Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

You gave non answers and rethoric.

Not really. Wombs aren't made out of wealth. The womb is a bag made out of meat used for growing new humans. Both the rich and the poor are all made from the same snot wad shot through the same man-organ injected close to the opening of the same meat-bag.

What you're missing is the fact that the former owner of any given snot-wad or owner of any given meat-bag is capable of independently generating wealth for himself or herself. Wealth creation is dependent on innovation, forward thinking, risk-taking, and investments of time and effort. Wealth creation does not recognize its own skin color or its own victim-class identity, whatever that happens to be. All wealth creation requires is the seed of an idea watered by value, bearing fruits of goods, services, and mutual benefit through trade. The only privilege anyone has is being born under the umbrella of a government that allows inventive individuals to bring their ideas to life and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Your father and mother have the same opportunities as anyone else, including amassing great amounts of wealth if they choose to try and happen to succeed. There is nothing special about being born into wealth, despite what jealous people say about it. All it means to be born into wealth is that one's parents thought their baby special enough to pass their wealth along to them rather than someone else. While I don't have a lot of money, I do have ability and ideas that I pass along to my children, which means they are better able to succeed in certain things more than others. But that's ok, because ALL parents can choose to do that if they want. Children succeed best when they grow up choosing to stand on their parents' shoulders rather than in their shadows. Despite however much a parent loves a child, no amount of wealth or ability can guarantee lasting success beyond a generation or so.

Rather than expressing envy for the wealthy, why not give them admiration? The ideas and the products of ideas from the wealthy contribute to a vastly improved quality of life. Gates and Jobs helped make personal computers available for every home. Even open-source developers have day jobs that support their work, and while open-source projects are free, developers reap great rewards by improving the landscape of computing, machine learning/AI, etc. There's money to be made in the single-board computing business where you have a complete system for common computer tasks or even IoT projects. Without value and wealth, without independent thinkers, without this so-called privilege, you wouldn't even be posting on this forum.

Well...my view presupposes that ALL of the Bible is LITERALLY true,

Well...my view presupposes that ALL of the Bible is LITERALLY true, or if it isn’t all meant to be taken literally that it is self-interpreting. For example, psalms are LITERALLY poems and songs that bind meaning into artistic expression and this cannot be understood literally. Proverbs are literally proverbs, meaning they incorporate paradox and riddles for the purpose of meditation and reflection. Parables are parables which may or may not have dealt with actual people but serve to teach a lesson, and Jesus typically revealed the meaning to a few of His disciples. Apocalyptic literature reveals something, and while I believe the writers literally described what they saw in visions, the images represent something greater than themselves. Wheels covered in eyes represent God’s omniscience, for example, and despite the seemingly wild nature of apocalyptic visions, there is no great mystery for those willing to understand them.

Beyond that, it is safe to assume that the Bible means what it says, that none of it can be properly understood without accepting that ALL of the Bible is true and necessary. I don’t mean that one has to be a Bible scholar to be saved. I just mean that you can’t be attuned to the Gospel as well as it you’d taken the time to understand the Bible as a whole.

My views all presuppose two things: That God as described in the Bible, ALL OF IT, actually exists, and that there also exists a reality whose nature, like God’s, is fundamentally unchanging. Ayn Rand was on the right track, but sadly formulated a philosophy based on observable reality that either had to be 100% right or it would be 100% wrong EVEN IF only one thing was wrong. And Rand was DEAD wrong when it came to God.

If Ayn Rand got it right with regard to objective reality, then it is possible to piece together an internally consistent philosophy based on objective reality while correcting her mistakes. If we can understand that such a reality exists, and if we can presuppose God as described in the Bible, such a reality only exists because God made it so. If God made the laws that Moses passed to the Israelites, it follows that the same laws are woven into the fabric of objective reality. They can be deduced and inferred from observing nature. And that means the idea that someone can call himself an atheist is absurd because what one observes through science is a projection of God’s nature and law into our reality. Everyone has already seen God, in a sense, and has no excuse.

Then you have to draw conclusions about the human mind. Is the mind equipped to process objective reality? What is the nature of knowledge?

And if the mind can be trusted, what can we draw from God’s reality about ethics and morality?

That’s basically where I’m coming from. The human organism was created to be more than a meat pile triggered by a series of chemical reactions. Animals cannot choose their instincts, cannot formulate an exit strategy from this life. They are hard wired for survival. They cannot self-destruct. For humans, survival is a choice. Our capacity for reason, rather than pure instinct, is what keeps us alive. The decision to even stay alive at all is a self-serving choice—it is predicated on the individual’s desire to live and nothing else.

