Religious answer to terrorist problem

[Waraddict 0]

I think China has enough nukes to roast the American seaboard... And their military is friggin' HUGE. But still, they get alot of stuff from U.S., e.g. the advantage of easily getting iPods cause' it's manufactured in China, etc.

 

It's almost irrelevant that, due to M.A.D., the only way a country will launch a nuke at another is through an incidence of shear stupidity , either on the launcher's part (such as letting terrorists get their hands on a nuke) or the targets part (Norway back in 1997 for instance, they should have waited confirmation from all its neighbours after sending a message that they were testing a propulsion rocket for ESA, due to that mistake Russia almost nuked them).

 

Oh and its not "Because of interests and RELIGION" that we don't get along with eachother, it's our policies on BELIEF that is, Athiests themselves create as much conflict with their members who insist that everyone else should believe Athiesm no matter what. We, as a human race, have to give no crap about others who have the wrong belief, that may sound a bit enforcsive but that's the specific thought we have to keep in mind, whatever each of us believes, we believe its the correct belief, and all others are wrong.

[GeneralZ 0]

why dont we all live for material needs instead of spiritual needs.

 

i eat, live, need to make money, and need have fun.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

because all of your psyical needs can be attained without the application of morals. This is where beliefs and "religions" come in.

[Acerz492 1]

because all of your psyical needs can be attained without the application of morals. This is where beliefs and "religions" come in.

 

Not true. Your belief in a particular religion just reaffirms what is common knowledge to almost all human beings, moral-wise. :roll: You can become wealthy, etc, with morals. It just takes a little more effort and work, and not many people like that. That's why it's generally assumed physical needs can be obtained without morals.

 

Here is a quote from a really great friend of mine:

 

I dont think it necessarily takes more effort/work to become wealthy with morals...in some cases, yes. I do think physical needs can be attained without morals, but the difference lies in whether you're just bettering yourself (and perhaps others as a side effect) or raising yourself in the world while trampling others to the ground, hurting them. When you live for material needs and live without morals, you aren't considering everyone else's survival needs to do the same thing. But belief in a particular religion or moral code (like you said) reaffirms this knowledge and respect of everyone else's right to do the same as you, and helps you accomplish things in a more fulfilling way. Just like religion, a society and/or government do all of that too, solidify this moral code, just through different means.

 

She explains it alot more clearer than I do. :lol:

[F15pilotX 4]

why dont we all live for material needs instead of spiritual needs.

 

i eat, live, need to make money, and need have fun.

Because physical needs are finite, while spiritual needs last forever :wink:

[Mr_Lee_ 0]

"A man who fights with belief is unstoppable in his own mind."

 

I forget who said it, but belief isn't just religious or political, remember that.

[F15pilotX 4]

So true...That's the reason the 9/11 terrorists were able to do what they did :wink:

[Cygnus X-1 12]

and why we went in after them and kicked their Taliban arses.

 

Acerz, got a new Lady friend eh ? :wink:

[Acerz492 1]

Now Cygnus, I've known her for roughly 6 years. So no, not a new lady friend. 'Tis none of your business anyways.

 

What do you think about the quote, anyway?

[BWare 0]

...I'm back, and apparenlty I've missed a bit.

 

2 things:

The president sets the moral tone for the nation, and Clinton's slick separation of oral sex and actual sex created massive societal damage in America. His publicized moral nitpicking has caused a normalization of casual oral sex in this generation, along with many other things. "Hey, if the president thinks it's okay, then what the hell?" He really screwed us over on that one. Yes, there is some thirst for scandal, but you'd be an idiot not to see the massive reprocussions of that one man's moral slip. If he'd fessed up to it... like a man... that would have been one thing. But he commited perjury and lied to the American people, and then, as I said, nit picked the technicallity when his back was to the wall.

 

China, while building up its military to massive levels, is still dwarfed by our military presence in the Pacific. They are big, but we are massive. We still outspend them by a huge margin, and no, they won't be nuking our west coast anytime soon. That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

 

...on an unrelated note, I think we've scared Hybrid away.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

If only I could think the way you do BWare. Sets the moral tone... bull****. The person sets the moral tone for himself and himself alone. Others should not influence and if someone does that easily, he has a weak constitution. And that is not anyone's fault but that person.

 

Besides, am I the only who thinks anyone's private affairs should stay that regardless of person? Is privacy losing ground in this day and age?

[General Leang 0]

Scared Hybrid away? Good, probably for the best.

