young teens, contract an STD, have a child out of wedlock and live in poverty for the better part of their lives is whether or not they come from a 2-parent home. That is not a 2-adult home as in Mom and her boyfriend, but both biological parents in the home married to each other. Even if both biological parents are present but just co-habitating, it apparently does not do as much as having married parents to secure the future of the child although it is a better alternative than most.

Obviously, this does not mean that every child raised in a two-parent home will do well and every child raised in a non-2-parent home will do time. The stories of kids who have beaten the odds abound. However, I don't think its possible to overstate how devastating the throwing aside of the traditional two-parent family has been to the poor and working classes. This is the single biggest factor inhibiting social mobility - NOT the state of the economy.

Meanwhile, the affluent who are very proud of their ability to see shades of gray are cheering on these alternative social arrangements even while they themselves tend to stay in school, marry before childbearing and to remain married til death us do part. Elitists tend to congratulate themselves for their compassionate acceptance of other peoples' personal choices, but is this true compassion?

Let's forget religion and morality for a moment. What are the 3 things that a young person can do to secure their future? Graduate from high school, marry prior to childbearing and STAY MARRIED. I could endlessly qualify this because of course, there are exceptional situations, but generally, that's just the facts, ma'am.

Personally, every time I hear affluent people pontificating about how socially broadminded they are I'm sure they're thinking about that nice gay couple in their 3400 sq.ft. house. He's an architect and the other he works for a bank. But I'm thinking of that 16-year-old girl, an immigrant to this country, pregnant, high school dropout. She'll always be either poor or barely making it. Her child has very little shot at a decent life so now we're dealing with generational poverty. Or that teenaged boy fathering children he's not prepared to raise. These kids have been sex-educated to death but something isn't taking hold. Elitist broadmindedness doesn't do much for those kids. Perhaps they would have benefitted from a little more black-and-white and a little less gray.

Gamecock said...

Lisa E provides the definitive answer. Thanks you gal.

Iztok said...

"These kids have been sex-educated to death but something isn't taking hold."

No they were not. Sex-ed in our school is hardly present and many parents avoid it past "don't have sex before you are married" part. Sex-ed is more then basic biology, it is discussing prevention past the "don't have sex" part. By show of hands, how many parents of teen children are confident that their child is comfortable enough to come to them for advice about protection? How about calling when drunk at the party and needed transportation home w/o guilt trip?

When compared to other western countries we have amongst the highest rates of STDs and teen pregnancy. I care to venture teens in other western countries don't have finished high school and married either however they do receive better sex-ed in school as well as from their parents.

US teen pregnancy rate is 9 times higher then in Netherlands! Teen birth rate is almost 11 times higher, abortion rate is nearly 7 times higher, HIV teen rate is 3 times higher, Syphilis rate is 6 times higher, Gonorrhea is 74 times higher, and so on. It also shows that teens in Netherlands have fewer sexual partners on average then teens in US.

Anyone care to venture what the key differences are? Obviously it is not finished high school or marriage.

Our sex-ed is obviously not working. If I venture to guess is that adults see children as an asset and not as a problem, government strongly supports education and self-sufficiency of adolescents, political and religious groups have little influence on public health policies, consistent sex-ed and public education campaigns, convenient access to free or low cost contraception, parents have open, honest discussion with teens about sexuality, adults see sexual activity as normal for older adolescents, unprotected sex is considered stupid and irresponsible.

Bob said...

Your 16-year-old mom probably never heard most of my pontifications about my gay neighbors. (The architect is okay, but the bank guy is a real doofus. I don't know why they stay together.) But I bet she has seen lots of mass entertainment and lots of mass advertising. Does this pose any problems for free-market, family-values conservatives?

Gamecock said...

Europe is dying (not having rnough children) and still dependent on us for their defense. They use the oney they should spend defending themselves to fund the government as daddy welfare. They long ago divorced marriage and family from child rearing. They have sexualized their children with condoms and abortion and simply don't have many children at all.

America is dynamic. We don't have luxury of having anyone defend us.

Apples and oranges, are the US and Europe.

Iztok said...

Gamecock, nice strawman to the argument!

Issue at hand was teen pregnancy and STDs and sex-ed that was discussed by Lisa E.

I understand your need to have many less educated kids in need to have more less educated and needy kids so "religion can come to the rescue" as it often does. Education is shown to be the main thing that helps people to become more responsible persons. We also see that more educated, less religious people are. Keeping masses uneducated and poor helps religion to spread. So yes it is in best interest of religious to not provide proper sex-ed to kids and thus provide many "food soldiers" for the cause. We are setting kids for failure on purpose by not providing them proper education then use this to advance religious agenda. That is morally wrong.

