Our relationship with the son of God, Jesus should provide us courage. We know the pain and sorrow that Christ went through for the crucifixion, our faith should make us strong. If we had no fear, we could do great things.
Every day we should be saying to ourselves what did we avoid today because of fear? What could we accomplish IF we lived by faith and day by day lived without fear?
Interesting statement, following the title. I'm confused as to how fear would keep one from living within the teachings of Christ. I'd love some examples of how fear could cause one to deviate from loving God and giving your neighbor the same consideration one gives oneself.
Ahhh, fear is a rather important motivator. Without fear we'd most likely die a rather fast death. Fear might stop you from walking into a biker bar at 3 am and telling them about Jesus which would prevent you from attempted to do anything for Jesus the next day.
Fear might prevent you from walking onto a busy highway holding a banner that says "honk if you love Jesus" which would also most likely prevent you from helping Jesus the next day as well.
So, would you say fear and sound judgment are synonymous ?
No I wouldn't say that because sound judgment can relieve one's fear. There are however people through the result of a brain injury have no fear. They tend to get hurt a lot. There are also people who allow fear to rule there lives.
But, fear doesn't factor in as the primary reason a Jesus freak wouldn't do either of those things, hopefully. I would say it only played a role if one were to forego sound judgment and found themselves standing on the cusp of doing either. At that point, fear would be the primary motivator. I would think.
Fear is most definitely the reason a "Jesus freak" doesn't do things that would get him killed. It's the reason we don't stick our head in a lions mouth or jump in the polar bear exhibit. It's the reason men don't tell their wives that they are gaining weight. Women are not afraid to tell their husbands they are gaining weight because we don't care. Men look down and say "right, but better get to the gym". Sound judgement may help one with unwanted fears, but it won't prevent someone from doing stupid things if they feel no fear as they won't consider thinking about what they are doing without fear.
I still disagree. Fear is not a factor when considering dangerous consequences. I don't not jump into a lion's cage because I'm afraid to jump in. I simply know the consequences and don't do it. I don't feel fear in the process of thinking of it. The same goes for entering a biker bar. I'm not afraid,because i have no desire to do it. Now, bungee jumping. I want to, but i know i couldn't because i fear it. That doesn't fall into the same category since sound judgment doesn't prohibit the thought or act of bungee jumping.
If you felt no fear you may be inclined to pet those beautiful lions and tigers. Perhaps you want to know what their paws feel like? But fear prevents us from acting upon our desires.
But there are "Jesus freaks" who may want to save the souls of those bikers, but fear prevents them from going in, and it's a good thing. As for you fear of bungee jumping, some good sound judgement may be used to convince you you should either try it or not, but if you had no fear sound judgement wouldn't come into play because you wouldn't think you need it.
Fear-an unpleasant emotion.
I suffer no fear when judging what will be the end result of any course of action i am not compelled to embark upon. Fear would only be a factor if i felt compelled. It would be what held me back, but there would be no fear involved when accepting that i couldn't snuggle with a lion.
I do agree that without the initial benefit of sound judgment fear might kick start it.
You don't feel the need to snuggle with a tiger because you fear it. You may feel the need to snuggle with your dog, but don't feel the need to snuggle with a wolf. For good reason.
Hey. If fear is what motivates you, I'm not knocking it. If it ain't broke.....
Dear, fear motivates everyone except those who are incapable of feeling fear.
It is not a primary motivator in my life, sorry. So, unpleasant emotions plague you daily?
Look. Fear is an emotion. A recognizable one. You could argue that it is a subconscious motivator. But, I'm telling you it doesn't factor in when you calculate the advantage or disadvantage of any course of action unless you stand ready to embark on that course. When the disadvantages are obvious you simply avoid it. No unpleasant emotion involved.
You may want to look into what happens to people who were left (because of a brain injury) without any fear. Fear is what leads one to make sound judgements.