 

Not sure how off topic this would be, so bear with me. Terrorists, it is largely accepted, would attack a large target, or if not that whatever they could, right? A thought occured to me. What if terrorists thought of finding some nice quiet country, no war or strife, no involvement with America or the War on Terror, and have a terrorist attack there then say how no place in the world is safe? Imagine the panic if you had come to terms that America, England, ect were not safe from terrorism, but, with apologies, you believed an out of the way place such as New Zealand or some place you would think terrorists would not know even existed, only for an attack to take place and those responsible to say that nowhere is safe.

[BWare 0]

@Fenny boy -

Besides, am I the only who thinks anyone's private affairs should stay that regardless of person? Is privacy losing ground in this day and age?

With the president, yes. YOU REPRESENT THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE NOT AN AVERAGE CITIZEN AT THAT POINT, AND THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO TRUE PRIVACY. It just comes with being the most powerful man on earth. What you do, "private" or not, is amplified a thousand times over, and therefore you have a great amount of responsibility. You really need to understand that. Oh, and for the love of... it happened in the OVAL OFFICE. GOOD LORD MAN. How many people would not be fired for that kind of conduct in their office? And don't BS me with the Hybrid-esque "the individual sets his own moral tone, and him alone" garbage. What I said earlier is true. Clinton didn't affect me, but there are many out there with weak moral constitutions, and yes, he did in fact do a great deal of damage. It offers them an excuse- a horrible role model who should, no MUST be a good role model. What he did has no excuse, sorry. The president is held to a higher standard.

 

@Leang - That is interesting, and in fact something similar has/is happening. You know about those riots in France? Yeah. France's counter to terrorism is appeasement, and guess what? It earns you no respect, and therefore no safety. It's a lesson learned a thousand times in history, and yet the fools are doomed to repeat it. But besides that, I don't think that attacking a totally neutral (if there is such a thing) would do much to further their "cause," to be totally honest. I think that they're just concentrating on the big evils. Hey, wait a minute... wouldn't that make the evil people's biggest enemy the truly good people? Hmm. Food for thought. :wink:

[Waraddict 0]

The person sets the moral tone for himself and himself alone.

 

I've told you before Fenring that morals are only morals if they are standardised, a person CANNOT have his own opinion of morals, look up the definition of 'morality'. This is not an argument against whether or not I think Clinton should have been kicked out of his presidency because of the sex scandal but rather a point on how inaccurate your arugments can be.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

@ BWare:

edit: never mind.

 

@ Waraddict:

Here's what I got for "morality":

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

3. Virtuous conduct.

4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

 

Ideas... hmmmm... Nowhere do I see anything set in stone, but I know you didn't mean it that way. However, it seems to me a person can set his own set of morals should he choose to not conform to your set.

 

Well who's standards are we talking about? Muslim? Christian? Jewish? Some guy from Montana? It's a really vague concept. I agree, there are a set of general rules everyone ought to live by but not everyone will agree with everything you say.

[F15pilotX 4]

Sounds like we're talking about a Christian standard to me :wink:

[BWare 0]

It's inevitable. The moral law is absolute and universal, so yes we are talking about the Christian standard.

 

And Fenring, that's a brilliant counterpoint as always :wink:

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Who said the Christian standard was absolute and universal? :roll:

[Waraddict 0]

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

 

and what was it I said?

 

Who said the Christian standard was absolute and universal?

 

Tell me, for whom would it take to say that the Christian standard of morality is universal in order to convince you?

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Tell me, for whom would it take to say that the Christian standard of morality is universal in order to convince you?

God himself, should he exist.

[Waraddict 0]

Tell me, for whom would it take to say that the Christian standard of morality is universal in order to convince you?

God himself, should he exist.

 

Yes, but he did say it.

[BWare 0]

Well good luck with that. And once again, you missed the entire point.... morality itself is absolute, and Christianity simply addresses it. There aren't different moralities out there. I happen to believe that Christianity gets it right, but then that's the point of the debate.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

time to set things striahgt.

Cygnus's Official morality code of conduct: Dont follow it, and we cand do anythign to you:P

 

1: Dont kill others unless they have killed, or will most likely kill, I.E. leader of Nuclear commie nation with terrible world relations

 

2: Dont insult women or Jews, I happen to know a Jewish female (She's 19, so not a girl, but not quite woman ?) who can kick all or our asses to the moon and back without breating hard at all, so shaddup

 

3: Dont argue with religions about which is better.

 

4: there are 3 sides to every argument

My side

Your side

The truth

 

5: We all have feelings. Feel free to abuse each other as much as you want, but dont go crying to mommy when the opposition hits back.

 

the end

[BWare 0]

I see where you're going Cygnus, but my #4 reads like this:

 

4: there are 2 sides to every argument

The truth

Your side

 

 

:wink:

[Acerz492 1]

How about we just settle for the truth? :roll: Saves us all argueing.