Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Page 3 of 12 [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Nov 2013, 2:09 pm

Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Nov 2013, 2:31 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
mds_02 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is indecent to be disrespectful toward ANY religion, even if you call it "satire".


Why? Why is religion more deserving of respect than other topics?


It is one thing to criticize issues with rational pretensions, such as politics; it is another to criticize somebody's sacred beliefs based on faith. So, let me throw the question right back at you: Why do you wish to stir up hatred and discord? Doesn't the word "jerk" describe such people?


I thought you were against political correctness. :lol:


I am against PC. Are you arguing that PC is as valid a religion as Christianity or Judaism? Or could it be the case that PC is liberalism masquerading in sacred drag?


PC isn't a religion - rather it's just a form of public politeness. To be sure, it has been taken to extremes when the truth is swept under the rug for the sake of uber politeness, but the general intention behind it is good.


Bill though it is not scriptural, Christians have long accepted the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In secular terms what we are referring to is sincerity. It should be noted that Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all sincere in their beliefs. It hardly means their beliefs were good. While PC is hardly at the level of Stalinism, its intentions and its results are two different things.

Again, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with cultural Marxist Antonio Gramsci's Theory of Cultural Hegemony. Its major premise is that the elites will always structure a society's beliefs in a manner advantageous to them, and disadvantageous to everybody else. PC is a secular religion that is structured to benefit the elites, and nobody else. What is ironic is that those who created PC did so with the aid of Gramsci's theory; they created what they swore to oppose, namely another elitist system.


So being religious is not being religous. And not being religious IS being religious. And respecting all religions is being religously intolerent, while favoring one religous is not favoring one religion. And black is white, and red is green, and one plus one equals seventeen, and......


If you say so.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Nov 2013, 2:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


As for your first statement, I agree. In fact, I would agree with Kant's position: The only good is a good will. What this means is that in order for an action to be good, the intentions behind it must be good. If the case were otherwise, Israel should declare Hitler its founding father, since more than any other human being, he is responsible for its existence. But Hitler hardly acted toward the Jews with good intent.

But it is hardly the case that good intentions always have good consequences. And the left is the best example I know of. I do believe that most leftists believe they are doing the right thing--in other words, they are sincere. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by cleansing Europe of Jews and by turning Russia into "lebensraum" for the German people. And the Bolsheviks thought they were doing the right thing by killing off everybody who wasn't working class. It's the same with liberals. They thought they were doing the right thing by blacks when they created the welfare state even though its effect was to destroy the black nuclear family.

Bottom line: Good intentions, or sincerity, are prerequisite for good consequences, but they hardly guarantee good consequences.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Nov 2013, 6:56 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


As for your first statement, I agree. In fact, I would agree with Kant's position: The only good is a good will. What this means is that in order for an action to be good, the intentions behind it must be good. If the case were otherwise, Israel should declare Hitler its founding father, since more than any other human being, he is responsible for its existence. But Hitler hardly acted toward the Jews with good intent.

But it is hardly the case that good intentions always have good consequences. And the left is the best example I know of. I do believe that most leftists believe they are doing the right thing--in other words, they are sincere. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by cleansing Europe of Jews and by turning Russia into "lebensraum" for the German people. And the Bolsheviks thought they were doing the right thing by killing off everybody who wasn't working class. It's the same with liberals. They thought they were doing the right thing by blacks when they created the welfare state even though its effect was to destroy the black nuclear family.

Bottom line: Good intentions, or sincerity, are prerequisite for good consequences, but they hardly guarantee good consequences.


As much as I could argue the benefits of the social safety net in regard to black Americans, it ought to be remembered the issue at hand here is comic books. That is a subject dear to my heart, as I grew up reading Marvel and Warren Comics.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Nov 2013, 7:35 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


As for your first statement, I agree. In fact, I would agree with Kant's position: The only good is a good will. What this means is that in order for an action to be good, the intentions behind it must be good. If the case were otherwise, Israel should declare Hitler its founding father, since more than any other human being, he is responsible for its existence. But Hitler hardly acted toward the Jews with good intent.

But it is hardly the case that good intentions always have good consequences. And the left is the best example I know of. I do believe that most leftists believe they are doing the right thing--in other words, they are sincere. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by cleansing Europe of Jews and by turning Russia into "lebensraum" for the German people. And the Bolsheviks thought they were doing the right thing by killing off everybody who wasn't working class. It's the same with liberals. They thought they were doing the right thing by blacks when they created the welfare state even though its effect was to destroy the black nuclear family.

Bottom line: Good intentions, or sincerity, are prerequisite for good consequences, but they hardly guarantee good consequences.


As much as I could argue the benefits of the social safety net in regard to black Americans, it ought to be remembered the issue at hand here is comic books. That is a subject dear to my heart, as I grew up reading Marvel and Warren Comics.


