Who is the better person?

[Lightning Waltz]

The one that does the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?
The person that does the right thing because they fear consequences in a future time?

[5stringJeff]

The one that does the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?
The person that does the right thing because they fear consequences in a future time?


What if something is the right thing to do because of future consequences?

[Lightning Waltz]

What if something is the right thing to do because of future consequences?

Let me clairify.
I'm only talking about future consequences directly due to an external source, that would judge your actions, and punish you if you made the wrong choice.

[5stringJeff]

Let me clairify.
I'm only talking about future consequences directly due to an external source, that would judge your actions, and punish you if you made the wrong choice.

If the external source you are talking about was both Judge and Lawgiver, then you would know that a certain action was right because of the Lawgiver, and you would be deemed to have done the right thing by the Judge - the same external source. Therefore, your two options are the same option, and neither is 'better' than the other.

[Lightning Waltz]

If the external source you are talking about was both Judge and Lawgiver, then you would know that a certain action was right because of the Lawgiver, and you would be deemed to have done the right thing by the Judge - the same external source. Therefore, your two options are the same option, and neither is 'better' than the other.

So, you would be against hiding Jews in your basement if you were a German living in Nazi Germany.

[5stringJeff]

So, you would be against hiding Jews in your basement if you were a German living in Nazi Germany.

Only if the Nazis were the highest form of lawgivers. Which they aren't/weren't.

[Lightning Waltz]

Only if the Nazis were the highest form of lawgivers. Which they aren't/weren't.

Ah, I see.

So you think that whatever "God" says is right and moral. If "God" were to say, "It is morally permissible to rape red-haired women on Thursdays", it would be, right?

[5stringJeff]

Ah, I see.

So you think that whatever "God" says is right and moral. If "God" were to say, "It is morally permissible to rape red-haired women on Thursdays", it would be, right?

Except that God wouldn't say such a thing, being purely holy (righteous) Himself.

But back to your example. If there is no lawgivers superior to human thought, then by what authority could the Allies have judged the Nazis as morally wrong for exterminating the Jews?

[Lightning Waltz]

Except that God wouldn't say such a thing, being purely holy (righteous) Himself.

Why not? If "God" is the one that makes the laws, any law that "God" makes is, by definition, correct?

Or, is there some force outside of "God" that controls "God"...that is, that which is morally good.


But back to your example. If there is no lawgivers superior to human thought, then by what authority could the Allies have judged the Nazis as morally wrong for exterminating the Jews?

By their own authority, of course. Are you arguing that different groups of people can't disagree if there is no "higher morality"?

[5stringJeff]

Why not? If "God" is the one that makes the laws, any law that "God" makes is, by definition, correct?

Or, is there some force outside of "God" that controls "God"...that is, that which is morally good.

Except that God is intrinsically holy; He is absolutely holy because that is who He is.


By their own authority, of course. Are you arguing that different groups of people can't disagree if there is no "higher morality"?

So if the Nazis decided it was morally acceptable to kill off the Jews, but the Allies decided it was morally unacceptable, then who's to say the Allies were right? What if it really was morally acceptable to kill Jews (note: I don't believe this; I'm only offering an argument), and the Allies acted immorally by stopping it?

[Lightning Waltz]

Except that God is intrinsically holy; He is absolutely holy because that is who He is.

Right, so any law that "God" would create would then be "holy"...including the one I suggested above, right?


So if the Nazis decided it was morally acceptable to kill off the Jews, but the Allies decided it was morally unacceptable, then who's to say the Allies were right? What if it really was morally acceptable to kill Jews (note: I don't believe this; I'm only offering an argument), and the Allies acted immorally by stopping it?

Who is the Allies, who said it.

[5stringJeff]

Right, so any law that "God" would create would then be "holy"...including the one I suggested above, right?

To rebut you, I would have to go in to a lengthy exposition on the attributes of God here, starting with infinitude, and going on into self-existence, self-sufficiency, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, wisdom, sovereignty, holiness, faithfulness, love, justice, mercy, goodness, and graciousness, all of which are attributes properly attributed to God. But I have homework to do.

[Lightning Waltz]

To rebut you, I would have to go in to a lengthy exposition on the attributes of God here, starting with infinitude, and going on into self-existence, self-sufficiency, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, wisdom, sovereignty, holiness, faithfulness, love, justice, mercy, goodness, and graciousness, all of which are attributes properly attributed to God. But I have homework to do.

