NationStates

Narland wrote:

Principality of the Raix wrote:You realize the above situation is being played towards the secondary of your compromises, which due to the above situation places you like me in the nil survival for our integrity.

Yep, thankfully God is the God of no-win scenarios. No sane person should like the thought of dying for their conscience sake. The only hope (for the believer on Christ) is the historicity of the resurrection of the Christ. He raised people from the dead as proof of his power and raised himself from the dead as proof of his divinity. I am convinced, better to be a martyr committed to the temporal/temporary flames (or whatever method of execution) on earth, than cowardice on earth and eternal flames thereafter.

Oh, well your's rather down to the belief. My reasoning is based more on sin in that scenario, as I am too proud to change my view based on belief. I need evidence, proof and even then I remain skeptical. So why should I change my belief, based on survival. True, most humans would rather survive. However surviving without the freedom to express your real belief is only a shell of actually living life, like living in a country that is very authoritarian. You will become a shell of yourself, had you ever tasted freedom before being forced under the heel.

No. Christ is worth dying for.

UKCS wrote:Wouldn't anybody? We can all profess to be that "noble" or "courageous", or whichever word shall be used in this, but at the end of the day we're all the same, and basic self-preservation instincts will kick in.

Nope. History is peppered with the stories of intentional ideological martyrs.

Personally, I'm no good at keeping up an act for long, especially if it involves pretending to agree with what I see as morally-reprehensible BS. Not sure if that means I win the good kind of an award or a Darwin, but I tend not to bother with what I know won't work in the long run anyway...so no - I wouldn't play along for more than a day or so, if that. I have no patience for that garbage.

I would, however, try to get away from the freaks instead of just standing there and letting them kill me - I've always disdained the idea of intentional martyrdom.

Principality of the Raix wrote:

Narland wrote:Yep, thankfully God is the God of no-win scenarios. No sane person should like the thought of dying for their conscience sake. The only hope (for the believer on Christ) is the historicity of the resurrection of the Christ. He raised people from the dead as proof of his power and raised himself from the dead as proof of his divinity. I am convinced, better to be a martyr committed to the temporal/temporary flames (or whatever method of execution) on earth, than cowardice on earth and eternal flames thereafter.

Oh, well your's rather down to the belief. My reasoning is based more on sin in that scenario, as I am too proud to change my view based on belief. I need evidence, proof and even then I remain skeptical. So why should I change my belief, based on survival. True, most humans would rather survive. However surviving without the freedom to express your real belief is only a shell of actually living life, like living in a country that is very authoritarian. You will become a shell of yourself, had you ever tasted freedom before being forced under the heel.

I won't bore you with epistemological ramblings; but I do agree that only free men have lives worth living. Those who live under despotism (by whatever its name, and no matter how popular) are never able to grow and mature into self-fulfillment; Nor are they able to discipline their self-interest into greatness of stature by providing service to others and satisfaction to one's person, family, friends, and community. By way of the tyranny of others doing and thinking for the individual, it stunts the very soul of each person afflicted by it creating pettiness in mind and heart.

Victorious Decepticons wrote:
I would, however, try to get away from the freaks instead of just standing there and letting them kill me - I've always disdained the idea of intentional martyrdom.

Same, I can not say I would stay to be a Martyr. However, if I became one it would not be intentional. Like any human or animal, I would fight for my survival. However against a mob, unless your like some out of the world ninja; Most of us will die.

Yes, as long as it took me to GTFO.

Narland wrote:
I won't bore you with epistemological ramblings; but I do agree that only free men have lives worth living. Those who live under despotism (by whatever its name, and no matter how popular) are never able to grow and mature into self-fulfillment; Nor are they able to discipline their self-interest into greatness of stature by providing service to others and satisfaction to one's person, family, friends, and community. By way of the tyranny of others doing and thinking for the individual, it stunts the very soul of each person afflicted by it--midgets in mind and heart.

A real unique way of explaining it, but that's true. Seeing as only 7% of Germans, technically chose to be Nazi's. In this, we see that the vast majority normally want freedom in various forms and even today we see this in most Despotism(no matter the name or it claims to be). Reason you have people willing to break their laws, whether it be federal or religious.

Being an Atheist, to me dead means you're probably just dead, so the afterlife doesn't really come into the equation. On the other hand, I'd be much more willing to fight to the death to protect my loved ones, or to compromise to ensure their survival.

I guess that could be considered a weakness in my strength of character, but if it keeps my loved ones out of harm's way, I can accept that.

Ideally? No. Realistically? Who knows. Survival can make us do many things.

Depends largely on the ideology in question.

In the case of religion, I wouldn't comply. I am willing to die for my faith.

Telconi wrote:Depends largely on the ideology in question.

In the case of religion, I wouldn't comply. I am willing to die for my faith.

Well I do believe, Yagon made it with the intention of Religion as the Ideology.

edited in; like a theocracy? I am assuming now...

Albrenia wrote:Being an Atheist, to me dead means you're probably just dead, so the afterlife doesn't really come into the equation. On the other hand, I'd be much more willing to fight to the death to protect my loved ones, or to compromise to ensure their survival.

I guess that could be considered a weakness in my strength of character, but if it keeps my loved ones out of harm's way, I can accept that.

Would you fight to protect people you didn't know? (Suppose the above sub-premise where Gauzo is leading a fight to protect 300 immigrants of an out-group that the dominant tribe wants to kill).

Would you fight for them?

Principality of the Raix wrote:

Telconi wrote:Depends largely on the ideology in question.

In the case of religion, I wouldn't comply. I am willing to die for my faith.

