Jave D wrote:No one else here is reading what I'm saying and pointing out an army of personal character flaws as you seem to delight in doing.
I've pointed out one thing, that you are not taking into consideration the depth of the topic. You've been continually arguing one thing, without understanding the reality of the situation behind it. Please take a moment to address your beliefs in relation to what reality is.
Regardless of what the Bible says, it is no excuse for one's behavior either way. It is not the fault of some words on a page that someone does anything. "The Bible made me do it" doesn't work in courts of law, does it? It doesn't work as sufficient reasoning for you when someone does something, does it? If it does work for you I think this is an issue of anthropomorphizing a book and ignoring the complexities of human behavior, the concept of free will, and that of personal responsibility.
Like I've said, you really need to learn a bit more about this subject rather than making proclamations. Many times through history, and in various places today, religious scripture has been used as a way of deciding what to do in a court of law.
In many places and times "The Bible told me to
" or an equivalent
is exactly what law is.
People behave in all sorts of terrible ways simply because they believe that is what their Holy Book wants them to do.
How is this not creating a behavior when new generations of people learn these behaviors from such books and the cultures that values the laws of that book because it is Holy?
I never said that why and how people make decisions isn't complicated. Just the idea that people DO make decisions. My merely mentioning that does not and should not require a lengthy explanation, and when I do not give said lengthy explanation, it does not mean I have a lack of understanding. Sorry!
You didn't merely mention it. You made a declarative and definitive statement. "People decide when to apply what they know, or think they know, and when not to." A false one, one that leads to the rest of your argument. As this statement is not true and is a very different statement than the idea that "sometimes people do make decisions." In the future, rather than defending such a statement which you don't mean; restate what you mean.
What do you mean? Let's have you define happiness. Apparently it needs defining.
What relevance does that have? You honestly can't talk about bigots unless I define the term? Or happiness? Or is this a cute exercise for me to "prove" and "demonstrate" (to you) my non-failure to understand, to comprehend, etc?
So, the point of a defining something is to assist in using language to represent a concept. I and others obviously don't know what you mean by a 'happy person' as it does not match up with the concept commonly associated with the term. When I ask you to define something, I'm doing so because you do not mean what is commonly meant by the word. Thus I do not know what you mean, and am requesting you to tell me what you mean.
I can, and will provide you with a definition but in all likely hood you will say "that's not what I mean." So what do YOU mean. Words are symbols to represent concepts. When you change the concept behind a symbol but still use the same symbol you are likely to create confusion at best and can possibly create something much worse.
I'll give you a couple definitions of a 'happy person'
1. An individual is a 'happy person' when they generally experience -- or feel they experience -- more 'positive' emotions that 'negative'. When their temperament leads them to feel and act in a joyful, energetic and productive -which I can define for you as well if you want- way more than a depressed and destructive way.
2. An individual who always strives to feel happy regardless of the reality of any situation.
The first definition is a general definition, the second one is a more technical one related to positive psychology. Happiness can also be a very destructive behavior as we often experience 'negative' emotions -- such as anger, frustration, disgust or depression -- when something in reality lines up poorly with our perceptions of what is good and bad. Essentially ignoring things that are bad, or deluding oneself to believe they didn't happen, to feel happiness can be very destructive to the self in the long run; not to mention other people or society as a whole.
I'm just going to answer the last question. No, of course not, because everyone is capable of feeling angry, and I believe happiness is a possible condition of human existence.
So why can't bigots be happy people?
Yet another example of you making a sentiment of mine absolutist when it is not: I never said it was the "only" thing he taught. However, he did mention it as being one of the two most important commandments of God.
So when I said "people might interpret things differently" and you respond with "I'm not sure how you can interpret "love your neighbor" differently;" you were just being snide?
Expressing words that you want to save a soul from going to hell is not necessarily loving. It can be and often is just that: words. Often there's the implied judgment therein too: 'You're going to hell unless you act the way I say you should.'
Not it is "you are going to hell unless you act the way Jesus and God say you should." While their understanding of what Jesus and God are saying might be wrong, the sentiment is often about the code of conduct sent from got and not about controlling other people.
If someone honestly believes that what someone is doing is going to damn them to hell forever you don't think they should express that worry to people they care about? Expressing care about someones behavior and how it affects their well-being isn't loving?
Of course Jesus also said to judge not and this is what he was referring to... whether someone is going to hell or not is God's decision, not anyone else's, and acting like you know ahead of time where someone's soul is headed is arrogant on that basis and misguided at best.
Many people would disagree that this is what he meant. Because as previously mentioned, his words are highly ambiguous. Unfortunate that I mentioned this before you acted as if his only words were "love thy neighbor"
This conversation is starting to resemble arguments with ex-girlfriends. Pointlessness factor approaching critical levels.
This statement does what? Asks me to examine if I'm a girl? If I'm a girl conversations inevitably lead to pointlessness?
That you display an inability to look into the depth of problems, use snide comments to avoid thinking about reality and display a poor grasp of language use certainly seems like it could negatively affect communication in a relationship, yes.