Bill, it is a fact that prior to the cultural revolution, almost all black children were reared in two-parent homes, and were inculcated with good moral values that helped keep them out of trouble. Now, very few black children will live in a home with a father, and I would say they are being cheated, not to mention the costs to imprison them because they grow up without proper values and guidance.

I would add though that the problem is not limited to blacks. Children born into the white underclass experience similar problems, and for the same reasons. What the welfare state has created is an entire class of people who haven't held jobs in generations, and for whom working for a living is an abstraction.

Supporting children is a father's job, not the government's.

As far as comic books go, I could never see the point, even as a child. I found them terribly boring.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Nov 2013, 8:15 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


As for your first statement, I agree. In fact, I would agree with Kant's position: The only good is a good will. What this means is that in order for an action to be good, the intentions behind it must be good. If the case were otherwise, Israel should declare Hitler its founding father, since more than any other human being, he is responsible for its existence. But Hitler hardly acted toward the Jews with good intent.

But it is hardly the case that good intentions always have good consequences. And the left is the best example I know of. I do believe that most leftists believe they are doing the right thing--in other words, they are sincere. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by cleansing Europe of Jews and by turning Russia into "lebensraum" for the German people. And the Bolsheviks thought they were doing the right thing by killing off everybody who wasn't working class. It's the same with liberals. They thought they were doing the right thing by blacks when they created the welfare state even though its effect was to destroy the black nuclear family.

Bottom line: Good intentions, or sincerity, are prerequisite for good consequences, but they hardly guarantee good consequences.


As much as I could argue the benefits of the social safety net in regard to black Americans, it ought to be remembered the issue at hand here is comic books. That is a subject dear to my heart, as I grew up reading Marvel and Warren Comics.


Bill, it is a fact that prior to the cultural revolution, almost all black children were reared in two-parent homes, and were inculcated with good moral values that helped keep them out of trouble. Now, very few black children will live in a home with a father, and I would say they are being cheated, not to mention the costs to imprison them because they grow up without proper values and guidance.

I would add though that the problem is not limited to blacks. Children born into the white underclass experience similar problems, and for the same reasons. What the welfare state has created is an entire class of people who haven't held jobs in generations, and for whom working for a living is an abstraction.

Supporting children is a father's job, not the government's.

As far as comic books go, I could never see the point, even as a child. I found them terribly boring.


I agree kids do best with two parents. I take my responsibility as a father very seriously. That being said, I still prefer a government that will help those in need. Children being raised by single mothers actually predates welfare programs, while it ought to be pointed out that in no way is every family receiving benefits unmarried, or with absentee husbands and fathers. My wife and I live in what can be described as the genteel poverty of bohemian bums, and yet we absolutely love our little girl and provide a stable, if somewhat unorthodox lifestyle.

As for comic books - speak for yourself, I loved comic books as a kid, and my wife and I both love comic books today. Big nerd culture here in the Pacific Northwest. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

07 Nov 2013, 8:44 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
mds_02 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is indecent to be disrespectful toward ANY religion, even if you call it "satire".


Why? Why is religion more deserving of respect than other topics?


It is one thing to criticize issues with rational pretensions, such as politics; it is another to criticize somebody's sacred beliefs based on faith. So, let me throw the question right back at you: Why do you wish to stir up hatred and discord? Doesn't the word "jerk" describe such people?


I thought you were against political correctness. :lol:


I am against PC. Are you arguing that PC is as valid a religion as Christianity or Judaism? Or could it be the case that PC is liberalism masquerading in sacred drag?


PC isn't a religion - rather it's just a form of public politeness. To be sure, it has been taken to extremes when the truth is swept under the rug for the sake of uber politeness, but the general intention behind it is good.


Bill though it is not scriptural, Christians have long accepted the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In secular terms what we are referring to is sincerity. It should be noted that Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all sincere in their beliefs. It hardly means their beliefs were good. While PC is hardly at the level of Stalinism, its intentions and its results are two different things.

Again, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with cultural Marxist Antonio Gramsci's Theory of Cultural Hegemony. Its major premise is that the elites will always structure a society's beliefs in a manner advantageous to them, and disadvantageous to everybody else. PC is a secular religion that is structured to benefit the elites, and nobody else. What is ironic is that those who created PC did so with the aid of Gramsci's theory; they created what they swore to oppose, namely another elitist system.


So being religious is not being religous. And not being religious IS being religious. And respecting all religions is being religously intolerent, while favoring one religous is not favoring one religion. And black is white, and red is green, and one plus one equals seventeen, and......


If you say so.

I didnt say anything.
Im just reiterating what you're saying.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Nov 2013, 9:41 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


As for your first statement, I agree. In fact, I would agree with Kant's position: The only good is a good will. What this means is that in order for an action to be good, the intentions behind it must be good. If the case were otherwise, Israel should declare Hitler its founding father, since more than any other human being, he is responsible for its existence. But Hitler hardly acted toward the Jews with good intent.

