<p>
Well, that includes a lot of evangelicals, too. Let’s see…</p>
<p>-Celibate clergy
-Papal supremacy (obviously not a match, since you’re non-denominational)
-Rich can’t go to heaven
-People should be free to move across all borders
-Bread/wine becomes actual body/blood, with the Holy Spirit, not just metaphor
-Confession to a priest is best way to absolve sins
-Saints/prayer to Virgin Mary</p>
<p>^ That’s more of Catholics then Evangelicals.</p>
<p>^ Except for the rich not going to heaven part…look at the Vatican haha. (Don’t mean to offend. I was Catholic for a good 8 years or so.)</p>
<p>My morals are based on the common enemies within all men. Greed, ego jealousy, desire/attachment, anger, selfishness…The pure individual would avoid these characteristics.</p>
<p>The way I see most things are I wouldn’t do it, but I won’t judge you for doing it, it’s not my place. (Abortion, Gay marriage, being gay, sex before marriage, most things of this nature, some illegal drugs, religious affiliation (or lack of), some lifestyle choices)
Things I’m totally against include
Rape and Incest
Murder
Abuse, cruelty, torture
Stealing (unless it’s for food that you NEED as in you will starve without out it)
Breaking people’s things on purpose
Breaking into someone’s home
and other things of this nature</p>
<p>FRIENDLY REMINDER FROM THE MODERATING TEAM:</p>
<p>CC Terms of Service do not allow for any sort of political/religious discussion unless it directly applies to college admissions. Any sort of further continuation of this discussion will result in an infraction of the poster.</p>
<p>it was philosophical!!</p>
<p>Duly noted.</p>
<p>
How far would you take this? Would a homeless person be okay in stealing to afford an apartment to get out of the elements? What if they’re doing it for their kids? How is this affected by the presence of homeless shelters? Is the great difference between the wealthy and the poor a factor? Does it matter if you steal the food from someone rich or someone poor?</p>
<p>
I imagine we can still discuss human rights, in the abstract, as long as we don’t mention abortion, execution, or anything else overtly political.</p>
<p>where I draw the line with stealing is when it hurts the business (if you only steal 20% of what you buy, the business may still profit from you, and thus be glad to have you as a customer).</p>
<p>the only reason why stealing is against the law is so we don’t hurt the businesses. But it turns out you can steal and not hurt them (you just have to monitor your stealing).</p>
<p>What if you steal from individuals? Break into a mansion, take some stuff, sell it, use the money to feed the starving?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is hard for me to explain my beliefs too. What it comes down to for me is that i cannot deny my conscious experience. Everything i perceive and feel leads me to believe suffering is bad; thus i believe it is bad. Also it doesn’t hurt that other people believe this too, which confirms my belief.</p>
<p>But justifying things because your conscious experience supports them is risky. Like imagine I live in a town where all the things that cause my to suffer cause my fellow towns people to yelp with joy. Would I trust in my own conscious experience and go against my towns people and believe the things that were really bad were the ones that made me suffer, and the others happy, and not the other way around? probably, because the alternative is very hard (for me, at least, it is hard to ignore what I feel to be true, what my conscious experience supports).</p>
<p>So this provides some perspective on the issue of belief, maybe. Namely, that people would probably have a hard time doing what’s best for everyone, if it wasn’t best for themselves. If the thing hurt them, if they believed it was bad, but it helped others, I doubt the person could commit themselves to it.</p>
<p>In a sense, we are lucky that the things we would want for ourselves also turn out to be things other people want for themselves.</p>
<p>I think that if there’s one thing most conscious beings can agree on, it’s that the suppression and destruction of consciousness is negative. Maybe that’s a starting point for human rights. Certainly reminiscent of Descartes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is it okay by me?</p>
<p>depends - incidents which affect the house owners minimally (and thats a sum of all the effects of the ways they were affected in - for example, a house owner could be physiologically afflicted with recurrent fear, or they could lose something precious and be sad, etc, so its what the total negative affect, which is important to consider) are okay.</p>
<p>others acts which hurt the occupants, not okay. </p>
<p>are the laws currently the best they can be? (probably close to optimal I would think…).</p>
<p>“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” If everyone lived by this logic the world would be a better place.</p>
<p>edited out because it wasn’t a relevant post :p.</p>
<p>D-
If the person was stealing from someone who clearly had more than enough (a rich person) it would be alright. Stealing food or money from a working person isn’t ideal. If that little you took from them prevented their family from eating or having a place it would be horrible.
Breaking into someone’s home is never ok. It’s their place and no one should ever feel like things are unsafe there.</p>
<p>It’s not right to steal from anyone. Though, the rich person should be willing to give to those who cannot provide enough basic necessities for themselves. Working people, as long as they can sustain themselves, should have no justification for stealing regardless of their economic position.</p>
<p>^My dad was thrown out on the street by his mom (if you could call her that) when he was 11. He had nothing so sometimes he would steal food out of a store to survive until eventually a family took him in.</p>
<p>Even though emotionally, it would seem ridiculous not to support your father’s stealing of food, he should have pleaded store owners to provide him the food.</p>
<p>Is it right for some to be rich and decadent while others are poor and starving? At what point does it become so wrong that the starving are justified in seizing for humanity what all men need, and in doing so destroying the fortunes of the rich? At what point can you say that someone does or does not deserve what they have? Just because a rich man “owns” so much that it keeps others from eating, does it mean that he should own it?</p>