Ah there's the rub. Why "must" we follow the rules? Perhaps you think chaos will ensue? Let go with that and assume they are "necessary". Rules change all the time. In sport the rulebooks are rewritten to provide for safe play. The rules of governments have changed drastically over the centuries. Modern schools are very different from the schools of older civilizations. Traffic? Speed limits change, right-on-red is new; all rules change over time. Why would anyone think it is a good idea to have a static set of rules that is unbending, unyielding, literally "written in stone"? To me that type of thinking is what is "fascinating".

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My over riding thought would be: if WE play by and write rules (changing or static), and rules are necessary to function in harmony and to keep the masses in check, then why would there not be a set of rules that were used to make everything happen that we know and experience in our world? Purely chance that rules just evolved from nothingness? Not likely.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Seems there are two things going on here. The OP asks about fairness and the Explanation talks about "rules of life". So first things first, life is not fair and we can't expect everyone to follow the rules. So that's out of the way. Second the rules of life? Do you mean the rules for getting along, or the physical laws that allowed life to spring from inert matter?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, I was tossed between which way I wanted to take the whole thing. I should have left off the explanation, and let the readers carry it along. The OP is more the rules of life and playing the game while living, and the explanation is more about the laws that brought life in to existence.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well I will agree with OP because it is not fair.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So whose rules do we follow, when we KNOW that left up to humans alone, the rules will always be bent by those with power or money?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My preference would be to have no rules. I understand most people think that will lead to chaos but I disagree. I think that people will act civilized and do what is right (mostly) and that rules are not needed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you fully believe that man is instinctively good by nature, and has the best interest in mind and heart for the rest of humanity?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I suspect it. Yes. Of course I don't "fully believe" anything. And I am not fool enough to think everyone has the best interest in mind (just as they don't when there are rules and laws in place) but yes, I think that humans, in general, would be just fine without laws, rules, commandments, etc.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And did you raise your children by that philosophy? If not, why? If it would be fine and would work, why don't parents let their children "raise" themselves?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Agian, definitions... by "rules" I mean written rules enforced by an authority. So maybe I do support and need rules, help me out here... Does a pride of lions have rules and laws? Do they raise their offspring ok? If ants and crows have rules and laws then yes, I do too. Teaching kids common sense and traditions - is that the same as teaching them "rules"? You tell me. I raised my kids by modeling the behaviors I expected them to follow. I did teach them to obey the laws, not because I think laws are necessary but because you do, and I don't want you to arrest them for breaking the laws you made up. Do I think my kids would "play nice" if there were no laws requiring them to? Yes I do. Did I teach them what the laws are? Yes I did. I taught them to stop at red lights, go on green lights, not because I think we need traffic laws, but because everyone else follows them so it is safer to do so. If there was no laws I would teach them to look both ways, to drive carefully, to be on the look out for on-coming traffic - is that a "rule"? I guess it is by some definition. It doesn't have to be a "rule" for it to make common sense. I don't need the police, government, or clergy to tell me not to shoot my neighbors, not to steal food, not to get so drunk I can't see. These are common sense things that don't require written rules. Even with written rules people still do them, but not "most" people, a few people do. Would more people do them if there were no rules? I don't think so, but I might be wrong. Do wolves have laws not to kill each other? No. Do we still have wolves? Yes. Even without laws, they still don't kill each other any more often then we kill each other, and we have laws! Imagine that! No laws and still they don't live in pure anarchy. We are more advanced than wolves but you think we can't live without laws and somehow they manage too? I taught my kids how to play chess. I taught them the rules of the game. Did they need to know how to play chess? No. Did they need the rules? I guess so, if they wanted to play the game. They also invented their own games, they invented their own "rules" they had fun. Maybe we do need rules - how they heck would I know. Maybe "rules" are inevitable. I go back to my original question. Do chimpanzees have laws? Do they have rules? Do they teach their kids? Do they survive to a ripe old age without police, judges, governments, clergy, churches? I think they do, but I guess I am wrong. I taught my kid "don't eat wild mushrooms without doing a spore print first." Is that a rule? a law? or just smart. I never taught my kids not kill each other, yet somehow they figured it out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You now seem to enjoy playing games with words. You know full well that all of life follows and practices rules, codes, laws, and order. NOTHING can survive or exist without such. The entire world of matter follows patterns and operate with consistent behaviors. Scientists could not discover "laws" like gravity if there was not a continuous constant pattern to observe and assign definition to. Something had to program or instill those things in it. You and yours would like people of logic to accept by sheer happenstance that these things all developed on their own over the course of millions of years. But even matter or space without intelligence could not have possibly figured out or hatched a plan of a Big Bang, Evolution, or whatever other theory someone wishes to dream up. ALL of life is pre-coded, and those codes were not put there by us. You have no trouble believing that "chance" or "no grand scheme" produced everything that exists, for no purpose or no reason at all. And, quite frankly, that is far more ridiculous or unbelievable than accepting that someone or something had to get the whole thing started. You have said in past comments that you did not "allow" your children to watch T.V. or play video games. I am not sure what else they were not allowed to do, but you made choices FOR them, and told them there were things they could not do. And I have no idea what means of discipline you may have implemented to deal with times of misbehavior or direct violation of your "rules," but even a basic family unit can not operate without boundaries, guidelines, and consequences. I did not make up the laws, and also would much more prefer that we go back to the early days of this country when the majority of people believed in something called "self government." But self government worked because those who believed, practiced, and re-taught such, acknowledged a Creator who was over all things and ultimately in charge of all. They had no reservation in realizing that one day there would be a final accounting to Him and Him alone. Injustices not righted in this life would be set straight in the end. If everything is so "common sense" as you state, then why is there so much of the uncommon and evil going on? If people left entirely to themselves would automatically figure out how to "behave," and "get along," then communes would BE the pattern and not the exception to the rule. But even communes require some sort of order, rules, patterns for those living in them to follow, or nothing would get done or accomplished {who will gather sticks for fire, who will hunt for food so we can eat, who will build our shelter and make our clothing, etc.} The things you suggest have had every opportunity since the dawn of mankind to rise to the top and prove themselves as viable or preferable behaviors or practices. And yet, here we are having this discussion today. The animal kingdom all operate under the strict code of the "law of the jungle." It is inborn and programmed in to them and always has been. The very first animals were already programmed to do and be what was necessary to survive and reproduce. They don't need written laws or rules to follow because theirs is internal - genetic if you will. Even if a person ascribes to Evolution, the molecules and atoms that had to exist to get the ball rolling had to be programmed to know what to do and how to do it. Intelligence surely did not just arrive out of "thin air." If you expect me to believe that, then you are also believing the same "imaginary" "invisible" nonsense that you say I believe. Ultimately, all of us entered a world and Universe full of rules and laws governing everything. At best, we can try to understand and make the most sense of what is here while we are here. And when we don't "play by the rules," whatever those rules are and whoever decided them FOR us, then we will be dinged and smacked around by those above and in control of us. In reality, WE should be in control and calling most of the shots pertaining to our lives and destinies.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well OK. I did agree with the post and I do agree that if by "rules" you mean the //laws of gravity// and //the rules of the jungle// then yes, absolutely there are rules that we must follow. We cannot flap our arms and fly, if that is a "rule" then I agree I must follow it. We cannot eat poison frogs, if this is a rule then yes I must follow the rule and I must teach my children to follow that rule also. What I disagree with is that if there was no god there would be more killing and stealing than there already is. I do not accept the argument that because we act morally there must be a god. I disagree that we need the bible to teach us morality. (I am not claiming that you said this, just that I disagree with anyone who might think this.) I think that humans are naturally moral creatures that would not revert to an immoral state if we stopped teaching the ten commandments in classrooms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That is fine and I know your position. Just send the message along to all atheists and atheistic organizations and lobbying groups, that I can tolerate and accept any view they have about no deity or no belief system and only wish they would return the favor. I am not aware of any organized Christian group that is trying to stop atheists from existing, having their beliefs, or displaying their symbols in this country. I can, however, point to countless stories of organized atheism attacking, ridiculing, mocking, and doing everything in their power, to make light of anyone who believes in an "imaginary friend," and to remove all symbols of Christianity from public display. As I have said in the past - IF atheists truly and seriously believed that God is fictitious and imaginary, then consistently and logically, they must apply the same line of thinking towards ALL fictitious entities that exist. If a group is going to attack only ONE imaginary deity, then it clearly shows ONE faith or religion is being targeted and singled out from all other possible choices. Those who claim to be loving, tolerant, and seeking equality for ALL, are actually trying to drive one group's beliefs, symbols, and God right out of existence!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think they are trying to drive god out of existence, just out of politics. I suppose if there was a group of people that wanted to erect statues of unicorns in the capital building; that wanted to read passages from the unicorn manifesto before the beginning of every court proceeding; that claimed the great unicorn in the sky wanted them to vote for a specific candidate; that claimed the founding fathers all worshiped the unicorn and had intended the people of America to be unicornians; that wanted every school child to kneel down and give thanks to the unicorn right after pledging allegiance to the flag; then I suspect that the ACLU would be trying to stop them from printing "hail to the unicorn" on the dollar bill.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

