Erecting gods

@whodey said
What am I missing here?

Perhaps a bit of love-your-neighbour empathy to counterbalance your auto-erotic facetiousness and misanthropy?

@fmf said
Perhaps a bit of love-your-neighbour empathy to counterbalance your auto-erotic facetiousness and misanthropy?

The gods have spoken!

"auto-erotic facetiousness" Did you just make that up on the spot, or is it a fetish of yours to assign sexual deviation to others while chanting "love-your-neighbor"?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You make rather a strange leap there.

Man is looking for answers? - Yes.
Therefore, Man needs a leader.

Did you vote? Therefore you're looking for a leader.

@secondson said
Did you vote? Therefore you're looking for a leader.

I vote every few years for a government to represent the wishes of the people. If I'm not happy, I vote for somebody different next time.

@secondson said
The gods have spoken!

"auto-erotic facetiousness" Did you just make that up on the spot, or is it a fetish of yours to assign sexual deviation to others while chanting "love-your-neighbor"?

He keeps fantasizing about me apparently.

@whodey said
He keeps fantasizing about me apparently.

FMF enjoys labeling Christians here with his pseudo-psychological analysis.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I vote every few years for a government to represent the wishes of the people. If I'm not happy, I vote for somebody different next time.

The new boss, same as the old boss.

@secondson said
FMF enjoys labeling Christians here with his pseudo-psychological analysis.

Well, as long as it keeps him off the streets.

To be honest, it's my own fault for putting the word "Erect" in the title of this thread I think. They just can't help themselves.

@whodey said
Well, as long as it keeps him off the streets.

To be honest, it's my own fault for putting the word "Erect" in the title of this thread I think. They just can't help themselves.

It's a good thread topic, and one might think it would lead to some lively discussions relative to sociopolitical motivations, but I guess some posters would rather haggle over what is metaphor or literal with regards to everlasting punishment.

I mean, if they're going to talk about God it's got to be about how grisly He is for creating a place for those who reject Him. Then they have something to contribute.

@secondson said
It's a good thread topic, and one might think it would lead to some lively discussions relative to sociopolitical motivations, but I guess some posters would rather haggle over what is metaphor or literal with regards to everlasting punishment.

If one accepts that religions are a form of social governance and a manifestation of mankind's communal nature and its need to find a basis for regulating the interactions of society's members, then one has to consider the possibility that propagating notions like supernatural "everlasting punishment" were underpinned historically by what you refer to as "sociopolitical motivations".

@secondson said
It's a good thread topic, and one might think it would lead to some lively discussions relative to sociopolitical motivations, but I guess some posters would rather haggle over what is metaphor or literal with regards to everlasting punishment.

I mean, if they're going to talk about God it's got to be about how grisly He is for creating a place for those who reject Him. Then they have something to contribute.

No need to let trolling stop a lively debate.

For example, I made a thread not too long ago showing how a belief in hell reduced crime rates in society.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/belief-hell-predicts-countrys-crime-rates-more-accurately-other-social-or-economic-factors-240882

@whodey said
No need to let trolling stop a lively debate.

For example, I made a thread not too long ago showing how a belief in hell reduced crime rates in society.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/belief-hell-predicts-countrys-crime-rates-more-accurately-other-social-or-economic-factors-240882

I don't think that that "lively debate" went very well for you.

Thread 182117

You didn't really respond genuinely to any attempts to engage what you'd said and you finally ran off in a flurry of dust kicked up by your No True Scotsman fallacy.

@whodey said
All I hear from the Left is the need to protect the little guy from corporate America and, most importantly, Orange man.

This implies that people are led around like helpless sheep and the corporate evil people are the big bad wolves and the Democrats are the good shepherds.

Your facetious take on U.S. retail politics aside, the existence of government is surely a simple manifestation of mankind's social and communal nature and the need to govern the interactions of individuals and groups?

And isn't it that same nature - and need - that is manifested in the various religions that have been "erected" down through history and across the globe and in every culture and society?

@whodey said
No need to let trolling stop a lively debate.

As I said to SecondSon, but he did not respond to, I think we can agree that religions are a form of social governance and a manifestation of mankind's communal nature and its need to find a basis for regulating the interactions of society's members. Right? This is on-topic, yes? Just asking because you talked about "trolling" instead of responding to it.

So if we accept the above, then one has to consider the possibility that propagating notions like supernatural "everlasting punishment" were underpinned historically by what you refer to as "sociopolitical motivations", agreed? Do you see this point of view as being trolling?

@fmf said
As I said to SecondSon, but he did not respond to, I think we can agree that religions are a form of social governance and a manifestation of mankind's communal nature and its need to find a basis for regulating the interactions of society's members. Right? This is on-topic, yes? Just asking because you talked about "trolling" instead of responding to it.

So if we accept the a ...[text shortened]... u refer to as "sociopolitical motivations", agreed? Do you see this point of view as being trolling?

Both religion and the state try to come to address the possible evils that may arrive from free will. Both have success in doing this to some degree.

From the state perspective, it is a top down approach. Put men in power than can cause heads to roll if they get out of line. Theocracies also take this approach. However, the path Christ took was a bottom up approach. He came to change the hearts of men so that they would learn to govern their own actions in a moral fashion rather than having man come in an impose what they view to be a moral societal code of conduct.

And as Machiavelli correctly pointed out, their are two paths to motivate men to conduct themselves in a moral fashion. One is fear and the other is love. Now in terms of the state, about all that motivates people is fear, the fear of being imprisoned or fined or worse. Love is not really a viable motivating factor for the state to control the populace in a moral fashion. Machiavelli understood this. However, love is a powerful motivating factor when it comes to love for God, this is what Machiavelli did not understand. In fact, it is a far more powerful motivating factor than fear of the state. Stories, such as Hebrew men defying king Nebuchadnezzar's demands to worship false gods in Daniel at the risk of death are such examples.

However, their is also the fear of God. The Bible plainly states that the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom, and that fear is shunning evil because it is destructive to you. This is also a motivating factor for those of faith, including the ultimate destruction in hell. This you scoff at, however. I simply disagree. I think it far more effective to believe that an all seeing and knowing and all powerful God is watching rather than simply Big Brother whom you may be able to side step or trick and who has limited power for a finite amount of time. I saw no reason to pursue that issue any longer. I had made my point and you rejected it. Fine, moving on.

But I ask you, is society better with both a top down approach and a bottom up approach or just a top down approach? Is not society better off with both?