# Personal Integrity



## Diogenes (Apr 28, 2010)

Note please that the first word is ‘personal.’  Meaning of or pertaining to only yourself. 

If who you are, and what you think, as a singular and individual person, is drawn only as a cartoon is drawn – as a caricature of other sources – then please do us a favor and do not respond until you have examined just why you are only defined by quotes from a book or rules that you were taught to obey.  Such thoughts are not personal, or even vaguely original – they are derivative and parroting and automatically invalid. They are not ‘your’ thoughts.

Note also that the second word is ‘integrity.’ Meaning the state of being undiminished, whole, entire, and unimpaired.  

If your ability to view the world around you is filtered entirely by quotes from a book or rules you were taught to obey, then you are impaired, by definition.  You have no integrity, because you have ceded same to outside sources, and again your thoughts are not your own, are completely derivative, and are automatically invalid. That is ‘borrowed’ integrity, and is not your own.  Bring something that is worth discussing, or bring an observation that is actually your own, or find another thread.

Please spare us from your own lack of thought and lack of insight and education.  That sort of thing is tiring out the truly thoughtful, and while we try to suffer bratty children with internet access and chips on their shoulders, we’re growing increasingly weary of the knee-biting nonsense that prevents adult interaction. 

Even a rudimentary lexicology tells us that as recently as the eighteenth century the word ‘tolerance’ had a pejorative meaning, denoting a lax complacency towards evil.  In an oddly delayed reaction to Boussuet’s admonition to the Protestants (1691), the Walloon Synod of Leyden (equally oddly composed almost entirely of Huguenot refugees), rather firmly condemned religious toleration to be a heresy.  For many here, it appears that history stopped right there.

But the truth of the intervening centuries is that the meanings have been reversed.  The natural propensity of groups to penalize dissenting members who departed from the practices and ‘beliefs’ of the majority, which ‘beliefs’ were represented almost entirely by the ruling classes so that the dominant view was an ispo facto characteristic of imperative rule, went upside down.  Intolerance became a vice, and tolerance became a virtue, much to the chagrin of those who sought to persecute and control all people and all thoughts other than their own.  

Historically, when a persecuting religion faces believers in another religion, the intolerance takes the form of Charlemagne against the Saxons, for one example – who were given the choice between Baptism or death.  In the case of the Romans, polytheism had some advantages – it easily accommodated a multiplicity of deities, so in the end the conflicts were temporal, only, and gave way to an easy religious coalescence. Judeo-Christian monotheism has no such forgiving characteristics.  Monotheism brings with it the necessity to impose the notion of a Creed; of a very precise and articulated  belief in a doctrine that corresponds to Absolute Truth, as revealed only to the Believers.  Simultaneously with the appearance of monotheistic thought there appeared the ideas of the possibility of orthodoxy or heterodoxy in religion – of correct wording or erroneous wording—by accretion, by suppression, by modification, or by interpretation – even if all of the factions were addressing only one and the same article of Faith.  So here the notion of ‘Sacrament’ separated, and each ascribed rituals with the importance of acts and intentions, missing entirely that all rituals were filled only with speculative content.

But by their separate rituals and interpretations they each expressed their own group identity, and called it in the name of individualism.  Strikes me, personally, as very odd to express one’s individuality in terms of which group one identifies as one’s own, but that is neither here nor there . . .    

(Anyone missing the overall point that this sort of nonsense sounds quite familiar – akin to why the Serbs and Croats are still at war, probably missed a few classes along the way . . . ) 

In early Christianity, history quite eloquently reveals, Christian writers only defended religious liberties when they were being intermittently exposed to measures of persecution by political authorities, and many writings by the Church Fathers quite elegantly defended and justified the freedom to choose.  Revealingly, once the imperial throne at hand  was won over to Christianity, the tone changed immediately, and the Church had no restraint in enlisting the secular authorities in the wholesale murder of ‘heretics.’  Saint Augustine, in particular, despite his original hostility towards constraint, ended up being its theoretician, owing to the success that penal (governmental) sanctions had against the Donatists (his ideological enemy).  A bit situational, one might think, and unbecoming a ‘Saint,’ but true just the same . . . 

Suddenly, what had begun as an upstart, persecuted, and marginal bit of thought blossomed into its own worst nightmare – a religion with power and influence – which was, one might say, exactly the rejection of existing power structures that created the religion to begin with.   And, as all humans with power and influence tend to do, they did everything they pretended to be against, prior to actually gaining power.  And continue to do so even today, imperially, heavy-handedly, and often violently.  Revenge is uniquely human.  No.  Wait.  The Bible says otherwise . . . 

And so, short of another few hundred pages of truth and history, to the thought at hand –

Is the history and origins and truths of the rise of a ‘religion’ sufficient cause for blind adherence to same?

Have any of the adherents sufficiently learned about what they are ‘Obeying,’ and do they truly think about or question why they are doing so?

And, most importantly, does the individual, given the ability to think independently, possess the personal integrity to rely on that ability?  Or must one blindly ‘obey’ rules simply because one has been told that it is a rule?

Personal.

Integrity.

Make your words well.  And stand by them.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 28, 2010)

In order to be the best Christian you can be you will question and every thing and examine it under a microscope. That microscope has a lens call "truth". 

This truth comes through a working knowledge of our Bible. Dio you must understand there is a reason for the process of Christianity is called "being born again". When we are immature in our faith we rely on the Bible and other religious text to fill the void of our lack of knowledge. Many people on here have personal integrity, but they may use the process described in your post to respond to the atheist "invaders". 

I love this forum because it allows people to sharpen their awareness to the challenges of being a Christian and hear other people's opinions. Therefore, increasing their working knowledge of their faith.

On a personal note...why do you get hung up on the reasons religion has failed mankind in it's existence? We are human beings. We are selfish. We are going to do the worst things you can imagine to each other. Just because someone in higher authority commits a heinous act in the name of Christianity does not mean they are Christians or religious at all. 

Remember this! Absolute power corrupts  absolutely!


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 28, 2010)

The only well made words I can think of to say are.....


The sound of one's own voice is too often the sweetest intoxicant. Rehab may be a good option.


I will gladly donate to the cause.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> The sound of one's own voice is too often the sweetest intoxicant. Rehab may be a good option.





Perfect!!!


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 28, 2010)

I think we get too caught up in Labels. I learned very early that just because a church had Baptist over the door didn't mean you could recognize it as one inside. Even good churches have their own personality based on who belongs and even more by who is active. They are better defined by their motives in  my opinion.

I also learned to evaluate each individual for their personal intergity and not by the groups. It's the old "Don't judge a book by it's cover". It is easy to lump people in an evil/good group and condemn them even if we know of nothing they have personally done wrong.
The media is real big these days at doing just this. Take 5 minutes today and go through the newspaper and circle all the groups you find labeled......It's a real eye opener............................RW


----------



## gtparts (Apr 28, 2010)

A question arises concerning _personal integrity_.

Does personal integrity extend to the almost verbatim lifting of thoughts expressed in the writings of others...... such as G. Gordon Betts?