Well I do believe, Yagon made it with the intention of Religion as the Ideology.

edited in; like a theocracy? I am assuming now...

I'm sorry if I constrained it so; religion is sometimes a strong unifying/cohering factor in tribalism.

Suppose it is a tribalism, where a unified religion/culture/race-construct is the principle unifying theme.

Yagon wrote:
Would you fight to protect people you didn't know? (Suppose the above sub-premise where Gauzo is leading a fight to protect 300 immigrants of an out-group that the dominant tribe wants to kill).

Would you fight for them?

Me, personally. I would let them fight, then try to move my own ideology as acceptable into those who remained. Showing them the futility of fighting amongst each other over belief; If it is not over land, food or water.

Yagon wrote:

Principality of the Raix wrote:Well I do believe, Yagon made it with the intention of Religion as the Ideology.

edited in; like a theocracy? I am assuming now...

I'm sorry if I constrained it so; religion is sometimes a strong unifying/cohering factor in tribalism.

Suppose it is a tribalism, where a unified religion/culture/race-construct is the principle unifying theme.

I would refuse to conform to a faith or race based tribe. 'Culture' is a bit too vague to allow me to answer.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Ideally? No. Realistically? Who knows. Survival can make us do many things.

I do think it would be hard to know for certain if staring down the threatening mass of the dominant tribe.

I admit I would likely capitulate.

Telconi wrote:

Yagon wrote:
I'm sorry if I constrained it so; religion is sometimes a strong unifying/cohering factor in tribalism.

Suppose it is a tribalism, where a unified religion/culture/race-construct is the principle unifying theme.

I would refuse to conform to a faith or race based tribe. 'Culture' is a bit too vague to allow me to answer.

Think of the african tribes or native americans, or even the celtic tribes during the roman age. That is what he means.

Telconi wrote:

Yagon wrote:
I'm sorry if I constrained it so; religion is sometimes a strong unifying/cohering factor in tribalism.

Suppose it is a tribalism, where a unified religion/culture/race-construct is the principle unifying theme.

I would refuse to conform to a faith or race based tribe. 'Culture' is a bit too vague to allow me to answer.

Fair enough. How about if their tribe adheres with some intensity to a particular tribal view of relationships, community, music, food preparation, dress, gender roles, etc, but they tend to organize that around a set of religious beliefs (many of which may not actually emerge from anything in the religion itself, but they sort of attach them, as if to say "Good God-fearing folk wouldn't dress/behave like that!" etc).

Yagon wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I would refuse to conform to a faith or race based tribe. 'Culture' is a bit too vague to allow me to answer.

Fair enough. How about if their tribe adheres with some intensity to a particular tribal view of relationships, community, music, food preparation, dress, gender roles, etc, but they tend to organize that around a set of religious beliefs (many of which may not actually emerge from anything in the religion itself, but they sort of attach them, as if to say "Good God-fearing folk wouldn't dress/behave like that!" etc).

basically conservative in belief or superstitious if they go too far.

Principality of the Raix wrote:basically conservative in belief or superstitious if they go too far.

I do wonder if a sort of nearness of religious types would make a difference.

For example, if someone were personally Christian enough to "die for Christ", but they were Baptist or something, and the dominant tribe was Mormon, would that be reconcilable?

Yagon wrote:

Principality of the Raix wrote:basically conservative in belief or superstitious if they go too far.

I do wonder if a sort of nearness of religious types would make a difference.

For example, if someone were personally Christian enough to "die for Christ", but they were Baptist or something, and the dominant tribe was Mormon, would that be reconcilable?

Well now, that is like mixing dogs and wolves together in some aspect. Mind you, they won't tear each other apart. However the belief system would be a mix(edited in; It would actually be more Dias(if i spelt that correctly?) in belief), however i imagine they would commute around each other and thus worship in their own circles.

Yagon wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I would refuse to conform to a faith or race based tribe. 'Culture' is a bit too vague to allow me to answer.

Fair enough. How about if their tribe adheres with some intensity to a particular tribal view of relationships, community, music, food preparation, dress, gender roles, etc, but they tend to organize that around a set of religious beliefs (many of which may not actually emerge from anything in the religion itself, but they sort of attach them, as if to say "Good God-fearing folk wouldn't dress/behave like that!" etc).

I'd conform to those things so long as none of them expressly violated my faith. For example if they viewed 'godly' marriages as being non-binding open relationships or sonething.

Principality of the Raix wrote:

Yagon wrote:
I do wonder if a sort of nearness of religious types would make a difference.

For example, if someone were personally Christian enough to "die for Christ", but they were Baptist or something, and the dominant tribe was Mormon, would that be reconcilable?

Well now, that is like mixing dogs and wolves together in some aspect. Mind you, they won't tear each other apart. However the belief system would be a mix, however i imagine they would commute around each other and thus worship in their own circles.

I wonder if a Baptist person faced with the option of having to join another Christian Group (Mormon or whatever, or vice versa) would be willing, since "well, its still about Christ" kind of thing. I imagine it could go either way based on the individual, and certainly in historical examples where the schism was between Christians, they still warred pretty hard (as have schisms within other religions, I would think).

But if it were an individual having to decide whether to modify their Christianity to that of the dominant group to survive, it might be an interesting deliberation.

Depends on what kind ,an impact it would make. If I'd just die and not change anything, I'd rather just play along (with the bare minimum of effort, obviously).

Philjia wrote:Depends on what kind ,an impact it would make. If I'd just die and not change anything, I'd rather just play along (with the bare minimum of effort, obviously).

Looking back, I think I got by a lot of times in life with just half-assed acquiescence...