But it is hardly the case that good intentions always have good consequences. And the left is the best example I know of. I do believe that most leftists believe they are doing the right thing--in other words, they are sincere. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by cleansing Europe of Jews and by turning Russia into "lebensraum" for the German people. And the Bolsheviks thought they were doing the right thing by killing off everybody who wasn't working class. It's the same with liberals. They thought they were doing the right thing by blacks when they created the welfare state even though its effect was to destroy the black nuclear family.

Bottom line: Good intentions, or sincerity, are prerequisite for good consequences, but they hardly guarantee good consequences.


As much as I could argue the benefits of the social safety net in regard to black Americans, it ought to be remembered the issue at hand here is comic books. That is a subject dear to my heart, as I grew up reading Marvel and Warren Comics.


Bill, it is a fact that prior to the cultural revolution, almost all black children were reared in two-parent homes, and were inculcated with good moral values that helped keep them out of trouble. Now, very few black children will live in a home with a father, and I would say they are being cheated, not to mention the costs to imprison them because they grow up without proper values and guidance.

I would add though that the problem is not limited to blacks. Children born into the white underclass experience similar problems, and for the same reasons. What the welfare state has created is an entire class of people who haven't held jobs in generations, and for whom working for a living is an abstraction.

Supporting children is a father's job, not the government's.

As far as comic books go, I could never see the point, even as a child. I found them terribly boring.


I agree kids do best with two parents. I take my responsibility as a father very seriously. That being said, I still prefer a government that will help those in need. Children being raised by single mothers actually predates welfare programs, while it ought to be pointed out that in no way is every family receiving benefits unmarried, or with absentee husbands and fathers. My wife and I live in what can be described as the genteel poverty of bohemian bums, and yet we absolutely love our little girl and provide a stable, if somewhat unorthodox lifestyle.

As for comic books - speak for yourself, I loved comic books as a kid, and my wife and I both love comic books today. Big nerd culture here in the Pacific Northwest. :lol:


Bill, I don't want to drift too far off topic. It is my preference to let a conversation take its natural course, provided that conversation is spirited without being acrimonious. But apparently that is considered a taboo here, and something we should respect.

There is no need to be defensive about your child; I do believe you take good care of her.

As far as the "genteel poverty goes, I have lived in regular poverty when I went to school, and I'm glad I don't have to live that way anymore. I'm 51, and now live pretty much the way I want to, though my tastes run toward the Spartan, probably because of the very austere way I lived in the past.

I'm also familiar with the Bohemian lifestyle. I not only used to be a Chomsky-type leftist myself, but I lived in Houston's old homosexual/bohemian district called the Montrose. Even though I emphatically reject the left, it is still the case that most of my real-life friends are liberals; I simply find them more interesting people. Today, I don't exactly live an orthodox lifestyle. When people find out I live way out in the middle of nowhere all alone, they tend to get distressed. Out here, I have about as much freedom as it is still possible to have in the modern world. I think doing one's own thing is simply part and parcel of being an aspie.

As far as comic books are concerned, it's not that I'm too good for them; to each his own. I am simply too literal-minded to enjoy anything but nonfiction.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Nov 2013, 9:42 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
mds_02 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is indecent to be disrespectful toward ANY religion, even if you call it "satire".


Why? Why is religion more deserving of respect than other topics?


It is one thing to criticize issues with rational pretensions, such as politics; it is another to criticize somebody's sacred beliefs based on faith. So, let me throw the question right back at you: Why do you wish to stir up hatred and discord? Doesn't the word "jerk" describe such people?


I thought you were against political correctness. :lol:


I am against PC. Are you arguing that PC is as valid a religion as Christianity or Judaism? Or could it be the case that PC is liberalism masquerading in sacred drag?


PC isn't a religion - rather it's just a form of public politeness. To be sure, it has been taken to extremes when the truth is swept under the rug for the sake of uber politeness, but the general intention behind it is good.


Bill though it is not scriptural, Christians have long accepted the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In secular terms what we are referring to is sincerity. It should be noted that Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all sincere in their beliefs. It hardly means their beliefs were good. While PC is hardly at the level of Stalinism, its intentions and its results are two different things.

Again, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with cultural Marxist Antonio Gramsci's Theory of Cultural Hegemony. Its major premise is that the elites will always structure a society's beliefs in a manner advantageous to them, and disadvantageous to everybody else. PC is a secular religion that is structured to benefit the elites, and nobody else. What is ironic is that those who created PC did so with the aid of Gramsci's theory; they created what they swore to oppose, namely another elitist system.