The Twilight of Britain: Cultural Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Politics of Toleration comes to mind.


To quote from what I would hope are your very own words:



> If who you are, and what you think, as a singular and individual person, is drawn only as a cartoon is drawn – as a caricature of other sources – then please do us a favor and do not respond until you have examined just why you are only defined by quotes from a book or rules that you were taught to obey. Such thoughts are not personal, or even vaguely original – they are derivative and parroting and automatically invalid. They are not ‘your’ thoughts.
> 
> Note also that the second word is ‘integrity.’ Meaning the state of being undiminished, whole, entire, and unimpaired.
> 
> ...




It is a sad thing to see someone be hoisted on their own petard, as it were.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 28, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> The sound of one's own voice is too often the sweetest intoxicant.





formula1 said:


> Perfect!!!




This assumes that the voice is Dio's and not that of someone else.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 28, 2010)

No! No! No! 

Now I thought all that out myself and didn't rely on anyone else.

My thought process only.  Sorry all that was just to much to take in and to much if'n. We can sit around if'n for years and never get any answers. 

You can't get in the heads of other people's belief's, sometimes you can quitely convert them over to yours but you can run them off from theirs. You have to love them and live them into yours. If that makes any sense at all.

I don't follow a religion, I follow Jesus, I am religious and regardless to what people say, Christianity is a religion but the word (Christian), in my opinion is being used much to loosely in today's society.

What I do, say and act out is a result of what I have learned from my own personel bible study as I think most people on here do. When someone doesn't agree with me,,,,, doesn't mean they do not think for themselves.

When I don't agree with them,,,,, doesn't mean I don't think for myself or it doesn't mean I am following "what is written by Godless men" behind closed doors.

There is growth processes that take place in a Christian just as there is with a child or even an adult. We meet people every day but we don't know what process they are in. We must take that into account when we talk to them or when we teach them or most assureadly when we form an opinion of them.

I am really not sure what kind of answer you wanted on this thread but this is just some of my thoughts.

I think Jesus would be happy if we would walk around a little more happy and not looking to jump or pound on someone else about what they are doing, or worring about what is coming instead of what is here now.

Love God and his people, teach them the best you can the word of God, them show them the rest, If (and there I go If'n) we do that everything would be a much better world to live in.

Stop worriyng about other people so much and start worrying about myself. Wow what a concept. I mus have some wyzdom.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 28, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Is the history and origins and truths of the rise of a ‘religion’ sufficient cause for blind adherence to same?
> 
> Have any of the adherents sufficiently learned about what they are ‘Obeying,’ and do they truly think about or question why they are doing so?
> 
> And, most importantly, does the individual, given the ability to think independently, possess the personal integrity to rely on that ability?  Or must one blindly ‘obey’ rules simply because one has been told that it is a rule?



1.  No.  But people are funny.  They will "buy" water in bottles.  Can't be any harder today to sell religion than in the past when average educational levels were much lower and access to information was lesser.  

2.  Some people might have, but if they have done their research they have to make a conscious decision to avoid the hard questions and facts to continue with their beliefs.
They are the minority.  Most don't question or research anything. 

3.  Each person has a responsibility to themselves and their society.  It is a key component of survival.  Some will forgo their personal integrity for a variety of reasons.  Those are the very folks that require society to create rules and enforcement.
Blind obedience often times reflects a lack of knowledge.  Other times it is a simple "handing over" of one's individual thought process because of a lack of motivation or desire to gain knowledge.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 28, 2010)

People will never strictly adhere to rules just because they are rules or law.  No people.  No situation.  For us humans, rules stand in our way.
Personal integrity has to do with standards.  Personally accepted standards.

Here's an example of American integrity.

From today's news.

*NEW YORK (AP) - A homeless Good Samaritan who was ignored while lying, mortally wounded, on a New York City sidewalk will be honored at a wake.

The family of Guatemalan immigrant Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax (TAHL'-eh yaks) is holding services Wednesday at a Brooklyn funeral home.

Police say Tale-Yax was stabbed while helping a woman being attacked. He was found dead on April 18 after lying on a Queens sidewalk for nearly an hour. Some passersby paused and left; others kept walking.
One of his brothers, Byron Tale-Yax, says their actions send a message about humanity.

Police are still looking for the woman Tale-Yax rescued and the man with whom she had fought.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2010)

It appears that we are asked to use the definition of integrity that suggests “completeness”.  It would be a more interesting and accurate discussion, based on the lower two thirds of the statement,  if the inquirer had chosen to use “personal integrity” as defined by morality, since that is where the remainder of the opening statement goes but that did not happen.  It leads into a statement about morals and situational ethics.  Interesting that detractors have to go back to a dark age to find such actions of brutality to shackle Christianity with when the 20th and 21st century are replete examples of atheists and agnostics slaughtering millions upon millions due to no moral integrity.  Never-the-less many atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity and we are saddled with the actions of an earlier era.  I believe it speaks volumes of a faith that can take those punches squarely on the chin and move on, rather than play the games of other religions, including secular humanism, and pretend they happened some other way or not at all.

It would be best to leave the notion that integrity is somehow affixed to what we have learned in our life, alone.  Everyone is in some way influenced by people, studies, etc.  To claim that anyone on this forum has never been influenced is a bit absurd.  After all there is “Nothing new under the sun”.

But I digress.

If I understand the question correctly we were asked if we thought we have integrity in the sense of completeness.  

In a physical sense I do not have integrity, I had my appendix removed when I was 17, therefore I am physically incomplete.   As for a more in depth study of completeness I am complete.  The historical account of Jesus and the man at the pools of Bethsaida are probably the best explanation of why that is so.

John 5: 4-6,14-15
  4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.  5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.  6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 
 14Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.  15The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 
I can be physically complete; every body part intact as many of you are, but without the knowledge and fellowship of Jesus the Christ I would have always been incomplete.

So in the truest sense I am complete.

He has made me whole.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 28, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Here's an example of American integrity.



It is not representative of the whole, nor is it simply American.
Similiar actions take place worldwide every minute of every day.
They are the outlier examples found in all societies.

Personal integrity is influenced greatly by a person's environment and society in which they find themselves part and parcel of.  But ultimately, it is their decision as to what course of action to follow.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 28, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> It is not representative of the whole, nor is it simply American.
> Similiar actions take place worldwide every minute of every day.
> They are the outlier examples found in all societies.
> 
> Personal integrity is influenced greatly by a person's environment and society in which they find themselves part and parcel of.  But ultimately, it is their decision as to what course of action to follow.



I've also heard that people often seem to react the same way they see others react.
If one person passes by an injured person, the second person is more likely to do the same.
If someone is being assaulted in a public place, people seem to stand back waiting for someone else to step up to stop the assault.  As soon as someone else gets involved, the rest of the crowd is then willing to become involved.

