Quote of the Day [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Quote of the Day


Paul7
01-04-2012, 10:52
"Many laws make bad government. When the law is written on a people's heart, it need not be written in books. If the law is not written on their hearts, no multitude of laws and lawyers will maintain the rule of law. Written laws don't make people better, they make them behave."

Franklin Sanders


It does explain the decline of our society as people have turned from God. It is what the Founders meant when they said our system of government was made 'only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.'

Animal Mother
01-04-2012, 13:20
"Many laws make bad government. When the law is written on a people's heart, it need not be written in books. If the law is not written on their hearts, no multitude of laws and lawyers will maintain the rule of law. Written laws don't make people better, they make them behave."

Franklin Sanders


It does explain the decline of our society as people have turned from God. It is what the Founders meant when they said our system of government was made 'only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.'
How exactly has our society declined? When did this decline begin?

Norske
01-04-2012, 17:57
I believe that it is entirely possible to be a moral person but at the same time, NOT a religious person.

It is entirely possible to be a "religious" person yet NOT be a "moral" person.

Such as, the Rev. Jim Jones.

Any and all priests of the Spanish Inquisition.

Any and all Islamic suicide bombers.

Any and all religions lend themselves to fanacticism at some point in time.

When the fanatics hold sway, their religious beliefs take precedence over morality. At that point, NO evil is beyond them.

I think that mankind would be wise to simply abandon any and all religions and simply do its best to instill morality within the individuals who make up that society.

Japle
01-04-2012, 18:16
Many laws make bad government.
That depends on the laws. Bad laws make bad government.


When the law is written on a people's heart, it need not be written in books.
The problem with that is, you can’t get a dozen people to agree on what to have for breakfast, much less on which laws they like. If the laws “written on a peoples’ heart” are religion based, you’re going to have to get them to agree on a religion, and they won’t. It’s unrealistic to expect anything different.

If the law is not written on their hearts, no multitude of laws and lawyers will maintain the rule of law.
See above.

Written laws don't make people better, they make them behave.
No, written laws punish people when they misbehave. That is if you can catch them and get a jury to agree they misbehaved.

Paul7
01-04-2012, 19:56
I believe that it is entirely possible to be a moral person but at the same time, NOT a religious person.

It is entirely possible to be a "religious" person yet NOT be a "moral" person.

Such as, the Rev. Jim Jones.

Jim Jones was more one of you guys:

"While Jones always spoke of the social gospel's virtues, before the late 1960s Jones chose to conceal that his gospel was actually communism.[12] By the late 1960s, Jones began at least partially openly revealing in Temple sermons his "Apostolic Socialism" concept.[12] Specifically, "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism."[36] Jones often mixed those concepts, such as preaching that "If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin."[37]

By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being white men’s justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color and stating that it spoke of a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[12] Jones authored a booklet titled "The Letter Killeth," criticizing the King James Bible.[38] Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Vladimir Lenin, and Father Divine. In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former Temple member Hue Fortson, Jr. quoted Jones as saying, "What you need to believe in is what you can see ... If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father ... If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God."[6]

By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist."

Wikipedia


I think that mankind would be wise to simply abandon any and all religions and simply do its best to instill morality within the individuals who make up that society.

What, whatever 51% think is right at a given time?

Norske
01-05-2012, 07:45
Jim Jones was more one of you guys:

"You" guys? If you mean "secularists", you are painting with too broad a brush. Jim Jones played his con based on the mindless acceptance of the religious "faithful". He convinced hundreds of his mind-numbed robots that God wanted them to feed cyanide to their kids and drink it themselves. Secularists would have told him to urinate up a rope, if they did not shoot him first!


"While Jones always spoke of the social gospel's virtues, before the late 1960s Jones chose to conceal that his gospel was actually communism.[12] By the late 1960s, Jones began at least partially openly revealing in Temple sermons his "Apostolic Socialism" concept.[12] Specifically, "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism."[36] Jones often mixed those concepts, such as preaching that "If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin."[37]

By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being white men’s justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color and stating that it spoke of a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[12] Jones authored a booklet titled "The Letter Killeth," criticizing the King James Bible.[38] Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Vladimir Lenin, and Father Divine. In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former Temple member Hue Fortson, Jr. quoted Jones as saying, "What you need to believe in is what you can see ... If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father ... If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God."[6]

By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist."

Wikipedia

Communist Secularists hate Religion because religion competes with Communism for the hearts and minds of their respective gullible followers. Both demand that the individual liberties of the individual be subsumed by the needs of the greater masses.

I am a secularist, true, but I am a secularist who believes in individual liberties.

As such, I denounce both Communism and Religion equally.

Mankind would be wise to abandon both.



What, whatever 51% think is right at a given time?

If 99.999999999% of my fellows were to vote that I should be enslaved, I would spend my remaining hours on this earth doing whatever was necessary to maintain my individual liberties. And in so doing, I would not be going to whatever awaits us all on the other side of death alone.

That millions or even billions adopted Communism in the last 150-odd years since Marx published his delusions, or that uncounted Billions of equally deluded individuals have embraced any and all religions for the past 10 or 15,000 years or so, does not make either Communism nor Religions any the less the delusions they equally, are.

Paul7
01-05-2012, 08:09
How exactly has our society declined? When did this decline begin?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

See the table listing various crimes per 100,000 people. Almost all categories are well above 1960 levels.

