Lusting

[ChristianCenturion]

And what happens if you decide to act on this perception? What constitutes "strength" and "weakness" when simple survival is no longer an issue?

It served well for some. I suppose it’s a matter of how far one wants to take it...

It served the Emperors of Eastern Dynasties

It served the Caesars

It served Genghis Kahn

It served Hitler

It currently serves some in non-democratic countries

This is an educated and known example that there will be those that serve and those that rule.

The determination of what is too weak to serve is up to the rule... even in our democratic societies, this is true.

The question is what binds this from becoming unrestrained?

To which I would answer, I now serve that Answer.

So, would it be in the interest of some to fight against that?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You might want to do it so Joe Drainonsociety doesn't sneak into your house at night, put a bullet in your head, and take your women for himself.

A game is more fun, and more people will play, if the rules are fair for everyone.

If I were so weak in person or influence (rule) of others, then I would deserve that fate.
You sound as if I'm talking of abstracts or theories. I am simply pointing out what is true when you take that ideology out to it's logical conclusions.
And we have examples of such.

 

[Thibeault]

if u guys like this topic, can u giove me rep points since im a newbie

 

[Clem is Me]

It served well for some. I suppose it’s a matter of how far one wants to take it...

It served the Emperors of Eastern Dynasties

It served the Caesars

It served Genghis Kahn

It served Hitler

It currently serves some in non-democratic countries

This is an educated and known example that there will be those that serve and those that rule.

The determination of what is too weak to serve is up to the rule... even in our democratic societies, this is true.

The question is what binds this from becoming unrestrained?

To which I would answer, I now serve that Answer.

So, would it be in the interest of some to fight against that?

What served these people? Exactly what? Might makes right? If it served them I suggest they would still be around. It may have given them short term successes, just like if I hit you and take your money I have made a short term gain. But society can't tolerate a lack of trust for long, and ten strong people are not as powerful as 100 weak people.As was pointed out by House Ape, survival of the fittest is not refering to individuals, but to populations. One very fit Wolf will starve if the rest of the pack is weak. One very fit human will die if the society is weak. The way a society becomes strong is through trust, cooperation, a contract with the other members that even if I die my family will be protected and allowed to flourish. Or, less dramatically, that even if I might be swindled on the price of the grains I bring to market there will be laws in place to punish those who do, lest I take matters into my own hands. If we all take patters into our own hands trade breaks down and we are back to killing each other over territory we can't remain strong ewnough to maintain.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

if u guys like this topic, can u giove me rep points since im a newbie

I think you would have a stonger case if we (I) were actually sticking to the thread topic better.
I'll give you some just because it is better to give, but I would point out that it is considered bad form and possibly against forum rules to ask for them... the latter may only be in regards to blessing.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

What served these people? Exactly what? Might makes right? If it served them I suggest they would still be around. It may have given them short term successes, just like if I hit you and take your money I have made a short term gain. But society can't tolerate a lack of trust for long, and ten strong people are not as powerful as 100 weak people.As was pointed out by House Ape, survival of the fittest is not refering to individuals, but to populations. One very fit Wolf will starve if the rest of the pack is weak. One very fit human will die if the society is weak. The way a society becomes strong is through trust, cooperation, a contract with the other members that even if I die my family will be protected and allowed to flourish. Or, less dramatically, that even if I might be swindled on the price of the grains I bring to market there will be laws in place to punish those who do, lest I take matters into my own hands. If we all take patters into our own hands trade breaks down and we are back to killing each other over territory we can't remain strong ewnough to maintain.

Like I said, I see no compelling argument for the weak under that ideology. You rail your view in the face that what I stated is evident even today and even in your trade (free trade society) example - Corporate power is not exactly a weak issue today.

BTW - "They would still be around"??? Must I point out that I was speaking of mortals and not gods?

 

[Shane Roach]

if u guys like this topic, can u giove me rep points since im a newbie

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

I will reiterate what Centurion said, and also point out there are entire threads on the social forums dedicated to trading both bessings and reps points.

I like your thread!

I have to agree with some folks that posted earlier on that lust in and of itself is not sin. The Bible tells us Christ was tempted in all things just like we are, so if the temptation itself were sin then Christ would not have been the perfect sacrifice for sin.

My $.02

 

[HouseApe]

If I were so weak in person or influence (rule) of others, then I would deserve that fate.
You sound as if I'm talking of abstracts or theories. I am simply pointing out what is true when you take that ideology out to it's logical conclusions.
And we have examples of such.

I disagree that those are the logical conclusions. Humans evolved in small tribal hunter/gatherer societies. In order to survive, the tribe had to be highly cohesive. There had to be lots of sharing, fairness, etc... in order to maintain that cohesion. The injured and weak were loved and cared for. There are a number of books on the few remaining tribal societies that show they are exactly this way.

It is only when we exclude people from our tribe that we get to view them as something "weaker" which we can exploit for our own gain.

 

[Clem is Me]

Like I said, I see no compelling argument for the weak under that ideology. You rail your view in the face that what I stated is evident even today and even in your trade (free trade society) example - Corporate power is not exactly a weak issue today.