On this premise, then there should not be a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, since both refer openly to God and the role He played in the lives of those who came together to write their documents, ideas, and principles for future generations to adhere to and follow. They full well believed that future generations would continue believing in and following a Supreme Deity, and realizing that as men alone, we are nothing. If you can point to me the empires and civilizations that were built and comprised predominantly of atheists, I would be willing to take another look. But I know of none or any great achievements throughout world history accomplished by atheism singularly or collectively. As much as religion is put down, it still has done more collective good for humanity and has built a nation that has literally been the Light on a hill to every other country on this globe. To deny that, is to deny our very existence altogether.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And that is why you can "point to countless stories of organized atheism attacking, ridiculing, mocking, and doing everything in their power, to make light of anyone who believes in an "imaginary friend," and to remove all symbols of Christianity from public display." Because of your mistaken interpretation of these references. In the Declaration "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" is a common deistic reference to a spiritual god who does not interfere in the universe. There is much historical evidence that most of the founders were not Christians, but Creationists and Deist. I will give you the reference to the "Creator" with the caveat that these men (for the most part) believed in creation but not in an ongoing intervention of an active god. Jefferson himself wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." I am sorry but you will have to give me a reference because I have read the constitution many time and I cannot find the words"God," "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord" anywhere, not in any amendment or in the original document (except in the date which is written as //in the Year of our Lord ...//)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So in the end, everything comes down to my interpretation versus yours. That is fine with me. You assume my interpretation is always incorrect, when and if, if differs from yours. And I am constantly amazed that you could possibly challenge or oppose ANYTHING I say, since you have no beliefs, stand for nothing, and don't think there is a grand scheme. On your own merits, you truly have no basis to argue or question anything. I don't mind you challenging or pushing my belief system to the end, but I think we could agree that we have done that with yours, and you have made it clear, that a grand scheme or 100 yrs. from now are irrelevant. In my opinion, that translates as "who the hell cares about what is being talked about today or tomorrow, because ultimately, it does NOT matter." I believe otherwise. You have repeatedly told me that I cite Bible verses "out of context," and now you are apparently suggesting that I am citing my country's founding documents out of context, and with little understanding of who the men were, and what they believed and/or stood for, who formulated and signed the documents. I NEVER said all the men were Christians - but a majority of them DID believe in a Supreme Being (deity) and that we were in fact created. There may have been some atheists or agnostics in the bunch, but even then, as to this very day, they would have been in the minority. They were NOT stopped from being involved in the process, nor were they shunned or viewed as lesser than equals. It just so happens that their view of our existence was not the majority opinion (and it never has been). The view of a Creator was put in writing for a reason and BECAUSE the consensus was that most of the men believed or acknowledged. Otherwise, that never would have been put in the documentation to begin with. And I have consistently maintained that any world view is acceptable and allowable by our documents - but the minority view/belief system should NEVER rise above the majority views or opinions held by the masses. If a view reaches the point of the masses taking the dominant role and belief in such, then considerations should be taken in to account to reflect that. And even then, the new view should not look to attack or remove the views or beliefs held by others. ANY and ALL views, beliefs, and ideas are to be respected and tolerated under our system. Nobody made atheists become atheists. All people CHOOSE their beliefs (or make choices to have none). Your group is regularly pissed off that the majority context around you is one way, but you believe and want it to be another. Let's flip the analogy around for a second. If I as a straight person, walked in to a gay bar, was not happy with the fact that everyone in there was gay, and demanded that all people admitted to that establishment now be required to be straight. Would that be right? Not at all. You and I both entered a country that was built upon certain foundations and principles. Today's thrust is to try and remove, ignore, and act like none of that was a reality or served any purpose. That is why at least half of the country is still very outraged about the direction we are going and our future. As for the Constitution - I assumed that you would have seen the same context of LIBERTY as I did/do in both documents. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" versus "Blessings of Liberty" - are all in and under the CONTEXT of a Supreme Being being over all, and allowing or providing for such to occur or be possible. Our founders acknowledged and lived with the mindset that LIFE itself is a blessing and gift from the Creator - therefore, we would not be here or able to prosper were it not for Him to begin with. Since you, have no deity reference point, I can see how you might have missed that or not made my assumptive connection. Also, the first signer of the Constitution was none other than George Washington. History is replete with examples of his devotion to God, praying openly, reading his Bible, and talking about the protection he received from his Creator. (I am sure you will say that my historical perspective is out of context here) And I was assuming too, that the First Amendment would have come to your mind as did mine when I made my comments. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Most religions (I am not saying all) that are practiced in our country (from its inception until the present) include the worship of a deity. The writers of our documents understood that (as should most intelligent beings in existence), and made allowance for such by any who would choose to observe or practice. Congress could not possibly follow a rule that included a ghost or imaginary friend. But they will allow atheists to form non-profit organizations, lobby against Christian organizations, and teach their views in all government and tax funded organizations. Your group has more rights and privileges than mine, and yet your group is still not content or satisfied. God is still on atheists most wanted list, and the removal of all reference to Him is still the primary objective. I know of no Christian organization that is actively, or has ever, tried to shut down an atheist organization, or tell them by the laws of our land, that they can not disbelieve in deity or have no religion at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This seems like a pretty well reasoned argument. I will point out that the "life, liberty..." line is from the d-o-i not the constitution. And I will accept that Geo. Washington was a religious person, although we was not a big contributor to the document. If I have any defense for this it is simply that historically many more governments have gone the way of theocracy than those that have not and it seems clear o me that the founders specifically express a fear of, and therefore were careful to proscribe against, the inclusion of any religious influence on the government. Separation was key and should always remain so. I have no concerns with anyone practicing or believing in any religious ideals so long as it is 100% wholly, completely, and absolutely __separate__ from the governance of the state.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I acknowledged the "life, liberty..." in the above comment and then showed you that the Constitution says "Blessings of Liberty" - to show you that Liberty and blessing are in both documents and ascribed to a Creator giving those things to humanity. You have no problem with any other religious or non-religious group, ideas, or views being taught openly at the taxpayer's expense. If a professor or scientist is an avowed atheist, and holds to a no religion (even though they practice humanism or may be involved in WICCA or some other form of religious or cultic practices), why should their biases and world view take precedence in a classroom or theory over that of say a Christian? Why is Christianity openly and regularly put down and made fun of in classrooms all across America? Schools are actually targeting anything to do with Christmas, but all other religious holidays are being promoted {Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Id al-Adha}. We are all WHOLE people and can not separate or segment who and what we are. Our religious views and opinions are part of us, and go with us just as every other thought or view we believe or hold to. A person can not, and should not have to leave their religion at the door step of any government building they decide to enter. That is ludicrous. And yet you expect that very thing. Our documents do NOT separate religion from government - ONLY the establishment of ONE religion over all others or a governmentally established, controlled, and run religion. THAT is what our founders so earnestly sought to guard against. They never intended for there to never be ANY religion or religious reference in education. I would argue that we almost have a governmental humanism throughout our government and educational arm - again causing much of the outrage and anger by Christians. Christians have been, and continue to be, isolated and silenced, and told to keep their religion where it BELONGS - behind closed church doors! That would all be well and good IF all other groups were doing that very thing. But we both KNOW for a fact that other groups and their views are being openly promoted and encouraged with no question or recourse. Do I have any option of opting out of participating in funding organizations or endeavors that I don't believe in or support? NO, I do not. My taxes are taken from me, and I am forced to contribute to causes all the time that I personally don't wish to support. So again, I make the clear point - YOU want my tax dollars to fund any and every thing you support or believe, but you don't want my tax dollars to go towards supporting any thing I or other Christians believe. Another prime example of "fairness" and "tolerance." We see our current government picking and choosing which issues it will patronize and which ones it will shun or discredit. This administration is extremely partial and divisive, and has encouraged a fresh outbreak of such in society. If you believe that is "good" for the country, then you are pleased and happy (which you have stated repeatedly that you are). But people like myself, are not pleased with a man of ill character in the top position in our country. His world view and politics are far from anything this country was established on. Change just for the sake of change is not admirable or genius. Change that promotes and creates actual benefits to the people are welcomed and valued. Regardless of how much money this current Commander gets his hands on, nothing is ever translated to actually helping Americans {unless of course you are on a free governmental hand out program}. Joblessness, unemployment, the national debt - huge key issues that he said he would address and fix are in far worse shape than when he took office. The blame game finally ran out, and his ideas or promises have fallen way short of any fixes or solutions. It would be extremely refreshing to once again have a man of substance and esteem back in the Oval Office.