Back in the ole West Days.... Killers, Horse Theives, Cattle Rustlers, Bank Robbers, & Abusers & Bullys...were Shot Dead, Hung in Trees or Gallo's, & or Tar'd & Feather'd...Millions of Dollars were not wasted on prison over crowding or crooked defense lawyers, or paid off judges...
I live in South Carolina just a couple hours from there. A couple of my friends cracked a few jokes before about me carrying in waffle house among other places...Guess I wasn't so paranoid after all! Hats off to the gentleman who had the grit to shoot this waste of oxygen.
this is what needs to happen more often then dum ass peaple will think before robbing a waffle house or anybody for that matter yaay one for the good guys.
Illinois needs to catch upp not just talk crap about people that make mistakes and r lost in the system. People will think twice b4 more lives r lost.
This is a totally great reaction from the sheriff. A lot of time you will see them chastise the CCW holder. And note that they ordered the customers to the floor so they were dircectly threatened. The guy even gave the robber the chance. He could have just fired on him, but no, he actually gave him a chance not to get shot! Awesome!
@SeanACampbell ....The scenario is....a guy has a gun, he's demanding your money (and could potentially kill you after he gets what he wants) Do you really think telling him to put his gun down is going to work? You only negotiate if YOU ARE UNARMED? No two Christians are the same. If you are going to rob one...make sure it's not the one packing or the one who will turn the other cheek.
@bornagain001 Why should they not work the same, surely the all powerful lord and saviour will protect you. I don't think jesus would have run around with a gun, he was pretty big on turning the other cheek etc.
And so what if he kills you, surely you would be going to a far better place. Perhaps you could ward him off with bible passages.
@SeanACampbell ...Jesus WAS GOD. I am not. Jesus WAS PERFECT. I am not. God can save us but He also tells us NOT TO TEST HIM. This means...if your child is sick, don't test God to heal him, take him to a doctor. That means, don't handle rattle snakes because God will protect you. It's TESTING GOD! If you are in a McDonalds when 2 or 3 guys come in to rob the place...you better hope the Christian standing next to you is ARMED and knows how to use it.
@bornagain001 Lol of course they would say don't test the power. That's like saying I have a million dollars in this box BUT DON'T LOOK AT IT OR TRY AND SPEND IT!
@bornagain001 I always find it somewhat hilarious how the religious not only fail to present any evidence which supports their faith, they also insist you shouldn't even try to test it because "god won't like that!".
@SeanACampbell ...but we DO HAVE EVIDENCE. It is presented to each of us, independently of the others. Our own MIRACULOUSLY TRANSFORMED LIFE is evidence that God can take a wretched sinner and make something good out of his filth. Testing God is not a matter of whether HE LIKE IT OR NOT. It's a matter of TRUST. If i tell you not to touch the hot stove because it will burn you and you do it anyway, You DID NOT TRUST me.
@bornagain001 That is clearly an entirely different thing, we trust people when we have good reason to trust people, and we know those people exist in the first place. You cannot say you trust god if you cannot show god exists in the first place. Then there is the next step of credibility - we know people can be burnt because we have seen people get burns. We know stoves are hot because we can test physical properties of stoves.
@bornagain001 And you have yet to even show that your life was "miraculously transformed". You cannot say "well I don't sin any more" because sin is a property of religion. That would be like me saying I have cleaned you of cooties and the only basis on which you have to believe in cooties is that I told you they exist.
@SeanACampbell ...."You cannot say "well I don't sin any more" because sin is a property of religion."
INCORRECT. We are all BORN with a sin nature. Being a Christian doesn't end that sin nature. It is still with us, this is why you see Christians involved in sin. The difference is....before Christ, we all EMBRACED OUR SIN. After Christ comes into our lives, the HOLY SPIRIT brings conviction to us about our sin and we desire to be "LIKE CHRIST".
@bornagain001 You have yet again missed the point. Unless you are religious, "sin" is not an actual concept. What is and is not sin depends on what religious group you happen to subscribe to. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not "sin" exists, and what "sin" actually is, you have to provide evidence which supports it.