Not so long ago I've read one of those "Dear Abby" letters where parents wrote their 16 year old disappointed their family becoming pregnant. They didn't take any responsibility for failed education on their part claiming that they did teach no sex before marriage. Guess what, such education is failing and results are obvious. Sure thing in ideal world no sex before marriage is great but in practice it simply doesn't work. It is one thing to explain children why sex before being mature and capable enough to take care of the consequences but explaining contraception and dangers of unprotected sex as well as methods of reducing risk is what good responsible parents do. Teen pregnancy is mostly failure of parents, not children! Pushing head in the sand and pretending is just morally wrong! Setting our kids for failure then saying "I told you so" is child abuse.

Gamecock said...

Education is important. Values matter infiniently more.

Iztok said...

"Education is important. Values matter infiniently more."

You can not pass values to anyone without education process. Education is the only way people learn anything including values. (Even learning by experience is form of education process.)

It is hard to see people don't grasp that basic concept. But not surprising since some value belief in something there is no proof above all the rest.

Gamecock said...

I quite agree that one must be educated in the proper values. see proper

But the way you use the term education is in terms of merely passing along information. Your value is what I would deem value-less as is post-Christian secular and as a result, Dying Europe.

Yes, one of the main problems in America has been federal courts re-writing the Constitution to say public schools can't teach values lest one child's parents is offended.


So what we have is the schhol teaching children that their parents are kooks and that God's name is equivalent to the "f" word.

Iztok said...

Gamecock, there is a difference between education, information, and data. Christians are known for various redefinitions of the well known terms to suite their needs. From redefining theory to suite their ridiculous need for alternative theories about evolution and many others.

Information is data that has new value to the recipient (process of passing the data/information is education).

Information by definition has value to the recipient as opposed to mere data.

Parents might as well be kooks in some cases. I see it all around me here in Charlotte. Even "well educated" pastors hardly can complete a single sermon without committing one or more logical fallacies in their statements. I understand how this lack of capability passes to parents and kids. Teen pregnancy is moral failure of parents and their failure as educators for the most part.

God's name might just be the equivalent of the F word. While people deserve respect their beliefs do not automatically get that same protection. If one has silly belief system it is perfectly OK to point that out. Even you, highly educated, apply different rules and exceptions and find all sorts of excuses to continue to worship your God while you would never apply the same thing in every days life. Your faith is only considered a virtue when it comes to God and nowhere else in your life. If one would claim they have faith in magic tree even you would find it funny and such belief not worth respect.

No Kings,
Iztok

Gamecock said...

Thanks for making my point. You know lots of information but have no wisdom.

The German people were highly educated in the late 19th and thru the 20th century, nut in the late 19th and early 20th they turned from God. Hardly 20% of Germans attended church.

They chose permanent aggressive war. They followed Hitler.

They lost their values.

The stupid Christians in Britain and the US had to put that slaughter down and then had to put down the USSR lest all the world be slaves again.

And now, the enlightened in Europe that are so navel gazed they don't bother to pro-create would appease the jihadists with sharia law in their own nations.

pathetic

Lisa E said...

Iztok, that you believe yet MORE sex ed is THE answer to family breakdown that is devastating the working class is mind-numbingly, bone-crushingly moronic. The 2-parent family is THE most decisive social indicator for what children from working class families can expect from their lives and you actually believe that they just haven't been taught enough about sex? Take note everyone! These are the best answers the elitist lefties have to offer!!!!!!!

Iztok said...

Lisa E: You are entitled to your own opinion but you can't change the facts. Sex ed in US is barely existent and one of the major contributors to single family and teen pregnancy. You never addressed the facts that Netherlands has several times less STDs and pregnancies when compared to US.

Gamecock: Please define wisdom. This is another term you pulled out and I have a feeling that you don't use it in proper way either.

I agree, Christians in Germany followed Hitler. I doubt their choice as well.

I also doubt your choice of following faith and revere it as something worthy. You consider your faith a virtue but when someone else who demonstratively has even more faith (jihadists) you are bashing them. You can't have it both ways. So what is it now is faith good or bad?

You do know that Christians did destroy a lot of books and knowledge that didn't agree with their point of view and we only have Arabs to thank certain books and knowledge was preserved to date. Do you claim this was work of wise?

Our Leftist Elite said...