Animal Mother
01-05-2012, 10:59
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

See the table listing various crimes per 100,000 people. Almost all categories are well above 1960 levels. And they've also declined since the late-80s and early-90s. Not to mention the evidence that increasing rates were driven as much by increased technology and ability to solve crimes as they were by an increase in actual criminal activity. Nevertheless, if these raw statistics are the evidence, society is apparently rebounding from the decline described in the OP.

Japle
01-05-2012, 11:00
Almost all categories are well above 1960 levels.
You may think people are less religious than they were pre-1960, but I doubt it. People are much more likely to reveal their lack of religion now, because it was much less socially acceptable back then.

People in 1930 were just as smart as they are now. They knew nonsense when they saw it.

Paul7
01-05-2012, 11:05
And they've also declined since the late-80s and early-90s. Not to mention the evidence that increasing rates were driven as much by increased technology and ability to solve crimes as they were by an increase in actual criminal activity. Nevertheless, if these raw statistics are the evidence, society is apparently rebounding from the decline described in the OP.

My point stands that crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God. IMHO whatever declines have happened have been partly due to more people owning guns and getting CCW permits. Why did they feel the need to be better armed?

Japle
01-05-2012, 12:31
Posted by Paul7:
My point stands that crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God.

It also corresponds with an increase in ethanol production and flat-screen TVs and personal computers and the ownership of Japanese cars and digital cameras and the rise of the DJIA and gun control in the UK.

So what? Any connection is purely a matter of your opinion.

Paul7
01-05-2012, 14:05
It also corresponds with an increase in ethanol production and flat-screen TVs and personal computers and the ownership of Japanese cars and digital cameras and the rise of the DJIA and gun control in the UK.

So what? Any connection is purely a matter of your opinion.

Nice dodge.

Japle
01-05-2012, 15:39
Nice dodge.

Not suprising that you don't even try to respond. :upeyes:

Paul7
01-05-2012, 15:57
Not suprising that you don't even try to respond. :upeyes:

How do you respond to irrelevant analogies?

Danny Reid
01-05-2012, 16:10
My quote for the day

" I am frustrated because GOD won't reveal himself to me. But then I remember HE doesn't exist...so HE can't. Right? "

Lewis Black

Animal Mother
01-05-2012, 16:49
My point stands that crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God. Even if this were true, and I question both claims, correlation does not imply causation.
IMHO whatever declines have happened have been partly due to more people owning guns and getting CCW permits. In 1960, the idea of a CCW permit wasn't an issue, most places didn't even have gun licenses and firearms purchases weren't regulated beyond NFA items.

Japle
01-05-2012, 17:05
Originally Posted by Japle:
Not surprising that you don't even try to respond.

Response by Paul7:
How do you respond to irrelevant analogies?

That was my point. Your analogies didn’t mean anything, either.
As AM said, correlation does not imply causation

Paul7
01-05-2012, 17:10
That was my point. Your analogies didn’t mean anything, either.
As AM said, correlation does not imply causation

The Founders thought there was one when it came to this subject.

juggy4711
01-05-2012, 18:55
...It does explain the decline of our society as people have turned from God. It is what the Founders meant when they said our system of government was made 'only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.'

The vast majority of folks in the US ( 70+%) are Christian, so if society has declined it's y'all's fault. Turns out the moral part was far more important than the religious part. I am almost certain of your response to this but wonder if you are silly enough to post it.

Japle
01-05-2012, 19:50
Originally Posted by Japle:
That was my point. Your analogies didn’t mean anything, either.
As AM said, correlation does not imply causation.

Reply by Paul7:
The Founders thought there was one when it came to this subject.

Cite please.

packsaddle
01-05-2012, 20:36
hey, norske, if the origin of morality is not the Holy Bible/Christianity, go ahead and start a new thread explaining to us how morality evolved.

be sure and include all scientific evidence (observeable, testable, repeatable) that conclusively validates your claim.

remember, no storytelling or miracle words (i.e. "emerged", "appeared", etc.), just good old-fashioned scientific evidence.

also, please include your position on moral absolutes (the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong).

looking forward to participating in the thread.

thanks!

Animal Mother
01-05-2012, 23:25
hey, norske, if the origin of morality is not the Holy Bible/Christianity, go ahead and start a new thread explaining to us how morality evolved. Hey packsaddle, if the origin of morality is the Holy Bible/Christianity, go ahead and start a new thread explaining to us how morality existed prior to the either of those things.
\also, please include your position on moral absolutes (the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong). Please, in your thread, state a moral absolute or two so we can discuss it.

packsaddle
01-06-2012, 06:53
haha, right on cue.

so, how about it norske, show us what you got.

(apologies to the OP for the minor threadjack)

i won't post in this thread anymore.....will wait for norske to enlighten us in a new thread.

carry on!

GreenDrake
01-06-2012, 07:19
Cherry picking statistics can go on for eternity to try and prove validity of a statement. Case in point.

Kingarthurhk
01-06-2012, 17:38
I believe that it is entirely possible to be a moral person but at the same time, NOT a religious person.

It is entirely possible to be a "religious" person yet NOT be a "moral" person.

Such as, the Rev. Jim Jones.

Any and all priests of the Spanish Inquisition.

Any and all Islamic suicide bombers.