Otherwise you are just making claims no one will bother to consider because there is no reason to even accept it exists in the first place. Same goes for "Holy Spirit".
@bornagain001 So if you want to claim that sin exists, then you need to show how you know it exists, and how you know what falls into that category - particularly if you want to enforce regulations on the general public on the grounds a given act is "sinful".
@bornagain001 To someone outside of the religious perspective, the concept of "sin" has no meaning.
For me, some of what the bible prohibits is probably good (Murder, Theft etc.), some of what the bible prohibits is odd, and most of what the bible prohibits I do not accept has been demonstrated as an actual issue (Homosexuality, intercourse outside of marriage) and certain things the bible seems to allow I do not accept is good (pretty much all the pillaging and raping and slavery).
@SeanACampbell Sin means to transgress (overstep/violate) a divine command OR moral law. So, if you look at it as "offense against moral law" you can certainly understand that can be referred to as sin. It is commonly accepted in any society that there is evidence of moral law or certain expectations of behavior amongst people, whether they view the basis of their mores coming from society itself (which i don't believe) or from God. To transgress that law is sin, or if you prefer, wrong.
@sunshinegirl1967 Okay, but lets consider slavery. By all modern moral standards, slavery is considered a crime against humanity, one of the worst crimes that can be committed against a person.
Although I would say that slavery is completely immoral, I would not call it a sin. Perhaps we are just playing with words now, but unless you are religious I would say you are fairly unlikely to call immoral things sins.
@sunshinegirl1967 You only need to look at the how society defines its own ethics and moral code without requiring religious belief. Slavery is a great example of that, nothing in the bible bans slavery - it actually condones it.
But we as a society have determined that slavery is no longer acceptable, and that point is non-negotiable. It is so non-negotiable we don't even give countries the right to allow it - it has been banned under international law as an atrocity.
@sunshinegirl1967 And we would expect through our understanding of biology that any sufficiently advanced social lifeforms would develop these sorts of behavioral traits. It benefits all individuals in a group if they have the ability to develop some sort of moral code which bans inherently harmful acts. It is the product of rational thought, the ability to use past experience to determine what is harmful to the fabric of society and project how changes are likely to affect our future.
@sunshinegirl1967 Without this ability, humanity would have never been able to move forward and develop such massive and complex societies. Our entire civilization is built on the foundations of the knowledge, experience and social structures gained in our past. From biological evolution of the individual we have developed into social evolution, where entire societies live or die dependent on their development of behavioral traits (among other things).
@sunshinegirl1967 But our social structures are far from perfect, and somewhat bizarre in many cases. No two individuals share perfectly the same moral code or set of ideas. That is to be expected, if our behavioral traits are simply a projection of our biological chemical minds.
If our morality was fixed, and imposed upon us from an outside source, we would expect it to be far more uniform. There should be no debate. But we have behavioral variation just as we have genetic variation.
@SeanACampbell Well sure there is a system of morality present within any society and, okay, you could even argue that morals come from society. Let's take it one step further. Upon what did they base their moral code? I maintain that they must already know what right and wrong are, or else they couldn't begin to define morality, let alone form a code, which would probably be something similar to "do unto others as you'd have done to you."
@SeanACampbell I do believe that, basically, all cultures agree on "do unto others as you'd have done to you" as the basis for moral code, whether they believe in a God or not. And if one culture think slavery is ok while another does not? I would say the first culture has turned a blind eye to their own moral code. But i would not say that their own code is different from others just because they chose to be hypocrites unto their own code.
@sunshinegirl1967 Essentially, I think the basis for a "moral code" in general, just like the basis for our legal system (which in itself really sit a sort of "moral code" developed by society) is that we are biologically more successful if we develop behavioral adaptations which result in us not doing things which harm us.
Lets take for example, the fact we cannot murder (generally). It is mutually beneficial for members of society to agree not to kill each other.
