# The Power of Belief



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ire-Chile-cult-leader-decided-antichrist.html

This is why blind faith is never a good thing. The mother was ok with it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 26, 2013)

A better title would be "The Power of Narcotics":



> Police said Castillo Gaete, the ringleader, was last seen traveling to Peru to buy ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic brew plant that he used to control the members of the rite.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

Would you assert that a non-religious person who commits a disgusting act like this one doesn't believe in anything?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

One more question.

Are you saying what they did was wrong? Looks like they thought burning a baby was ok, so it must be.

Those relative morals don't work out so well when you start condeming others.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Would you assert that a non-religious person who commits a disgusting acts like this one doesn't believe in anything?



I would lump them all in the same category. Sick, and  lacking in any beneficial qualities for mankind.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I would lump them all in the same category. Sick, and  lacking in any beneficial qualities for mankind.



Isn't beneficial just a relative term though?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> One more question.
> 
> Are you saying what they did was wrong? Looks like they thought burning a baby was ok, so it must be.
> 
> Those relative morals don't work out so well when you start condeming others.



I think its sick string.  I am morally against it, and they would argue against me. Who's right and how do we know? 

He would use his interpretations, of your book, to claim his moral authority.  Afterall, he was burning the ANTI-CHRIST.  To his christian believers they had moral authority.  I would however claim his book is wrong, and the morality highlighted in his literature in anything but consistent.   

Since I have nothing to lend my morality any more credibility than theirs, I must search outside of morality to find why this was heinous act.  I will search the peacful and prosperous societies throughout our history and locate the qualities they posses.  I will draw justification through the concept of human rights. They are not a set of moral values, but a concept of absolutes that enable the creation of a free and just society.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Isn't beneficial just a relative term though?



I believe it could be argued what it constitutes to be beneficial.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 26, 2013)

String, if you believed, HAD FAITH, that the Holy Bible and the holy spirit were telling you that there was an anti-christ that you should do away with for the glorification of god... wouldn't it be morally ok for you to do it? I mean COMPLETE faith in it. The complete same complete faith that you have in your creator sending his son to die for you so that you can have everlasting life. 

Beneficial to society, morally right or wrong, is ALL relative. Bishop I think I like the idea of looking back in history and trying to glean things, concepts, values from past societies that were peaceful and prosperous to some extent... but are those things right? I think it's a pretty good approach though..


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I think its sick string.  I am morally against it, and they would argue against me. Who's right and how do we know?


Are you saying that you believe something that you don't know to be right? 



> He would use his interpretations, of your book, to claim his moral authority.  Afterall, he was burning the ANTI-CHRIST.  To his christian believers they had moral authority.  I would however claim his book is wrong, and the morality highlighted in his literature in anything but consistent.
> 
> Since I have nothing to lend my morality any more credibility than theirs, I must search outside of morality to find why this was heinous act.  I will search the peacful and prosperous societies throughout our history and locate the qualities they posses.  I will draw justification through the concept of human rights. They are not a set of moral values, but a concept of absolutes that enable the creation of a free and just society.



So human rights are absolute but morals are not? What makes this so?

Seems to me they fall in somewhat of the same catagory, considering that human rights find roots in morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> String, if you believed, HAD FAITH, that the Holy Bible and the holy spirit were telling you that there was an anti-christ that you should do away with for the glorification of god... wouldn't it be morally ok for you to do it? I mean COMPLETE faith in it. The complete same complete faith that you have in your creator sending his son to die for you so that you can have everlasting life.
> 
> Beneficial to society, morally right or wrong, is ALL relative. Bishop I think I like the idea of looking back in history and trying to glean things, concepts, values from past societies that were peaceful and prosperous to some extent... but are those things right? I think it's a pretty good approach though..



That's not how it going to work. 

I can't answer your question because that scenario is not going to happen.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

Bishop, your position on morality is actually a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's not how it going to work.
> 
> I can't answer your question because that scenario is not going to happen.



So you're saying you know your god will never ask you to do something like that? His ways aren't your ways man....


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 26, 2013)

what about all the people christians slaughtered.to get to this moral high ground...there is. Evil everywhere when it comes to religions


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bishop, your position on morality is actually a logical fallacy.
> 
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html



Yeagh.....no.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're saying you know your god will never ask you to do something like that? His ways aren't your ways man....