Any and all religions lend themselves to fanacticism at some point in time.

When the fanatics hold sway, their religious beliefs take precedence over morality. At that point, NO evil is beyond them.

I think that mankind would be wise to simply abandon any and all religions and simply do its best to instill morality within the individuals who make up that society.

If I won the lottery by some fluke of statistics, and paid you for your dental expenses would you stop hating God?

Norske
01-06-2012, 18:24
hey, norske, if the origin of morality is not the Holy Bible/Christianity, go ahead and start a new thread explaining to us how morality evolved.

Thomas Jefferson already did that. He literally took a razor to a copy of the New Testament, edited out everything relating to anything supernatural, and eliminated redundancies. What is left are the story and teachings of a very bright Jewish Rabbi. Not a demigod.

It is called the "Jefferson Bible". I have a copy of it on my Amazon Kindle. An interesting read.

"Morality" develops through sheer trial and error as human beings interact with each other over time. What works from generation to generation survives as "morality". What does not work, does not survive. In time, morality is ascribed to "divine causes" but it is nothing of the sort.

be sure and include all scientific evidence (observeable, testable, repeatable) that conclusively validates your claim.

Sure. Right after you conclusively prove the existence of "God". Be sure and include all scientific evidence (observeable, testable, repeatable) that conclusively validates your claim that God actually exists.

remember, no storytelling or miracle words (i.e. "emerged", "appeared", etc.), just good old-fashioned scientific evidence.

See above. You first.

also, please include your position on moral absolutes (the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong).

looking forward to participating in the thread.

thanks!

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That just about covers "moral absolutes".

I repeat. Jesus was a brilliant rabbi. What I doubt is that he was a God, Son of a God, or DemiGod.

Norske
01-06-2012, 18:34
If I won the lottery by some fluke of statistics, and paid you for your dental expenses would you stop hating God?

The dental thing was just a personal example of how Religion and "the Church" ripped me and my family off.

Just one example of how they similarly rip everyone off.

Including you, although you may not believe it. "You" being each and everyone who reads this.

Religion; each and every Religion; is nothing more than a thousands of years old self perpetuating CON GAME.

I do not hate "God".

I simply see no convincing evidence that "God" actually exists or not!

:dunno:

Kingarthurhk
01-06-2012, 19:01
The dental thing was just a personal example of how Religion and "the Church" ripped me and my family off.

Just one example of how they similarly rip everyone off.

Including you, although you may not believe it. "You" being each and everyone who reads this.

Religion; each and every Religion; is nothing more than a thousands of years old self perpetuating CON GAME.

I do not hate "God".

I simply see no convincing evidence that "God" actually exists or not!

:dunno:

Well, it is a bit confusing, as you have pretty much presented yourself as the angry Anti-God presence in this bit of the forum. Your posts always seem very hostile and angry. If you carry that around a lot, it has to be exhausting. Wouldn't you like some peace instead?

Paul7
01-07-2012, 12:03
Cite please.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

Paul7
01-07-2012, 12:05
I simply see no convincing evidence that "God" actually exists or not!

:dunno:

If you don't have any convincing evidence that God does not exist, shouldn't you be open to the possibility?

juggy4711
01-07-2012, 12:36
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

The vast majority of folks in the US ( 70+%) are Christian, so if society has declined it's y'all's fault. Turns out the moral part was far more important than the religious part. I am almost certain of your response to this but wonder if you are silly enough to post it.

Like I said, seems the moral point is more important than the religious one.

If you don't have any convincing evidence that God does not exist, shouldn't you be open to the possibility?

I don't have any convincing evidence that gravity does not exist should I be open to that possibility? Sure to the degree that evidence of such can be be predicated, demonstrated and repeatable. None of which any religion is able to do.

Japle
01-07-2012, 12:40
Paul7,

Your original statement was’ “that crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God”.

I fail to see how a statement from John Adams supports your statement, especially, as I and others have pointed out, there have been untold other factors in play.

Blaming the change in one dynamic on one factor in a society as complex as ours is phenomenally naïve

Paul7
01-07-2012, 13:27
Like I said, seems the moral point is more important than the religious one.

When you eliminate the religious element with a belief in eternal moral standards, eternal rewards and punishment, the Golden Rule, etc., too often we got the mayhem of the failed Communist experiment, the French Revolutionary horrors, etc.


I don't have any convincing evidence that gravity does not exist should I be open to that possibility? Sure to the degree that evidence of such can be be predicated, demonstrated and repeatable. None of which any religion is able to do.

The same could be said of much of evolutionary theory. What caused the Big Bang or how did the first non-life become life can't be demonstrated or repeated.

Paul7
01-07-2012, 13:30
Paul7,

Your original statement was’ “that crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God”.

I fail to see how a statement from John Adams supports your statement, especially, as I and others have pointed out, there have been untold other factors in play.

Blaming the change in one dynamic on one factor in a society as complex as ours is phenomenally naïve

John Adams recognized that our system of limited government was dependent on a moral and religious people who were self-governed, hence the opening quote. In the absence of that self-governing trait, govenrment necessarily must get bigger and more intrusive.

Japle
01-07-2012, 14:18
Posted by Paul7:
John Adams recognized that our system of limited government was dependent on a moral and religious people who were self-governed, hence the opening quote. In the absence of that self-governing trait, govenrment necessarily must get bigger and more intrusive.