So being religious is not being religous. And not being religious IS being religious. And respecting all religions is being religously intolerent, while favoring one religous is not favoring one religion. And black is white, and red is green, and one plus one equals seventeen, and......


If you say so.

I didnt say anything.
Im just reiterating what you're saying.


I will speak for myself, thank you. Why don't you speak for yourself?



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

07 Nov 2013, 11:46 pm

As a DC fan, I'd like to point out that DC as had a couple of fairly high profile Muslim characters for a while now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightrunner_%28comics%29

Quote:
Nightrunner is a fictional character created by David Hine and Kyle Higgins for publisher DC Comics. A comic book superhero, Nightrunner first appeared in Detective Comics Annual #12 (February 2011). Nightrunner is a 22 year-old Algerian Sunni Muslim French citizen that lives in Clichy-sous-Bois in the eastern suburbs of Paris, France. He was recruited by Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson for Batman Incorporated as the Batman of Paris, Le Batman Of France.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baz
Quote:
Simon Baz is a fictional comic book superhero appearing in books published by DC Comics, usually in those starring the Green Lantern Corps, an extraterrestrial police force of which Simon is a member. Created by writer Geoff Johns and artist Doug Mahnke, Simon first appeared in 2012 following DC's 2011 company-wide relaunch as part of its Green Lantern story arc "Rise of the Third Army", in which Baz replaces Silver Age hero Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern of Earth's sector.[2] Prior to this, the character made an unnamed cameo in The New 52 Free Comic Book Day Special Edition #1. At the time, Baz debuted to a mixed critical reaction, but over time gained a sizable fanbase. DC later added Baz to its flagship team-up title Justice League of America in 2013.

Simon Baz was created by Green Lantern writer Geoff Johns and artist Doug Mahnke. He is the first Arab-American member of the Green Lantern Corps.[3] Simon's heritage and home town are both influenced by Geoff Johns, who is half-Lebanese, and a native of Detroit, Michigan.[1]


:P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Nov 2013, 12:45 am

Librarian-

If I sounded defensive about my child, that was not my intent. I was only using her to illustrate an example.
By the way, from the information you gave me about yourself, you come across as a much more flesh and blood, interesting person. 8)


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

08 Nov 2013, 5:09 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Never seen an openly atheist superhero either.

Theology of any kind is rarely mentioned in comic books.


Iron Man is either atheist or agnostic. There are also several other superheroes from the Marvel Comic books who are also either atheist or agnostic.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

08 Nov 2013, 8:03 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Christians have long accepted the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In secular terms what we are referring to is sincerity.


Just to clarify that axiom:
The meaning of the phrase is that individuals may have the intention to undertake good actions but nevertheless fail to take action. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux is thought to be the originator when he wrote (back in 1150), "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (which translates to "hell is full of good wishes and desires").

It has nothing to do with the actual actions.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 10:06 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Christians have long accepted the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In secular terms what we are referring to is sincerity.


Just to clarify that axiom:
The meaning of the phrase is that individuals may have the intention to undertake good actions but nevertheless fail to take action. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux is thought to be the originator when he wrote (back in 1150), "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (which translates to "hell is full of good wishes and desires").

It has nothing to do with the actual actions.


Yes, I'm fully aware of this aphorism's origins. But until I see compelling evidence that my thinking is flawed, I stand by my statements.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

08 Nov 2013, 10:11 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Yes, I'm fully aware of this aphorism's origins. But until I see compelling evidence that my thinking is flawed, I stand by my statements.


I made no statement whatsoever about your thinking in my post. I was just explaining the actual meaning of the phrase a little more clearly (it refers to intention with inaction and not to well intended actions and their consequences). Nothing more.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Nov 2013, 10:18 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Librarian-

And plenty of good intentions have just as often led to good thing, too.
And as far as Christianity teaching that proverb of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions" - I have never heard any legitimate theologian dismissing doing good for your fellow human beings as leading to something bad or calamitous. In fact, Christ and his disciples had all stated that good works are the fruits of faith.


I agree completely, though it is a big surprising to hear a Lutheran claim that good works mean something. I forget Luther's exact statement concerning good works, but it was something about them being ashes on a dung heap in the eyes of God. I agree.

I think the key to understanding human nature is to understand that our natures result from the conflict between our selfish desires necessary for self-preservation, and the need for selfless cooperation to form societies. While both factors are necessary for human existence, our selfish, animal-type desires all too frequently win out. The point of Christian morality is to attenuate our selfish desires without fully extirpating them. It is the same with Islam and Buddhism. Islam teaches its adherents to place Allah before themselves; and Buddhism teaches about the extinction of karma, or achieving a state of non-atman.

I have already pointed out that good intent is an absolute prerequisite to good actions. My point is that it is NOT the case that good intentions necessarily lead to good results.

BTW, it is interesting that you feel this way, since consequentialist ethics is central to the left.