Discussions on the nature and limits of government

Vic · Jun 12, 2014

Faith doesn't mean there won't be Long Suffering or hardship, quite the contrary. Faith also doesn't mean that you will become rich, at least not physically. Faith is an inner state of being. Something that can only be attained by a free individual who seeks it for themselves. To me this is why freedom is so important. It allows the soul to find itself.

When you talk of horrific incidents they are usually caused by religion, not faith. When you find real faith, belief beyond understanding you don't want to war with others because you know you are warring with yourself.

However, religion must show that it is better than others and becomes a competitive business which can cause great strife. I am not saying that faith causes passivity but it usually is defensive.

An old expression, Never start a fight, but always finish one.

Vic

Brooklyn · Jun 12, 2014

Vic said:
Faith doesn't mean there won't be Long Suffering or hardship, quite the contrary. Faith also doesn't mean that you will become rich, at least not physically. Faith is an inner state of being. Something that can only be attained by a free individual who seeks it for themselves. To me this is why freedom is so important. It allows the soul to find itself.

When you talk of horrific incidents they are usually caused by religion, not faith. When you find real faith, belief beyond understanding you don't want to war with others because you know you are warring with yourself.

However, religion must show that it is better than others and becomes a competitive business which can cause great strife. I am not saying that faith causes passivity but it usually is defensive.

An old expression, Never start a fight, but always finish one.

Vic

I am going to presume that the distinction you draw between faith and religion is predicated on tolerance.. Faith with out tolerance will lead to violence. Locke has some useful ways to encourage tolerance -- but in any case, let your faith compromise your tolerance and you will make enemies.

kcbrown · Jun 12, 2014

Vic said:
Faith doesn't mean there won't be Long Suffering or hardship, quite the contrary. Faith also doesn't mean that you will become rich, at least not physically. Faith is an inner state of being. Something that can only be attained by a free individual who seeks it for themselves. To me this is why freedom is so important. It allows the soul to find itself.

That may be. Nevertheless, there is no observable difference in the real-world effects on those who seem or claim to have faith. Those who have faith seem no more and no less troubled than those who don't. They are historically no more and no less able to inflict harm on others. By every measure, they seem to have no advantage whatsoever over those who lack faith. What good, then, is this "guidance" you speak of if it has no observable beneficial effects?

In essence, you argue for the advantages of something that has no demonstrable advantages. It seems one must have faith in the advantages of faith...

When you talk of horrific incidents they are usually caused by religion, not faith. When you find real faith, belief beyond understanding you don't want to war with others because you know you are warring with yourself.

What definition of "faith" are you using here? "Faith" as I'm using it is merely belief in that which cannot be demonstrated, nothing more. Religion is a subset of faith. Faith is a prerequisite for religion. Those who are religious by definition have faith, because that which they believe in cannot be demonstrated. The only difference is whether or not that which they believe in has been codified in some organized way.

Vic · Jun 12, 2014

Let me try to explain my version of faith. A lady who was very religious went to church all the time and was quite content with herself. She did the hail mary's and all that and felt herself to somewhat pious. Then she went to the doctor's one day and found out that she had cancer. This destroyed her entire world. How could this be happening to her, she was a righteous person and God had forsaken her. However, through this disease she learned true faith and now says that she had religion but not has a faith. She had to reach deep into her self and find that which she didn't know she had. A strength she didn't know existed. This is what I mean by faith. To me she learned to really believe in her higher power, not just provide lip service. Religions are mere reflections of real spiritual experiences. This is where true faith comes from. It is not religion specific, it is your soul meeting the truth of the universe. Not easily done, but worth it. Even a glimpse of real truth changes one forever.

I often say, you either believe or not. Prayer done properly can influence reality because our consciousness touches that of the universe and the universe can respond. We are given hardship because that is how God forges our soul.

I am sure everyone will think me crazy but that's okay.

Vic

kcbrown · Jun 12, 2014

What tests would you perform to determine if someone's faith is "true" or not? If there exist no such tests, then there is no solid basis upon which to claim that faith lends any advantages at all, save perhaps for some amount of comfort.

Since the truth of the universe is discoverable through observation, and interaction with the universe can be performed through action, the use of faith as a means of such seems redundant at best, and misleading at worst (after all, you cannot distinguish between true enlightenment and self-delusion except through repeatable, independent observation).

Do not confuse faith with strength of spirit. One can have the latter without the former, and one can most certainly have the former without the latter.

EL1227 · Sep 22, 2015

Thread revival ...

Gallup.com -
Half in U.S. Continue to Say Gov't Is an Immediate Threat

Half of Americans believe the Federal government presents "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,"

Note that the HIGHEST percentage issues driving the belief of an immediate threat are "too many laws / government too big in general" at 19%, with "violations of freedoms / civil liberties" at 15%, and "gun control / violating Second Amendment" at 12% following in close order.

If there were a national discussion on the 'nature and limits of government', those are the top three issues ... with "too much involvement in people's private lives" at 10% rounding out the majority of concerns. VERY TELLING ...

Ranked issues by percentage ...

Alea Jacta Est · Sep 22, 2015

Thought provoking and entirely worthy of the time required to read and consider.

Of note is when the lines crossed... eerily close to the election. Then looking at the slope of the lines allows some conclusions to be drawn.

Thanks for sharing and reviving a very good thread that I'd missed.

PS. I'd love to see some indication of income/education/geographic and age dispersion (demographics) for those who responded. I'll bet that yields some eye popping conclusions.

Mark75H · Sep 22, 2015

In '58 Kennedy's Catholicness was raised as a big campaign issue. Could a man be president and Catholic and not be 100% controlled by the Pope was the arguement against Kennedy and all Catholics just 57 years ago.

In my view, it depends on the man.

EL1227 · Sep 22, 2015

Mark75H said:
In '58 Kennedy's Catholicness was raised as a big campaign issue. Could a man be president and Catholic and not be 100% controlled by the Pope was the arguement against Kennedy and all Catholics just 57 years ago.

In my view, it depends on the man.

The same 'religious test' argument is being used to affect support for Carson and Cruz today with the Muslim President strawman ... as if we don't have a closet version installed today. But the reaction goes along with issue #2, "violations of freedoms / civil liberties" because contrary to Catholicism, Islam's spiritual life rules, public life rules, and rules for legal governance are one in the same under sharia.

But like you say, it all depends on the man (or woman). There are nominal Catholics, nominal Jews, and nominal Protestants, so I would expect that there are nominal Muslims. But, vowing allegiance to the Constitution is in direct conflict with sharia, so stumbling through the swearing-in ceremony might come up again. :sarcasm:

ComeGet · Sep 22, 2015

Hobbes said that the only reason for a commonwealth (government) to exist was to protect its citizens, and I agree with that.

Considering the Supreme Court's decision in Warren, well, it makes me wonder.

Discussions on the nature and limits of government

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Vic

Ultimate Member

Brooklyn

I stand with John Locke.

kcbrown

Super Genius

Vic

Ultimate Member

kcbrown

Super Genius

EL1227

R.I.P.

Attachments

Alea Jacta Est

Extinguished member

Mark75H

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

EL1227

R.I.P.

ComeGet

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page