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychol … motion.htm
**bangs head against wall**
Neither of us (i hope) have had a brain injury. I know i haven't. Fear may play a factor in compelling you not to do something dangerously stupid, if you are drawn to dangerously stupid behavior. Fear may play a factor if you find yourself in a situation where the wrong move could yield dangerous consequences. However, if you told me to jump off of a bridge, play with a polar bear or juggle lit dynamite fear wouldn't stop me from doing it. I simply wouldn't do it because I'm not compelled to risk the consequences. There is no unpleasant emotion to contend with.
You can't claim fear is what leads one to sound judgment simply those without fear do not exhibit sound judgment.
Not only "dangerously stupid" but simpler things have some roots in fear, fear of social consequences. One can go to an academic meet in shorts but nobody will, fear of the consequences though it is not "dangerously stupid".
Yes he claims fear is what leads one to sound judgment but he didn't claim that fear is the only thing that leads to sound judgment.
If he wasn't claiming fear was the primary motivator then the conversation would not have continued. I agreed that it was a factor, simply not the primary factor in the situations he gave as examples.
It starts with the fear of getting hurt and then moves onto intellect.
Fear is the primary motivator in not doing something (which I think is what he meant, from his examples). Pleasure and pain (or fear of) are the two prime motivators.
Oh. Then I disagree. Fear is a primary motivator in specific examples. Not the ones he gave.
The examples he gave like petting a tiger, is an example of fear. Not going near it, if we want to go near it, is due to fear. If we are not anywhere near a tiger or if we are not contemplating going near one there is no motivation one way or other.
That's what I said. He disagreed. You might take that up with him.
The fact remain that a good number of people who goes to zoo try to to touch the "innocuous" big cats (that zoo people are forced to erect barricades and keep security) and some have souvenirs from the incident to remember all their life. Seeing the innocent looking cat behind bars make people forget their fear and want to pat them.
Not all people. Not the vast majority of people. That argument is similar to saying you shouldn't drive because some people have accidents. You can't claim something is typical of all when it only applies to a miniscule group.
The vast majority of people like to pet and cuddle cats and dogs (no I don't belong to that majority), what prevent them is the fear of consequences.
Why I said is that, Radman might be in the majority and hence he might have taken it for granted that everybody wants to touch a tiger and gave his example from that angle.
It is not when one sits in the comfort of ones room one wants to touch a tiger but when one sees one. (His other example where a Christian do not want to preach jesus is clear) what I gathered is that fear is one important motivator whether positive or negative, which is true. The disagreement occurs only if he said fear is the only motivator which he didn't. Fear is one of the most important motivators, example fear of hurt, failure, social consequences, rejection...so on.
I presume your argument is not "that argument is similar to saying you shouldn't touch a tiger because some people who touched have accidents."
There is something wrong with your reply.
If I don't like animals I don't go to zoo, do I? After all you do not go to zoo to find animals you can eat and if I go to zoo with only sabotage in mind I certainly is not in any majority. So if somebody like animals it is natural to suppose that they also like to cuddle it and even feed it from their hands. What prevents them from doing so is the fear of the consequences.
When did I say anything about everyone wanting to pet a tiger? For some reason, you can't see the point because you are stuck on details that are meaningless. We were in fact talking about wild tigers were we not, I'm sure I mentioned polar bears as well. What stops a person from walking up to a wild tiger that THEY WOULD LIKE TO PET? Common sense, as the tiger will most likely kill. Even most children understand that fear of getting hurt and will stay away.
BTW, I have a zoo about 15 miles from my house that I frequently a lot when my kids were a little younger. One of the zoo keepers told me that two of the most dangerous animals in any zoo are the polar bear and the komodo dragon, because they have no fear at all. They have no natural predators so they haven't had the need to develop fear. It's not an emotion that it has needed for survival, while it's certainly is something that humans must have needed and still do for survival.
I'm not saying while I sit here typing I'm afraid of one of the big cats escaping the zoo, but there has been a black bear in the area a few years back where I made sure the kids were inside when I heard about it. The thought process goes something like this, what can happen if I leave my children playing in the park when a hungry black bear is a few hundred feet away? The black bear could hurt them, so I better get them inside. The fear of them being hurt changed my behaviour.
