Jesusland

I love getting the second page of a thread I havent read.
_____________________________________________________________

Oh... I thought you meant real anti-freeze, I was like 'Jesus man, you must be a drinking god to still be alive.' -skierman

'You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.'

'I don't like people who take drugs... Customs men for example.'

whos seen the movie canadian bacon?



Jesus saves!

Gretzky gets the rebound. he feeds the puck to LeClair. he shoots! he scores! the crowd goes wild

Does anyone else see the person???? Washington is the face....
-CraigeD
------------------------------------------------

'Ok, so I'm going to assume that you know someone named 'your' and he is, in fact, a homosexual.

Or do you mean to say: 'you're' gay?'-Tom Sorrell

I'm fairly religious... and jonestly share all these moral values with Bush, but i support Kerry.
The whole Jesusland is just either poeple who are too dumb to seperate church and state or poeple who support Bush for other reasons. America is based of FREEDOM and EQUALITY... regardless if i think gays should be treated like that, We should gaurentee them freedom.

let that sink in for a minute

The friez: Couldnt agree with you more.

Fulltilt: Hmm, even the most extreme Bush supporting right wingers never wanted to persecute gay people or take away their constitutional freedom, they just oppose gay marriage. Marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and many democrats oppose gay marriage as well. Its effect on society is still unknown.


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

The face!!!!
-CraigeD
------------------------------------------------

'Ok, so I'm going to assume that you know someone named 'your' and he is, in fact, a homosexual.

Or do you mean to say: 'you're' gay?'-Tom Sorrell

I dont't understand you people saying that we don't separate church and state. No one is mandating their religion to all you people. It's just a basis for certain people's ideas on morals and such, meaning they use that to decide how they vote. It's a fine line difference to some, but I think that it is perfectly legit. We have our reasons for standing up for what we believe is right, and you have yours. Our's just happens to come from religion. Even a few democrats vote the way they do because of religion. Do you hear anyone critisizing them? I personally can probably think of about 50 people right now that voted for Bush that are somewhat or entirely atheist.



Ezekiel 25:17

^I don't know that it's necessarily a criticism of the voters' choices (if they're deriving a moral policy from the church, they're uninformed with regard to ethical theory, but a lot of voters are uninformed, so no problem there). It's more that the idea that the leader HIMSELF will incorporate religious guidelines into pubic policy. I mean, if 51% of the population had a morality that supported Antisemitism and wanted to marginalise them, well, liberty of thought, I guess... but I wouldn't expect the president to do so. That's really the central argument.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...

I was just attempting to defend the voters that fulltilt or whatever was trying to call dumb.



Ezekiel 25:17

You know they call em fingers but ive never seen em fing.....o there they go- otto

And the number # 1 ride at jesusland is......



live by the N.E.R.D

Hmm JD, interesting point as always, but I beg to differ with the statement 'they're deriving a moral policy from the church, they're uninformed with regard to ethical theory'

Ethics and religion have ALWAYS gone hand in hand throughout history, because religion has always been the basis for a moral code. In Islamic countries, their morals are based on the Quaran. In Isreal, is the Torah that provides the code of ethics many Jews live by.

Here in North America, our moral code is based on the Bible, like it or not. The Ten Commandments have always been the cornerstone of any code of ethics. People say they don't belive in religion, they 'just know' what is right and what is wrong. But that knowlege comes from a society that is based on traditional, Christian values. Why do we believe its wrong to steal? Because our ancestors taught their kids, 'Thou shalt not steal. In some cultures stealing is not forbidden, it is actually rewarded if the thief is succesful.

This brings me to my point: the problem with modern ethical theory. If I understand it correctly, it states that there is no concrete right or wrong, but that everyone must make up his or her own moral code based on what 'feels right'. This WILL NOT work towards a succesful society! This is like taking the rudder off a ship and giving every sailor a piece of string and telling them to steer the ship in whatever direction they think is best! This leads to chaos, a lack of direction for society, and in my opinion, is responsible for much of the divorce, teenage crime,and problems in North America. People do what 'feels right' but often this is very wrong.

How does this theory that 'truth is relative' work? What is to stop me from creating a moral code that suits me, but is not in the best intrests of others, or of society? Look at the 9/11 bombers, or people who blow up abortion clinics. They are convinced that they are doing the right thing, in their 'code of ethics' murder is justified. If I throw out the traditional code of ethics, why do I have to be faithful to my girlfriend/wife? Why do I have to pay taxes? Why can't I steal my neighbors car if he has three and I don't have a car at all?

This is why I support a traditional code of ethics. America is founded on Christian values, despite the faults, it has made American the most powerful country in the world. Why mess with a good thing, and throw out the old code of ethics until you see if the new one will work?


WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US

''This brings me to my point: the problem with modern ethical theory. If I understand it correctly, it states that there is no concrete right or wrong, but that everyone must make up his or her own moral code based on what 'feels right'.''

THAT is ethical relativism, and it's one of the worst ethical theories ever conceived. Many (especially liberals) have been taken in by it because it sounds reasonable, as if one is simply respecting the cultures of others (and avoiding ethnocentricity). It's horribly, irreparably flawed logically and, you're right, does NOT work. If anyone's thinking of accepting this as an ethical theory, seriously, read a textbook.

That being said, while I wasn't claiming that much of western morality isn't BASED on religion (It very obviously is), one should not assume that the basis for all ethics (or any ethics) is a divine being. In other words, it is not correct to say 'Things are right because God says they are right'. There is much to be said in support of this, but suffice it to say that there are only two possibilities here: you can say anything that God says is right JUST because he says it (arbitrary), or God says things are right because they're right (and therefore, whatever it is that makes them right is external to God). The second is the only reasonable option, so God cannot be the ultimate source of ethics. As I say, that's only the beginning of that discussion, but I have no more time here (finishing an essay, I have 4 this week) and can't spend any more time on a discussion, to my disappointment. If you want to think about it another way, consider the idea that God is good. Can the statement 'God is good' truly have any meaning if ANYTHING he does is to be considered good? Wouldn't it just be an empty statement?

Anyways, ethical philosophy is my forte, so I enjoy discussions like these and regret having to end them. FYI, my personal theory is a limited objectivist view involving prima facie obligations... there are objective rights and wrongs, of the sort that can trump other objective rights and wrongs, and these are based on human interests and nature. It's mainly derived from Rawls... anyways. Hope that cleared up my position on what you were saying there.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...