![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2005, at 18:44:40
In reply to Re: If god knows everything that is going to happen » Buckeye Fan, posted by rayww on February 12, 2005, at 20:11:03
rayww,
You wrote,[...rather than sacrificing... in order to satisfy the... damands of the minorities..].
Could you identify who these minorities are?
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 14, 2005, at 18:44:40
In reply to Lou's request to rayww for identification-minr » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 12, 2005, at 21:44:34
Who are the minorities I am referring to? No one in particular, but Professional lobbying groups are one. We are victims right now of damage done to an industry by a small lobbying group called R-Calf. R-Calf represents the views of a very small group of ranchers who think all beef consumed in the USA should be born and raised in the U.S. They want no imports whatsoever, and want U.S. consumer prices to increase in order to protect the American beef industry.
Another unjust minority group prevents natural cures of mental disorders from being marketed as such. http://www.truehope.com is one company that has been plagued by the big pharm. minority guys and law suits.
A government that was love for God based would be concerned with forming policy which would do the best good for the most people. All governance goes back to policy, and if you are going to do the most good in a love based government, policy should in my opinion reflect what offers the greatest service to the majority of the population. remember, Lou, I'm talking about love based governance.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2005, at 15:17:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request to rayww for identification-minr » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 12, 2005, at 23:24:09
I'm not trying to start an argument. Just trying to understand.
Is it not possible to have this government you are talking about without it being - as you put it - Love of God based? Can't it be just love based?
I am agnostic, but I believe I can love humanity as much as the next guy.
Now - about minorities. I assume that you are talking about any vocal group that wants to force its beliefs onto others, right? Not about the traditional definition of minority?
Posted by rayww on February 16, 2005, at 0:25:04
In reply to Re: Clear something up for me? » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2005, at 15:17:29
Love is love AuntieMel! I assume everyone is born to love, and hope we all discover how. To love is a gift. Where does love come from? Why can we feel it one day and not another? I choose to equate love with God. God is love. God and love go together like scripture and prayer. Actually I added the word "God" after I wrote the other post, so I had the same thought at first as you, that love based government doesn't have to be love of God based.
I will try to explain why I added it. Love based government is mirrored or begins at home. Father is the head, mother is the heart, Children are the reason, and extended family is the support.
Mother honors Father as Father honors God. The children are the subjects and the reason for governance.
If Father strays from God's guidance, then mother doesn't have to follow father's leadership. With no confidence in the management, everyone is free to do their own thing with no accountabilty to anyone.If the majority of the people practiced righteous governance at home, love based government could not be restrained.
Love is universal to all cultures and the only thing with power to break down barriors that divide us. A King Benjamin type leader http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/2
is one who actually loves and serves the people he governs. He's the guy with the barbecue giving out free hamburgers, or the one out picking up garbage on his day off. He hangs out at the homeless shelter passing out $20.00 bills.King Benjamin's example of love based government: “What really lifts him to [the level of the world’s greatest men] is the moral grandeur of his life. He lived solely for the good of his people. He is the first instance in the history of Christendom of a ruler who put aside every personal aim or ambition to devote himself wholly to the welfare of those whom he ruled.”
Bob moved this from faith, but it is still a faith topic. Politics should be a faith topic too. I wish political leaders all governed by faith, as in the early days with our founding fathers. I recently heard of an 1830 dictionary. you would be amazed at how much we have removed the word, "God" from everything, including our basic meanings of life. The name "God" was freely used in writing back then, but today as soon as it is mentioned, someone somewhere tries to shut it out. He lives and loves.
I'm not trying to convince you AuntiMel. Everyone has freedom to believe what they wish. God and love go together. Scriptures and prayer go together, but truth and belief have a difficult time meeting.
More on minorities:
Environmentalists seal land off against all development because they want it to remain natural, so why can't farmers seal land off for agriculture? Agriculturalists are being condemned for destroying natural habitat, but cities are allowed to push it all aside as they press deeper and deeper into the wilderness. Hey, I'm a country kid, I don't know the city talk.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 10:19:51
In reply to Re: Clear something up for me? » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 16, 2005, at 0:25:04
You are still putting this in faith terms.
In fact, if I read what you said correctly there can't even be a decent family structire without faith.
So, back to the questions.
Is there any room in your dream for agnostics? Or for anyone that believes both parents are equal?
And what are you defining as a minority that should be ignored for "the good of the masses?"
Posted by rayww on February 17, 2005, at 21:53:45
In reply to Re: But you haven't answered the questions » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 10:19:51
AuntieMel, love is love. Of course there is room for all. And in my dream of a perfect world there would be no such word as minorities. We live in a designer label world with a label for everything and everything in its place. Well, not quite. I refuse to be labelled. You can throw one my way if you like, but I can choose not to catch it. Tell me, where did this label "agnostic" come from, and why do you consider yourself one?