@sunshinegirl1967 If in general we ran around killing each other, it would mean that we are less able to survive for a number of reasons:
1) If we are constantly killing each other, we are less likely to distribute our genes.
2) Societies which do kill each other will not develop as well as societies which are more peaceful (and therefore able to work together to achieve common goals). This would lead onto things like science.
3) Individuals who are aggressive would likely be killed more often.
@sunshinegirl1967 Overall, having a moral system essentially means we surrender some of our freedoms in exchange for security - that is the basis of our social contract under which we exist in society. We essentially comply with the rules of society (such as not stealing) so that we ourselves are secure from others (ie. others stealing from us).
There is a significant biological advantage here, and I think genes have been selected for through natural selection which "assist" this ability.
@sunshinegirl1967 But, like I said, this system is not perfect just like everything else in natural selection. Our genetics push us in the right general direction, we have a tendency to avoid violence and the ability to work together. However, there are serious flaws in this, which is why we still have crime and wars.
If we take the example of the piranha. While they rip their prey apart they do not kill each other generally, a biological adaptation. Our moral code probably started similarly.
@sunshinegirl1967 So basically to answer your question, or advanced moral code is likely built upon some basic genetic behavioural adaptations which increase our survival rate combined with the fact our advanced brains provide us with a more proactive ability to determine what is good for us (survival wise) and what is not.
The advanced brain itself likely developed as it is advantageous to survival - it allows us to find ways of solving problems.
@sunshinegirl1967 But the brain, while being very good at problem solving and enhancing our social developments, does have some significant restrictions. For example, when it comes to mathematics the human mind is extremely limited in its ability to do any complex calculations.
We have developed various workarounds to this, essentially compensating for our bad mathematical skills by using our other skills (writing, reading, tools etc.).
@SeanACampbell Ha ha! The calculator is one of my favorite inventions. But getting back to what you were saying, i just find that the "survival of the species" explanation of how a godless moral code came to be does not go far enough, in my opinion. Sure, we all want to get along with others as best we can to ensure our survival for as long as we can, but we all know it is an exercise in futility because we will all die. In our culture, we don't really worry so much about survival...(pt. 1)
@sunshinegirl1967 ....as we do about having a fulfilling life. That seems to be the most pressing issue that i see in the U.S. Everybody just wants to be happy, because safety is not as great an issue as it is in war-torn countries. But the drive to be happy is what tears people apart and makes us forget our moral code; we'll do almost anything to the person who dares stop us in our search for happiness. We are selfish people, to the core (pt. 2)
@sunshinegirl1967 Never mind the moral code, i want what i want when i want it!! So when we sit in our philosophical speculation chairs in air-conditioned or heated comfort, we wax so eloquent about our moral code. But the reality is, most of us cannot and do not keep it. (pt. 3)
@sunshinegirl1967 Absolutely, and I do not think that we are capable of keeping any "absolute" set of rules. That is why I do not believe there are any absolute rules in morality, it acts more of a push in the right direction.
But it seems like we may be thinking along slightly different lines. What exactly is it about biological evolution which you think cannot explain how we act. Remember that evolution does not care what people "think" or "want". All that matters is what allows reproduction.
@SeanACampbell Because evolution's explanation is so limited. We are much more than just procreators of life for the propagation of the species. For one, we are also about what we want out of life - in other words, we seek meaning in our lives, regardless if evolution can explain that or not (it can't). We were talking about morality. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But it was nice talking to you. Nice to have a decent conversation for once that doesn't get nasty.
@sunshinegirl1967 For the purposes of evolution, the length of your lifespan is only relevant so far as it enables better reproduction. Evolution is not about animals living for a long time, it is only about what makes them fit enough to reproduce successfully, and allow their off spring to live long enough to reproduce successfully.
Humans are clearly selfish, but not as selfish as other less social creatures. The limitation of our personal impulses allows us to live in a social group.
@sunshinegirl1967 For the purposes of evolution, the length of your lifespan is only relevant so far as it enables better reproduction. Evolution is not about animals living for a long time, it is only about what makes them fit enough to reproduce successfully, and allow their off spring to live long enough to reproduce successfully.