The owner of a local Chinese restaurant has become my friend.  He says things like purse-snatchings don't happen in china.  If it did, a huge mob of bystanders would chase the bad guy down and give him a severe beating.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 28, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> I've also heard that people often seem to react the same way they see others react.
> If one person passes by an injured person, the second person is more likely to do the same.
> If someone is being assaulted in a public place, people seem to stand back waiting for someone else to step up to stop the assault.  As soon as someone else gets involved, the rest of the crowd is then willing to become involved.
> 
> The owner of a local Chinese restaurant has become my friend.  He says things like purse-snatchings don't happen in china.  If it did, a huge mob of bystanders would chase the bad guy down and give him a severe beating.



Yep, the old "herd mentality" is easily found in the majority of humans worldwide.

It's too easy for me to identify the times past when I have done the same.

Even in public safety they teach that when things go bad, I mean REALLY bad, take off your uniform and blend in with the crowd.  Survival can be a cruel lady.

When it comes to measuring personal integrity, I'd have to think the metrics used are pretty subjective and individual.
What one is willing to accept might not be up to the same level as what someone else accepts or strives to hold.


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 28, 2010)

I feel a major part of Integrity is dependability. In all the societies I have been around dependability was important. I get a kick on this Forum because you are always hearing about buyers who say " I'll take it " and then vanish from the face of the earth. Wonder if this would happen if all a person's personal information was readily available ??  On another Board members check out cars for others so they know what they are buying first hand. On occasion non shipping seller are personally encouraged to make things right.  RW


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 28, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> 2.  Some people might have, but if they have done their research they have to make a conscious decision to avoid the hard questions and facts to continue with their beliefs.
> They are the minority.  Most don't question or research anything.



What are the hard questions and "facts" you speak of?


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 29, 2010)

So let us begin – 

First, HF and Formula1 – beginning with insult marginalizes you as thoughtless and threatened, and if that is all you have to bring intellectually then please take it to the local elementary school and beg for admission.  We are intending to speak of things you do not possess, by your own automatic admission.

Thanatos – your point is taken, and understood, but appears to be narrowed to a single view and a single religious tome, where many more exist and are viewed as equally valid by the adherents of those sects.  To say that one standpoint is the ‘Truth’ says aloud that all of the others must then be ‘Lies.’  That can hardly be the case in any view of the abstract and undefined area of Spirituality, and such a definition of ‘truth’ would necessarily redefine the word itself.

Inthegarge comes close to the idea, realizing that ‘truth’ is not so easily defined.

GT, in his neverending quest for some sort of a ‘Gotcha’ that he seems to think
invalidates a thought, couldn’t be more wrong, as usual – If any of my ‘thoughts’ or
inspirations for such thoughts were ‘lifted,’ then please see Elizabeth Labrousse’s 
distillation of Theodore de Beze’s ‘Traite de l’autorite du magistrat en la punityion des 
heretiques’ (1560); which was a translation of a Latin text from 1554 entitled ‘De 
haeretics a civili magistratu puniendis libelis,’ and which he lifted in its entirety without 
attribution.  Further, one may consult Louis Thomassin’s works, republished 
posthumously as enlarged second editions in 1700 under the title ‘Traite dogmatique at 
historique des Edits.’  One may also read the works of Abbe Caveirac in the mid-
eighteenth century, or Father Joseph Lecler, S.J., ‘Toleration and the 
Reformation,’(1960). And/or, one might become fully familiar with the thoughts 
expressed by reading Henry Kamen, Leon Poliakov, R.H. Bainton (especially),
Stankeiwitcz, J.W. Gough’s translation of ‘Epistola de toleratia,’ or – to keep this 
compact, one might do something other than relying on Google as one’s sole source of 
insight, and perhaps take the time to actually learn before speaking and accusing.

Personal integrity.

Deacon – I have almost no idea what you just said, but in the rambling it ranges from 
condescendingly judgmental to oddly insightful.  

WTM45 finally responds with some thoughtful substance, and I wonder only about the 
very last bit of the thought --  “Other times it is a simple "handing over" of one's individual thought process because of a lack of motivation or desire to gain knowledge.”  Here we have one of the core issues, since the ‘enlightened’ members of every religious faction claim, often violently, to already possess all of the ‘knowledge’ they deem to be worth knowing.  Their  individual and collective ‘knowledge’ is, in their view, the whole and entire ‘truth.’  It would be difficult to become motivated to seek answers if one already smugly believes that they already hold those answers, would it not?  

Here, our integrity as individuals has been ceded to someone else who has ‘told us’ that we are right, if only we join their particular club.  This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me, and an abdication of personal integrity in favor of group acceptance.

Ronnie T brings to the forefront one of the main reasons for this thread, then Madman dissects, parses, dissembles, avoids, and demonstrates the other reason for it.  Thank you.

The hard facts are many.  We need not bother to try enumerating them here – that is another thread all alone – the thought at hand is one of personal choice and personal actions, or lack of same, vs. blind obedience to an abstract doctrine that varies from religion to religion, and from government to government.  

At what point does one stop being one of the herd, and become oneself?  Is there such a point, or have we become a world full of sheep who obey our local rules simply because someone said it was a rule?


----------



## Madman (Apr 29, 2010)

It is ironic for an agnostic to put forth this question.  Here we have one so desperately searching for knowledge and truth yet he is as blind as Pilate, not seeing it standing right beside him.

The answer can only be found in a Christian worldview.  Christ says that he "Came to bear witness to the truth”.  Truth can be found nowhere but in Him.

Wholeness comes not by some intellectual exercise and not from within but when we are in communion with God.

Keep searching Dio, your fist shaking and mental gymnastics,  will one day cause you to open the door at which He knocks.


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 29, 2010)

Acts 26:24  " And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. "      RW


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> WTM45 finally responds with some thoughtful substance, and I wonder only about the
> very last bit of the thought --  “Other times it is a simple "handing over" of one's individual thought process because of a lack of motivation or desire to gain knowledge.”  Here we have one of the core issues, since the ‘enlightened’ members of every religious faction claim, often violently, to already possess all of the ‘knowledge’ they deem to be worth knowing.  Their  individual and collective ‘knowledge’ is, in their view, the whole and entire ‘truth.’  It would be difficult to become motivated to seek answers if one already smugly believes that they already hold those answers, would it not?



It could be that they feel content that all the answers they need are provided by such "enlightened" leaders of a religious belief system.  
Or, more likely, it could be they are honestly afraid that they would find what they thought were the correct answers are really not so clear.  Maybe even wrong.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> So let us begin –
> 
> 
> GT, in his neverending quest for some sort of a ‘Gotcha’ that he seems to think
> ...



I was referencing just one part of your original post to show you for the unoriginal "thinker" that, in the above quote, you have admitted to being. The original poster decries the unoriginal "thinker" and goes on to edit and present the thoughts of others without attribution.

Don't you feel better now that you have come clean? As the curtain was pulled back, I could only see a "very poor wizard".




			
				Diogenes said:
			
		

> The hard facts are many.  We need not bother to try enumerating them here – that is another thread all alone – the thought at hand is one of personal choice and personal actions, or lack of same, vs. blind obedience to an abstract doctrine that varies from religion to religion, and from government to government.



