Comment: Thanks for the opportunity

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Apparent Contradictions (see in situ)

Thanks for the opportunity

"Are you saying the mixed message of the video is that God demands obedience to man? i.e. the speaker says the Catholic Bishops need to write a paper on moral code instead of economics etc?"

Not exactly that, my thinking is that the message in the link was good, in the sense that the speaker points out the wrong of holding the position of spiritual guidance, and not doing it, sure that is good, but to then say that contraception is evil, because I say so, to me is like the Pot calling the kettle black.

I mean, more precisely, that sure, it is fantastic to encourage people to seek God, to ask for and find the truth, guidance, help, all that is good, ask and receive guidance.

From who?

Sure, I get it too, from The Bible, that is where the word of God is found, but again, who is doing the interpreting?

The Pope?

I like the link, I like the message of saying a person in the position of spiritual guidance ought to do that work. I like the message that those in that position are probably not the best, most qualified, authorities on political economy, when their offerings of guidance is dead wrong. I like that part.

The apparent contradiction, to me, is to then claim that God says this, exactly this, or exactly that, and as far as I can tell, in the case of "contraception" the message is too ambiguous, or patently false.

We can discuss this in detail, and I can start by saying that "contraception" can be defined as abstinence. I do not play word games, far from it, my point is to point out repeatedly, that there is a need to agree upon the actual meaning of any contentious word.

Contraception, if the idea is to be false, can mean men having sex with boys, since, well, there are no babies as a result.

Contraception can mean vowing never to engage in any activity that could result in reproduction.

What is the beef? Reproduction is good, so get rid of contraception, where is the orgy, and call me anything but don't call me late for the orgy?

If the beef is that the "authorities" are taking money from the subjects, as the subjects provide the means by which we suffer, and then those "authorities" spend that money on false advertizement campaigns intending to motivate the target audience to be as irresponsible and as unaccountable as those same "authorities", then that beef aught to be spelled out that way.

I don't know if my beef is spelled out well enough, but yes, there is an apparent contradiction to the person reporting on an apparent contradiction.

"There is no need to write a paper on moral conduct because the Bible already gives moral instruction. People just need to read and do what God’s word says and not do the things it says not to do."

That was the message, more or less, offered by the reporter in the link, basically saying that those Catholic authorities aught to be Catholic authorities and not otherwise.

"However, morally we as a society are a long way off from Biblical moral conduct."

I am going to call you on that merely for clarification. Do you mean "society" as a list of names, or do you mean "society" as a thing unto itself, a single entity, and therefore a responsible and accountable single entity to be blamed and punished as one thing?

1.
A list of names = society
2.
One thing

If it is a list of names, then I almost always see a need to point out that a few people on that list are manipulating the vast majority on that list, and that it may be a good idea to stop following that "guidance" if possible.

"However, how can one expect someone who is not a Believer to choose to behave morally?"

Common sense?

Absent the very POWERFUL influence of the few very worst people, as those few cause the many to act according to the designs of the few, those many people once free from those few evil people, believing what they will absent that evil influence, may, as one, believe as you do, or they may just believe it is better to be nice than to be evil, since nice is better. I don't know, but I do know enough about the POWER of those few to consider that avoiding them may help.

"However, how can one expect someone who is not a Believer to choose to behave morally?"

Most people I meet are good, they think good things, they act in good ways, almost universally, despite the fact that their brains have been washed to a point of power-less-ness when thinking and acting in defense of liberty; which is thinking and acting in defense against Legal Crime.

How stupid can good people be made into, as otherwise good people are made into counterfeit devils by a very few very evil people?

If my viewpoint is wrong, then I sure could use some help finding out exactly where my viewpoint is wrong.

Pay false authorities to spend that pay on making their victims stupid, and guess what happens?

Despite all that expense, all that cost, people, most of the ones I meet, are still good people, people not torturing other people for fun and profit, people not mass murdering other people for fun and profit, and even those who are misdirected into preforming those specific jobs, torturing, and mass murdering the innocent, from my reading, from my understanding, from my admittedly limited perspective, they are now busy committing suicide for some reason.

Why, if men are so bad, why, why, why, are so many soldiers, hired to do the dirty work of evil people, ending up dead from suicide these days, if men are so evil, that they decide, on their own free will, to end their own lives?

What is the total cost of believing in all those lies?

Bad is falsely seen as being good by too many people?

Where do all those lies come from?

Did all the human babies enter this world demanding more lies, or is it more likely that a few of those babies grew up with a taste for destruction at any cost, so long as the costs are passed onto anyone else?

I'm such a broken record, I know, how well I know, but providing the means by which we suffer, to me, is a no brainer, as in why would anyone take a good working, loaded, gun, put it to their own head, and pull the trigger?

Men are bad, so it figures that such things are done naturally?

"Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may doit with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

That is self evident, self explanatory, and that to me is not an excuse to "provide the means by which we suffer" if that is someone's interpretation.

What is the right, obviously beneficial, good, moral, thing to do when dealing with those people who watch for your souls?

That is a fair question, and I can apply that to you. I am here, and you exemplify someone watching out for my soul, so what is the logical, reasonable, right, moral, good, beneficial, and productive, powerful, non-destructive thing to do?

"Obey them...that watch for your souls..."

Now, if you please, take the counterfeit version whereby "they" are legal Criminals who are not really in the business of watching out for "your souls", well not exactly, "they" are stealing all your earnings and then they are using what they steal to steal more, including, I suppose, your soul.

1.
Common sense
2.
Drink the cool-aid

"for that is unprofitable for you"

What am I led to believe? Drinking the cool-aid (laced with poison) is profitable?

No, those who generously help out other people constitute true leadership, leading by example, is that not common sense?

OK, in a world where centuries of providing the means by which we suffer, people are physically and psychologically rendered powerless by a very few very powerful people, common sense is stomped out of existence, as is any other form of competition with blind obedience to falsehood without question.

What are my "Federal" tax liabilities at this moment?

Might it be a good idea to pay a little less if possible?

If we are too good at providing the means by which we suffer, we suffer more; right or not right?

If we are really bad at providing the means by which we suffer, we suffer less?

Who, exactly, is watching over my soul? Obama?

Ben Bernanke?

I think you need to look in the mirror and see credit where credit is due.

I've been wrong often, far too often.

"I think that accountability is something that is lost in the Baptist church. Our church has a convenant hanging on the wall. Really the only thing that stands out to me right now is that we agree with one another not to partake of alcohol. That is something particular to our church. That covenant was in place when Jeff and I joined and so we submit ourselves to the wishes of our church as a whole when we joined our church."

What happens if one of those who truly watch out for other souls questions the fact that "we" are providing the means by which we suffer, through The IRS and The FED, and those errant Troops that are so often taking the "easy" way out these days?

Silence or worse?

Censure?

What is the reply if that is done: questioning the false authorities? What is the message in any case of questioning the false authorities?

I can handle it, I'm used to it, but you may need more warning, yes you, be warned, the power against us is unlimited, so you have to limit it.

Joe