I would think you would have a conflict with at the very least, these two.

[Lightning Waltz]

If the external source you are talking about was both Judge and Lawgiver, then you would know that a certain action was right because of the Lawgiver, and you would be deemed to have done the right thing by the Judge - the same external source. Therefore, your two options are the same option, and neither is 'better' than the other.

BTW, this didn't answer the question.
The question isn't about whether someone knows it's the right thing to do or not.

I'm asking, if there is a moral difference between doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do, or doing the right thing because you know that you'll be punished if you don't do the right thing.

[glockmail]

BTW, this didn't answer the question.
The question isn't about whether someone knows it's the right thing to do or not.

I'm asking, if there is a moral difference between doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do, or doing the right thing because you know that you'll be punished if you don't do the right thing. Its obvious that he answered you early on and you refuse to acknowledge same.

[Lightning Waltz]

Its obvious that he answered you early on and you refuse to acknowledge same.

Nope, not at all.

[Gunny]

BTW, this didn't answer the question.
The question isn't about whether someone knows it's the right thing to do or not.

I'm asking, if there is a moral difference between doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do, or doing the right thing because you know that you'll be punished if you don't do the right thing.

Doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do would carry more moral conviction than doing the right thing only out of fear of punishment.

It however, as Jeff has already pointed out, is not as simplistic an issue as choosing between the two.

Doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do ALSO carries with it punishment for not doing the right thing. In essence, you cannot do the former without the latter being a factor.

[Lightning Waltz]

Doing the right thing because you know it's the right thing to do ALSO carries with it punishment for not doing the right thing. In essence, you cannot do the former without the latter being a factor.

Er...what? I didn't get that at all.

[glockmail]

Nope, not at all. Bullshit #2 for you this morning.

[glockmail]

Er...what? I didn't get that at all. Gunny, you'll have to re-write what you posted for a 7th grade reading comprehension. Then maybe he'll understand, but probably not.

[Lightning Waltz]

Bullshit #2 for you this morning.

Bullshit bullshit #2 for you this morning.

[Lightning Waltz]

Gunny, you'll have to re-write what you posted for a 7th grade reading comprehension. Then maybe he'll understand, but probably not.

Nice, but adds nothing to the conversation...much like the last few posts that you've made that I've responded to.

[eighballsidepocket]

"Doing something because you know it's right", is potentially a dangerous piece of ground to place your ethics upon.

First of all, your reason for knowing your right must be analyzed. Also, what makes it "right" compared to another person's, "I am right."?

To believe you're right over another, is in essence to believe you have a "handle" on an "absolute" while another who differs does not. Again this is shakey ground to base important life changing/affecting decisions upon.

It also sets a precedent that you have possibly superior intellect, empathy, insight, into the very premise of humanity's reason for being or existence. Where does all the latter self believed human authority come from to take this big step or leap?

Take into account that if you discount or can't provide a higher authority than yourself for your knowing "it's right", how are others to respect or even question your reasoning for being right? It all comes back to "you". You have deemed what right is, and you must stand the test to prove it. Adolf Hitler was the last, "say" in what was right in the German society. His "say" covered religion, government, personal, public,,,,,,,,,all aspects of Germanic society. What was Adolf's authority? Apparently a little bit of biblical knowledge, some mysticism, and other skewed or sampled beliefs out of context, and that was his basis for his authority, and the "truth" for all of his people.

To even say, it's not right to hurt another, and say, "I don't need a reference, it's just basic knowledge, and common sense.", won't "wash", as there are so many variables in society that could be used to counter it, such as "self defense" causing the death of a rapist, or armed attacker?

As 5string so carefully worded, and explained, your two questions have to both be based on some reference or proven higher authority, that you or society collectively embraces, unless you live in your own universe, and are your own leader/god/ creator of it.

Nazism, had a god........It was Adolf Hitler. He was the their reference point for the entire sphere of morality, as a collective society. Those that referenced, God, or biblical values individually or collectively were summarily removed, exterminated, made ineffectual, by that society that referenced Adolf Hitler as the final "say" in all of human morality's aspects.

So, with that, Lightning Waltz, why do you know that you are right, as you already set up a sort of "strawman" scenario by your two questions? Obviously the second question or statement was in some ways to "bait" those of religious persuasion into the frey, as this is a religious section of the forum's various categories.

You already indicated by your response or posts, that your first sentence, or # 1 was your preference, and 5String said that both ideas or sentences boil down to the same origin of decision in essence.

Unless one is an absolute, bonafide authority on morals, and ethics of humanity, then one must by common sense need a higher "anchor" or "reference" that they give credit too for their reasoning. How do you "know" that what you believe is right?

So the person that "knows" it's right must be questioned, as to "Why?" they know they're right, as well as the one that bases their "right or wrong" in deference to humanity on the worship of marbles, statues, animal life, earth science, etc.. Even common sense has to be referenced, Lightning Waltz. Common sense can be challenged too. It must have a basis of it's validity too.

Philosophy is a perfect example of man's never ending search into the depths of "whatever" to find meaning and reason. Men and women delve into TM, Yoga, and all kinds of inner mental searches to find peace, truth, Karma.....whatever one likes to call it. I think that if we are really honest with ourselves, we'll need to transparently admit that all this inner search of ourselves is just a pretty/perfumey form of sorting piles of garbage. Without external, moral, reference points that hold up under scrutiny, we are a most pitiful species or race, that is so self-deluded.

Why do we not murder? Because we don't like others to die or have their rights' violated? Where does the premise that we have rights come from? Where does the premise that we are all equal, or that we are all bad, or that some are good or some are bad come from? How about who determines what is quality of life?

Is murder right or wrong? Is stealing? Seems like some redundant and stupid questions, but society has collectively decided that these acts are wrong. Why? Well, maybe society doesn't want live anarchic. Why?

Ask a hard core Libertarian? They don't want to pay taxes, or be considered the "collective" society. Do they believe murder is right?........I doubt that Libertarians would debate that point, or disagree.
*******
Humanistically, we debate and debate what's right, moral, ethical, patriotic, empathetic, constructive, etc..

We will go on debating this issue, if we all have different reference points for what we define as, "moral/ethical".

Even Christianity gets a royal bashing in regards to the Crusades, yet the happenings or decisions of those that said or did the killing, torture or whatever in Christ's name in Northen Africa, were absolutely skewed in their interpretations of Christ's nature, and teachings revealed about God's very nature and authority towards His creation. The actual Cannon (bible) was not in the hands of the common man before Guttenberg, but was in the hands of a handful that interpretted morality in selfish, humanistic ways, as they saw their alleged Christianity as a global, geo-political, movement, rather than a Spiritual moral, ethical, expression of their Creator.
*****
Lightning Waltz: You've raised an interesting question, but I think there are a lot of "Whats?" and "If's?" in your two sentences that don't really develop a debate that has much substance.

There must be a higher authority for mankind whether you want it to be a person, or what you perceive as the Creator. From there, you must put to work a good, hard study of that Higher Authority to see how credible it, he, or she, is. Some folks worship Mother Earth, some worship intellect, some worship themselves, some science, some worship their species, or other species as their reference point of right conduct.

Personally, I have settled on what I believe to be a credible, yet higher power. This authority is the One revealed both in the Jewish faith and the Christian faith. He is called Yahweh, God, Emmanuel, Lord, Christ, I AM, Father, Ancient of Days, Even Abba....

When I say, I know what is right.........My authoratative reference is not myself, but the One, I just mentioned.

I'm not dumping on atheists, or you Lightning Waltz, but just am trying to talk some common sense too. Where does the authority for right and wrong reside. In us humans, or is their a higher authority that we reference? If it is just in ourselves and we call it, "What's sensible or moral.", we still need to defend what is sensible in light of our species.

Lemmings yearly or often proceed on a suicidal trek to cliffs and collectively jump into the ocean and drown enmass. Is that moral? To the Lemming, it must be, as this is a collective, societal thing that has gone on for millions of years no doubt. Scientists claim that they are just filled with migratory drive to go to that land that no longer exists beyond the ocean eroded cliffs, yet their drive to get their blinds them to the realities of their deathly fate. The Lemmings have obviously lived by a compass of life that leads to death of their majority, but a remnant doesn't commit the final jump, and the Lemming species still lives on from year to year as a result.

There are so many mysteries about life, yet the bible, has revealed many answers to these mysteries. It has adequately dissected man's innermost motives as a species ( to my satisfaction), and has concluded that this species needs direction in order to survive.

The bible also says that man's Creator, has placed within every human being a sense of right and wrong, so that man is without excuse for his/her's actions of inhumanity (Romans Chapter one). In fact the bible says that man doesn't have to be a Christian to know when he/she has sinned, as the human species was endowed with a unique, "thingy" called a conscience. This conscience was designed to lead mankind towards an abiding relationship with his/her's Creator, but also could be seared into a condition of limited functionality by taking an anti-God or pro-sin path, by the "free will" endowed or allowed in the human species to chose their own path of life/ethics/morality.

So I see an inherent higher authority working in the souls (mind, body, emotions) of every human being yet there is a God given freedom to oppose and not be forced to comply or believe in that authority as the finality of all ethical, moral, decisions.

So, Lightning Waltz, where does your "know what's right" come from? :)

[Lightning Waltz]

So, Lightning Waltz, where does your "know what's right" come from? :)

Short answer: Irrelevant to the question at hand. The question is about one's motivation for doing the right thing and how that affects the morality of the thing done.

I'll try to get to the rest, later. Just making a quick reply, now.

[glockmail]

The one that does the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?
The person that does the right thing because they fear consequences in a future time?


#1 is better. But the question not asked is "how did he know right from wrong"? The answer is: Christianity.:poke:

[eighballsidepocket]

#1 is better. But the question not asked is "how did he know right from wrong"? The answer is: Christianity.:poke:

I basically asked the same question......the "How, of knowing right from wrong?", but was summarily dismissed as posting "irrelevance" to the posted topic. Seems that someone let it pass right over one's head or didn't want to tackle what I thought went right along with the topic.

If question #1 says, "I know I'm right" and poster who initiated, "said" topic embraces that first concept over question #2, then I think it is pertinent to ask topic initiator how they come about or arrive at being right?

Seems that being right has a lot to do with where are reasoning to be, "right" came from. From ourselves, another authority, ............where, what, how?

Sadly, I think the irrelevamce of my post was the relying on an outside authority or an authority other than myself.

In this touchy, feely society, we have enshrined emotions over objectivity as the final, "say" in truth. Sadly, emotions are a very poor gauge of truth. They do however add a great benefit to truth when they are in agreement with objective truth. When one reads a profound logical, and moving statement, and it brings strong emotions of joy, or peace, that's the correct work and design of emotions. They are our companion when there is grief, as they often help us through periods of digesting hard news, frustrations of goals, loss of loved ones, personal tragedy, or set-backs. Yet emotions when prioritized over the truth can often stop us from forging ahead, or overcoming areas of personality weaknesses. Emotions are a blessing, but they must be put in prospective and must not override reality.

Emotions enhance one's life as they add to our humanity an element that is sorely missing form most other species, yet emotions or feelings can counter or work against us if we place them on a pedestal.
****
So with that, I believe that many of us make what we think are objective, logical decisions of life based on our "feelings" rather than forging through to the reality of a situation and then often having to counter our feelings to stay on a path of stability.
******
To just know your right.......is often the parameters of those that just plain emotionally feel right about any certain thing, and have been so ingrained into that thought process or pattern of using their "choosers" or "wills" based on the emotional sensory, that they see no other alternative to making personal life choices, or finding proper direction on objective realities.
*******
This is not unlike the "I support the troops" angle that says, that supporting them is bringing them home unscathed, and it ends at that. The possibility of supporting the troops, by being behind and encouraging them in their military goals or objectives, does not compute, because it is an emotionally disturbing choice, as it entails the possibility of a troop or troops losing their lives by this mode of support.

Therefore the conclusion is that support = avoiding all threat to life and limb for the troops, as the emotional, feelings side of the brain takes precedent over the objective reality that these troops are in harms way as part of their profession, volitional choice, and committment to protect their country. Armys of nations aren't white collar desk jobs with inter-social conflicts that are not life threatening. These folks may at times join for educational benefits, but bottom line they are the safety and security net of our nation from without, and are in harms way as professionals.

We may not like the fact that these Americans are in harms way, based on our emotions and empathy to them as human beings, and that is commendable, as we should all not forget this fact. They are husbands, wives, Dads, Moms, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, in all objective reality. Never the less, life is not without it's dangers, that evolve out of major life committments above and beyond the norm for many of our populous.

Prospective, based on reality and not overshadowed with emotions, is how these professional must do their job. Yet they are emotional beings and live by a humane military code too.

So, yes, I want them home........That's support. Yes, I want them to succeed on the battle field..........That's support too.
*****
Being right is not overlooking or living on empathy and putting reality in a little shoe box. Every decision we make in the present, sets something in motion in the future. If we live in the "now", and let our emotions rule, we'll never be able to make sacrifices that benefit the future.

Being humane when it's the right time is also an objective possibility under certain conditions.

[glockmail]

I basically asked the same question.......... I know. I am guessing that I will get the same non-sensical response from our rezident atheists.

[manu1959]

The one that does the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?
The person that does the right thing because they fear consequences in a future time?


they are one in the same....

[Lightning Waltz]

Okay, eighballsidepocket, I've read over most of your rambling posts.

And, even though you never answered my questions, I'll attempt to answer the gist of your posts.

You seem to indicate that to have any moral authority, you must have an external higher morality that you must draw upon.

First, let me point out that is a reason for why one would be motivated to believe in a "God", not a reason for there actually being a "God".

Second, it doesn't seem to matter what "God" or set of gods you would base this moral authority on. It could be the Christian "God", Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster...any will do equally well.

Third, people have, can and will base any morality they choose on whatever "God" or set of gods that they choose. It's not the case that we actually have a moral authority to draw upon, we just have the claim of one. And people have used that claim to justify all kinds of things...from slavery, to wars, to female castration, to human sacrifice....whatever. Even Christians regularly disagree today on such basic moral issues as the enviornment, gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, etc.

So, what does this claim of a higher "moral authority" actually give you? Well, it gives you a convenient, but completely arbitrary answer to the problem of "what gives you the right to take your moral stance?".

I don't think it solves much.

From one person of a religion to another person of that same religion, each can claim the higher morality of their "God". Who is right?

From one person of a religion to another person of a different religion, each can claim the higher morality of their "God". Who is right?

Now, want to take a crack at the original question?

[eighballsidepocket]

Okay, eighballsidepocket, I've read over most of your rambling posts.

And, even though you never answered my questions, I'll attempt to answer the gist of your posts.

You seem to indicate that to have any moral authority, you must have an external higher morality that you must draw upon.

First, let me point out that is a reason for why one would be motivated to believe in a "God", not a reason for there actually being a "God".

Second, it doesn't seem to matter what "God" or set of gods you would base this moral authority on. It could be the Christian "God", Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster...any will do equally well.

Third, people have, can and will base any morality they choose on whatever "God" or set of gods that they choose. It's not the case that we actually have a moral authority to draw upon, we just have the claim of one. And people have used that claim to justify all kinds of things...from slavery, to wars, to female castration, to human sacrifice....whatever. Even Christians regularly disagree today on such basic moral issues as the enviornment, gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, etc.

So, what does this claim of a higher "moral authority" actually give you? Well, it gives you a convenient, but completely arbitrary answer to the problem of "what gives you the right to take your moral stance?".

I don't think it solves much.

From one person of a religion to another person of that same religion, each can claim the higher morality of their "God". Who is right?

From one person of a religion to another person of a different religion, each can claim the higher morality of their "God". Who is right?

Now, want to take a crack at the original question?

I'll try real hard to not notice the subtle "put down" in your response, my fellow forum member.

You might notice that I did not use that methodology in response to your topic.

I simply asked by "what",does one such as yourself or anyone say they are "right" and "know" with such certainty that they are right, without some authoratative reference? How is that out of context or not relevant?

If you embrace sentence # 1, and exclude Jesus, Buddah, Confucious, Reverend Moon, Jung, Freud, etc.., what is the basis of your being right, and others that do reference one or more of these notable figures as their authority not have the truth?

I'm trying to be as simplistic as possible with my question.

I understand your philosophical view of life is from an atheistic stand-point. I respect you, but don't agree with your stand, but that's not my point either.

As one who takes/embraces an atheistic view, does right and wrong rest in your own, so-speak, home-grown position and not any alleged god, prophet, notable human being, but only yourself as final authority or validation?

Sentence # 2 raised the question of the motivation of being right or believe one to be right, via guilt-motivation from a punishing or higher authority....i.e. god/gods.......or system of belief......etc.? Seemed to be a covert way of saying, that those that believe in a higher authority, make their decisions based on fear of reprisal, or punishment. I personally have met very few Christians, that live in a state of fear of making a mistake concerning decision making on ethics/morals, on a day to day basis, unless they have some mental/emotional handicap that isn't religion based but is organic or learned from living in a dysfunctional family environment. That bane can be plight of religious or non-religious alike in that case.

The first sentence, just seemed to say........"One believes to be right about things",........and no other explanation?

Please respectfully correct me without talking down to me or critiquing the length or structure of my posts please in respect to my laying out a thought. :)

I find that critiquing ones style or structure of thought in presenting in written form, detracts from the issue or heart of the discussion. :)

[Lightning Waltz]

If you embrace sentence # 1, and exclude Jesus, Buddah, Confucious, Reverend Moon, Jung, Freud, etc.., what is the basis of your being right, and others that do reference one or more of these notable figures as their authority not have the truth?

Again, irrelevent. For the purposes of the question that I asked, you can assume that through whatever means, both "know".

It may be possible that both are believers in some sort of higher morality, both are atheists, or some mix. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the quesiton.

It's possible that person 1 believes in whatever "God" or set of gods, and in that religion, people's actions don't matter on this earth, what matters is that one believes in that higher power to go to "heaven".

It's possible that person 2 is an atheist, but is afraid of concequences due to society (long arm of the law).


As one who takes/embraces an atheistic view, does right and wrong rest in your own, so-speak, home-grown position and not any alleged god, prophet, notable human being, but only yourself as final authority or validation?

Again, irrelevent. But to answer you, there is no higher morality. Again, see above. CLAIMING a higher morality is convenient, but seems completely arbitrary... People seem to justify their morals on religion, rather than defining their morality on "God's ulitmate moral authority".

Let me ask of you...do you have any morals that your "god" disagrees with? Or, does it so happen that everything you believe morally, coincidentally, your "God" believes as well?


I personally have met very few Christians, that live in a state of fear of making a mistake concerning decision making on ethics/morals, on a day to day basis, unless they have some mental/emotional handicap that isn't religion based but is organic or learned from living in a dysfunctional family environment. That bane can be plight of religious or non-religious alike in that case.

People, historically and in a contemporary sense, disagree morally yet claim that their morals come from "God". Believers claim to know what is right to do, but often don't do it. They resort to excuses like, "not perfect, just forgiven". Do you suppose that your "God" is just a bad teacher of morality?


The first sentence, just seemed to say........"One believes to be right about things",........and no other explanation?

It's a hypothetical. There are assumeds in hypotheticals. Get over it.

[5stringJeff]

To attempt to answer your question directly:

Assuming that both people in your OP are of the same belief system, are acting in the same manner, but from different motivations, I find it hard to say whether one's motivations are 'better' than the other, without knowing more about the belief system. For example, in Christianity, there are some people who initially convert because of a fear in hell. However, as they come to understand the Gospel, they realize that God not only wants to save them from hell, but also to change their lives to be more holy, and so the Christian begins to act in the same way, but with a different motivation. In this sense, acting because you know it's the right thing to do is 'better' in the sense that the person has matured in their faith.

[Lightning Waltz]

In this sense, acting because you know it's the right thing to do is 'better' in the sense that the person has matured in their faith.

When, in your opinion, would it be better for a person to do the right thing because they fear the consequences of an external force to doing the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?

[Lightning Waltz]

Oh, and thanks for at least trying to answer the question directly. Truly, it's refreshing. I'll give props to manu1959 (even though no explanation was given) and glockmail, as well.

EDIT: Forgot to add Gunny answered as well.

[Gunny]

Er...what? I didn't get that at all.

You attempted to post two separate reasons for doing the right thing, when in fact, not doing the right thing when you know it is right carries with it the consequences for not doing the right thing.

[glockmail]

Oh, and thanks for at least trying to answer the question directly. Truly, it's refreshing. I'll give props to manu1959 (even though no explanation was given) and glockmail, as well.

EDIT: Forgot to add Gunny answered as well.

This doesn't mean that we'll be taking long hot showers together.

[Lightning Waltz]

This doesn't mean that we'll be taking long hot showers together.

I give credit where credit is due. Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit. ;)

[Lightning Waltz]

You attempted to post two separate reasons for doing the right thing, when in fact, not doing the right thing when you know it is right carries with it the consequences for not doing the right thing.

Assuming that there are consequences for motivations on actions, but, I see what you're saying, anyway.

Thanks.

[glockmail]

I give credit where credit is due. Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit. ;)

Glockmail = 1
LW = 0

We can see who is the better person between you and I then, can't we?

:laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

Glockmail = 1
LW = 0

We can see who is the better person between you and I then, can't we?

:laugh2:

Heh...my post was a joke. You would note the ;) I added...

But, even so, you are no judge so your "scorekeeping" is absolutely worthless.

[glockmail]

Heh...my post was a joke. You would note the ;) I added...

But, even so, you are no judge so your "scorekeeping" is absolutely worthless.

So If I call you an ass while winking that makes it OK? I think not.

I found that the scorekeeping works to limit the number of insults, preventing thread closer. It has even worked on a "queer thread".

[Lightning Waltz]

So If I call you an ass while winking that makes it OK? I think not.

I'm sure you'll be up all night crying over the fact that I called you a twit...especially when I explained that I was joking.

This medium isn't perfect. There is going to be miscommunication. Deal with it.

Again, as for your score keeping, I really couldn't care less.

[eighballsidepocket]

I give credit where credit is due (Thank you, thank you oh Sage an wise one. ;). Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit;) Awe spoiled it all. ;)

Glockmail: Consider the reply a plus.

At least you weren't branded as "irrelevant" to the discussion by the all-knowing one. I don't think I'll earn my gold sticky star on the forehead very soon from this person ;)

[Lightning Waltz]

Glockmail: Consider that reply a plus.

At least you weren't branded as "irrelevant" to the discussion. ;)

I answered you in detail. You still have not answered my original question.

[eighballsidepocket]

I answered you in detail. You still have not answered my original question.

Oh, I did, it just shot right over your head, and your keen open mind.
****
You might consider the possiblity that you didn't accept my explanation that also came with some probing questions too.
****
Of course since your the one giving out the "yeahs" and "nays" as to what is acceptable or inline with what your trying to get out of your initial post, there might be a teeny weeny little bit of contention in your "irrelevant" comments. Actually, my question/inquirey, and answer, wasn't any different than Jeffs or others, but long-winded I'll admit. :)
****
I've just noticed that often these questions or scenarios are, "strawmen" questions as others have mentioned too.

They aren't always innocent little probes to find out other's takes, as much as they are subtle little covert ways of moving or projecting one's agenda of philosophical, religious or non-religious leanings/ beliefs into a "question" format that appears to be innocent at first glance.

I believe in good old transparency. Lay it out there. If you think bible folks are brainless slugs, stuck in narrow-mindedness, be brave and say it. Don't flower-up your reasons for rejecting a person's reply by "irrelevant" etc.. To most its a very thinly veiled smoke screen.
****
I answered your question according to my view, and or intelligence, and wisdom, and also included a probing question as to what makes "one" right. Where does the referencing authority come from to say, "I know I'm right.". This is not unlike what 5string mentioned when he said that the first sentence was rather incomplete......as it ended in just being "right". Right, because? Why?
*****
I think that my probing hit a sore spot, as I think many of us are right, and it isn't because we've evaluated our motives, the information that we've based our "right" on, etc.. We've got a "I'm right.", based on other influences to us, that aren't very strong or substantially foundational. In essence, our being right is based on our own criteria, and not on a reliance on other possible credible, respected sources. It's rather narcissistic in nature.

I suffer or fall into the category myself at times. I have pre-determined beliefs that I adhere to that I'm hesitant to allow myself or anyone to challenge. That's not good for me, and I must face these obstacles to my maturation as an adult with inner courage, and not withdraw from confronting these.

To "blow off" ones opinions as I suspect they challenged something in your systematic mode of believing or non-believing your "right" just because you "are", is not conducive to your's or anyones growth or seeking in the important areas of personal wisdom and truth.
****
Lightnign Waltz: Transparency is the "key". Facing those big old windmills with Sancho Panza at your side is paramount for all of us.

[glockmail]

I'm sure you'll be up all night crying over the fact that I called you a twit...especially when I explained that I was joking.

This medium isn't perfect. There is going to be miscommunication. Deal with it.

Again, as for your score keeping, I really couldn't care less.

Crying? No. Scorekeeping? Yes.

The fact that you continue to whine about the score tells me that perhaps you are the one wetting your pillow at night.

[Lightning Waltz]

Man does that eighballsidepocket ramble...and still no answer.