The hard facts are many.  We need not bother to try enumerating them here – that is another thread all alone – the thought at hand is one of personal choice and personal actions, or lack of same, vs. blind obedience to an abstract doctrine that varies from one atheist to another, and from government to government.

Two can play "Thought Pirate" or "Post Raider", Bucko!





			
				Diogenes said:
			
		

> At what point does one stop being one of the herd, and become oneself?  Is there such a point, or have we become a world full of sheep who obey our local rules simply because someone said it was a rule?



At what point does one see the light and align their life with Christ, finding in Him the proper relationship with others as we conform to His will?
Is there such a point, or have we become a world full of self-centered anarchists who disobey God's rules simply because we are petulant, not abiding His sovereign rule?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> It is a sad thing to see someone be hoisted on their own petard, as it where.



"Were," not "where."

(OK.  We are even!  TRUCE!)

Most thoughts come from outside influences.  What one is taught, what one reads, what one sees, what one hears and what one can readily investigate.  Originality is getting harder to come by in this day and age of advancement and knowledge.

To suggest, even lightly, that someone is committing plagiarism is a strong accusation that should be backed up with fact.
Otherwise, one is setting themselves up for a big fall.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Note please that the first word is ‘personal.’  Meaning of or pertaining to only yourself.
> 
> If who you are, and what you think, as a singular and individual person, is drawn only as a cartoon is drawn – as a caricature of other sources – then please do us a favor and do not respond until you have examined just why you are only defined by quotes from a book or rules that you were taught to obey.  Such thoughts are not personal, or even vaguely original – they are derivative and parroting and automatically invalid. They are not ‘your’ thoughts.
> 
> ...



Thanks WTM45! Messenger corrected,....post corrected. 

Check the Betts comment out, about page 289 or so. I can assure you that the book referenced is almost verbatim. I don't believe in coincidences (Jethro Leroy Gibbs, in _NCIS_). Either Dio ripped off Betts or Betts ripped off Dio, my friend. Lord only knows where Betts may have come by this.

Here is the link.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mu...t&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true

Compare pg.289, last paragraph with the line in the above quote that begins, "Even a rudimentary...." and following.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Most thoughts come from outside influences.  What one is taught, what one reads, what one sees, what one hears and what one can readily investigate.  Originality is getting harder to come by in this day and age of advancement and knowledge.



Agreeed! But to post a thread that ridicules anything but personal integrity concerning original thought, should, in my opinion, comply with the standard that it seeks to uphold.

(Put the extra "e" in _agreed_ just to show there are no hard feelings.)

gtparts


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 29, 2010)

Seems both Betts and Diogenes are using works from different sources, and have identified those sources within.
The APA rules on paraphrasing and plagiarism give some allowances for that style, but I personally prefer using quotations and footnoting as a "covering the backside" method.

I think Diogenes will have to answer for himself on this one.

And, it is a slippery slope, to begin pointing out possibilities of incorrect plagiarism and paraphrasing.  It's quite often the well documented and detailed thoughts and expressions of Calvin, Luther, Schofield, Sunday, Graham and the like are thrown about as one's original thoughts and concepts here.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Agreeed! But to post a thread that ridicules anything but personal integrity concerning original thought, should, in my opinion, comply with the standard that it seeks to uphold.
> 
> (Put the extra "e" in _agreed_ just to show there are no hard feelings.)
> 
> gtparts



Ecclesiastes 1:9?

Does not seem too out of line to use the thoughts of others to prove a point.  I do think quotations and credits should always be given to thoughts that are in no way original.

But then, is anything really original anymore?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Seems both Betts and Diogenes are using works from different sources, and have identified those sources within.
> The APA rules on paraphrasing and plagiarism give some allowances for that style, but I personally prefer using quotations and footnoting as a "covering the backside" method.
> 
> I think Diogenes will have to answer for himself on this one.
> ...



I understand. Seems like Elizabeth Labrousse was given some measure of attribution, by Dio, in post #17, after being less than forthcoming in post #1.

Nevertheless, it does point to relying, in part, on the logic and reason of others, which the OP has denigrated in the first post.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 29, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Ecclesiastes 1:9?
> 
> Does not seem too out of line to use the thoughts of others to prove a point.  I do think quotations and credits should always be given to thoughts that are in no way original.
> 
> But then, is anything really original anymore?



Besides you and me? Yeah, even when God makes what we call identical twins (or multiples), each is a genuine original.


----------



## christianhunter (Apr 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> So let us begin –
> 
> First, HF and Formula1 – beginning with insult marginalizes you as thoughtless and threatened, and if that is all you have to bring intellectually then please take it to the local elementary school and beg for admission.  We are intending to speak of things you do not possess, by your own automatic admission.
> 
> ...



Or we could adhere to your intellect,and simply reply............................No Comment!


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm not so sure he is using the statements of others to establish or support his own point of view or stance as much as he is using it as an example to counter what he interprets or observes as other's "limited" points of view.

He will have to explain his direction and his useage.

I do see your point regarding originality.  And that point can also be used to analyze pretty much every issue that is discussed regarding religious belief systems.  Rarely do we find "original" thoughts there, we only find interpretations that get hashed over time, and time, and time, and time again.

I guess we will simply have to standby and wait for our early AM "nugget" of wisdom!


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 29, 2010)

Reminds me of students who quote themselves as the author. They loudly protest that it was their own invention. Usually a quick search
shows that none of us really have an original thought............RW


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 29, 2010)

Inthegarge said:


> Reminds me of students who quote themselves as the author. They loudly protest that it was their own invention. Usually a quick search
> shows that none of us really have an original thought............RW



I'm not so sure there's an original thought left or for that matter a sermon that hasn't been preached.


----------



## Inthegarge (Apr 29, 2010)

Eccl 1: 9 " The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. "  RW


----------



## Madman (Apr 29, 2010)

"Want to learn something new?
Read an old book."

My maternal grandfather


----------



## Paymaster (Apr 29, 2010)

Madman said:


> "Want to learn something new?
> Read an old book."
> 
> My maternal grandfather



Sounds like a wise man!


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 29, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> People will never strictly adhere to rules just because they are rules or law.  No people.  No situation.  For us humans, rules stand in our way.
> Personal integrity has to do with standards.  Personally accepted standards.
> 
> Here's an example of American integrity.
> ...



Ronnie,that might be what _you_ consider an example of American integrity,but not in _my_ America,it ain't.Florida,New York - not much difference any more,but that would not happen around here.

I know there are many people right here on this forum who despise homeless people,and look down there noses at them.To them I say: There,but for the grace of God,go you or I. 
I believe it would be good for every man,woman,and child [not infants] in this fat land to go hungry for a week or so,and have to find a place to hide so you can - maybe - sleep a couple hours.Walk a mile in my shoes,as ol' Joe South put it.

We _were_ discussing personal integrity,weren't we? Or did I lose the thread there somewhere?


----------



## formula1 (Apr 29, 2010)

christianhunter said:


> Or we could adhere to your intellect,and simply reply............................No Comment!



Were it not for CH quoting Dio, I would have no knowledge of his words.  I wish I still didn't.

Oh yeah...No Comment!


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 29, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Ronnie,that might be what _you_ consider an example of American integrity,but not in _my_ America,it ain't.Florida,New York - not much difference any more,but that would not happen around here.
> 
> I know there are many people right here on this forum who despise homeless people,and look down there noses at them.To them I say: There,but for the grace of God,go you or I.
> I believe it would be good for every man,woman,and child [not infants] in this fat land to go hungry for a week or so,and have to find a place to hide so you can - maybe - sleep a couple hours.Walk a mile in my shoes,as ol' Joe South put it.
> ...




Kinda reminds me of the good Samaritan.

I sure hope there's no one on this forum that dispises homeless people.  But I magine your right.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Thanatos – your point is taken, and understood, but appears to be narrowed to a single view and a single religious tome, where many more exist and are viewed as equally valid by the adherents of those sects.  To say that one standpoint is the ‘Truth’ says aloud that all of the others must then be ‘Lies.’  That can hardly be the case in any view of the abstract and undefined area of Spirituality, and such a definition of ‘truth’ would necessarily redefine the word itself.



The only belief that I have that I can not bring hard proof to the table on is my belief in Christianity over any other religion. I have my own reasons why I believe in Christianity over the others, but I recognize the main I reason I believe in Jesus instead of Muhammad is because I was born to Jay and Evy Willingham instead Akbar and Uriel Akbar Hussein.

On a personal note I also believe in destiny and that every single action that every creature has taken on earth was predestined to fulfill a certain purpose or plan. (meaning it was never possible for me to be born to anyone other than Jay and Evy Willingham) No evidence here either. Just personal ignorant opinions. But, you can not prove i am wrong so who cares right?


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 29, 2010)

Madman said:


> It is ironic for an agnostic to put forth this question.  Here we have one so desperately searching for knowledge and truth yet he is as blind as Pilate, not seeing it standing right beside him.
> 
> The answer can only be found in a Christian worldview.  Christ says that he "Came to bear witness to the truth”.  Truth can be found nowhere but in Him.
> 
> ...



I hope your right dude. I love it!


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 30, 2010)

Madman: “It is ironic for an agnostic to put forth this question. Here we have one so desperately searching for knowledge and truth yet he is as blind as Pilate, not seeing it standing right beside him.”

First, I am not an agnostic, so that is strike one – second, I do not remember asking for your own highly qualified psychological examination of my character and motives, and doing so rather than crafting an actual argument is nonsensical, so that is strike two – Then: “The answer can only be found in a Christian worldview,” not only addresses none of the questions, but represents the very same heavy-handed declarations that are held to account for themselves here, so that is strike three.

GT:  I have now idea who or what exactly set your panties on fire, but you’ve said exactly nothing in quite a few words.  If your point is that only learning from your single source and blindly following it is ‘original,’ and that drawing from many sources and making your own conclusion is wrong, then please drop the attitude and say so in a cogent statement.  Bucko.  “At what point does one see the light and align their life with Christ, finding in Him the proper relationship with others as we conform to His will?”  Indeed.

Got a definition of that statement at hand?  Let’s start with ‘ . . . see(ing) the light and align(ing) (ones) life with Christ, . . . ’ – I mean, aside from having one devil of a time demonstrating that you, personally, have done such a thing, we’re going to have to be convinced that you, personally, have some sort of access to this Christ fella in the first place, so that you can ‘align’ yourself properly.  How do you do that?  Do you guys eat at the same restaurants?  Wear the same clothes? Do you drive the same cars?  How are you ‘aligned’ exactly?  Because in making a statement like that— declaring that such a thing not only can be done but is mandatory for me to also do – you compare yourself to this fella.  Are you?  ‘Aligned?’  

Then we have this part – “ . . . finding in Him the proper relationship with others as we conform to His will . . . “   Got anything that nails down the ‘proper relationship,’ as opposed to the improper relationship?  And once again, ‘conforming’ is the entire topic here, so if you and you alone know the will of the fella you wish to be ‘aligned’ with, then spell it out, can you?  All of your religious brethren have been waiting anxiously for only you, it appears, to clarify this for them – What, specifically, is His ‘will,’ and how is it that you know how to ‘conform’ to that and ‘align’ yourself with it, when so very many others missed that memo?

Sir, blowing off angry, meaningless, rhetorical smoke from the pulpit is the problem here, so I thank you for your contribution – it helps make my point in a way that could not be done otherwise.

(And, for the record, Betts appears to have quoted from Elizabeth Labrousse (or vice-versa), who had paraphrased Theodore de Beze, who lifted his entire work . . . and on and on, ad nauseum – [and, also for the record – a lapse in my own education – I never even heard of Betts before you brought it up here] --your point that knowledge is all cumulative, and thus is in all cases derivative to some degree, is well taken, but also in an odd way validates the point at hand.  Broad learning, broad exposure, and broad understanding of multiple views and interpretations sharpens individual thought.  That you may not have personally written the ‘Golden Rule’ does not diminish it, and that you may  remember it does not diminish your thoughts, but clarifies them in a phrase.  But – if ALL you learned, and ALL you remember is drawn from a single source, then your well of knowledge has no depth, and all that results from that is silly games like I’m seeing here . . . If it were a valid form of argument to reject all thoughts that appeared to derive from others, then what future would there be in Bible verses used as the foundations of intellectual positions?  If this is all you have to lay your arguments upon, then I can find examples of every word spoken in other works, and argue that you did not invent the word or the usage, and thus are full of crap . . .   this whole line of reasoning is distracting and nonsensical. )

Read, seek, understand, agree, disagree, analyze, or do not – your personal integrity does not hinge on your ability to recite a Bible verse, a Pledge of Allegiance, or the story of the Tortoise and the Hare – But rather on your ability to perhaps distill the thoughts therein contained, accepting some and rejecting others, and crafting your own world view out of your own mind.

Choosing only one ancient thought, and rejecting any and all other thoughts, is blind obedience.  And, again, defending that singular ancient viewpoint in such a niggling and strangely indefensible manner reveals a certain propensity towards legalism at the expense of justice.  Be very careful about furthering this line of obvious ridicule, and consider that if the same sort of fallacious ‘reasoning’ were turned against you it would sound quite a bit like the Inquisition.  In effect you’ve done just about everything you can do to avoid addressing the point.  My point in a nutshell, right there . .   

And – my apologies.  I should have realized that asking for thoughtful discussion in this, the ‘Discussion; forum, was an obvious waste of time . . .


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 30, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> In early Christianity, history quite eloquently reveals, Christian writers only defended religious liberties when they were being intermittently exposed to measures of persecution by political authorities, and many writings by the Church Fathers quite elegantly defended and justified the freedom to choose.  Revealingly, once the imperial throne at hand  was won over to Christianity, the tone changed immediately, and the Church had no restraint in enlisting the secular authorities in the wholesale murder of ‘heretics.’  Saint Augustine, in particular, despite his original hostility towards constraint, ended up being its theoretician, owing to the success that penal (governmental) sanctions had against the Donatists (his ideological enemy).  A bit situational, one might think, and unbecoming a ‘Saint,’ but true just the same . . .



In _The City of God_, I believe the Bishop of Hippo lays out the separation between the kindgom of God and political institutions.  In which work does he become the theoretician for government enforcement of religion?  Historian Justo Gonzalez points out that his push for legal action was most likely based on his perception of the more violent branch of the Donatists, the Circumcellions.  



Diogenes said:


> Suddenly, what had begun as an upstart, persecuted, and marginal bit of thought blossomed into its own worst nightmare – a religion with power and influence – which was, one might say, exactly the rejection of existing power structures that created the religion to begin with.   And, as all humans with power and influence tend to do, they did everything they pretended to be against, prior to actually gaining power.



The point you bring up demonstrates the vast difference in the number of people who claim to be "Christians" and the number of people who actually show evidences of grace in their life.  I believe this stark contrast characterized the Medieval period with the state churches, but I also believe it characterizes present day America with its cultural "Christianity."  The atrocities you have in the crusades and in government persecutions of other religions, are normally the work of people that I would not call Christians.  You reference Charlemagne in his policy of "baptism or death."  But that understanding is not found in the New Testament.  It's clear error.  At other times, you simply have people who are blinded by their culture.  Why did the Puritans in New England persecute dissenting congregations?  Why does Calvin have Servetus burned at the stake?  Because, they'd never heard of a government that didn't.  They are a product of their own time.  That's not an excuse.  They were wrong.  The development of the idea of separation of church and state is a recovery of a biblical idea, and actually a recovery of the idea that Augustine teaches in _The City of God._ 



Diogenes said:


> And continue to do so even today, imperially, heavy-handedly, and often violently.



Example?  Do you mean intellectual or social oppression? Or do you have in mind a current Christian government that persecutes those of another faith?




Diogenes said:


> Revenge is uniquely human.  No.  Wait.  The Bible says otherwise . . .



Yes, there is a righteous judge.  And for those who do evil, especially those who do evil in the name of "Christianity," it will not go unnoticed.



Diogenes said:


> And so, short of another few hundred pages of truth and history, to the thought at hand –
> 
> Is the history and origins and truths of the rise of a ‘religion’ sufficient cause for blind adherence to same?



Is this a reference to the Apostolic period?  Or do you mean the Patristic Fathers and the early Medieval period?  Nothing warrants blind adherence.



Diogenes said:


> Have any of the adherents sufficiently learned about what they are ‘Obeying,’ and do they truly think about or question why they are doing so?



I'm sure some have not, some have.  



Diogenes said:


> And, most importantly, does the individual, given the ability to think independently, possess the personal integrity to rely on that ability?  Or must one blindly ‘obey’ rules simply because one has been told that it is a rule?



The individual should use their ability to think independently, but that ability will merely lead us astray if not informed by truth.  Once again, one should not blindly follow anything.



Dio, do you mind if I paraphrase your argument, and you can correct me if I'm misrepresenting it.  Your point, as I understand it, is that, Christians in America do not have personal integrity (as you have defined it earlier) because they blindly accept a book that was written by some men in Palestine.  They blindly ignore the human origins of the religion and call it divine.  Which then leads them to blindly follow any one and everything that claims to have the authority of said book and divinity, i.e. crusades, religious persecution, Southern support for slavery, burning of heretics, etc.  In fact, they even blindly follow this mythical tradition, in spite of the less than "Christian" moments in its history.  A person with any personal integrity would be left with no option but to reject it.  But many do not reject it, because they choose not to think for themselves.  The choose rather to let their preacher, favorite author, parents or New Testament writer think for them.  Truth is not a bar of gold that is held by just one group, rather truth is found in many places.  We are responsible to sift through the sand and find the treasure.  A Christian is like a man who has just grabbed a handful of sand and contents himself that he has found all the treasure, because he has never actually bothered to look for anything more.

Well, Dio correct me where I'm wrong.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 30, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> In _The City of God_, I believe the Bishop of Hippo lays out the separation between the kindgom of God and political institutions.  In which work does he become the theoretician for government enforcement of religion?  Historian Justo Gonzalez points out that his push for legal action was most likely based on his perception of the more violent branch of the Donatists, the Circumcellions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have actually found someone smart enough and patient enough to not only read Dio's postings, but to answer his postings thoughtfully as well. 

I would like to drink a beer with you sometime...or a Coke, whichever.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

> “Note also that the second word is ‘integrity.’ Meaning the state of being undiminished, whole, entire, and unimpaired.”……Dio #1



“Say what you mean and mean what you say”.  Even Dr. Seuss knows that. 

Open mindedness can kill you. Careful that you do not catch pneumonia.

_Ah, snug lie those that slumber
Beneath Conviction’s roof.
Their floors are sturdy lumber,
Their windows weatherproof.
But I sleep cold forever
And cold sleep all my kind,
For I was born to shiver
In the draft of an open mind.
Phyllis McGinley_



> “Madman dissects, parses, dissembles, avoids, and demonstrates the other reason for it.”….Dio #17



What is the purpose of answering question in full depth?  The only answer comes from God and you are not interested.  I gave a simply, straight forward answer to the only place integrity can be found that is in the Lord Jesus Christ.  

Be careful what door you open, it just may be the one on which Christ is knocking.
I’ll give you a hint,  it’s the one you from which hear a tap, tap, tap.


There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in He11, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no He11. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. " 
— C.S. Lewis (The Great Divorce)


----------



## christianhunter (Apr 30, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Madman: “It is ironic for an agnostic to put forth this question. Here we have one so desperately searching for knowledge and truth yet he is as blind as Pilate, not seeing it standing right beside him.”
> 
> First, I am not an agnostic, so that is strike one – second, I do not remember asking for your own highly qualified psychological examination of my character and motives, and doing so rather than crafting an actual argument is nonsensical, so that is strike two – Then: “The answer can only be found in a Christian worldview,” not only addresses none of the questions, but represents the very same heavy-handed declarations that are held to account for themselves here, so that is strike three.
> 
> ...



After all of that........................No Comment!


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

HT and Diogenes can take this to a different level.  

Seperation of church and state is one thing, but can folks truly seperate themselves from what they have been taught from the day of their birth, or honestly open their minds to other ways of thinking?


----------



## PWalls (Apr 30, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And – my apologies.  I should have realized that asking for thoughtful discussion in this, the ‘Discussion; forum, was an obvious waste of time . . .



Nope. Your original premise is wrong. You basically said that anyone who follows a "book" for their guidance or uses that source as a reference for how they live their lives should not post. So, you hamstrung the "discussion" from the very start because a lot of people in this very forum believe that the "book" you are alluding to is the Word of God and should be used. Your entire post was rhetoric to alienate the Christians from the get go. So, don't feel bad, you achieved your goal. On the plus side though, you did get to use a lot of big words.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 30, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Seperation of church and state is one thing, but can folks truly seperate themselves from what they have been taught from the day of their birth, or honestly open their minds to other ways of thinking?