We're doing the best we can, but you see what we have to work with. When we think of something besides than sex, drugs and rock and roll, we'll let you know.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess it's time to drag out the old bishops saluting Hitler, photos.

Now, where did we put them?

Lisa E said...

Iztok, kids are being taught sex ed in public schools and to deny this is a silly waste of everyone's time. Besides sex ed doesn't address drug use and gangs, etc. Family breakdown is hydra. I don't think you can solve the entire problem by throwing condoms at it.

I would also take issue with the idea that because something "works" in a European country that it will necessarily work here. The Netherlands has a low fertility rate period. It's not just their teens that aren't having babies. America is different. I'm not sure why really - it just IS.

I'm not really sure why the left is so opposed to the 2-parent family, but their opposition to it has cost millions of people dearly.

Anonymous said...

OH MY GOD! Church attendance in Germany is now down to TEN PERCENT!

That place must be CRAWLING with NAZI's NOW...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

Iztok said...

Lisa E: Your statement about sex-ed in our schools is pure BS. North Carolina is pretty much on "abstinence only until marriage" education program. As I said, you are entitled to your opinions but you can't change the facts. 80% of federally funded abstinence only programs provide false, misleading or distorted information (2004 report by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)).

As far as birth rate. Yes birthrate in Europe in general is low. It is not low within religious population however. Wherever religion plays big role in life we see high teen pregnancy and high birth rate in general. We also see higher rate of child abuse (both female and male circumcision) amongst religious population. Treatment of women as second class citizens is also present. Not allowing women to do the same things as men do as well.

Gamecock said...

The main problem in out schools are the values they don't teach, like chastity, patience, virtue.

Wouldn't want to offend bohemian parents or oligarch federal judges.

Iztok said...

Main goal of school is to provide our children education. Parenting is and should be left to parents.

Gamecock, is insinuations and flat out lies part of your values? Because this is exactly what is presented to kids in Churches here in NC. Also, what about those insinuations you made with movie Expelled a while ago? Is this part of good values too? Present lies as a fact and hope they stick?

Iztok said...

Gamecock: Also is beating children good set of values as well? You certainly think it is with your insinuations that I wasn't spanked enough. I just hope you don't plan to abuse your newborn as you suggest others should be abused.

Gamecock said...

Spare the rod, spoil the child. - Proverbs 23:13

Iztok said...

Gamecock: you just prove my point how Bible is example of bad parenting. Here is more from the vile book:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. -- Luke 14:26

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. -- Proverbs 13:24

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. -- Proverbs 22:15

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. -- Proverbs 23:13-14

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. -- Leviticus 20:9

God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. -- Matthew 15:4

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him ... Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- Genesis 22:1-2,10

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.... -- Exodus 21:7

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah.... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.... And the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. -- Judges 11:29-39

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. ...
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. -- Genesis 19:8, 31-36

All the above are examples of immoral and bad parenting.

And people call it "good book".

I feel so sorry for your newborn.

Gamecock said...

Both my children are either in or have finished college.

Anonymous said...

When I lived in Texas some ignorant redneck Christian beat his child to death and police found his bible left open to that proverbs quote.

There are some really sick bastards out there that take that stuff too seriously.

Gamecock said...

Detroit is worse than Baghdad thanks to ignorant, mostly secular non-spanking parents, whose children were spared the rod and now who act like wild animals and murder and maim and terrorize the city.

Pete said...

Sex outside of marriage isn't immoral.

Gamecock said...

Pete, we disagree. I believe it is sin under Biblical teachings and that an objective view of history shows that when same is not discouraged by society, extreme problems result.

That said, I am single, and scheduled to sin at any moment! smile

Seriously though, I have maintained abstinence for long periods of time in the past 4 years, which elevated my relationship with God and made me a better person, more concerned with the needs of others and not a slave to carnal desires and gazing at my navel.

Bob said...

And you call yourself a rooster!

Danbo59 said...

Pete said, "Sex outside of marriage isn't immoral."

It sure as hell is.

Iztok said...

Gamecock, yes we all know you are starch supporter of "the Bible way" of life. Some of us just don't find killing and beating our children I(as Jesus promoted) moral at all. From your way of thinking to Talibans is just a small step. i have no doubt that people like you would turn this country into what Afghanistan was under Taliban regime in no time had they had a chance. (Public stoning for various sins, destroying historical monuments and books, arbitrary killings of infidels etc.) We got the picture, you don't have to spew your immorality under pretense of "moral values". Perhaps you should go live in place like Saudi Arabia where it is "moral" to treat women as a second class citizens. You will fit there just well.