How does, “In the absence of that self-governing trait, govenrment necessarily must get bigger and more intrusive” relate to, “crime rates are much higher now than they were in 1960, and it corresponds from a general turning from God”?

Does the size of government correspond to crime rates? Why did you bring the size of our government into this?

Norske
01-07-2012, 18:38
Well, it is a bit confusing, as you have pretty much presented yourself as the angry Anti-God presence in this bit of the forum. Your posts always seem very hostile and angry. If you carry that around a lot, it has to be exhausting. Wouldn't you like some peace instead?

I am not "anti-God".

I am anti-religion.

I just do not see any convincing evidence that "God" actually exists or not. I do not believe that Gods create religions, as those religions would have you believe.

I believe that mankind invented religion first, for the purpose of what we now generally call "government".

Religion then invented the mythical concept of "God" as unquestionable, and silent, buttress to the authority religions claim over their gullible followers.

Today, we are increasingly moving to secular government that respects individual liberty. Today, instead of uniting under some mysterious, possibly nonexistent all-powerful being, we all just agree to operate under a set of understandable rules. In the case of the USA, based on the CotUS and the BoR.

This is a huge improvement, and pretty much makes religions obsolete. And in my view, dispensible.

If God does not exist, then any and all religions are simply a huge waste of time, money, blood, sweat, and yes, lives.

As one example, all the deaths of 9/11/01 were due to differences of religion. The Fundamentalist Muslims who perpetrated that atrocity did so because they believe the western move towards secular government and away from religious dictatorship is against the will of Allah. They wish to force every human being into their notion of what Allah wants; a single Islamic theocratic dictatorship. Like the Good Old Days.

And the old "oh, poor, hostile, angry Norske" schtick grew pretty old and lame some time ago. It is just a straw man, trying to deflect the point that the "religious" do not want to face, that they cannot prove that their "God" exists and that their religion is a waste of their time and money.

I am content to wait to find out what, if anything, awaits me on the other side of my own, personal, death, and not waste my time and money kowtowing to some schmuck in a celuloid collar, or equivilent thereof, who claims to know what is on the other side of death when he cannot really know any better than I do.

And it does not matter if the schmuck in question is on tomorrows Sunday services on the Boob Tube, Mecca, Vatican Square, or what have you, or if he put pen to parchment, resulting in what we now call the "Bible", while herding sheep and goats from a tent in the "Holy Land" 4,000 years ago.

Norske
01-07-2012, 18:42
If you don't have any convincing evidence that God does not exist, shouldn't you be open to the possibility?

What makes you think I am NOT "open to the possibility"? :dunno:

I am just waiting for unmistakable proof. :wow:

And I think I will still be waiting for that proof the day I die, and then find out for myself anyway. :cool:

Animal Mother
01-07-2012, 21:38
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John AdamsOf course, John Adams wasn't a Christian, which must hurt your argument.

TalkToTheGlock
01-07-2012, 21:50
The same could be said of much of evolutionary theory. What caused the Big Bang or how did the first non-life become life can't be demonstrated or repeated.


... Eh




iPhone 4

TalkToTheGlock
01-07-2012, 21:56
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA


On morality and religion. Sums up my feelings pretty well.


iPhone 4

Paul7
01-07-2012, 22:42
Of course, John Adams wasn't a Christian, which must hurt your argument.

Debatable, but he was certainly a religiuos person, unlike you. The quote said 'moral and religious person', not 'Christian'.

Animal Mother
01-07-2012, 22:47
Debatable, but he was certainly a religiuos person, unlike you. The quote said 'moral and religious person', not 'Christian'. The quote certainly did say that. Is it your position that any religion would prevent increase in crime?

Paul7
01-07-2012, 23:00
The quote certainly did say that.

Cite?

Animal Mother
01-08-2012, 00:16
Cite? I was agreeing with you, the quote does say religious, not Christian. That's why I asked the follow up question.

Paul7
01-08-2012, 14:26
I was agreeing with you, the quote does say religious, not Christian. That's why I asked the follow up question.

OK, I misunderstood. As far as the follow-up question, generally speaking, probably.

juggy4711
01-08-2012, 18:14
When you eliminate the religious element with a belief in eternal moral standards, eternal rewards and punishment, the Golden Rule, etc., too often we got the mayhem of the failed Communist experiment, the French Revolutionary horrors, etc.

The same could be said of much of evolutionary theory. What caused the Big Bang or how did the first non-life become life can't be demonstrated or repeated.

The vast majority of folks in the US are religious. Why then in your opinion has society declined?

There is no convincing evidence the ToE is wrong, or that the BB did not occur. However you are right we do not at this time know the cause of the BB or exactly how life came into existence, and science won't claim such until it's demonstrable, repeatable, and therefore predictable. All religion has is some book says so.

I have doubts as to whether it's possible to answer the questions of causation of the universe, which is why I believe in God, though my God doesn't line up with yours. As for life coming into existence my best guess is that it's the natural result of physics.

Animal Mother
01-08-2012, 21:01
OK, I misunderstood. As far as the follow-up question, generally speaking, probably. 92% of Mexico is Christian, 90% of Brazil is also, Pakistan and India both report negligible numbers of non-believers. Shouldn't all these places be garden spots with no crime?

