Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think individuals could fall on multiple spectrum.
Falling on one spectrum would be painful enough.
God could be considered an absolute (it either is or isn't) but there's certainly a lot of variation on what God is and how it should be interpreted.
The created considering whether the creator exists and how to "interpret" the possible existence? Spence, you've chastized against hubris on many occasions--wonder how God feels about hubris--hopefully with amusement at the insignificant, imperfect specs of creation attempting to analyze it/him/her.
Additionally the individual determines how inward or outward facing their spirituality (or lack there of) is and how it influences others.
So now this "individual" has the stones not only to tell the clean spirit that would guide his imperfect person how inward or outward the facing of the guidance will be, but will decide for others how they will be influenced by how this massively hubristic individual interprets God and how he faces the guiding spirit!
Just because there's variability doesn't mean that a common set of ethics aren't present that bind people together.
Nor does it mean that there are. Certainly, along that spiritual spectrum, the variability suggests a lack of a "common set of ethics."
What I find interesting is that often when people say "Judeo/Christian ethics" it's not meant in a religious context. A good question for God would be if they see this as a positive development or not.
So, are you referring to the "individual" asking God if "its" created minions would see this as positive, or if this individual is asking a plural God if "they" (polytheism?) see this as positive?
You could say the same for certain mood altering drugs.
That would be at the totally materialistic end of the spiritual spectrum where perceived spirit and spiritualism is merely a chemical reaction and not at all metaphysically spiritual.
Perfection may be an absolute, but absolutely what? Perhaps perfection could be described as a condition of balance, but that's quite vague and could have side effects.
All existence is perfectly what it is. Imperfection is a state of mind, an opinion. Perfect balance exists only for an imperceptible moment. Matter is in a constant state of flux. In those minutest moments, not comprehensible to our nature, the flux is in that particular balance. In the next moment, the new balance exists. The whole process is perfectly what it is. That you may object is only a part of the perfection. Are you criticizing God's creation? That's only a part of the process. Some refer to it as evolution. Just words.
A compass doesn't tell me where I am but it sure indicates which direction I'm going. As to results, that's impossible to answer without first defining perfection...that could take a while
What good is that compass on the spectrum of spirituality, or interpretations of God? Does it have a marker for the clean spirits?
I think it's quite reasonable to think MO is not an atheist and believes in the Declaration of Independence. This doesn't seem like much of a radical position and it would seem as though she wasn't going much deeper.
But it's also the point of the OP. Had Sarah Palin made a like statement in a similar neutral context I don't think people would have even noticed or cared for that matter. She's building a little empire through irritation and titillation, it's just not her MO these days.
So long as Palin is a threat, any statement she makes that can be ridiculed or neutralized will be noticed. Even your little jab is in that direction. I have yet to hear a substantive explanation of why she is not "qualified" to lead, or of why she is "stupid" or "silly," but she has, apparently been politically destroyed.
This would be a fair warning if Obama was a dyed in the wool socialist, but this seems more of political straw man than what we've seen from his policies. Has Obama proposed anything not seen previously, or perhaps ideas even supported by conservatives throughout history? One would think this is also part of who we are, and might include some elements also deserving of conservation.
-spence
|
Whether he is a dyed in the wool socialist or any other type of socialist--there are a myriad of types ranging from Marxism/Communism to state capitalism, and he certainly fits into one or more of those types--is not my point. My point is that the Constitution is our true political center, our political foundation. It is a foundation built upon the principles of human nature, a nature that, to this point, seems immutable. The Constitution's charter of negative liberties, as Obama has put it, guarantees the optimum of individual freedom in concordance with that nature. And it requires of our nature that we be strong and self sufficient to maintain that freedom. Obama has lamented that the
"Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." And he was not satisfied that the court was not radical enough to
"break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution." And he complained that
"the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the States can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal Government or State Government must do on your behalf." He is busy appointing Federal Circuit Court and Appeals Court justices that favor those sentiments, as well as SCOTUS justices.
Obama is not alone in doing so. This process has been going on for a long time, presidents on both sides of the aisle are guilty. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the States from central control, but the Supreme Court has long since turned those ammendments AGAINST the States, telling them what they couldn't or what they must do. As I've said above, this process of the SCOTUS demanding that the Governments do for the people rather than prohibiting what the Governments can do to the people leads to a weakening in the fiber of "collective" (a word you like) will. It leads to a dependant populace. If you want to call that socialism, fine. It's not the nomenclature that is troubling. It is the result.