Humans are clearly selfish, but not as selfish as other less social creatures. The limitation of our personal impulses allows us to live in a social group.
@bornagain001 And even if people stopped committing crimes because they became religious, that would not show that religion is true. That simply shows that people who have religious beliefs can change their actions. On that basis I could "know" islam is true because an ex-alcoholic became a muslim and stopped drinking alcohol. Or someone stopped drinking out of teapots because they joined the teapots are god religion.
@SeanACampbell ..."On that basis I could "know" islam is true because an ex-alcoholic became a muslim and stopped drinking alcohol."
It's more than just stopping drinking. The TRANSFORMED life also drives the former UNRIGHTEOUS man or woman to SHARE THE GOSPEL. To do things that you would say..."those guys are nuts" or "You would never catch me doing that." Would you do what I am doing? I don't do it because I'm a good person. I am driven by the Holy Spirit to share the Gospel with you.
@SeanACampbell Sean i am in total agreement with you here! Anyone's behavior can change according to new beliefs. That only proves someone believes something.
The bottom line is, was, and always will be this: Is what you believe THE Truth?
Another example of a responsible gun owner protecting themself and their community from violent criminals. Why do I call the criminals violent? Because they decided to use a gun in the commission of a crime. Concealed carry works.
Back in the ole West Days.... Killers, Horse Theives, Cattle Rustlers, Bank Robbers, & Abusers & Bullys...were Shot Dead, Hung in Trees or Gallo's, & or Tar'd & Feather'd...Millions of Dollars were not wasted on prison over crowding or crooked defense lawyers, or paid off judges...
Waynedog1 3 days ago
I live in South Carolina just a couple hours from there. A couple of my friends cracked a few jokes before about me carrying in waffle house among other places...Guess I wasn't so paranoid after all! Hats off to the gentleman who had the grit to shoot this waste of oxygen.
Grimesy3Sugars 1 week ago
Williams made the choice to take his chances against another man with a gun. He made the wrong choice.
GunBigotHater 2 weeks ago
this is what needs to happen more often then dum ass peaple will think before robbing a waffle house or anybody for that matter yaay one for the good guys.
fryyourass28 2 weeks ago
The Man who shot this guy is a CITIZEN those who do nothing are CIVILIAN's...who are you in todays Society?
Mr5point56 2 weeks ago
these videos put a smile on my face
PREDATOR03 2 weeks ago
Great aim
me40547 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Illinois needs to catch upp not just talk crap about people that make mistakes and r lost in the system. People will think twice b4 more lives r lost.
jetem14 3 weeks ago
Haha! stupid wannabe gangsta fag
Justinairin 3 weeks ago
hahah chose a waffle house...
Sccuba182 4 weeks ago
Awesome
Glocklockedloaded 4 weeks ago
no one knows how many lives LAC saved. Law Abiding Citizen
me40547 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Happy birthday, rip.
jskaggs2008 1 month ago
Sweet video, love the sheriff! But yes, we are celebrating!
706d 1 month ago
Typical, its a nigger who is doing the crime. Like i expected anything different.
Winsis 1 month ago
This is a totally great reaction from the sheriff. A lot of time you will see them chastise the CCW holder. And note that they ordered the customers to the floor so they were dircectly threatened. The guy even gave the robber the chance. He could have just fired on him, but no, he actually gave him a chance not to get shot! Awesome!
cummerdog69 1 month ago
I would have shot without warning, preamble or danger to myself!!!...
Kharkovkid 1 month ago
@Kharkovkid ....me too. Why give the guy an opportunity to turn on you.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 How christian of you.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell ....The scenario is....a guy has a gun, he's demanding your money (and could potentially kill you after he gets what he wants) Do you really think telling him to put his gun down is going to work? You only negotiate if YOU ARE UNARMED? No two Christians are the same. If you are going to rob one...make sure it's not the one packing or the one who will turn the other cheek.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 Why should they not work the same, surely the all powerful lord and saviour will protect you. I don't think jesus would have run around with a gun, he was pretty big on turning the other cheek etc.