Paul7
01-08-2012, 23:17
92% of Mexico is Christian, 90% of Brazil is also, Pakistan and India both report negligible numbers of non-believers. Shouldn't all these places be garden spots with no crime?

Complete straw man to the OP subject. John Adams wasn't talking about Mexico or Pakistan.

Animal Mother
01-09-2012, 01:25
Complete straw man to the OP subject. John Adams wasn't talking about Mexico or Pakistan.No, because neither nation existed at the time, though their current Constitutions do owe a debt to the US Constitution. That wasn't my point, I wasn't speaking to Adams' quote, but to your contention that adherence to religion prevents crime.

Paul7
01-09-2012, 10:19
No, because neither nation existed at the time, though their current Constitutions do owe a debt to the US Constitution. That wasn't my point, I wasn't speaking to Adams' quote, but to your contention that adherence to religion prevents crime.

It can, as proven by the Welsh Revival, where by conservative estimates 150,000 people had conversion experiences. Here is the result:

"Whole communities were turned upside down, and were radically changed from depravity to glorious goodness. The crime rate dropped, often to nothing. The police force reported that they had little more to do than supervise the coming and going of the people to the chapel prayer meetings, while magistrates turned up at courts to discover no cases to try. The alcohol trade was decimated, as people were caught up more by what happened in the local chapels than the local public houses and bars. Families experienced amazing renewal, where the money earning husband and father, the bread winner, had wasted away the income and sowed discord, but now under the moving power of the Holy Spirit, following the conversion to be a follower of Jesus Christ, he not only provided correctly for family needs, but was now with the family, rather than wasting his time, and wages, in the public houses of the village or town. Souls were saved, individual lives were changed and Society itself was changed. Countless numbers were converted to Christ."

Japle
01-09-2012, 18:30
Posted by Paul7:
It can, as proven by the Welsh Revival .....

The Welsh Revival, 1904-1906. Seriously?

Was that before or after the widespread use of the car, two World Wars, sweeping social changes, a mass move from farms to cities and the Welsh crack epidemic?

Wow. Talk about a stretch!!

Paul7
01-09-2012, 20:01
The Welsh Revival, 1904-1906. Seriously?

Was that before or after the widespread use of the car, two World Wars, sweeping social changes, a mass move from farms to cities and the Welsh crack epidemic?

Wow. Talk about a stretch!!

That's the best you've got? Human nature doesn't change. This discussion is from the time of the Founders, in case you missed it. There are many similar conversions happening today all over the world.

Animal Mother
01-09-2012, 22:29
It can, as proven by the Welsh Revival, where by conservative estimates 150,000 people had conversion experiences. Here is the result: You've proposed a single example where anecdotal evidence claims crime dropped as a result of religious adherence. I've offered several examples where there is no statistical relationship between crime and religious belief. At best, you might argue that there is no demonstrated relationship between the two things.

Paul7
01-10-2012, 06:08
You've proposed a single example where anecdotal evidence claims crime dropped as a result of religious adherence.

How many do you need? Going to move those goalposts again? As per usual with you, are you going to discard the Welsh experience because it goes against your preconceived worldview? Here is more:

http://family.wikinut.com/Book-Reveals-Prisoners-With-Faith-in-God-Commit-Less-Crime/2btj0e61/

I've offered several examples where there is no statistical relationship between crime and religious belief. At best, you might argue that there is no demonstrated relationship between the two things.

I don't remember your examples, but I suspect they are comparing people calling themselves Christian rather than demonstrating real Christian committment. See the prison link I posted, probably all in the study would call themselves culturally Christian, but those really involved in Christian activities were two times less likely to be arrested again.

Animal Mother
01-10-2012, 07:37
How many do you need? Going to move those goalposts again? As per usual with you, are you going to discard the Welsh experience because it goes against your preconceived worldview? Here is more: I'm not discarding anything, I'm pointing out that there are numerous counter-examples to falsify your "Religious adherence equals less crime" hypothesis. How is that moving the goalposts? I never claimed that there were no examples of people finding or following religion and also not committing crimes.
http://family.wikinut.com/Book-Reveals-Prisoners-With-Faith-in-God-Commit-Less-Crime/2btj0e61/ Again, examine the study described in the article, religion wasn't the only difference in the sample. From the article: "When the prison launched in Houston it was comprised of 400 men. They were split up into two groups – one half was a faith-based group and the other half was just called 'general population.' The faith-based side was 'quarantined' to keep them from interacting with the general population.

The program wasn’t all Bible studies and worship, although that was a part of it, Johnson said. Inmates had to work every day. The program also provided vocational training and educational opportunities. 'It was the most comprehensive prison program I’ve ever seen,' he said."

Is it not possible that the education and vocational opportunities were what resulted in a lower rate of recidivism?
I don't remember your examples, but I suspect they are comparing people calling themselves Christian rather than demonstrating real Christian committment. See the prison link I posted, probably all in the study would call themselves culturally Christian, but those really involved in Christian activities were two times less likely to be arrested again. No True Scotsman, eh?

Japle
01-10-2012, 10:41
Posted by Paul7:
There are many similar conversions happening today all over the world.

And, according to a recent article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-25/religion-god-atheism-so-what/52195274/1 - more and more people simply don't care about religion, never worry about heaven or hell and don't feel any need for any spiritual side to their lives.

They're too busy with the realities of life to pay attention to myths.