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am not in favor of any religion or even humanism being taught in schools. I do not want public dollars spend on Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or any such event. I do not want my kids taught Humanist values, Christian values, Wiccan values or any moral values at all. I wan them taught Reading, writing and arithmetic, plus music, science and fine arts. If I saw my daughter's highschool was displaying a menorah I would ask that it be removed. If she took a class on history that happened to use the bible or the torah as a textbook I would be perfectly fine with that. But if they tried to tell her it was written by god, I would call the ACLU in a heartbeat.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

YOU may not want it, but it is going on already. Most science books are filled with humanism. History of America has been dumbed down to the point that most (if not all) religious elements of our nation's inception have been removed. I am sure you are pleased with that, but it is re-writing history to suit today's purposes and agenda. This is flat out deception, inaccuracy, and is wrong. You have no problem with those who do such things so long as the end game is your side or team winning in the end. Who cares if a president lies repeatedly and deliberately deceives the masses. He has a higher mission in mind for the transformation of the country, so he is justified. REALLY? As I already pointed out - every single teacher has a world view and some sort of religious (or non religious) perspective. If a student asks a teacher what their belief or view is about God or the Bible, the teacher SHOULD have the freedom, in an educational setting, to explain that openly and without reservation or threat of a lawsuit. But, that can not be done in our present society. Students are getting in trouble for saying "God bless you" "Merry Christmas," putting a Bible verse on a banner, singing Christmas carols (about Jesus whom Christmas is all about), or saying a prayer over a meal or at a graduation. Teachers are getting fired and laid off for having a copy of a Bible on their person or reading it in their personal time at lunch hour. It is pure lunacy and over the top. I can see YOU personally not wishing to do those things because of your unbelief, but to forbid ALL from doing it anywhere at any time they see fit because of their belief, is simply unjustified. In all the attempts by every individual group seeking their rights and equalities, the rights and freedoms of others are being trampled, infringed upon, and silenced. If that is what you call freedom and liberty, then I want no part of that definition or world.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that many people are moral(you mean kind or humane?)without being taught but I also can SEE that many people have reverted to an immoral state in the absence of real enforcement of morals. I won't cite examples because it's too depressing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is a great point. We have written morals, written laws, law enforcement, rules about everything and STILL people break them. I do not think that any more (or fewer) people would be immoral if there where no laws, nor churches, nor bibles. People are people, more are good then bad, but the bad ones (including many who use the "laws" and "gods word" to justify their horrors) will exist with/or/without written instructions. We don't need the instructions and they don't help control anything, they just make self-important people feel more important.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Evidently God thought otherwise, because HE wrote the first tablets giving His Ten Commandments. He would not have done so if they were not necessary and beneficial. Moses did not write the Decalogue - God did. It is right there in the Old Testament for any and all to read. Serious Bible readers and students know, believe, and accept this as fact.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I guess he figured that some people would be of such low intelligence that they would not be able to figure it out on their own. I am so glad I came from a good genetic stock and don't need a stone tablet to tell me not to kill my friends.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And God takes credit for all of that as well. He already knows it all. You are the one who has not figured it out yet. If you think that finite could begin to compare to infinite, then I guess He was right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If Gamer #1 uses cheats, and Gamer #2 uses the exact same cheats, and no one else is involved, the outcome is still "fair," although admittedly most likely by coincidence.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You missed the direction of the post. It clearly says one team is playing by the book, and the other is not. So "cheats" would be covered under not playing by the rules.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Huh. Touche.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If one side is ruthless it would take a GREAT deal of ingenuity for the fair side to win and I have rarely seen it happen but ya never know.

by Anonymous 11 years ago