Danbo59 said...

Izzie wrote [of Gamecock], "...we all know you are starch supporter of "the Bible way" of life."

What the heck is a "starch" supporter?!?! Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself, izzie?

Danbo59 said...

I think I'll start writing a book -- "Izzi-isms: The Wisdom of Iztik-tok."

Entries such as

1) Holly Cow -- a new type of topiary made famous in atheistic circles.

2) Starch Supporter -- one who prefers ironing of clothing using chemical aids.

Iztok said...

Danbo, sorry but English is not my native language. It is not even the second, third, or forth.

I make mistakes in spellings and grammar so what. It is not like I believe in magic wafers. That would be just plain silly.

Gamecock said...

Bob

I guess you missed the part about my past and the part about being scheduled to sin at any moment! But please pray that I will not.

Good one Bob, but tis rooster is a gamecock, and I have to stay in fighting shape.

Gamecock said...

I support medium starch in my pinpoint oxfords to the tune of $400 per year at One Hour Martinizing!

Gamecock said...

Does one hold mistletoe over a Holly Cow at Christmas?

Pete said...

Loving and responsible sex is good whether it is between married people or not.

Gamecock said...

Iztok, let Gamecock defend you. As a Southerner, English is not my native language as well, and as a genius that cares more for substance and who often doesn't take the time to spellcheck (my butler is busy with my food and clothes), I consider

spelling

to be the hobgoblin of puny minds.

As for your puny mind, the most serious hobgoblin is your hatred of God.

Gamecock said...

Bob

The worst I ever had was terrific, but the Bible tells us that Satan is beautiful.

Iztok said...

Gamecock, thanks for the offer. It is funny how ridicule comes from someone (Danbo) who believes crackers have magic properties when in fact they are just crackers.

Here is something to ponder:

http://cectic.com/172.html

Danbo59 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Danbo59 said...

Holly Cow and starch supporter are not misspellings -- they're misusage by a person who needs to spend as much time learning the language as he does trying to convince others that there is no God. God help his "supposed" children.

By the way, I don't believe any wafer has magical properties. The Body of Christ, on the other hand,....

Anonymous said...

I think Iztok's English is probably better than the average in the U.S. (or at least Georgia if this next site is to be believed).

Just check out this college English professor's blog:

http://educatedandpoor.blogspot.com/2008/07/student-essay-insanity-37.html

Iztok said...

Danbo: "By the way, I don't believe any wafer has magical properties. The Body of Christ, on the other hand,"

It is still just a cracker. Show me any evidence of otherwise and we might believe you. Until then, it is just a silly idea about a cracker.

We could start with you trying to identify cracker from "The Body of Christ" and if you can successfully pass that test we can see what magical powers it has.

My bet is that you can't tell a difference from one cracker to another. (Perhaps because there is NO difference.)

pornstudent said...

The magical part is when the wafer becomes the body of Christ. Then the anthropophagists eat Christ's body. Cannibalism was a common pagan ritual.

Danbo59 said...

If ignorance is bliss, Pornstudent and Iztok are two of the most blissful people on this Earth.

It's amazing that any one person could be so deep in despair -- let alone two!

pornstudent said...

Jesus could have made the cannibal ritual better by giving his disciples a piece of his ear, having them pray over it so that it's able to feed everyone (like the loaves and fishes feeding thousands), having his apostles keep the leftovers, and then having all the future priests pray over the leftovers so that the pieces of his ear are continuously multiplied and eaten by all future believers.

Iztok said...

Danbo: "If ignorance is bliss, Pornstudent and Iztok are two of the most blissful people on this Earth."

Yet you don't provide any evidence that your cracker is not a cracker.

It looks like a cracker, it smells like a cracker, it tastes like a cracker. Guess what it is a cracker!

pornstudent said...

The reasons why Jesus couldn't do the better version of the cannibalistic ritual is because he couldn't multiply the pieces of his ear any more than he could the loaves of bread, and the priest's prayers at communion can't multiply the pieces of ear any more than they can turn the crackers into Jesus' body.

Danbo59 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Danbo59 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Danbo59 said...

Pornstudent opined, "...any more than they can turn the crackers into Jesus' body."

Shows what little you know of what you attempt to denigrate -- it is not the priest who transsubstantiates (look it up) the bread into the body of our Lord, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who accomplishes that.

Read up on what you wish to ridicule before you take a step away from those porn sites you so gleefully spend all your time perusing. In the meantime, try to find a girlfriend; that is, a three-dimensional girlfriend.