Paul7
01-15-2012, 08:00
I'm not discarding anything, I'm pointing out that there are numerous counter-examples to falsify your "Religious adherence equals less crime" hypothesis. How is that moving the goalposts? I never claimed that there were no examples of people finding or following religion and also not committing crimes.

Then we agree, thanks for conceding my point.

Again, examine the study described in the article, religion wasn't the only difference in the sample. From the article: "When the prison launched in Houston it was comprised of 400 men. They were split up into two groups – one half was a faith-based group and the other half was just called 'general population.' The faith-based side was 'quarantined' to keep them from interacting with the general population.

The program wasn’t all Bible studies and worship, although that was a part of it, Johnson said. Inmates had to work every day. The program also provided vocational training and educational opportunities. 'It was the most comprehensive prison program I’ve ever seen,' he said."

Is it not possible that the education and vocational opportunities were what resulted in a lower rate of recidivism?

Possible, buy not likely. I assume those education and vocational opportunities were available to all prisoners.

No True Scotsman, eh?

As you said above, my claim was that religious adherence can lead to less crime. A person not practicing any religion isn't adhering to a religion, is he?

Paul7
01-15-2012, 08:02
And, according to a recent article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-25/religion-god-atheism-so-what/52195274/1 - more and more people simply don't care about religion, never worry about heaven or hell and don't feel any need for any spiritual side to their lives.

That may be true in the dying West, we see people doing stupid things all the time. The fact is, worldwide, there has never been a time in history when more people are coming to faith in Christ than today. See Prof. Philip Jenkins book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity.

They're too busy with the realities of life to pay attention to myths.

The issue on this forum is, what is reality. IMHO you don't have a clue.

steveksux
01-15-2012, 09:03
Nice dodge.
Likewise. :upeyes:

Randy

Japle
01-15-2012, 09:31
Posted by Paul7:
The issue on this forum is, what is reality. IMHO you don't have a clue.

The issue on this forum is usually religion vs reality.

Paul7
01-15-2012, 12:17
The issue on this forum is usually atheism vs reality.

Fixed it for you.

GreenDrake
01-15-2012, 18:35
The issue on this forum is usually fairy tales vs fact.

Fixed it for you, Paul mis typed his response.

Animal Mother
01-15-2012, 21:51
Then we agree, thanks for conceding my point. The point of the thread was that some religious people don't commit crimes? Was that ever in dispute?
Possible, buy not likely. I assume those education and vocational opportunities were available to all prisoners. You may assume that, but the article says the exact opposite.
As you said above, my claim was that religious adherence can lead to less crime. A person not practicing any religion isn't adhering to a religion, is he?And as I've said before, there are a number of counter examples which falsify your claim.

Animal Mother
01-15-2012, 21:52
That may be true in the dying West, we see people doing stupid things all the time. The fact is, worldwide, there has never been a time in history when more people are coming to faith in Christ than today. See Prof. Philip Jenkins book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Where is Christianity growing?

dbcooper
01-16-2012, 08:43
"Many laws make bad government. When the law is written on a people's heart, it need not be written in books. If the law is not written on their hearts, no multitude of laws and lawyers will maintain the rule of law. Written laws don't make people better, they make them behave."

Franklin Sanders


It does explain the decline of our society as people have turned from God. It is what the Founders meant when they said our system of government was made 'only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.'


On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Barry Goldwater

Paul7
01-16-2012, 09:31
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Barry Goldwater

What politicians are telling you to become a Christian? Preachers, on the other hand, have every right to do that.

Paul7
01-16-2012, 09:35
Where is Christianity growing?

To name just a few places, in South Korea in 1920 there were 300,000 Christians, today there are 12,000,000. In China in 1920 there were a few million, today there are over 100,000,000, making it one of the world's largest Christian nations. In Africa in 1900 there were 10,000,000 Christians, today there are 360,000,000.

Japle
01-16-2012, 12:22
Posted by Paul7:
In South Korea in 1920 there were 300,000 Christians, today there are 12,000,000. In China in 1920 there were a few million, today there are over 100,000,000, making it one of the world's largest Christian nations. In Africa in 1900 there were 10,000,000 Christians, today there are 360,000,000.

And hundreds of millions of people believe in astrology. It's still nonsense.

Paul7
01-16-2012, 12:49
.

And hundreds of millions of people believe in astrology. It's still nonsense.

I wasn't arguing for the truth of Christianity there, but that it is growing tremendously, albeit not in the West. Some deny that here.

Japle
01-16-2012, 18:32
Posted by Paul7:
I wasn't arguing for the truth of Christianity there, but that it is growing tremendously, albeit not in the West.

You're not arguing for the truth of Christianity?
I didn't see that coming!! :shocked:

Paul7
01-16-2012, 18:44
You're not arguing for the truth of Christianity?
I didn't see that coming!! :shocked:

Not in that discussion, try to focus, please. Numerical growth or decline prove nothing about an argument's validity.

Animal Mother
01-16-2012, 23:03
To name just a few places, in South Korea in 1920 there were 300,000 Christians, today there are 12,000,000. In China in 1920 there were a few million, today there are over 100,000,000, making it one of the world's largest Christian nations. In Africa in 1900 there were 10,000,000 Christians, today there are 360,000,000. Setting aside the accuracy of the actual numbers, are those places devoid of crime? Have they seen a decrease in crime or violence during the time that Christianity has grown?