And so what if he kills you, surely you would be going to a far better place. Perhaps you could ward him off with bible passages.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell ...Jesus WAS GOD. I am not. Jesus WAS PERFECT. I am not. God can save us but He also tells us NOT TO TEST HIM. This means...if your child is sick, don't test God to heal him, take him to a doctor. That means, don't handle rattle snakes because God will protect you. It's TESTING GOD! If you are in a McDonalds when 2 or 3 guys come in to rob the place...you better hope the Christian standing next to you is ARMED and knows how to use it.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 Lol of course they would say don't test the power. That's like saying I have a million dollars in this box BUT DON'T LOOK AT IT OR TRY AND SPEND IT!
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@bornagain001 I always find it somewhat hilarious how the religious not only fail to present any evidence which supports their faith, they also insist you shouldn't even try to test it because "god won't like that!".
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell ...but we DO HAVE EVIDENCE. It is presented to each of us, independently of the others. Our own MIRACULOUSLY TRANSFORMED LIFE is evidence that God can take a wretched sinner and make something good out of his filth. Testing God is not a matter of whether HE LIKE IT OR NOT. It's a matter of TRUST. If i tell you not to touch the hot stove because it will burn you and you do it anyway, You DID NOT TRUST me.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 That is clearly an entirely different thing, we trust people when we have good reason to trust people, and we know those people exist in the first place. You cannot say you trust god if you cannot show god exists in the first place. Then there is the next step of credibility - we know people can be burnt because we have seen people get burns. We know stoves are hot because we can test physical properties of stoves.
It is not trust at all, it is evidence.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@bornagain001 And you have yet to even show that your life was "miraculously transformed". You cannot say "well I don't sin any more" because sin is a property of religion. That would be like me saying I have cleaned you of cooties and the only basis on which you have to believe in cooties is that I told you they exist.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell ...."You cannot say "well I don't sin any more" because sin is a property of religion."
INCORRECT. We are all BORN with a sin nature. Being a Christian doesn't end that sin nature. It is still with us, this is why you see Christians involved in sin. The difference is....before Christ, we all EMBRACED OUR SIN. After Christ comes into our lives, the HOLY SPIRIT brings conviction to us about our sin and we desire to be "LIKE CHRIST".
bornagain001 1 month ago
@bornagain001 You have yet again missed the point. Unless you are religious, "sin" is not an actual concept. What is and is not sin depends on what religious group you happen to subscribe to. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not "sin" exists, and what "sin" actually is, you have to provide evidence which supports it.
Otherwise you are just making claims no one will bother to consider because there is no reason to even accept it exists in the first place. Same goes for "Holy Spirit".
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@bornagain001 So if you want to claim that sin exists, then you need to show how you know it exists, and how you know what falls into that category - particularly if you want to enforce regulations on the general public on the grounds a given act is "sinful".
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@bornagain001 To someone outside of the religious perspective, the concept of "sin" has no meaning.
For me, some of what the bible prohibits is probably good (Murder, Theft etc.), some of what the bible prohibits is odd, and most of what the bible prohibits I do not accept has been demonstrated as an actual issue (Homosexuality, intercourse outside of marriage) and certain things the bible seems to allow I do not accept is good (pretty much all the pillaging and raping and slavery).
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Sin means to transgress (overstep/violate) a divine command OR moral law. So, if you look at it as "offense against moral law" you can certainly understand that can be referred to as sin. It is commonly accepted in any society that there is evidence of moral law or certain expectations of behavior amongst people, whether they view the basis of their mores coming from society itself (which i don't believe) or from God. To transgress that law is sin, or if you prefer, wrong.
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Okay, but lets consider slavery. By all modern moral standards, slavery is considered a crime against humanity, one of the worst crimes that can be committed against a person.
Although I would say that slavery is completely immoral, I would not call it a sin. Perhaps we are just playing with words now, but unless you are religious I would say you are fairly unlikely to call immoral things sins.