Better yet, a living, breathing three-dimensional girlfriend -- one that's not out of a box and inflates.

pornstudent said...

Fine, the Holy Spirit does its thing after the priest says his mumbo jumbo.

Danbo is about to whine to Jane about how we add nothing to the discussion, but this post is a week old and he has yet to make a relevant comment. Well, danny boy, is Christian cannibalism a "non-squishy" moral failure and does it hurt the poor and working class more than others?

Danbo59 said...

I've never heard of Christian cannibalism, sorry.

pornstudent said...

Fine, communion.

Danbo59 said...

Moral failures harm everyone. Humanity takes a small step backward with each abdication to Satan in sin.

As to whether or not the "working class" or "poor" (I didn't know those two classes were mutually exclusive) are harmed more is up for grabs. The moral failure of the executives at Enron surely affected both the "working class" and the "poor" greatly. The mortgage crisis hurts not only those immediately affected by it, but more in that mortgages will be harder to obtain as people jump through additional hurdles so that financial institutions can cover their butts.

As for moral failures of a less global nature, the "blast zone" depends upon the nature of the moral failure. A man who breaks his marriage vows to his wife hurts himself and his family -- his wife and children especially.

So, as you can see, pornstudent, your addiction to pornography hurts you, but it also hurts the women who are coerced and enslaved into the lifestyle -- gives the purveyors of that smut all the more money and power to entice more women into the web. It cheapens an act of love and reduces it to an animal urge with no regard for the other person past the act itself. Man willingly lowers himself to the level of a thoughtless animal.

So there, I've made a true and constructive comment salient to the issue at hand.

Danbo59 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Danbo59 said...

Pornstudent asked, "...is [communion] a "non-squishy" moral failure and does it hurt the poor and working class more than others?"

The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist -- Holy Communion -- is not a moral failure of any kind, non-squishy or otherwise. It, therefore, does not hurt anyone.

Glad to have been of help.

Iztok said...

Danbo: "The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist -- Holy Communion -- is not a moral failure of any kind, non-squishy or otherwise. It, therefore, does not hurt anyone."

It is a mental failure for human to recognize a cracker as such.

pornstudent said...

Danbo - "The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist -- Holy Communion -- is not a moral failure of any kind, non-squishy or otherwise. It, therefore, does not hurt anyone."

Isn't it a sin to not partake of Communion? Would this be considered a "non-squishy" moral failure?

The poor may not be able to take Communion because they have to work more than the middle class and not be able to get to church. They may not have transportation. Believing that it is a sin to not take Communion is not to the poor's benefit.

Back to our other comments ... If you are really eating Christ's flesh during Communion, how isn't this cannibalism?

As you answer this, I'll respond to your comment about porn.

Iztok said...

"If you are really eating Christ's flesh during Communion, how isn't this cannibalism?"

Because they are eating a cracker they pretend to be something else.

Basically it is like faking an orgasm. Person who fakes an orgasm might act like it is happening in order to deceive others. If one would measure brain activity during faking one could see orgasm is not happening clearly but as with transubstantiation one has only persons word for it in most cases and if one dismisses evidence or lack of it then we have what we have. People calling those who insist on evidence as ignorant. Emperors new clothes.

Moral? It is immoral to lie and pretend when there is no evidence of it.

No Kings,
Iztok

Danbo59 said...

Pornstudent writes, "Isn't it a sin to not partake of Communion?"

No.

Pornstudent asks, "Would this be considered a "non-squishy" moral failure?"

Not applicable given the above answer.

Pornstudent writes, "The poor may not be able to take Communion because they have to work more than the middle class and not be able to get to church. They may not have transportation. Believing that it is a sin to not take Communion is not to the poor's benefit."

Again, irrelevant given the first answer. I love your retreat to the absurd here, though. The poor may not be able to get to mass, might not have transportation. I got a giggle out of that one.

Pornstudent writes, "Back to our other comments ... If you are really eating Christ's flesh during Communion, how isn't this cannibalism?"

From http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp --

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

Have a great day.

pornstudent said...

Danbo - "So, as you can see, pornstudent, your addiction to pornography hurts you, but it also hurts the women who are coerced and enslaved into the lifestyle... It cheapens an act of love and reduces it to an animal urge with no regard for the other person past the act itself."

These are mostly mistaken assumptions and generalizations.

I am not addicted to porn. Women chose to do porn. Sex isn't, and never was, usually an act of love. Sex is an animal urge.