Japle
01-17-2012, 12:13
Posted by Paul7:
In South Korea in 1920 there were 300,000 Christians, today there are 12,000,000. In China in 1920 there were a few million, today there are over 100,000,000, making it one of the world's largest Christian nations. In Africa in 1900 there were 10,000,000 Christians, today there are 360,000,000.

Also posted by Paul7:
Numerical growth or decline prove nothing about an argument's validity.

Yes. Exactly. The fact that there are an increasing number of Christians in some places proves nothing about Christianity’s validity.

Paul7
01-17-2012, 15:58
Yes. Exactly. The fact that there are an increasing number of Christians in some places proves nothing about Christianity’s validity.

It does disprove the idea that Christianity is in decline.

So you agree that the increasing number of Godless in the West doesn't prove they are right?

Japle
01-17-2012, 18:27
Posted by Paul7:
So you agree that the increasing number of Godless in the West doesn't prove they are right?
Yes, I agree.
Popularity contests aren't the way to find the truth.
The scientific method is the way to find the truth.

Paul7
01-17-2012, 19:45
Yes, I agree.
Popularity contests aren't the way to find the truth.
The scientific method is the way to find the truth.

In the spheres that the scientific method operates. How does science prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea, for instance? Like much of evolution, that event can't be repeated in the lab.

TalkToTheGlock
01-18-2012, 00:01
In the spheres that the scientific method operates. How does science prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea, for instance? Like much of evolution, that event can't be repeated in the lab.

If you are married or have kids, your SO/wife proved evolution in just nine months to a certain extent.

Also, if there was a designer, why are 95% of our genes pseudogenes? Why not just have the necessary genes that will become dominant in a species? Seems like a "Waste of Gods time" if you ask me...

But but but...




iPhone 4

Norske
01-18-2012, 07:50
In the spheres that the scientific method operates. How does science prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea, for instance? Like much of evolution, that event can't be repeated in the lab.

To believe the story of the parting of the Red Sea, you have to believe that Moses was not a liar.

I happen to believe that he was a liar, and that consequently all of the part of the OT that he wrote is suspect.

:wow:

Japle
01-18-2012, 08:22
Posted by Paul7:
How does science prove or disprove the parting of the Red Sea, for instance? Like much of evolution, that event can't be repeated in the lab.

Apparently, it can't be repeated by your god, either.

Paul7
01-18-2012, 18:11
Apparently, it can't be repeated by your god, either.

Why would He? That particular miracle was required in that particular place in time and history. He's supposed to constantly rerun it for skeptics? As the rich man in hades from the parable said about skeptics, they have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe them they won't believe someone coming down from heaven.

FWIW, some interesting evidence for the crossing:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=426986&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Paul7
01-18-2012, 18:12
To believe the story of the parting of the Red Sea, you have to believe that Moses was not a liar.

I happen to believe that he was a liar, and that consequently all of the part of the OT that he wrote is suspect.

:wow:

Where is your evidence for that? It is a bit of a contradiction for someone associated with an ethical system to base it on lies. We can all speculate about anything, but without evidence it isn't worth anything.

Norske
01-18-2012, 18:21
Where is your evidence for that? It is a bit of a contradiction for someone associated with an ethical system to base it on lies. We can all speculate about anything, but without evidence it isn't worth anything.

"Ethical system"? What "ethical system".

Moses was nothing more nor less than a Stalinist power politician.

And just like Stalin, a mass-murderous power politician at that.

10 Commandments or no 10 Commandments, he was no paragon of "ethics".

And I'm still waiting to see unmistakable evidence that "God" exists. :dunno:

Japle
01-18-2012, 18:30
Posted by Paul7:
As the rich man in hades from the parable said about skeptics, they have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe them they won't believe someone coming down from heaven.

That's exactly wrong. I'd believe someone coming down from heaven. We could measure and weigh and observe that.

That was my point in an earlier post. God parted the Red Sea and allegedly performed many other miracles, but there’s been nothing miraculous that was unambiguous and verifiable in millennia. Of course, that assumes any of the “miracles” were real and not myths and legends.

Paul7
01-18-2012, 20:50
That's exactly wrong. I'd believe someone coming down from heaven. We could measure and weigh and observe that.

Is God supposed to continually do that for the skeptics?

That was my point in an earlier post. God parted the Red Sea and allegedly performed many other miracles, but there’s been nothing miraculous that was unambiguous and verifiable in millennia. Of course, that assumes any of the “miracles” were real and not myths and legends.

If God really did part the Dead Sea, what evidence would you expect to see today, other than the OT writings and the other possible evidence I posted? Do you expect to find video of it?

Japle
01-19-2012, 07:32
Posted by Paul7:
If God really did part the Dead Sea, what evidence would you expect to see today, other than the OT writings and the other possible evidence I posted? Do you expect to find video of it?

I’m not asking for evidence of the Red Sea parting, I’m asking why there’s been nothing miraculous that was unambiguous and verifiable in millennia.

“Millennia” means “thousands of years”.

ksg0245
01-19-2012, 07:55
Is God supposed to continually do that for the skeptics?

Given that he's supposed to be omnipotent, what prevents him doing so?

Paul7
01-19-2012, 09:15
Given that he's supposed to be omnipotent, what prevents him doing so?