Posted by rayww on February 17, 2005, at 22:41:51
In reply to Re: But you haven't answered the questions » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2005, at 10:19:51
I forgot to answer the questions. Maybe it's because I have a hard time seeing what is directly in front of my nose, or focusing on the real issues, or seeing the top priority.
One point though:
I certainly believe in the equality of husband and wife. I used the terms, "head and heart" to describe how each carries their own vital and unique role in the relationship.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:32:21
In reply to Re: But you haven't answered the questions » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 17, 2005, at 22:41:51
On many matters I have the better head and on many things he has the better heart. Other matters - the role is the opposite.
And no one has a "final say"
This actually causes less dissention as we are required to discuss the differences and come up with a common solution.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:48:55
In reply to Re: But you haven't answered the questions » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 17, 2005, at 21:53:45
I would suppose I put the label on myself.
Because I don't believe that there is a god. But - being a scientist - I can't say for sure because it isn't testable.
But if there is? I believe that my beliefs or anyone else's won't matter and that there isn't a 'correct' faith system.
Because - god or not - what really matters is how you live your life. Being agnostic or atheistic do not equate with immoral.
And I believe that the one universal immoral act is causing harm to others.
And I believe that if governments were to take as their first rule the lesson from Hippocrates to 'first do no harm' the world would be a better place.
Posted by rayww on February 18, 2005, at 10:24:14
In reply to Re: I prefer two heads and two hearts » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:32:21
Of course. The roles get somewhat entangled in a home based agriculture business where there is not a distinct coming home time. Whomever happens to be home with the kids is both head and heart. Lets hope we use both.
What is your definition of home?
Try home is where the heart is.The key is to be sure home has both head and heart. Some I fear have neither.
I know a mother who recently moved into a seniors lodge. She still owns her old home and her son still lives there. He goes home two or three times every day, as he always has. Where is his home?
Posted by rayww on February 18, 2005, at 10:50:29
In reply to Re: the label » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 9:48:55
Wow! Great theology.
C.S. Lewis was a free thinker too. I would guess he is the most quoted of all philosophers by religionists and politicians alike. I believe each one of us (like C.S. Lewis) has the capability of figuring out the basics of life, as you certainly have. I also believe in measures to measure the procedures that produce the desired outcomes for the model we have in mind.You have no idea how much admiration I have for a person who lives the honest and moral life without truly understanding the measures or without knowing the model. The person who can create their own model complete with measures and procedures has my most sincere respect.
I prefer to believe in God. I use Jesus Christ as my model. The procedures are outlined within the framework of my religion. The measures are what I produce. (by their fruit shall ye know them) My life is measured by what I actually produce, and I can actually see my life on a scale because I have a rubric right in front of my nose (that I can't always see).
This can also be viewd as strategy, tactics, and assessment. I'm no scientist though. I believe in business this is labelled strategic planning.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 16:28:11
In reply to Re: the label » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 18, 2005, at 10:50:29
The theology? I'm a child of the 60s. Flower power and all, you know. We were going to make the world a more peaceful and happier place.
I didn't affect the world, but I can influence my own sphere.
Unfortunately there is a vocal minority that thinks that those who don't follow their particular beliefs are doomed to hell. And a small subset of them that firmly believes it is their duty to save us heathens from our fate.
I just can't bring myself to believe that any god would be that particular.
Which is - ta daaaaa, we've now gone full circle - something that I don't think governments should get involved in.
My opinion is that governments should stay away from personal belief systems. It seems that every time they do it has disasterous results. How many wars have been fought name of religeon? I can't count them.
And I say 'in the name of' because if you actually lood at the wars religeon was only an excuse. The actual wars have been fought for money, property, territory and power.
Putting religeon out there as a reason only helps them to get recruits for their personal greed. And *that* is what I call an abomination.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2005, at 8:46:20
In reply to Re: thank you ray, posted by AuntieMel on February 18, 2005, at 16:28:11
I'm always just so happy to hear your thinking on things.
Way cool.
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 11:45:02
In reply to Auntie Mel, will you marry me? ;-) » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on February 19, 2005, at 8:46:20
I've always said I need a wife.
I'm afraid I can't be domesticated. I like working for a living, am pretty good with home repairs and gardening (but I'll share that one, no problem.) I don't mind cooking, but I hate cleaning. I don't do windows or toilets. {of course we *could* just keep the wonderful lady that has been doing this for me for the last 20 years}
But if the company ever needs to send a software person to fourth world countries - I'm their girl.
...my therapist once asked me if i had gender issues. i told him i'd have made a good lesbian, except for the physical attraction part.....
Posted by gromit on February 21, 2005, at 19:24:45
In reply to Re: sure gg (keep reading) » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on February 21, 2005, at 11:45:02
> ...my therapist once asked me if i had gender issues. i told him i'd have made a good lesbian, except for the physical attraction part.....
Wow, smart and funny.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 21, 2005, at 20:34:10
In reply to Re: sure gg (keep reading), posted by gromit on February 21, 2005, at 19:24:45
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.