Some men and women have a problem with looking at too much porn. Most Americans have a problem eating too much. Some watch too much sports, some spend too much time blogging, etc.. Porn addiction is not mentioned in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is very often mentioned by Christians who have problems with nudity and sex.

This faux morality is harmful to marriages because many churches advise women to leave husbands who enjoy porn.

Since the "pornification" of America and in spite of the harmful influence of many Christians, the divorce rate is the same and the number of rapes is down.

Anonymous said...

People who think the cracker is just a cracker are starch supporters.

Iztok said...

"People who think the cracker is just a cracker are starch supporters."

Thou shall not have any other starches before Him.

Ramen!

Anonymous said...

So, Gamecock, you think it's those secular non-spanking parents that have made Detroit heaven on earth, eh?

Maybe you should have chosen a city with more Montessori schools and less crack houses as a better example.

I'll bet you can find some stupid church on nearly street corner in any crime-ridden neighborhood in that city.

Poor, ignorant people usually thump their bibles at least as often as they thump their children.

How many times have we heard the neighbors of some gang-banger cry that "he was such a good boy, his momma raised him in church".

I've never heard them say "his momma was an atheist and never beat him enough".

Iztok said...

"I've never heard them say "his momma was an atheist and never beat him enough"."

Obviously! Divorce rate amongst conservative Christians is higher then other denominations and much higher then amongst atheists and agnostics. Not to mention how disproportionate are the numbers of incarcerated people (atheists/agnostics are a tiny percentage of prisoner population while they constitute about 10% population in US). Bible belt has higher proportion of STDs, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, highest divorce rate, lowest rate of high school graduation, poorest health care systems, etc. then rest of the country. One wonders about our moral failure to act as a society to prevent this attack of non-reason that is hurting our children.

My wife is a Christian (so is my oldest daughter and youngest to the extent) and we had discussion last night about teen pregnancy and prevention. She is shocked how people looked at her when she voiced out that she informed daughter about protection, pills, condoms etc... on top of her wish not to be sexually active until married. People in church were shocked but she told them that she hopes her daughter will make an educated decision about her life. She can't afford to pretend that teens don't have sex (working many years in ER she saw a lot of pregnant teens). She can't afford to have her daughter dying of AIDS while education could have minimized the risk of it. Interesting thing is that oldest one just graduated college(on time!) and already got a job. On the other hand many of her peers ended up pregnant and unable to finish school on time. Difference was good and sound sex education and child being able to come to parent and trust not to be judged.

Oldest one also has long standing offer that in case she would get drunk and everyone else as well she can call for a no question asked ride home. I would rather have her call me drunk and me driving an hour and a half to pick her up then her trying to drive when drunk and end up in an accident. (Do I wish she would never get drunk? Sure I do but I am a reasonable parent and while I inform about the issues of drinking and try to guide I don't pretend that there is no heavy drinking while at college.)

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "My wife is a Christian (so is my oldest daughter and youngest to the extent)...."

Thank God.

Gamecock said...

Amen Danbo, let's just hope he doesn't talk to them about how crazy we are too often so thet he becomes estranged.

Iztok said...

Danbo: "Thank God"

Believe it or not their delusion doesn't come from God but from their parents and past. Oldest daughter is growing out of this stage (not so much thanks to me but thanks to good education and good reasoning skills). She is Christian more on paper then anything else. Youngest one still suffers from child abuse caused by her former parents who were Christians and thought it was good to abuse kids with threats of hell and other forms of child abuse only religion can offer. God was doing very poorly until my wife and I came along to the rescue of pool child. You can only imagine how actions of few can have much better positive impact then prayers of many and our child is starting to realize that. We are still having spells when we have to spend nights in ER, hours with the police and other results of her traumatic Christian experience growing up. As far as my wife is concerned, I would describe her more of a non-practicing Christian as well. She accepts evolution, supports pro-choice, supports education (including comprehensive sex-ed), all those things that are not (or rarely) associated with Christians in this area. Or in other words, she (as well as older daughter) are associated with Christianity due to tradition more then anything else. At the end I have no doubt that reason will prevail with all of them on their own term. They will make the educated right choice at the end.

Danbo, how about you? You subscribe on good old fashioned Jesus preached Bible values of killing kids that mock parents? Or you skip that part of the Jesus teaching and take higher moral stand then your savior?

Iztok said...

s/pool/poor/

Gamecock said...

I'm just wondering what delusions they are getting and have gotten from Iztok.

Iztok said...

Gamecock: "let's just hope he doesn't talk to them about how crazy we are "

Thanks, you are doing a great job there yourself, I see no need to point out the obvious to them. For the most part they have developed good reasoning skills in the past year. They see the craziness with their own eyes in their more faithful peers and they don't see much of an asset to become part of that morally decayed society that pays lip service instead of doing the work.

Nothing points to the failure as high divorce rate, high teen pregnancy rate and high prison population. Too bad people don't have the ability to reconcile their delusions with reality facts.

Iztok said...

Gamecock: "I'm just wondering what delusions they are getting and have gotten from Iztok."

Such as?

My main teaching is to be skeptical in their quest for knowledge. To think for themselves first. To ask for evidence and supportive facts. I teach them reason foremost and let them make their own conclusions/decisions based on evidence and reasoning.

Gamecock said...

Like the kind of reasoning that sees an obviously designed universe and deduces a designer?

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "You subscribe on good old fashioned Jesus preached Bible values of killing kids that mock parents? Or you skip that part of the Jesus teaching and take higher moral stand then your savior?"

I don't recall Jesus preaching that children who mock their parents should be killed. Perhaps you can point us to where Jesus says that. Until then, try this preaching on for size --

"You shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind and with all your soul; and you shall LOVE your neigbor as you love yourself."

Or try this one --

"Woman, where are those who would condemn you?" followed by "Then neither do I condemn you; go -- and sin no more."

A Christian "on paper" is a not a Christian at all.

Danbo59 said...

Izzie, not only do you have your own blasphemy to answer for, but you will also have to answer for your part in corrupting the faith of your wife and theoretical daughter(s). The first is grievous; the second even moreso.

Gamecock said...

But Danbo, Jesus is having us all killed due to sin wages and refusal to let him ne Lord.

How dare God create us and not have a way to let their be joy with no possibility of evil and death for eternity.

How dare God do that.

How dare Iztok presume to raise his children!

get it Iz?

Iztok said...

"Like the kind of reasoning that sees an obviously designed universe and deduces a designer?"

What makes it so obvious? Tell me how would the universe look like if there was no designer? Because to me it certainly looks like it wasn't designed as one claims. Even if it would look designed and there was a need for a designer there are countless options that would be equally viable who/what the designer is. Far from God being the only solution. On top of that one would also need to explain design of designer and so on. To explain things with more complex things certainly is not reasonable stance.

Iztok said...

"I don't recall Jesus preaching that children who mock their parents should be killed."

In Matthew Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. How does he respond? He responds by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment. It is obvious that washing hands is a good practice and we should teach it to everyone. On the other hand killing disobedient children? I guess only Jesus would compare good advice to bad one and defend himself with the later.

Iztok said...

Danbo, re blasphemy.

1st why do you care about theoretical daughters? I don't care about them. I care about real ones.

2nd. This is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is at best a victimless crime. However one would only commit one if one would believe in such nonsense. Looking from another angle if your God would truly be concerned he would already smite me if he would think this is blasphemy. Your book certainly indicates such thing. I guess I either am not blaspheming or your God lost his power. Either way I am good with that. It is not like you or anyone else has any more access to tenants then I do. Neither does your Pope. (Whose brains are apparently fried based on his recent delusional statements in Australia.)

Gamecock said...

Ever occur to you that Big Ben, Sacred Space or the wheel, evolved?

A one-celled organism's DNA is infinently more complex than the above.

Gamecock said...

Iz', you really show your limitations in reading comprehension when you miss: irony, mocking sarcasm or other logical devices.

Seriously man.

pornstudent said...

'Cock, your comments are lazy. Are they a way of hiding your limitations?

Answer Iztok's rebuttals to your statement about the universe obviously being created, "Tell me how would the universe look like if there was no designer? Because to me it certainly looks like it wasn't designed as one claims. Even if it would look designed and there was a need for a designer there are countless options that would be equally viable who/what the designer is. Far from God being the only solution. On top of that one would also need to explain design of designer and so on. To explain things with more complex things certainly is not reasonable stance."

Anonymous said...

Gamecock is right about Matt. 15:1-9, Iz. Reread it in the manner he counsels and report back.

Gamecock said...

Too many Christians don't live like Christians and have been influenced too much by the liberal culture slouching towards Gomorrah.

Yes, it is a failure of Christians to be salt and light.

Spare the rod, spoil the Child stands as the best way. It is commonsense as well as Proverbial wisdom of God.

Gamecock said...

I have a career smutgazeruponer

What would an undesigned clock look like?

Pete said...

Jesus wants us to love God and each other. This is the great commandment.

Anonymous said...