I doubt it would help the skeptics. Some saw Jesus perform miracles and still wanted him dead.

Paul7
01-19-2012, 09:16
"Ethical system"? What "ethical system".

Moses was nothing more nor less than a Stalinist power politician.

And just like Stalin, a mass-murderous power politician at that.

10 Commandments or no 10 Commandments, he was no paragon of "ethics".

And I'm still waiting to see unmistakable evidence that "God" exists. :dunno:

Wow, that's quite a rant. Who did Moses mass-murder? If his ethics were so Stalinist why are there six depictions of Moses the law-giver on the Supreme Court building?

ksg0245
01-19-2012, 10:18
I doubt it would help the skeptics. Some saw Jesus perform miracles and still wanted him dead.

God's also supposed to be omniscient, which means he should know exactly what would "help" the skeptics. Does he not want to "help" them?

Paul7
01-19-2012, 11:16
God's also supposed to be omniscient, which means he should know exactly what would "help" the skeptics. Does he not want to "help" them?

He has sent His son to die a sacrificial death on the cross, what more do you want?

ksg0245
01-19-2012, 13:24
He has sent His son to die a sacrificial death on the cross, what more do you want?

An omnipotent, omniscient deity should know what I want and be able to provide it. Does he not want to, or is he prevented from doing so?

Japle
01-19-2012, 18:17
Posted by Paul7:
He has sent His son to die a sacrificial death on the cross, what more do you want?

If you believe the NT, that “death” was nothing more than a bit of street theater.

Jesus didn’t really die, did he? He was immortal. His “sacrifice” allowed him to live forever in a place we’ve been led to understand is a pretty nice environment.

Not a bad deal at all.

Paul7
01-19-2012, 18:27
If you believe the NT, that “death” was nothing more than a bit of street theater.

Jesus didn’t really die, did he? He was immortal. His “sacrifice” allowed him to live forever in a place we’ve been led to understand is a pretty nice environment.

Not a bad deal at all.

Let's crucify you if it's no big deal. For God to voluntarily undergo that for we guilty sinners was a huge deal. It would be like Queen Elizabeth dying to save an ant.

ArtificialGrape
01-19-2012, 18:28
If you believe the NT, that “death” was nothing more than a bit of street theater.

Jesus didn’t really die, did he? He was immortal. His “sacrifice” allowed him to live forever in a place we’ve been led to understand is a pretty nice environment.

Not a bad deal at all.

It's been said that Jesus had a really bad weekend for our sins.

Japle
01-19-2012, 20:00
Posted by Paul7:
Let's crucify you if it's no big deal. For God to voluntarily undergo that for we guilty sinners was a huge deal. It would be like Queen Elizabeth dying to save an ant.

But he didn't die.

If I was crucified, I'd die. The Queen woud die. Maybe even you would die.

If you believe the story, he didn't die. What happened to him isn't the same as what would happen to a normal person.

Animal Mother
01-19-2012, 21:29
I doubt it would help the skeptics. Some saw Jesus perform miracles and still wanted him dead.God is incapable of convincing skeptics that He is divine?

Danny Reid
01-19-2012, 21:38
Why would He? That particular miracle was required in that particular place in time and history. He's supposed to constantly rerun it for skeptics? As the rich man in hades from the parable said about skeptics, they have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe them they won't believe someone coming down from heaven.

FWIW, some interesting evidence for the crossing:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=426986&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Speaking of miracles required in a particular place in time and history...

What was GOD doing during the Holocaust? Playing with HIMSELF?

Paul7
01-19-2012, 22:18
God is incapable of convincing skeptics that He is divine?

Not if they have already made up their mind to reject Him. Next you'll ask if God can make a rock so big He can't lift it.

Paul7
01-19-2012, 22:19
But he didn't die.

If I was crucified, I'd die. The Queen woud die. Maybe even you would die.

If you believe the story, he didn't die. What happened to him isn't the same as what would happen to a normal person.

Only in the sense that none of us will really die, our souls will live on. Cornelius Tacitus said He died.

ksg0245
01-19-2012, 22:36
Not if they have already made up their mind to reject Him. Next you'll ask if God can make a rock so big He can't lift it.

Does god not know what would change a skeptic's mind?

Animal Mother
01-19-2012, 23:07
Not if they have already made up their mind to reject Him. God seems much less than omnipotent then.
Next you'll ask if God can make a rock so big He can't lift it.No, I won't, not until we conclude the original discussion at least.

TalkToTheGlock
01-19-2012, 23:52
How about the billions murdered in the name of Christ? Why didn't God stop them?


iPhone 4

Japle
01-20-2012, 08:48
Originally Posted by Japle:
But he didn't die.

If I was crucified, I'd die. The Queen would die. Maybe even you would die.

If you believe the story, he didn't die. What happened to him isn't the same as what would happen to a normal person.

Response by Paul7:
Only in the sense that none of us will really die, our souls will live on.

Oh, sure! How could I forget? And we’ll all sit at the right hand of God and be all-powerful and all-knowing and be prayed to by hordes of mortals who will never have what we have.

There was never any chance that Jesus might pick the wrong religion and end up in hell, was there?

Paul7
01-20-2012, 22:47
How about the billions murdered in the name of Christ? Why didn't God stop them?


iPhone 4

You just made that lie up, unless you can back up the billion #.

Who did Christ ever kill or tell people to kill?

:popcorn: