dagblog - Comments for "Glass Houses"

Hi. Me, again. I read as

Barth — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:24:28 +0000

In reply to Ahhhh. It is fine Ramona. I

Hi. Me, again. I read as much of this "debate" as I could stomach. Not much, I fear. I will defend your right to say what you want, Voltaire, and I continue to be against name calling. Everything else posted after all this sturm and whatever else it was, is quite beyond my pedeatrian mind.

In times of stress, I always call upon the great muse Regina Spektor, As always, she fails me not:

If I was a religion of me
Then my church would surely have a schism
They'd be regewish and registian and reguslim and reguddist and regatheists
But they'd still be friends! All right!

Can an atheist and a

Atheist — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:40:54 +0000

In reply to No I don't, sorry. If ever

Can an atheist and a Christian find that common book, so that all would be on the same page?

I think you and I are already closer to having a common "book" than you and many of your fellow soi disant "Christians" (including most of the politicians you were lamenting earlier). The commonalities between the New Testament and the Pali Canon are not a bad place to start. As I alluded to earlier, I think another commonality we can consider is that of agape. As for your ideal of using the New Testament as a law book, I don't think it'd do very well in that regards as it is a little too esoteric for most people to understand - hence one reason why there are so many different ways it is interpreted, including one little sect that engaged in something known as the Inquisition. (I'm not using the Inquisition to damn the NT, but rather to point out how followers of it frequently misunderstand it quite phenomenally.)

No I don't, sorry. If ever

Resistance — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:21:28 +0000

In reply to I cannot find the story any

No I don't, sorry.

If ever you should come across it. I'd be interested in reading the work you put into it.

It’s frustrating I know to put so much thought into a reply and then lose the content.

Recently the Dagblog site had trouble getting on, I had put so much effort in fine tuning my response, hit save and nothing, I’d lose the material. Now I just put it on Word, but sometimes in the speed in which we must respond to inquiring minds I get lazy

Back to the reason for our discussion

I saw a report, after my question to you, about Very young kids (children) in Africa, who are forced under threat of death to kill. They are trained to be killers.

One can only imagine their conscience, is influenced by the need to survive. And surrounded by other killers

Their conscience would appear to be limited to survival. I use the Bible to train mine following footnotes and concordances, to really get the sense. I do this WORK, because I am mindful of a "divine" How did Obey or you may have said it, a divine voice in my head? Then by meditation, it becomes so ingrained in me.

That is why I asked you, and Obey was kind enough to give his well-stated opinion also. I thought how difficult for you, without a divine voice, of what do you draw upon to train then.

If you go back to what I originally wrote way upstream, I was suggesting a National effort to get on a common page. Can an atheist and a Christian find that common book, so that all would be on the same page?

A National conscience to deal with the poverty, and the other major issues avoiding the divisive issues of the fundamentalists, who stand in the way of moving forward.

Again, can’t a fundamentalist reach a common ground on what is the National conscience of caring for the poor, the sick, the downtrodden

If we had all been on the same conscientious level of development, would healthcare have been better?

Imagine telling the Tea party “Hey it says in our conscience book, we must care for those in need, what could they say then, exposed as opposed to a National conscience

A thought just came to mind, was that the reason for the Red book of Mao of China? I may have to research that.

I’ve got to go and feed my elderly father

Again thanks for trying to find your work. Maybe we can chat another time in exploring a National conscience.

I cannot find the story any

Atheist — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:15:09 +0000

In reply to I must have missed your

I cannot find the story any more myself. Do you recall what the title of it was?

I must have missed your

Resistance — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:01:30 +0000

In reply to Actually, I answered it quite

I must have missed your reply, can you find the link and I'll read what you wrote.

Actually, I answered it quite

Atheist — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:51:20 +0000

In reply to I never suggested, i asked

Actually, I answered it quite explicitly - the love of our fellow man, AKA agape. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to believe in love.

I also pointed out that using fear of God to shape your conscience is no better than using fear of getting caught.

Of course, my reading of the New Testament always suggested it should be love of God and your fellow man that should shape a Christian's conscience anyways…

brewmn, what I said was that

Red Planet — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:21:18 +0000

In reply to "But underlying the bravado

brewmn, what I said was that I agree with Tom Coburn and the Tea Party, that the question before us is this: Is the government legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests?

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

"But underlying the bravado

brewmn — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 03:35:58 +0000

In reply to Tom Coburn's words:We have,

"But underlying the bravado and the racism and the anti-intellectualism of the Tea Party are fear, and loss, and a conviction that the government is not "legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests.""

No. The Tea Party are concerned that the government is no longer serving their interests, and they are the real Americans. If you honestly think that they care about, for example, the bailouts except as a cudgel with which to beat Obama and the Democrats, you are hopelessly misguided. Any policies that don't favor white, middle-class conservatives and don't discriminate against all others (unionized workers, minorities, etc.) are, in their view, not in the best interests of America.

And if you honestly agree with the Tea Partiers and Tom Coburn (?!), then please don't claim you have America's best interest at heart. You cannot honestly claim both.

I get your point, Jolly. My

Ramona — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:56:26 +0000

In reply to I dare say you will not be

I get your point, Jolly. My mistake. See my response in your "Terms of Use" post.

Ahhhh. It is fine Ramona. I

mageduley — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:50:13 +0000

In reply to Sorry for the confusion,

Ahhhh. It is fine Ramona. I get confused easily :)