MedVision ad

Politicians - What do we expect? (1 Viewer)

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Do you see the point, Comrade?
No.

It is actually pointless. When we want to refer to why murder, theft, adultry is wrong we don't need to look at the bible.

It is like using the bible to prove the sky is blue, and because it says the sky is blue concluding the Bible is as significant today as it was when writen.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Comrade nathan said:
No.

It is actually pointless. When we want to refer to why murder, theft, adultry is wrong we don't need to look at the bible.

It is like using the bible to prove the sky is blue, and because it says the sky is blue concluding the Bible is as significant today as it was when writen.

But where do you think the western view on this sort of morality is based in (Written traditions, not oral) THE BIBLE

The Bible is the basis of our morality and I think it is a damn good place to start looking if you want to know why killing is wrong, etc etc...

Could you please rephrase your last para, I dont quite understand it
 

nwatts

Active Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,938
Location
Greater Bulli
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
John The Great said:
Question: I have referred to many other distinguished men, such as Jesus, St. Augustins, Aristotle, St. Paul, Karl Marx, Martin Luther etc. etc. do you not take them seriously as I have mentioned and quoted them? If yes, then who do you take seriously, if anyone?
You rave about Nietzsche. You haven't yet began to moan on about anyone else.

But, for sake of argument, Marx was as deluded as Nietzsche. I have read various works from Marx, before you bite.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
45
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Sarah said:
Have you read Orwell's 1984? What you said reminds me of that book.

There's risks associated when you don't allow for alternatives to be expressed e.g Group think and group polarisation -> lack of viewpoints expressed, poor decision making



Those words i've highlighted sound very Jane Austen-like. Not sure why you're using her words to highlight your point considering she's quite a successful femal author.

I think a lot of Christians are aware of the context in which scriptures were written in. Also, I haven't seen anywhere that's stated women are "easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour". Neither have i read anywhere that "they can't achieve the same intellectual levels of males".
It seems a little strange that reminds you of 1984, which I have read, as there was no choice in opposition to 'the party'. However, impressive that you have read Orwell, his literature is very good. What I wrote doesnt lack alternative thoughts, however they should be expressed in a seperate party, not within the one party, as that results in instability within parties, and their eventual collapse to the detriment of the people. If parties constantly change policy as well and break from their traditional ideology, the parties become confusing for the people, as there is often little to no difference etc. This is currently occuring in Australia with political parties constantly changing and leaving their traditional ideologies. Of course, a lack of viewpoints doesnt neccessarily mean that poor decision making will result.

Once again, I must admit I am very impressed that you recognise Austen's influence. A little irony there. However in all honesty, i do like Pride and Prejudice, and Austen's literature.

As for the references to those ideas, The prominent theologians I have mentioned discuss them in their assorted works, such as St. Augustine in City of God, as does Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics. St Paul discusses them in 1 Corinthians etc. and Timothy discusses them in his book in the bible. Basically, Luther, Augustine, St. Paul, Aristotle and aquinas discuss women's inability of rational thought, and that they cant achieve the same intellectual levels as males. Timothy, St. Paul and Aristotle discuss how women are easily tricked, are very materialistic, cant handle power, and are more debauch by nature. aristotle discusses the part in the corruption and destruction of Sparta due to too much independence. St. Paul and Timothy discuss Eve bringing sin into the world when she tried to act independently, and many view feminism as a tool of Satan, to destroy the good of mankind, which began with Eve.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
45
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Comrade nathan said:
No.

It is actually pointless. When we want to refer to why murder, theft, adultry is wrong we don't need to look at the bible.

It is like using the bible to prove the sky is blue, and because it says the sky is blue concluding the Bible is as significant today as it was when writen.
Please the Bible discusses substance, and its ethical implications, hence the way we should behave, not the way we have to behave.

The bible on the other hand does not discuss accidents, particularly as church doctrine and hence your analogy of the sky is pointless. Do not confuse science with faith and its ethical implications.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
45
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
nwatts said:
You rave about Nietzsche. You haven't yet began to moan on about anyone else.

But, for sake of argument, Marx was as deluded as Nietzsche. I have read various works from Marx, before you bite.
i would hope so king.

By the way, I actually have mentioned all those people there hitherto. poor, poor Marx...
 

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Ok this is getting lame, why are you people here?

Is it to show off how much you have read? Because it seems you are mostly rambling, most of what you have writen has little content.

Also "reading to much is harmful-Mao", proven by the fact you are so disconnected from the world.
 
Last edited:

nwatts

Active Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,938
Location
Greater Bulli
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
Damage Inc. said:
You write as if Christianity came along and saved the day with all their morals and ethics. Bullshit. To say that Christianity came up and enforced things like 'thou shalt not kill" is just pathetic. These morals were accepted FAR before christianity was even INVENTED. (Thats right. Your religion is all made up)
Ah, (while i agree with your comments up to this point) you're not really spot on there.

Biblical morals are what our laws are based around. And they are essentially what has defined humanity's moral subconscious. You can't really argue with that. The term 'Christianity' to define a religion has only been around for a little while; but the foundation of biblical principle has (arguably) been around since Moses and his mountain adventures.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I think the point was that Biblical morals are based on previous conceptions of morality
 

gonnagetya!

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
7
Location
epping
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If you havent read Nietzsche's work, then surely you must only have a superfical understanding of him.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top