BTW - "They would still be around"??? Must I point out that I was speaking of mortals and not gods?

I was speaking, obviously, of those regimes, those schools of political thought. And you seem to have either missed or ignored large parts of my posts.

And I have never heard of "railing a view".

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I disagree that those are the logical conclusions. Humans evolved in small tribal hunter/gatherer societies. In order to survive, the tribe had to be highly cohesive. There had to be lots of sharing, fairness, etc... in order to maintain that cohesion. The injured and weak were loved and cared for. There are a number of books on the few remaining tribal societies that show they are exactly this way.

It is only when we exclude people from our tribe that we get to view them as something "weaker" which we can exploit for our own gain.

Kind of reminiscent of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal stem cell research, war in general, freedom of enterprise, etc.

Your whole argument fails to address my examples earlier of heads to that ideology. They were individuals HEADS of what you could call 'tribes'.

Same principle just carried out in macro form.

 

[Shane Roach]

I was speaking, obviously, of those regimes, those schools of political thought. And you seem to have either missed or ignored large parts of my posts.

And I have never heard of "railing a view".

I would argue that the same considerations are still in play today. The Romans had a republican form of government prior to difficulties they encountered not entirely unlike those we face today.

There is a ballance in strictly secular experience that one must on the one hand find strength in numbers, and on the other work to withold resources to ones self or ones own group in which one finds ones self for the purpose of long term security. Christian philosophy allows one to bypass that by pointing towards an infinite source. Humanistic philosophy seems to me to have to do exactly as has been pointed out by Centurion, which is to 'argue from weakness' as it were, that is, to extoll the emotional value of self sacrifice and ignore the practical harm that such behavior does to that particular person's chances of carrying on.

 

[Clem is Me]

There is no doubt in my mind that, coming when it did, Christianity had a overall positive effect on how people treated one another - excluding abuses made possible by the limitations of Chrsitianity AS a political force. But it was a step in social "evolution". The fact is at this point in human social development we can start to examine all these factors objectively, from survuval insticts to social imperatives and decide what has really worked and why. Christianity has not been the answer, although CHRIST philosophy certainly has a part to play.

 

[HouseApe]

Kind of reminiscent of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal stem cell research, war in general, freedom of enterprise, etc.

Your whole argument fails to address my examples earlier of heads to that ideology. They were individuals HEADS of what you could call 'tribes'.

Same principle just carried out in macro form.

I agree. Hitler excluded non-Germans from his tribe. Hence, they were slaughtered. Same with Communists, homosexuals, etc... But he was quite altruistic to other Germans. Which is why he was so popular.

George Bush is "head" of the American tribe. He is quite happy to slaughter members of the "Al Qaeda" tribe (and vice-versa). And he is quite benevolent to his Republican tribe.

I think my post addresses your examples quite well. Though it is difficult for us to know who these people considered to be in their tribe.

And yes it is "Kind of reminiscent of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal stem cell research, war in general, freedom of enterprise, etc." You are right on the money.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There is no doubt in my mind that, coming when it did, Christianity had a overall positive effect on how people treated one another - excluding abuses made possible by the limitations of Chrsitianity AS a political force. But it was a step in social "evolution". The fact is at this point in human social development we can start to examine all these factors objectively, from survuval insticts to social imperatives and decide what has really worked and why. Christianity has not been the answer, although CHRIST philosophy certainly has a part to play.

Carefull what rock you pull out of that dam...

 

[Clem is Me]

Carefull what rock you pull out of that dam...

It's OK, I understand what I said. But it should be noted that Christ philosophy, in my opinion, excludes any superntaural ideas or events, and the OT is only relevant inasmuch as it informs Jesus' philisophical ideas. I also don't have an opinion on whether there was an actual individual Jesus or a conglomerate of writings, ideas and events from several people or groups.

 

[HouseApe]

if u guys like this topic, can u giove me rep points since im a newbie

Lusting for some rep, eh?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It's OK, I understand what I said. But it should be noted that Christ philosophy, in my opinion, excludes any superntaural ideas or events, and the OT is only relevant inasmuch as it informs Jesus' philisophical ideas. I also don't have an opinion on whether there was an actual individual Jesus or a conglomerate of writings, ideas and events from several people or groups.

Quite a large urban legend then... even other religions give credit to Jesus Christ being a prophet of God and even Atheists acknowledge the truths. Not bad for some "backwards, uneducated, writing separately, over time and dying for what they testified".
You misunderstood my comment. That rock (Jesus Christ) is foundational, unchangeable, unmovable. Remove it and the world will be swept away with its own folly and you can't 'change it' to suit your needs, because by definition it is exclusive... "The Way, the only Way."

I suppose I have abused the thread topic intent here and I shall retire from this thread...

Adios.

 

[Clem is Me]

I disagree about that rock stuff. Take it easy.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

To pursue that tributary...
http://www.christianforums.com/t1291295-worlds-building-onto-or-try-to-change-from-christianity.html

 

[Thibeault]

I disagree about that rock stuff. Take it easy.

i would habve ot agree with this. I dont agree at all with the rock stuff