And I do believe morality comes from society.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 You only need to look at the how society defines its own ethics and moral code without requiring religious belief. Slavery is a great example of that, nothing in the bible bans slavery - it actually condones it.
But we as a society have determined that slavery is no longer acceptable, and that point is non-negotiable. It is so non-negotiable we don't even give countries the right to allow it - it has been banned under international law as an atrocity.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 And we would expect through our understanding of biology that any sufficiently advanced social lifeforms would develop these sorts of behavioral traits. It benefits all individuals in a group if they have the ability to develop some sort of moral code which bans inherently harmful acts. It is the product of rational thought, the ability to use past experience to determine what is harmful to the fabric of society and project how changes are likely to affect our future.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Without this ability, humanity would have never been able to move forward and develop such massive and complex societies. Our entire civilization is built on the foundations of the knowledge, experience and social structures gained in our past. From biological evolution of the individual we have developed into social evolution, where entire societies live or die dependent on their development of behavioral traits (among other things).
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 But our social structures are far from perfect, and somewhat bizarre in many cases. No two individuals share perfectly the same moral code or set of ideas. That is to be expected, if our behavioral traits are simply a projection of our biological chemical minds.
If our morality was fixed, and imposed upon us from an outside source, we would expect it to be far more uniform. There should be no debate. But we have behavioral variation just as we have genetic variation.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Well sure there is a system of morality present within any society and, okay, you could even argue that morals come from society. Let's take it one step further. Upon what did they base their moral code? I maintain that they must already know what right and wrong are, or else they couldn't begin to define morality, let alone form a code, which would probably be something similar to "do unto others as you'd have done to you."
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell I do believe that, basically, all cultures agree on "do unto others as you'd have done to you" as the basis for moral code, whether they believe in a God or not. And if one culture think slavery is ok while another does not? I would say the first culture has turned a blind eye to their own moral code. But i would not say that their own code is different from others just because they chose to be hypocrites unto their own code.
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Essentially, I think the basis for a "moral code" in general, just like the basis for our legal system (which in itself really sit a sort of "moral code" developed by society) is that we are biologically more successful if we develop behavioral adaptations which result in us not doing things which harm us.
Lets take for example, the fact we cannot murder (generally). It is mutually beneficial for members of society to agree not to kill each other.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 If in general we ran around killing each other, it would mean that we are less able to survive for a number of reasons:
1) If we are constantly killing each other, we are less likely to distribute our genes.
2) Societies which do kill each other will not develop as well as societies which are more peaceful (and therefore able to work together to achieve common goals). This would lead onto things like science.
3) Individuals who are aggressive would likely be killed more often.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Overall, having a moral system essentially means we surrender some of our freedoms in exchange for security - that is the basis of our social contract under which we exist in society. We essentially comply with the rules of society (such as not stealing) so that we ourselves are secure from others (ie. others stealing from us).
There is a significant biological advantage here, and I think genes have been selected for through natural selection which "assist" this ability.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 But, like I said, this system is not perfect just like everything else in natural selection. Our genetics push us in the right general direction, we have a tendency to avoid violence and the ability to work together. However, there are serious flaws in this, which is why we still have crime and wars.
If we take the example of the piranha. While they rip their prey apart they do not kill each other generally, a biological adaptation. Our moral code probably started similarly.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 So basically to answer your question, or advanced moral code is likely built upon some basic genetic behavioural adaptations which increase our survival rate combined with the fact our advanced brains provide us with a more proactive ability to determine what is good for us (survival wise) and what is not.
The advanced brain itself likely developed as it is advantageous to survival - it allows us to find ways of solving problems.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 But the brain, while being very good at problem solving and enhancing our social developments, does have some significant restrictions. For example, when it comes to mathematics the human mind is extremely limited in its ability to do any complex calculations.
We have developed various workarounds to this, essentially compensating for our bad mathematical skills by using our other skills (writing, reading, tools etc.).
This is why we developed the calculator.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Ha ha! The calculator is one of my favorite inventions. But getting back to what you were saying, i just find that the "survival of the species" explanation of how a godless moral code came to be does not go far enough, in my opinion. Sure, we all want to get along with others as best we can to ensure our survival for as long as we can, but we all know it is an exercise in futility because we will all die. In our culture, we don't really worry so much about survival...(pt. 1)
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 ....as we do about having a fulfilling life. That seems to be the most pressing issue that i see in the U.S. Everybody just wants to be happy, because safety is not as great an issue as it is in war-torn countries. But the drive to be happy is what tears people apart and makes us forget our moral code; we'll do almost anything to the person who dares stop us in our search for happiness. We are selfish people, to the core (pt. 2)
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Never mind the moral code, i want what i want when i want it!! So when we sit in our philosophical speculation chairs in air-conditioned or heated comfort, we wax so eloquent about our moral code. But the reality is, most of us cannot and do not keep it. (pt. 3)
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 Absolutely, and I do not think that we are capable of keeping any "absolute" set of rules. That is why I do not believe there are any absolute rules in morality, it acts more of a push in the right direction.
But it seems like we may be thinking along slightly different lines. What exactly is it about biological evolution which you think cannot explain how we act. Remember that evolution does not care what people "think" or "want". All that matters is what allows reproduction.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Because evolution's explanation is so limited. We are much more than just procreators of life for the propagation of the species. For one, we are also about what we want out of life - in other words, we seek meaning in our lives, regardless if evolution can explain that or not (it can't). We were talking about morality. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But it was nice talking to you. Nice to have a decent conversation for once that doesn't get nasty.
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
@sunshinegirl1967 For the purposes of evolution, the length of your lifespan is only relevant so far as it enables better reproduction. Evolution is not about animals living for a long time, it is only about what makes them fit enough to reproduce successfully, and allow their off spring to live long enough to reproduce successfully.
Humans are clearly selfish, but not as selfish as other less social creatures. The limitation of our personal impulses allows us to live in a social group.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sunshinegirl1967 For the purposes of evolution, the length of your lifespan is only relevant so far as it enables better reproduction. Evolution is not about animals living for a long time, it is only about what makes them fit enough to reproduce successfully, and allow their off spring to live long enough to reproduce successfully.
Humans are clearly selfish, but not as selfish as other less social creatures. The limitation of our personal impulses allows us to live in a social group.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@bornagain001 And even if people stopped committing crimes because they became religious, that would not show that religion is true. That simply shows that people who have religious beliefs can change their actions. On that basis I could "know" islam is true because an ex-alcoholic became a muslim and stopped drinking alcohol. Or someone stopped drinking out of teapots because they joined the teapots are god religion.
SeanACampbell 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell ..."On that basis I could "know" islam is true because an ex-alcoholic became a muslim and stopped drinking alcohol."
It's more than just stopping drinking. The TRANSFORMED life also drives the former UNRIGHTEOUS man or woman to SHARE THE GOSPEL. To do things that you would say..."those guys are nuts" or "You would never catch me doing that." Would you do what I am doing? I don't do it because I'm a good person. I am driven by the Holy Spirit to share the Gospel with you.
bornagain001 1 month ago
@SeanACampbell Sean i am in total agreement with you here! Anyone's behavior can change according to new beliefs. That only proves someone believes something.
The bottom line is, was, and always will be this: Is what you believe THE Truth?
That is the difference.
sunshinegirl1967 1 month ago
Every-one decides to go to a restaurant, and stages an armed robbery, to celebrate their birthday, don't they?
ThusSpakeDenise 1 month ago
Another example of a responsible gun owner protecting themself and their community from violent criminals. Why do I call the criminals violent? Because they decided to use a gun in the commission of a crime. Concealed carry works.
anotherone1950 1 month ago
He new what he was doing I would have shoot him to if I or my family were in danger whit out hesitation
amejiatroop951 1 month ago
Good thing this did not happen in JewYork
WhiteTownTV2 1 month ago 6