I can "open" my mind to other ways of thinking. However, if that new way is contrary to something I truly believe in, then why am I bashed for not being "open" enough or labeled as intolerant and such? I can listen to someone talk about aethism all day long. I totally disagree with that philosophy/religion though.

Does "open" mean willing to change? If so, then I guess I am not "open" to certain things.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

Well, it seems the assertion was not so much limited to Christianity only.  It would cover Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists too, among others.  Any religious belief system comprised of teachings found in "holy writings" is subject.

One could include Atheists as well, if they fully subscribe to Hitchens of Dawkins as their primary authority and resource.  They each have best sellers to their credit too.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

PWalls said:


> I can "open" my mind to other ways of thinking. However, if that new way is contrary to something I truly believe in, then why am I bashed for not being "open" enough or labeled as intolerant and such? I can listen to someone talk about aethism all day long. I totally disagree with that philosophy/religion though.
> 
> Does "open" mean willing to change? If so, then I guess I am not "open" to certain things.





That's what makes living in our day and time fantastic!  One has the right and freedom to choose just what they wish to.

That's a good thing!

Just like religious belief followers can not understand disbelief, those who are Atheist can not fathom faith based belief.  It's always been, it will always be.

In regards to the subject matter at hand......
All this talk of "Personal Integrity" leads me to say there is one place it is found......
In one's well lit bathroom mirror.
No one else can make the call.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2010)

Madman I beleive that is strike four.  But I beleive you are the type of poster the OP was attempting to draw out.  Your inability to divert from your "book" and only the "book" rhetoric highlights the exact opposite of personal integrity as defined in the first thread.  You have no views of your own just what the book tells you.  

The problem with the OP is logic.  But I think thats what he had intended and the illogical fell into his trap (Good show dio, good show). 

The biggest reason science and religion have always clashed is becuase of logic.  You cannot apply science without logic but it is very hard to apply logic to religion.  Now I know this is not true for some religions, but most, especially ones held dear in this forum.  Religion replaces logic, with faith and belief. Works for some, but not those that question with logic.   

When scientific theories fail logical testing we discount them. When their methods are construed to produce false information we call this failed science or failed logic. When information in your book fails logical testing and thinking we call it faith or belief. Makes sense. 

By the way using a source, to proves its own validity is, in itself, false logic.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 30, 2010)

At the heart of your post is the assumption on your part that Christians are Christians because of "blind adherence" to a particular belief system and that such a narrowly focused intellect can only lead to error. 
What you cannot know is the particular process used to arrive at that narrow focus. In some cases, it started with an exhaustive search for meaning and truth prompted by the desire to know and experience something better. Now, given that it is most assuredly a sign of mental illness, it is foolish in the extreme to expect everyone to individually re-invent the "wheel". That is how mankind has progressed by leaps and bounds, passing on to others the lessons learned, negating the need for all to personally experience the same events. 

So we look to those who have gone before, to stand, as it were, on their shoulders. I do not have to invent a toaster and a bread slicer to have toast. Likewise, I can rely on the efforts of others for insight into many areas of life. I plant and tend my garden, not by trial and error, but by receiving instruction from those who have successfully done it in the past.

The simple foundation for all this activity is that we gather information, give it consideration, accept or reject the information, and on that basis, we make decisions and act upon those decisions.

Now, I cannot speak for everyone, but I have spent a sizable portion of my life examining the question of God's existence and the  related questions that  arise out of that consideration. My conclusion is not a snap judgment nor blind in any sense of the word. 

I have looked for a resource to guide me in my behavior. Science was not helpful. It is merely a "language" to describe what is observed and a systematic way of manipulating things based on those observations. Moral considerations are not a part of pure science.

 Nature certainly doesn't provide consistent guidance. With regards to mating, some species mate for life, some breed with select mates without forming family units, some change sexes to accommodate the situation, some replicate with out a partner.  Some species eat their own, some have very exclusive diets, some eat almost anything. Some live in trees, some underwater, some in deserts, some in ice and snow. Some nurture their young, some abandon their young at birth, and some abandon their young before viability. No, nature is not useful as a guide to behavior.

So, what can we rely upon? What we "feel"? What seems right to us at the time, under a certain set of circumstances? Does what we know of human history give us reason to trust ourselves for behavioral guidance? Murder, thievery, cannibalism? I'll take a pass on that source of guidance. Doing what one feels like is anarchy, always descending to the sad condition of kill or be killed survival.

Is there anything in this life that lifts man above the status of being just another animal?  There is and it is in that recognition that people seek meaning in religion. There is this emptiness within the human psyche that is ever present, short of finding the thing, the one, that satisfies. It is this point that drives us to seek God, that causes us to consider whether we have value and purpose.

You would contend that any concept of god is the fabrication of a desperate mind, and in every case but one, you would be right. Every religion but Christianity, by way of Judaism, is the result of men seeking god. Judaism and Christianity arise out of God reaching out to men. 

Finally (for this post), Christ may be accepted  and followed in simplicity, but never without being challenged on some level, sometimes many levels. You will never find a believer who has followed Christ, even for a brief time, who has not been tested in his or her faith. I know I have been. It comes down to this. He has never failed to keep His word. He has never abandoned me. I cannot say that about anyone or anything else.

Narrowly focused? Yep, more so today than yesterday and, with His grace, more so tomorrow than today.

Blind? Nope, eyes wide open. Seen a lot of what the world has to offer and nothing, absolutely nothing compares to my Savior and Lord. When you come up with something better (as if you could), I'd like to hear about it. Until then, I am really not interested in what you have to offer.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> One has the right and freedom to choose just what they wish to.



Only in the nation of The United States of America,
Thanks to Christianity.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

Madman said:


> Only in the nation of The United States of America,
> Thanks to Christianity.



Wrong.
And wrong.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2010)

I do not thank christianity for giving me the United States. I Thank the individuals who applied logic to law, understood the need to seperate church from state, and knew only tolerance of diversity would allow this country to grow and prosper.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Wrong.
> And wrong.



A nation that has the freedoms of the USA would be?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

Madman said:


> A nation that has the freedoms of the USA would be?



Derailment......

Citizenship and physical location has nothing to do with an individual's right and freedom of choice in accepting or rejecting religious belief systems.
Education and access to information does.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

TheBishop said:


> I do not thank Christianity for giving me the United States. (1)
> 
> I thank the individuals who applied logic to law, (2)   understood the need to separate church from state, (3)
> 
> and knew only tolerance of diversity would allow this country to grow and prosper. (4)



(1)	Thank whomever you choose.  I choose God.

(2)	I would be interested in which of the founders that was, the ones I have read about gave credit to God.
And used His authority to to govern.

"....that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....."   The Declaration of Independence 

(3)	 I have a copy of The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on the wall and a pocket reference in my desk drawer, please be kind enough to show me where the separation of church and state is either expressly stated or implied.


(4)	Perhaps you want to rephrase the last part of your comment.  Tolerance, by our modern definition, was not something that any of our founding had much use for.
In fact if you will look at the Original constitutions of many of the states you had to be a Christian to hold public office. 


“Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system, in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!”


D. James Kennedy

Looks like you took 4 strikes too.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2010)

(1) How special for you.

(2)They gave him credit for the creation of our rights. Thats what the line of the DOI states. 

(3) Add the "Bill of Rights" to your wall.

(4)Tolerance is the building block of america. Read said bill of rights once placed on said wall.  Without tolerance you cannot have freedom.  Freedom to be an individual, thinking on ones own, in a free society.  But we wouldn't want that now would we?


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Derailment......
> 
> Citizenship and physical location has nothing to do with an individual's right and freedom of choice in accepting or rejecting religious belief systems.
> Education and access to information does.



Obfuscate…….

“That's what makes living in our day and time fantastic! One has the right and freedom to choose just what they wish to.”

Please name another country in the world that has ever had the rights US citizens have had, (until we allowed the government to take them away).  If you are going to make a claim please substantiate it, or clarify it by stating that you are talking about the United States of America.




> “Citizenship and physical location has nothing to do with an individual's right and freedom of choice in accepting or rejecting religious belief systems.
> Education and access to information does.”……..WTM45



I know you don’t believe that!!   It is kind and sweet and fuzzy feeling to say that unless you are the one living under the oppressive regime.  You can only make those statements because you are able to see human rights as they should be through 200+ years of Christian government.Ask anyone in Saudi Arabia or Somalia, can’t openly be a Christian there.

Where do think the majority of the world gets its rights?  From the rulers!  That is why our Declaration of Independence makes note that human rights come from God, not the rulers. 
 And it is the Governments responsiblity to INSURE those right.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

TheBishop said:


> (1) How special for you.
> 
> (2)They gave him credit for the creation of our rights. Thats what the line of the DOI states.
> 
> ...



(3) got them too.  Still no separation of church and state.  Please show me.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 30, 2010)

I've traveled the world.  

It has NOTHING to do with your citizenship or your physical location as to WHAT ONE BELIEVES IN THEIR MIND AND HEART.

Today's world offers more access to information, resources, research, proofs, arguments for/against, evidence, results, literature, spoken words and knowledge applicable to religious belief systems than ever in history.
That's what makes living in this day and time special.
One's decision is totally up to them.  No one else.  Trying to "give credit" to or "blame someone else" for one's decisions is completely bankrupt.

"Christian government?"  That scares the snot out of me.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

> TheBishop;4891050
> (4)Tolerance is the building block of america.



Laws are the building block of our society, not tolerance.

I repeat.....In fact if you will look at the Original constitutions of many of the states you had to be a Christian to hold public office.


----------



## Madman (Apr 30, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> "Christian government?"  That scares the snot out of me.





We need a "snot" button on here.  LOL


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2010)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Pretty hard to follow this rule if you don't seperate church and state.  

I fear a Christian government as much as a Muslim Government.  Both have no place in a free republic. Maybe in a democracy but not in a republic.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2010)

Madman said:


> Laws are the building block of our society, not tolerance.
> 
> I repeat.....In fact if you will look at the Original constitutions of many of the states you had to be a Christian to hold public office.



Wrong agian, laws are the motar that holds it together.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 30, 2010)

I'm satisfied with my spiritual life being left up to me, my family, my local community, and of course My Lord.
Christianity cannot be legislated effectively.
Not by the standards that have been set for God's children.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 30, 2010)

TheBishop said:


> Amendment I
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
> 
> ...



I can see where the government is restricted from establishing a national religion. I see where they are enjoined from restricting the individual right to worship as one chooses. Even so, we know that there are elements of some religions that are prohibited under other statutes.

But, I see no indication that religion is to be excluded from involvement in government. The wording clearly shows no bias against religion. It only addresses the limitations placed on government.

Looks like a "gate that swings one way" for the express purpose of protecting the right of the individual to worship in the faith of his choice. Government does not provide that right, but it is does bear the responsibility to protect it.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> At the heart of your post is the assumption on your part that Christians are Christians because of "blind adherence" to a particular belief system and that such a narrowly focused intellect can only lead to error.
> What you cannot know is the particular process used to arrive at that narrow focus. In some cases, it started with an exhaustive search for meaning and truth prompted by the desire to know and experience something better. Now, given that it is most assuredly a sign of mental illness, it is foolish in the extreme to expect everyone to individually re-invent the "wheel". That is how mankind has progressed by leaps and bounds, passing on to others the lessons learned, negating the need for all to personally experience the same events.
> 
> So we look to those who have gone before, to stand, as it were, on their shoulders. I do not have to invent a toaster and a bread slicer to have toast. Likewise, I can rely on the efforts of others for insight into many areas of life. I plant and tend my garden, not by trial and error, but by receiving instruction from those who have successfully done it in the past.
> ...



Excellent post,brother! Also,a loud "amen!" from the back pew on those words in red!


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 30, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> We have actually found someone smart enough and patient enough to not only read Dio's postings, but to answer his postings thoughtfully as well.
> 
> I would like to drink a beer with you sometime...or a Coke, whichever.



Sir, I'm afraid you may have overestimated my intelligence, but I'll take that Coke anyway.  I don't mind a beer, but it seems the rest of my Baptist brethren do, so I abstain for the sake of my brothers.   If you are ever gonna be up in N.E. GA send me a PM, we'll do it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 30, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I can see where the government is restricted from establishing a national religion. I see where they are enjoined from restricting the individual right to worship as one chooses. Even so, we know that there are elements of some religions that are prohibited under other statutes.
> 
> But, I see no indication that religion is to be excluded from involvement in government. The wording clearly shows no bias against religion. It only addresses the limitations placed on government.
> 
> Looks like a "gate that swings one way" for the express purpose of protecting the right of the individual to worship in the faith of his choice. Government does not provide that right, but it is does bear the responsibility to protect it.



For sure.



.


----------



## crackerdave (May 1, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Sir, I'm afraid you may have overestimated my intelligence, but I'll take that Coke anyway.  I don't mind a beer, but it seems the rest of my Baptist brethren do, so I abstain for the sake of my brothers.   If you are ever gonna be up in N.E. GA send me a PM, we'll do it.



Hope you'll come to the campout this month - it's near Blue Ridge,Ga. There's a thread on the "Woody's Gatherings,etc" part of the forum about it.[ D.O.G. II] I promise you'll have a  great time!

Sorry for my part in this derailment -  but personal integrity is relevant here,I think.


----------



## hayseed_theology (May 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Hope you'll come to the campout this month - it's near Blue Ridge,Ga. There's a thread on the "Woody's Gatherings,etc" part of the forum about it.[ D.O.G. II] I promise you'll have a  great time!
> 
> Sorry for my part in this derailment -  but personal integrity is relevant here,I think.



Thanks for the invite.  I'll check it out.


----------



## crackerdave (May 1, 2010)

Every member on Woody's is invited! These gatherings are a lot of fun,and a really great bunch of folks.Y'all come,ya heah?

I've tried and tried to get these spiritual folks to come to the gatherings,but I've about give up.They's _skeered,_ I think!


----------

