Welcome to Gaia! ::

There may be more than one side to things, but the question is usually if you have the time or compatitaion to find the other side. Finding other sides is not always possible, therefore you must work from your point of view.

You mention views that neither correct nor incorrect. That is not possible. A veiw is one or the other, never none and never all. That is one of the many divine laws that God has set into motion.

If you are mayor of a town that hates you, you could do many different things, but if you are a presisdent that has only two choices (bring back or don't bring back) and the people want them back and you want to do what they want, then you must bring them back. The want to bring them back is sprung from the fear of not doing what the people want. We are talking situational.

You say that the fear itself was not dangerous, but what sprang from it is dangerous. But fear is the means to the end, act of danger. Fear is a though. Reap a thought, so reap an act, reap an act thus reap a (in this case) destiny. We fear the destiny, but if we did not fear orginal fear, we would not need to fear the destiny. If we did not have oringal sin, we would not have to fear the lost of salvation.

If they thought of it from all views, they would probally become even more afriad. The dnagerous question "What if..." is fear. If the question is dangerous, fear is dangerous.

It is dangerous only because of confusion that insues from taking all points of veiw. You must take only two points of view: Your default and your enemies'. The South had their default view (we lose slaves, we die) and they had Lincion's (I bring them back or am ruined) and see their lives against his social status. Lincion sees his social status against cruality. Neither one had contest. There is not an infinate amount of time. You must do the deed at hand. Do not always trust you're own logic, but try to cross examine.

*sigh*

Your arguement about God has nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that God put this Laws into motion for us, not that was are Him. We do not decide what is right and what is wrong. He gave us logic to know what is correct and what is incorrect and he gave us Faith and reasoning to find out what is Good and what is Evil.

As for arugement against what I said about if you fear fear, then you won't have to fear anything else is simple. Look at it this way: I am (supposidly) trying to prove that we have only one thing to fear: fear. This means you need to find only one example that fear can help us. Such as when in a battlefeild, men who are loyal friends are always motivated to keep going by their friends and the fear of losing them. In the fog and confusion of battle, you may think the only way to keep your friends alive is to decompasitate everyone who oppses them. (This is why the United States have never lost a major war, brotherhood was supported. Freedom and other abstract causes have little to do with it). That is how battles are won, brotherhood, or the fear of losing your brothers. Same is true when Saint Michel, but that is something different.

There you go! You have provided the best arguement against this, quote, "famous nonsense." It contradicts itself. It is as bad at the phrase, "it is better to hope durning a journey than to reach your destination." What do you hope in? Hope in Hope? Fear of Fear? Nonetheless, to be absolutly sure this is correct, we need to argue from all points. I do not belive this absurdity (although it was great for inspiration in the time it was first said), but to "prove" it false we need to make sure our arguements can't be beat.

Some people might argue that the phrase means to fear being overcome by fear, and other than that there is nothing to fear. In otherwords, it means do not be afriad of anything.

You have already combated this with showing many instances where fear can be one of our most powerful allies. Some would argue that this is not an instance of fear, but of wearyness. Your arguement?

Obviously we are not always right, though if we belive the Catechism is correct, then we know homosexual marrage is wrong. (Gay is another word for happy.) People are shades of gray, but actions aren't. Actions are black or white that color out shades of gray, so to speak.

Catechism is a Cathloic view, not just Christian. Bit narrower. I meant just "color". Don't know why I added "out". Anyway, what I meant is that our actions define us. "So a thought reap an act, so an act reap a habit, so a habit reap character, so a character reap a destiny." Our acts (which begin with thoughts) usually make habits, which define our character, who we are (not our personality, mind you) and that leads to our destiny.

Just because it is taken one way or the other by different people, doesn't mean everybodies' views are correct. Either something is good or bad. Personally, I'm inclined to think that there is no middle path in actions. That doesn't mean I'm right (although I think it mentions something about that in the Bible), but there are only two choices: there are middle roads or there aren't. If someone says there are middle road actions, only one of us can be right since I disagree with him.

I never said anything about motives. Just because the seed of thought (which, in a sense, is the motive) is good doesn't mean the seed of action is good. Now weather the action is good or bad is a difficult matter, because we aren't thinking about human-made laws, but divine made laws. Ethics or morality are what we are dealing with. Were her actions (not her motives) moral? Do you think over populizing the U.S. economy and putting many people out of jobs because a sudden increase population makes her actions good or bad? The end (being with her son) does not justify the means (putting people at risk). Occasionally we need to immoral to save our country and lives, but that does not make the actions an less immoral. We are still called to confession for killing in a battle if you are one of those who survive a battle.

Opinions are not correct or incorrect, but ethics are. Just because they think their son did an noble thing does not mean their did do a noble thing. They may belive the end (jihad)justifys the means (killing other people), but I belive otherwise. Either the means justifys the end or it doesn't. They want to genocide all non-Islamic people, and they thing this is a good thing, but is it. It is either good or bad, but it is certainly not an opinion. Good or Evil is not a human opinion, it is a divine choice.

Your last example is a matter of opinion and not of ethics (obviously).

Okay, if you saw a beautiful portriat, would you think that it was created by random wind blowing together the proper molucules to make canvas and the paint, not to mention making the paint land in the right places? The possiblity of that happening is trillions and trillions of a percent. Now imagine the possiblilty of a expoltion creating a world precisly perfect for human life. That is an almost incomperhensable fraction of a percent! This makes beliving something created the universe much more belivable.

((We'll deal with Him chosing what is right and what is wrong, as well how we think it is the God of the Jews and Christians.))