The human drive to live, opposed to the animal survival instinct, is therefore selfish by nature. The very act of breathing in air to exchange CO2 for O2 is inherently selfish. Selfish acts cannot happen unless motivated by something that has inherent value. What fundamental value drives all human action? Life. We know from both the Bible and nature that life is God’s own currency by which we are bought and paid for. If God assigns us value by giving us life, it means He wants us. That same desire is a selfish desire. Therefore one must conclude that selfishness is not only a virtue that ensures the survival of humanity, but that it is a divine virtue as well. God is selfish and, therefore, being a selfish creature is not a sin.

All ethics and morality flow from this simple truth. Life, love, everything. That’s why I think the Bible has been grossly misinterpreted. Even that passage from Matthew you keep going back to. It all has to be understood within the same context. The thrust of the gospels is to reveal that the kingdom of God is here and to draw all people into it. The idea of denying self is not to put away rational selfishness, but rather to understand that ALL human individuals possess the same value and potential. They are created that way by God. Christians are called upon to see that same value in others as themselves and to engage in meaningful exchange with others—primarily by sharing God’s truth, the necessity for repentance and salvation, and then by material exchange resulting in improved quality of life. That last part applies universally in daily interactions among all people, whether those people are believers or not. The former deals with eternity and the destiny of the soul. That people know God and choose unbelief reflects inner values relating to God and the soul. It is an act of self-hate and self-destruction to condemn oneself to an eternity away from God’s presence. These same self-hating and self-destructive tendencies manifest in altruistic behavior.

Altruism is evil because of its complete and total disregard for life and the right to exist. It is a tool used by greedy people to extract that which one does not deserve from those who lead productive lives, all under the rubric of putting other people first. The RC church has historically been notorious for this, culminating in the sale of indulgences that almost resulted in the total ruin of that institution—though it is obvious that the Church (Hail Mary, full of grace) never completely repented. Academic collectivism merely takes this to the next logical step and throws God out of the picture completely. There is no god but The State, and Karl Marx is His Prophet. Here again, the words of Jesus are applied to the collective guilt of the entire nation—do unto others is not simply a willing, heartfelt expression of value. It is a state mandate, a requirement, no God needed. Religion is a useful tool, an opiate by which the “do unto others” mandate is eased through collective redistribution whereby the givers in society aren’t allowed any concern for where the product of their labor is going or who benefits from it. It is easily corrupted because it is corrupt by nature. There will always be greedy administrators who decide who actually deserves wealth, there will always be needy people trying to justify why they are entitled to move to the front of the line, and there will always be some common enemy (self-interest, Satan, Donald Trump, capitalism, God, republican government, etc.) that pulls human effort away from sustaining itself and towards dividing those who have power from those who don’t.

None of that is rational, and the common enemies are fictional. Altruism isn’t rooted in reality, hence why it is sinful. It pulls good deeds away from those with genuine needs and into the hands of those seeking to satisfy their own greed, whereas rational self-interest can discern whether one’s own generous act in reality does the most good for the needy and satisfies the will of God. In order to be generous, one must first have values. And one cannot have values without being selfish. You cannot do the will of God without the will of God being important to you, without God’s will being valuable to you. If God’s will possesses no value or worth, why be concerned with it at all? The desire to do God’s will is inherently selfish yet results in the greatest good to all people touched by divine works through the hands of those doing them. Productivity is, therefore, a sacred act glorifying God, as is all works resulting in an outpouring of value for others.

Denying yourself, therefore, is not a divine mandate to practice self-hate and self-destruction. It is a call to repent from greed and envy. Don’t envy people who can work hard when you can’t, don’t envy people who have wealth that you lack, don’t envy those in positions of authority. It is their productivity, generosity, and wisdom that contribute to your quality of life. Rather, admire them. Emulate them. Imitate them. Do what you can within the reasonable boundaries of your ability and imagination. If you possess little in the way of ability, wealth, and power, then trade in the currency of ideas and love. If you have nothing else, invest in human potential through kind words. Let others do the planting, but YOU do the harvesting. Don’t bother asking for permission, you don’t need it. You have no reason to apologize to anyone UNLESS you’ve violated your own values in dealing with them. Loving others and loving God is what the Bible is all about—and neither can truly happen unless you first love yourself.

Well...my view presupposes that ALL of the Bible is LITERALLY true, or if it isn’t all meant to be taken literally that it is self-interpreting. For example, psalms are LITERALLY poems and songs that bind meaning into artistic expression and this cannot be understood literally. Proverbs are literally proverbs, meaning they incorporate paradox and riddles for the purpose of meditation and reflection. Parables are parables which may or may not have dealt with actual people but serve to teach a lesson, and Jesus typically revealed the meaning to a few of His disciples. Apocalyptic literature reveals something, and while I believe the writers literally described what they saw in visions, the images represent something greater than themselves. Wheels covered in eyes represent God’s omniscience, for example, and despite the seemingly wild nature of apocalyptic visions, there is no great mystery for those willing to understand them.

Beyond that, it is safe to assume that the Bible means what it says, that none of it can be properly understood without accepting that ALL of the Bible is true and necessary. I don’t mean that one has to be a Bible scholar to be saved. I just mean that you can’t be attuned to the Gospel as well as it you’d taken the time to understand the Bible as a whole.

My views all presuppose two things: That God as described in the Bible, ALL OF IT, actually exists, and that there also exists a reality whose nature, like God’s, is fundamentally unchanging. Ayn Rand was on the right track, but sadly formulated a philosophy based on observable reality that either had to be 100% right or it would be 100% wrong EVEN IF only one thing was wrong. And Rand was DEAD wrong when it came to God.

If Ayn Rand got it right with regard to objective reality, then it is possible to piece together an internally consistent philosophy based on objective reality while correcting her mistakes. If we can understand that such a reality exists, and if we can presuppose God as described in the Bible, such a reality only exists because God made it so.

If God made the laws that Moses passed to the Israelites, it follows that the same laws are woven into the fabric of objective reality.

They can be deduced and inferred from observing nature. And that means the idea that someone can call himself an atheist is absurd because what one observes through science is a projection of God’s nature and law into our reality. Everyone has already seen God, in a sense, and has no excuse.

Then you have to draw conclusions about the human mind. Is the mind equipped to process objective reality? What is the nature of knowledge?

And if the mind can be trusted, what can we draw from God’s reality about ethics and morality?

That’s basically where I’m coming from. The human organism was created to be more than a meat pile triggered by a series of chemical reactions. Animals cannot choose their instincts, cannot formulate an exit strategy from this life. They are hard wired for survival. They cannot self-destruct. For humans, survival is a choice. Our capacity for reason, rather than pure instinct, is what keeps us alive. The decision to even stay alive at all is a self-serving choice—it is predicated on the individual’s desire to live and nothing else.

The human drive to live, opposed to the animal survival instinct, is therefore selfish by nature. The very act of breathing in air to exchange CO2 for O2 is inherently selfish. Selfish acts cannot happen unless motivated by something that has inherent value. What fundamental value drives all human action? Life. We know from both the Bible and nature that life is God’s own currency by which we are bought and paid for. If God assigns us value by giving us life, it means He wants us. That same desire is a selfish desire. Therefore one must conclude that selfishness is not only a virtue that ensures the survival of humanity, but that it is a divine virtue as well. God is selfish and, therefore, being a selfish creature is not a sin.

All ethics and morality flow from this simple truth. Life, love, everything. That’s why I think the Bible has been grossly misinterpreted.

Even that passage from Matthew you keep going back to. It all has to be understood within the same context. The thrust of the gospels is to reveal that the kingdom of God is here and to draw all people into it. The idea of denying self is not to put away rational selfishness, but rather to understand that ALL human individuals possess the same value and potential. They are created that way by God. Christians are called upon to see that same value in others as themselves and to engage in meaningful exchange with others—primarily by sharing God’s truth, the necessity for repentance and salvation, and then by material exchange resulting in improved quality of life. That last part applies universally in daily interactions among all people, whether those people are believers or not. The former deals with eternity and the destiny of the soul. That people know God and choose unbelief reflects inner values relating to God and the soul. It is an act of self-hate and self-destruction to condemn oneself to an eternity away from God’s presence. These same self-hating and self-destructive tendencies manifest in altruistic behavior.

Altruism is evil because of its complete and total disregard for life and the right to exist.

It is a tool used by greedy people to extract that which one does not deserve from those who lead productive lives, all under the rubric of putting other people first.

The RC church has historically been notorious for this, culminating in the sale of indulgences that almost resulted in the total ruin of that institution—though it is obvious that the Church (Hail Mary, full of grace) never completely repented.

Academic collectivism merely takes this to the next logical step and throws God out of the picture completely. There is no god but The State, and Karl Marx is His Prophet. Here again, the words of Jesus are applied to the collective guilt of the entire nation—do unto others is not simply a willing, heartfelt expression of value. It is a state mandate, a requirement, no God needed.

Religion is a useful tool, an opiate by which the “do unto others” mandate is eased through collective redistribution whereby the givers in society aren’t allowed any concern for where the product of their labor is going or who benefits from it.

It is easily corrupted because it is corrupt by nature. There will always be greedy administrators who decide who actually deserves wealth, there will always be needy people trying to justify why they are entitled to move to the front of the line, and there will always be some common enemy (self-interest, Satan, Donald Trump, capitalism, God, republican government, etc.) that pulls human effort away from sustaining itself and towards dividing those who have power from those who don’t.

None of that is rational, and the common enemies are fictional.

Altruism isn’t rooted in reality, hence why it is sinful. It pulls good deeds away from those with genuine needs and into the hands of those seeking to satisfy their own greed, whereas rational self-interest can discern whether one’s own generous act in reality does the most good for the needy and satisfies the will of God. In order to be generous, one must first have values. And one cannot have values without being selfish. You cannot do the will of God without the will of God being important to you, without God’s will being valuable to you. If God’s will possesses no value or worth, why be concerned with it at all? The desire to do God’s will is inherently selfish yet results in the greatest good to all people touched by divine works through the hands of those doing them. Productivity is, therefore, a sacred act glorifying God, as is all works resulting in an outpouring of value for others.

Denying yourself, therefore, is not a divine mandate to practice self-hate and self-destruction. It is a call to repent from greed and envy. Don’t envy people who can work hard when you can’t, don’t envy people who have wealth that you lack, don’t envy those in positions of authority.

It is their productivity, generosity, and wisdom that contribute to your quality of life. Rather, admire them. Emulate them. Imitate them. Do what you can within the reasonable boundaries of your ability and imagination.

If you possess little in the way of ability, wealth, and power, then trade in the currency of ideas and love.

If you have nothing else, invest in human potential through kind words.

Let others do the planting, but YOU do the harvesting.

Don’t bother asking for permission, you don’t need it.

You have no reason to apologize to anyone UNLESS you’ve violated your own values in dealing with them. Loving others and loving God is what the Bible is all about—and neither can truly happen unless you first love yourself.

I'm not saying that being successful in life makes anyone a bad person, or that its their fault that others are less fortunate.

I'm just asking that you be honest enough to admit that success and failure in life are largely due to random chance.

It may be true that all of the Bible is LITERALLY true yet we have different denominations who seem to come to different conclusions as to what different parts of the Bible actually say. Why is that? As for the psalms, proverbs , parables does everyone come to the same conclusions as to what they mean or do different denominations come to different conclusions on some of them? As for "Wheels covered in eyes represent God’s omniscience" how do you derive this? And, if God is omniscient then why does he act surprised in the garden of Eden? Why does God test us if he already knows the results? Why put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of evil unguarded? Why allow a serpent to tempt them? Why was the tree unguarded like leaving out rat poison? God knew they would fail didn't he not? If Adam and Eve didn't even realize they were nude and had no knowledge of Good and Evil then how would they have known that disobeying God by eating the fruit and disobedience would be evil? What I derive is that there was no way that Adam and Eve could have obeyed or pass his test?

Any, many Christians say he tests us. Why is there a need for a test if God already would know the results?

I'm autistic. I'm a sinner. How can I be expected to derive perfectly and read perfectly what all of the Bible actually says? My mind is compromised yet the Bible is perfect and complete and divinely inspired and written God yet I with an imperfect and incomplete mind is expected to derive the "correct" meaning from its words? How? How can I truthfully do so with a perfectly objective mind?



Again, how many can agree upon the meaning to all of the words, scriptures and passages? Do we have a universal meaning to all of it? If there is disagreement as to what some of it means then how do we tell who is correct or not?



Can an imperfect and incomplete mind observe and understand the perfect nature of God? Even he says his nature is not our nature didn't he not? Who is perfect and complete today and without sin? No one! Everyone has their sins, flaws, imperfections and biases. And, yes you said I'm biased. More then likely, I am on some things even though I try not to be. But, are you perfect? Are free from sins and biases yourself? God says no one is sinless and perfect so you must have some sin and imperfection in you as well.



And, by this logic God created conditions in the Garden of Eden in which Adam and Eve would fail. And, didn't God harden Pharoh's heart during the plagues in Egypt thereby negating his free will? Remember, I'm autistic maybe a touch or so more then you. You're asking me and God is asking me to interpret his word with my autistic and sinful mind? How? How do I do this? He knows me? He knew me before I was formed in my mother's womb, correct? He created me for whatever his purposes to think a certain way? How can I think other then what God intended for me? God gave me, an individual a certain nature, correct? How can I think outside of this nature to interpret his word properly or interpret nature properly and perfectly?

And, don't Christians say that everything happens for a reason? How does choice and free will exist if that is so?



How?

Infanticide exists in the animal kingdom yet doesn't God tell us not to kill. Which is true the commandment not to kill or are we supposed to derive that Infanticide is a part of nature? In some species the mother kills the newborn if she doesn't think the baby is fit.



Yet, natural selection happens in nature and didn't they derive Eugenics from observing nature.



If the human mind can derive perfectly and knowingly the absolute and correct objective reality then why hasn't everyone been able to do so? Supposedly, we're all equipped to do this? Why hasn't everyone been able to do this so well? Why do people including myself have biases and impaired judgement at times? If we could truthfully do as you suggest then how would sin exist at all?




And, can you trust everyone's mind on everything? To understand everything perfectly as God would intend? How? How would we do this?



Yet, you're telling us to derive the perfect law and objective reality from nature especially if you're saying animals lack something we have? How? How does this make sense to you? What are we to derive exactly?



Why don't mainstream Christianity and other churches derive this as well. Again, how do we tell which group is correct or not? Are they all wrong? If they are then how can one derive what is right? Personal conscience and rationality? How can we do so if it is clouded by sin?

Is this man correct in the things he says here? https://solitaryroad.com/a1343.html

Does the Bible really sanction slavery? Does objectivism as well?

Most Christians would never agree with this guy? Do you? Who is right and who is wrong?



What is the correct interpretation and how do we tell what is correct or not especially if I'm filled with sin and I'm autistic and these things cloud my interpretation?



Why would anyone choose to sin and disobey God willingly knowing the final destination would be horrible?



Here is my question. Let's say a person can't provide for himself, others won't provide for him or help him, and there is no obligation to do so and no one is owed anything by others then how can anyone truthfully have the right to exist?



What exactly is required by God? Are we supposed to put ourselves or others first? Remember, I'm autistic and I'm sinful. So, how can I use my compromised mind to rationally suss out what is what?



I do wonder how they got to this point.



The problem is that what is used to justify God's existence can be used to justify all of the god's existence that all people worship in history. I could claim that nature exists and is complex so Zeus created it.



Maybe! Maybe not! Here is what I don't understand by those on your side though. Why do those on your side browbeat me over my head with life being unfair yet you all state something about how redistribution is unfair. How does this make sense to you all? Shouldn't your side accept that life is unfair and this is unfair and move on like your side expects those on my side to do?



Here is my question. Why doesn't God help those who can't to actually do? He is all knowing, right? Why Wouldn't he prevent conditions that would lead to collectivism and altruism in the first place? Why let Adam and Eve Fall?



How can one be rational if we're filled with sin and sin clouds our judgement?



You know what? Can you define what selfishness, selflessness, altruism, collectivism are please? And can we agree to definitions please? We can't define any truth without agreeing as to what things mean?



Another definition. What is greed and what is envy? Can you come up with a definition that we can all agree with? Again, how can one tell who is envious and greedy if we don't even agree upon definitions to our terms? Because I see the definition of some of our terms as different then you and I think that is one issue in debates. No agreed upon definitions.

Same thing with straw man. You say I'm making a straw man in the things I say but I don't see myself doing that because to make a straw man one must be doing so intentionally. So, how can I make a strawman without intent behind it? Does a strawman have to have intent or not?



You're assuming all of them got that way through their own labor and not through dubious means?



That's if others accept your ideas and your idea of what love is? If they don't, don't want to deal with you and they guard all the doors, have all the keys and set the standards as to what legitimate ideas and love is now what? Start your own business? What if one can't or doesn't have the personality or social skills to do so? If others see you as lazy and let's face it how many people really do thoughtful analysis on things now what? If they see you as lazy instead of struggling and having a hard time and don't believe what you say in spite of your ideas backed by evidence now what?



And, what if one has nothing kind to say? Lie? Then not only would one be unkind but they'd be a liar as well.



Huh?



And, if those others set the rules and standards, guard all the doors and have all the keys again now what? I do need their permission.



Some people have altruism as their value and disagree with you. If they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible and believe they're doing right by their values then how does one resolve this?

More power to the guy who cashed in his victim card. If a society or people are going to create nothing but stumbling blocks then do as I did and leave it or cash in your victim card like he did.

Living on Disability is not for the faint of heart....