Fernando,

>Doug,
>
>Thanks for giving appropriate attention to what I wrote, and for adding your insightful comments.

Well, thank you very much! I suppose it's no surprise to anyone here that I'm rather passionate about some things. <g> I also hope folks understand that I'm not trying to operate from animosity but rather froma great desire to engage life. <s>

>
>As we may get deep into the muddy waters of convictions, I think there shouldn't be nothing more to add here (anyway I like the idea of another thread <s>).

I very much appreciate the convictions of others. I'd rather strongly disagree with someone and learn something as opposed to being quiet, learning little or nothing and substituting a sort of smug self-satisfaction, thinking I know something yet knowing nothing. At least when we engage each other where we find out our lack of knowledge on some issue we've placed knowledge before blind pride. If you have a strong disagreement with anything I say please speak up. If I'm incorrect on any matter I'd like to know! I just cause trouble because I want to discuss issues normally considered taboo. <s>

>
>Just came to my mind, reading your comments, a war fan folk that somewhat followed the same line of thinking to justify his acts (please I'm not making any connections here, but you know that sometimes when we read or see some things, memories came up). I won't tell his name, but certainly you'll recognize who he is by some of his thoughts, quoted below <g>

>
>"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
>
>"War is the continuation of politics. In this sense war is politics and war itself is a political action"
>
>"We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun"

Interesting thoughts.

In my mind there are essentially two camps plus a sort of "stand off" between the two which is where we find politics.

The first is the rules of the Kindom of God. The second those of the Kingdom of Darkness or evil. Plus there's the third, which in this life is the implementation of certain principles which represent one or the other of the two basic camps.

Now, this is not a desire to make a country into a religious camp of some sort. Rather, it is the notion of the fundamental principles such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or other such notions. This first is an enumeration of an understanding of human nature that (IMO) is far more clear-eyed than that of the second approach. In the case of the United States this understanding is (basically) that man's nature is not "an angel" but "a devil". That is, man is 'fallen' or flawed intrinsically and as such is essentially incurably selfish. The whole notion of our tripartate government where we have three branches of government as equally balanced as they (the founders) could devise but which pits each against the other in a sort of tension. However, in this case everyone is seen as belonging. All are equal. The 'common man' can become President and so forth. Laws apply to everyone equally. Well, at least that's the theory. <g> IOW, we are 'all sinners' therefore, having reduced everyone to the same level we can elevate all as well at the same time.

The second notion is based upon the presumption that man can, will or has 'perfected' himself. That man is intrinsically 'good' and that flaws, errors, mistakes and so forth are the abberation and not the norm. This is not born out by the reality around us. That's why Communists terrorize their populations - they think they've arrived. That's why despots whether they base their despotism upon the some religious text or position or pure force; they think they're 'better' than those they govern. Pride masquerading as righteousness. These people divide their world into two groups. Those, like themselves, who are in the inner group and the "others" who will never "make it". This is the basis for their rationalization of their inevitable suppression of those with whom they disagree - their own sense of superiority. Candidly, this applies to who have wrapped themselves in the Bible (or any other religious position) as well as others. However (and here's the intellectual 'goof' IMO), just because some misuse the Bible (or any other religious work) to justify their actions that in no way (at least in the case of the Bible) means that the religious 'work(s)' advocate these positions. IOW, because some have misused faith that doesn't mean that faith is in itself 'bad'. Hammers pound nails. Some people use them to pound heads and kill people. The hammer was misused and isn't 'bad'; the person who misused the hammer is 'bad'.

This, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not any given religious 'work' is intrinsically 'good' or not. That's a whole other thread. <g>

I come down on the side that man is intrinsically 'bad'. That's not to say that all men do bad things but that man's basic nature is flawed, I being almost certainly among the most flawed. That's why taking moral 'reminders' out of society will cause that society to disintigrate. For example, I want the 10 Commandments posted, not because I think that everyone should join my church but because I want little minds to be constantly reminded "Do not steal" and so forth. Children steal all the time from each other in classrooms. I don't even care if we add to that list but as a culture I dare say that we have so morally denuded ourselves that the 'rot' is about as bad as it can get.


>
>Regards,
>
>Fernando
>
>PS. BTW, what does *chuckle* mean? It has some to do with the nasty habit of chewing tobacco by the cowboys (kind of onomatopoeia)?

'Chuckle' is an english word that represents the sound or action someone makes when they are laughing, but sort of quietly. Here's a quote from www.dictionary.com:

chuck·le Pronunciation Key (chkl)
intr.v. chuck·led, chuck·ling, chuck·les
To laugh quietly or to oneself.
To cluck or chuck, as a hen.

n.
A quiet laugh of mild amusement or satisfaction

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.