So I got into a discussion with some religious guy the other day and he was trying to tell me that fear is not bad, I disagree however of course. Of course they do what they do best Plugs ears, lalalala i’m right you’re wrong! I’m done with this discussion! Even though their side of the discussion has more loop holes in it than Swiss cheese.
There are many definitions of fear, but I do not see why the religious definition of fear being used for a religious saying or just in general for religion/religious just doesn’t make any sense imo. So they create a definition of fear specifically for their view/ideals of what they believe and all is fine? That just doesn’t make sense. That’s like creating a definition yourself suited to whatever you want it to be. Take this as an example. You beat a dog and try to get it to listen right? will that dog respect or fear you after you hit it? It will definitely fear you and most likely try to fight you back. This is why with a dog you have to use the treat training techniques otherwise it will act out irrationally due to being in fright.
Respect is not the same or even close to the same as fear because it does not need obligation or force in order to do or feel it. Fear requires force or obligation, it is terror. I can respect men of the past without there being ANY force or obligation what so ever.
I don’t understand how one can say fear is good and is respect when you can really test it on people or living beings to see that fear is definitely not.
Why respect something that calls for you to be fearful or frightened of it? That’s coercion, force, obligation due to it being the “Creator”.
Coercion (place of refuge and strong confidence for fear.)
Coercion (It is providing “mercy” for fear.)
I can find countless other verses and what not if I want, but I think this is enough to show my point.
Knowledge can do that as well and there is more gain with it than there is fear. I honestly would rather have a more knowledgeable understanding race/people, than a more fearful one. You may get more done due to there not being as many if not any restrictions/obstruction.
It doesn’t have anything to do with religions. The secularists promote that same thing. The dark ages are made out of fear and secrecy (obfuscation and extortion).
Fear can and is often instantaneous I agree. But living a whole life in fear is one that can be dedicated to learning knowledge with less if no fear at all.
Ignorance can bring more fear than knowledge. It’s like that little child who doesn’t know that a rose has thorns and pricks them self to inflict pain from the once unknown facts.
Of course knowledge can bring pain as well, but i’d say not as much as ignorance can bring. “What you don’t know, may kill you.”
That’s a good quote. A lot of people have used fear in the past to bring themselves into power, countless times. Even still.
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
But a being in fear is more likely to bite back when they can than a being who respects out of their own free will.
It should be redefined, said it before and now again. So “god” is supposed to provoke adrenaline? Well then if that’s the case another argument can be made to where there are better things to provide adrenaline rushes, awe, etc. Like the picture you have shown.
I did, and there is one definition or two of reverential and awe. Which is towards religious usage. So it’s like a religious definition, for a religious thing. Which is like me creating a definition of my choosing for what I want it to be in a sense.
Why not start a thread where you criticize “bark”? Does a dog bark or is it the stuff on a tree. They should create a new word as these scientists are being difficult.
Agree or disagree?
All words have multiple meanings… All words. It is up to you to apply the correct meaning to the given context. If you cannot do this then I do not know what to suggest.
It does not matter what you do or don’t see. There is a thing called a dictionary and it has the authority. If you don’t see that English has a part of language called homonyms, then you have a bigger problem to be concerned about.
Do you miss the entire point of this thread? The definition that concerns reverence or awe is to do with religious. The whole point is why should a religious definition matter for a religious piece of scripture or whatever the case is to do with religion. That’s like ME or anyone else making up their OWN definition for whatever they want. So whatever is in the dictionary is automatically correct? So go test that on an animal or other human being, see how far fear gets you. It won’t get you very far. Reverence and awe my ass, there is no respect in fear. Coercion to respect is not real respect.
Oh and there is also a thing called history, which has proven you wrong already, countless men of the past have used coercion and fear. Someone that really respects you will stay by your side without any coercion, a person who fears you will bite you when they can to get away.