We are all hurt by moral failure. The victim of a murder is hurt by having life shortened. The family or survirors are hurt by the loss of a loved one. The community is hurt by the loss of what that person contributed to the community. Society loses a contributor to the society and must now find and punish the one who murdered. In many cases, that means the cost of both prosecution and defense is paid by society.

pornstudent said...

'Cock, if you don't have time to comment, don't waste your time with your lazy sarcasms.

We know a clock is designed, so for us it looks designed. But if a clock was found by a man 200,000 years ago, it wouldn't be recognized as anything and it wouldn't be thought of as designed.

Bob said...

Gamecock: One current theory is that DNA (or a simpler precursor) was formed in the gaps of clay crystals (protecting it from radiation that would otherwise break it apart long before it became sufficiently complex to be self-replicating) and, once this new molecular structure became self-replicating, it had an advantage over randomly-formed molecular structures in a kind of pre-life "competition" for atomic raw materials.

Gamecock said...

slimedrinker

Brevity is the soul of wit and but I often don't heed the admonishon not to cast pearls before swine.

You and Iztokilth don't agree with my positions and you imagine in your immature and sophomorish minds that you win arguments based on bulk. You desire to have more material from me to work with to employ your sarcasms.

Sacasms are not created equal.

Now, have at the meal above.

Gamecock said...

Great theory. It can join the pile. Who designed that soup?

pornstudent said...

'Cock - "Spare the rod, spoil the Child stands as the best way. It is commonsense as well as Proverbial wisdom of God."

Have a look at:

Effects of Corporal Punishment

"Physical punishment, when administered regularly, increases antisocial behavior such as lying, stealing, cheating, bullying, assaulting a sibling or peers, and lack of remorse for wrongdoing.

Physical punishment increases the risk of child abuse.

Physical punishment serves as a model for aggressive behavior and for inappropriate ways of dealing with conflict.

Physical punishment erodes trust between a parent and child.

Physical punishment adversely affects cognitive development.

Adults who were hit frequently as children are likely to suffer from depression and other negative social and mental health outcomes."

The UN Study on Violence against Children

"Violence may result in greater susceptibility to lifelong social, emotional, and cognitive impairments and to health-risk behaviors, such as substance abuse and early initiation of sexual behavior."

Gamecock said...

I have looked at the effects of corporeal punishment: American in the 60s and 70s and 80s vs since then thru yesterday. I have looked in the mirror and at my children and have looked at the fatherless wild animals in Detroit.



I don't need no stinkin' liberal result oriented "studies'. Strong families are what's needed. Actual biological parents that love and would, on the whole (see %-wise) discipline prudently with love.

Bob said...

The claymation theory does not have soup. It has rocks and water. It addresses perceived flaws in the soup theory. The rocks come from ancient stars that imploded. The ancient stars come from the big bang. Where the big bang comes from is unknown. You asked how we get DNA without a designer, and the most plausible answer is through some process of emergent complexity, not a designer. How we get a universe at all is something even I do not know. Yet.

pornstudent said...

'Cock, you've changed your excuse for your lazy comments from "I have a career" to a claim of wit. Your lazy sarcasm continues when calling our minds "immature and sophomorish."

Jesus would have been disappointed in you.

Gamecock said...

Well, I never accepted any allegation of laziness re my responses on this blog but rather suggested that I might make longer responses if I had more time. I don't, and given your history, most any offering from me to you would violate the rule against feeding pigs expensive sustenance.

What's your excuse for lazy thinking? (Two excuses allowed)

For an idea of GC's abilities see:

http://gamecock.blogtownhall.com/

http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock

pornstudent said...

'Cock, your "commonsense" and "Proverbial wisdom of God" about hitting kids are wrong. Maybe you were hit as a kid. The studies do show that abusing children is passed on to the next generation.

"Actual biological parents that love and would, on the whole (see %-wise) discipline prudently with love." Your lazy comments are gibberish.

Gamecock said...

We disagree, garbagegobbler.

pornstudent said...

This blog isn't a place for your resume. Pathetic.

Gamecock said...

That was my personal website and my redstate.com blog, not a resume.

(Notice how I was able to refute your lie in one sentence. Too bad you and 'tok routinely take 5-6 wordy paragraphs and yet, never make a point. I was spanked as a child, yet, finished college, law school, built a career in law, business and writing and raised two children that finished college.)

argument with fool over

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "In Matthew Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. How does he respond? He responds by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment."

A more childish and incorrect interpretation of Mt 15:1-9 cannot be found, Izzie. Do your homework.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 297   Newer› Newest»