Yes, I know my God would not specifically ask me to murder someone.

These are all leading questions.



hummdaddy said:


> what about all the people christians slaughtered.to get to this moral high ground...


Who in this thread has suggested that Christians have a moral high ground hummdaddy? Point it out, underline and repost it please.

Otherwise, if you can't do that, please issue an apology for your ill timed, inconsiderate and unpleasant post.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh.....no.



No? How so? Seems to fit you to a tee.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying that you believe something that you don't know to be right?
> 
> I believe in something I cannot proove to be right so I will not make an attemp to do so.
> 
> ...



You have it backwards.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No? How so? Seems to fit you to a tee.



No matter how hard I try I cannot force you to understand.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I believe in something I cannot proove to be right so I will not make an attemp to do so.


Your faith is strong!



> Placing human rights in highest value has been an extremely successful to promote a free and prosperous society. History has shown were there is great freedom there is generally a better quality of life for all that societies people. Trial, error, and history is our guide.


Are you going to explain to me how human rights are absolute? All that fluff you just wrote is relative.




> You have it backwards.



What exactly do I have backwards?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 26, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> No matter how hard I try I cannot force you to understand.



Why don't I put some of it into terms from the link, and then you can explain it to me.

I'll remove "X" and insert your claim.....


> To make a claim such as "Bishop thinks murdering a baby is immoral" is to say that the claim is true for Bishop and that it need not be true for others.
> 
> For example: "1+1=23 is true for Bill" would mean that, for Bill, 1+1 actually does equal 23, not that he merely believes that 1+1=23.




You position is a logical fallacy Bishop.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your faith is strong!
> 
> 
> Are you going to explain to me how human rights are absolute? All that fluff you just wrote is relative.
> ...



The foundation for morality and law lie in human rights. Rights exsist without morality, and morality cannot exsist without rights.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why don't I put some of it into terms from the link, and then you can explain it to me.
> 
> I'll remove "X" and insert your claim.....
> 
> ...



What I think is right or wrong does not matter, what you think is right or wrong, does not matter.  What matters only in society is that an agreement can be reached, as memebers, to live and cooperate, to ensure the future prosperity of our species.  It is the ways of all life. 

Establishing human rights has been the best course of actions thus far, and when they are manipulated usually suffering is to follow.


----------



## fc3spr0 (Apr 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You position is a logical fallacy Bishop.



Yes and that is why it is pointless to waste time arguing in this forum.  If someone wants to know about  Christianity and the path to salvation, they know which forum to click on.  

I can't see why this forum has so many Christians who basically get asked a question then ridiculed for the answer, all the while the AAA just sit back and make fallacy filled arguments and inaccurate statements about every aspect of Christianity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2013)

fc3spr0 said:


> Yes and that is why it is pointless to waste time arguing in this forum.  If someone wants to know about  Christianity and the path to salvation, they know which forum to click on.
> 
> I can't see why this forum has so many Christians who basically get asked a question then ridiculed for the answer, all the while the AAA just sit back and make fallacy filled arguments and inaccurate statements about every aspect of Christianity.



and yet here you are.....


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 27, 2013)

fc3spr0 said:


> Yes and that is why it is pointless to waste time arguing in this forum.  If someone wants to know about  Christianity and the path to salvation, they know which forum to click on.
> 
> I can't see why this forum has so many Christians who basically get asked a question then ridiculed for the answer, all the while the AAA just sit back and make fallacy filled arguments and inaccurate statements about every aspect of Christianity.





I think it's even funnier when as christian jumps in the middle of a discussion were none of that has taken place, and the sets himself up to be ridiculed.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> The foundation for morality and law lie in human rights. Rights exsist without morality, and morality cannot exsist without rights.



What the heck are you talking about? Morality exists everywhere. It is the standard clutural idea of what is wrong or right. It is NOT absolute truth. What do human rights have to do with morality?

Nevermind, I forgot that it is imppossible to have an intelligent discussion with the Bishop. The laws of the Bishop cannot be disputed, no matter how ridiculous they are.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I think its sick string.  I am morally against it, and they would argue against me. Who's right and how do we know?
> 
> He would use his interpretations, of your book, to claim his moral authority.  Afterall, he was burning the ANTI-CHRIST.  To his christian believers they had moral authority.  I would however claim his book is wrong, and the morality highlighted in his literature in anything but consistent.
> 
> Since I have nothing to lend my morality any more credibility than theirs, I must search outside of morality to find why this was heinous act.  I will search the peacful and prosperous societies throughout our history and locate the qualities they posses.  I will draw justification through the concept of human rights. They are not a set of moral values, but a concept of absolutes that enable the creation of a free and just society.



Good luck with that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 29, 2013)

I Agree good luck with that... because most societies have fallen... but I think it's a good place to start by trying to figure out what seemed to work well.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 29, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> What I think is right or wrong does not matter, what you think is right or wrong, does not matter.  What matters only in society is that an agreement can be reached, as memebers, to live and cooperate, to ensure the future prosperity of our species.  It is the ways of all life.
> 
> Establishing human rights has been the best course of actions thus far, and when they are manipulated usually suffering is to follow.



You're saying ESTABLISH human rights within a society based on what a set of rulers can agree on? Maybe... but that normally doesn't go over very well.... because of THE POWER OF BELIEF.. It's ALL about belief... because there are no unchangeable human rights. What we hold as human rights are beliefs that have been established.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> What the heck are you talking about? Morality exists everywhere. It is the standard clutural idea of what is wrong or right. It is NOT absolute truth. What do human rights have to do with morality?
> 
> Nevermind, I forgot that it is imppossible to have an intelligent discussion with the Bishop. The laws of the Bishop cannot be disputed, no matter how ridiculous they are.



I guess reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for science.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Good luck with that.





> I guess reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for science.



History neither.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> They have to be for the formula to work for a free and prosperous society. They are the tenets of liberty.


They *have* to be for the formula to work? Who says the forumula has to work? Who or what gives us the right to be free and prosperous?

Your argument will die the death of a thousand qualifications because it has no basis.  



> The foundation for morality and law lie in human rights. Rights exsist without morality, and morality cannot exsist without rights.



Where do human rights come from? Why are they absolute?

In order for human rights to be absolute, there must be a source, that is never changing, to find these absolute human rights.

 By what constant source do human rights derive absoluteness?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're saying ESTABLISH human rights within a society based on what a set of rulers can agree on? Maybe... but that normally doesn't go over very well.... because of THE POWER OF BELIEF.. It's ALL about belief... because there are no unchangeable human rights. What we hold as human rights are beliefs that have been established.



True, even human rights are treated as ambiguous and arbitrary, even here in the United States.   What they did to this child is akin to abortion.  Saying its morally wrong is just really arguing semantics.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 29, 2013)

fc3spr0 said:


> Yes and that is why it is pointless to waste time arguing in this forum.  If someone wants to know about  Christianity and the path to salvation, they know which forum to click on.
> 
> I can't see why this forum has so many Christians who basically get asked a question then ridiculed for the answer, all the while the AAA just sit back and make fallacy filled arguments and inaccurate statements about every aspect of Christianity.



Eh, I've learned a lot in here over the years.

I enjoy quality discussion and hope that God uses this avenue to speak to me and through me to reach lifes of the people posting and reading this particular subforum.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> They *have* to be for the formula to work? Who says the forumula has to work?I do, along with all the champions of liberty in history. Who or what gives us the right to be free and prosperous?It's not a "RIGHT", more a desire of human kind to live and enjoy life.
> 
> Your argument will die the death of a thousand qualifications because it has no basis.  Not quite.
> 
> ...



String I have thought about this long and hard and  I don't have any exact answers. But I have reached some basic conclusions.  

First you feel that without qualifing them to a higher source they loose value. The value to me, is what they can give us, not where they come from.  You have too many people in a society that disagree on higher sources. I believe it's necessary to exclude the need for such a source, to make it easier for them to be universally accepted. 

Rights to me are established with human life.  If anything this is your base. All rights stem from this. You have no rights (or morallity) if you have no claim to the right to life.  Becuase you nor I, have any rightful, and doubtless authority to derive rights from anything more, you and I that believe differently, must have an equal place to start.  The right to life is that place.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> True, even human rights are treated as ambiguous and arbitrary, even here in the United States.   What they did to this child is akin to abortion.  Saying its morally wrong is just really arguing semantics.



Abortion is legal, and by many people in our culture is considered moral. The FDA just made the morning after pill legal over the counter, and a young girl must only be 15 years old (no parental permission) to purchase it.

Which peaceful and prosperous cultures do you intend to study?

Or are you just going to continue to make fun of me?


----------



## TheBishop (May 2, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Abortion is legal, and by many people in our culture is considered moral. The FDA just made the morning after pill legal over the counter, and a young girl must only be 15 years old (no parental permission) to purchase it.
> 
> Which peaceful and prosperous cultures do you intend to study?
> 
> Or are you just going to continue to make fun of me?



There are no utopias ted. There however examples of society's  were freedom and liberty were held in high regard. There you had great expansion in wealth and quality of life for the greatest amount of people.  Our very own history is highlighted with examples, and examples of the adverse.  Were we began to change the concept of individual rights, you find the beginning of our downfall.


----------



## atlashunter (May 2, 2013)

And then they ask "Why do you care what others believe?"


----------



## mtnwoman (May 2, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Abortion is legal, and by many people in our culture is considered moral. The FDA just made the morning after pill legal over the counter, and a young girl must only be 15 years old (no parental permission) to purchase it.
> 
> Which peaceful and prosperous cultures do you intend to study?
> 
> Or are you just going to continue to make fun of me?



I can answer that......just make fun of you.  Well not just you, let's not get predjudicial here...makes fun of all of us Christians....equally. Predjudice is predjudice.

We are in moral decay.

A scientist can find a minute organism on mars and OMGOSH, what a big deal...life is on mars....but life on earth (fetuses) are worthless....alrighty then.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 2, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> There are no utopias ted. There however examples of society's  were freedom and liberty were held in high regard. There you had great expansion in wealth and quality of life for the greatest amount of people.  Our very own history is highlighted with examples, and examples of the adverse.  Were we began to change the concept of individual rights, you find the beginning of our downfall.



Yes, I was asking for examples. You told me that there are some. What are they?


----------



## ted_BSR (May 2, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I can answer that......just make fun of you.  Well not just you, let's not get predjudicial here...makes fun of all of us Christians....equally. Predjudice is predjudice.
> 
> We are in moral decay.
> 
> A scientist can find a minute organism on mars and OMGOSH, what a big deal...life is on mars....but life on earth (fetuses) are worthless....alrighty then.



Yeah, you are right MW, he will, but nobody has ever found life (of any type) on Mars.

But killin' babies is still OK.

I DO NOT imply that Bishop thinks killin' babies is OK. I am quite certain he DOES NOT believe that, based on his previous comments.

Dang internet, gotta spell everything out so no one gets offended. Oh well, it is the replacement for real human interaction.

Gonna stay in my room and  explore the world through a screen I guess.

Nah, I am going OUTSIDE!!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (May 2, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> And then they ask "Why do you care what others believe?"



Nice to see you Atlas!

I CARE, because IT is worth sharing!!


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

Thanks Ted!  I'm working my tail off overseas now so not on as much as I used to be but y'all will still have to put up with me every once in a while.


----------



## TheBishop (May 3, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, I was asking for examples. You told me that there are some. What are they?





> There are no utopias ted. There however examples of society's were freedom and liberty were held in high regard. There you had great expansion in wealth and quality of life for the greatest amount of people. Our very own history is highlighted with examples, and examples of the adverse. Were we began to change the concept of individual rights, you find the beginning of our downfall.



There are examples in Europe, Britian, South America, New Zealand, and even in Southeast Asia.  Most were brief time periods, but when and were they occured you had the greatest expanion of wealth and prosperity in that place.  When they began to deviate from the concept of freedom and manipulated the concept of rights, you can see the trend go the opposite.  Our country is probably the finest and easiest example.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> There are examples in Europe, Britian, South America, New Zealand, and even in Southeast Asia.  Most were brief time periods, but when and were they occured you had the greatest expanion of wealth and prosperity in that place.  When they began to deviate from the concept of freedom and manipulated the concept of rights, you can see the trend go the opposite.  Our country is probably the finest and easiest example.



You have given me one example, true, the easiest, and you have told me WHERE such other civilizations have existed. I am still curious about which ones you are speaking about (besides the US).


----------



## atlashunter (May 5, 2013)

I wonder if Bishop can come up with any largely christian countries that aren't glowing successes.


----------