A dear sitting in a meadow will keep a close eye for potential predators without having any common sense or thought.
Hey, you're the one who argues in black and white. All I was pointing out was that sweeping statements are difficult to back up. You continued to argue that fear was the primary motivator whether one felt compelled to do something dangerous, or not. If you agreed with my contention that your claim was fallacious you certainly did it in a round about manner. However, since you are now agreeing with me I'm glad you were able to see what I was saying all along.
Ahhh, fear is the primary motivator for not doing dangerous things. Just because you don't feel the fear that the moment doesn't mean fear isn't involved with the decision.
I don't drink and drive for two reasons.
1. I fear someone will get hurt and
2. I fear getting caught.
Can you think of any other reasons for not driving drunk?
Common courtesy. Consideration of others. Empathy. Things like that. I don't fear the consequences. I abhor the thought of doing things without considering the needs of others.
"Empathy" how do you mean? You empathise with whom?
"Consideration of others", how again if it is not the fear that others will be inconvenieced or irritated or hurt?
That makes no sense, what needs are you talking about? What does drinking and driving have to do with the needs of others, there is no connection there. What courtesy are you taking away from others? Who are you empathizing with?
I'll take it that I got you with that one, because your answer make no sense whatsoever.
Makes no sense? What makes no sense is that you think fear is the primary motivator for adults in the things they do and that you can't seem to understand it is not the primary motivator in all of the examples you keep bringing up. I don't have a problem with the fact that fear does motivate us in some ways at some times, simply not the examples you have given.
Way to funny, so according to you people don't drive drunk because of common courtesy, in other words they don't want to upset people who may seem driving drunk. And here I thought it was they were afraid of killing people and or spending years in jail. Silly me.
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that we would kill people, if we didn't fear killing them. Wow. I simply thought we knew better.
As to the rest of that, maybe you are having reading comprehension problems. I didn't say we didn't drive drunk because we didn't want to upset people who may seem driving drunk. To be honest, I have no idea what that means. Are you sure you do?
May be seen driving drunk. One of my many typos. Sorry.
Common courtesy? We don't drive drunk because of common courtesy? Ever wonder why we have laws against driving drunk?
So people won't kill people we have to set up laws that make people afraid of doing stuff like driving drunk. That's what the guy thinks after having to many pop with his buddies when he gets behind the wheel "I shouldn't do this because I should be courteous to my fellow citizens."?
What he thinks is "I shouldn't do this because I could hurt someone and go to prison".
May be seen driving drunk? That still makes no sense.
As to laws. There are people who simply don't care and we have laws to let them know what the consequences will be if they are caught doing something they shouldn't. There are laws against a lot of things we would think, out of common courtesy, people wouldn't do. Not everyone is thoughtful of others. Go figure.
I don't know what other people think. I am simply telling you what I think. And, I don't think fear is a factor.
Again, common courtesy suggest we don't drive drunk because we want to be polite. We don't want any one upset if they see us driving drunk. Ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that if we took laws against drunk driving away (removing the fear of getting caught) the roads would be a lot more dangerous. Some think they will never get caught and do it anyway, that's true, but if drunk driving wasn't illegal a lot more people would do it.
Well, the people I know who drink don't give a hoot. The laws don't stop them. I'm afraid fear of the law only works for some. So. What we have is laws that don't deter some from dangerous behavior patterns, laws that do deter some from dangerous behavior patterns and no need for those laws for some who wouldn't do that anyway. Are you claiming that all categories of people are deterred because of fear?
No, perhaps you missed the link I posted of the person who has no fear. The rest of us are subject to it. Even serial killers don't want to get caught because they fear prison.
We all fear something. I'm sure you put a lot of faith in your link and I have no doubt it is a nice one and maybe the person who wrote the link does a better job of supporting the idea that fear is what keeps an intelligent adult from petting tigers, driving drunk and killing people. I simply disagree. I'd probably disagree if I read the link, unless there was a pie chart. I'm a sucker for pie. Not all pie, but there is a strong probability that I would be swayed.
Right, the link simply showed what happens to people who don't feel fear. You didn't read it so I guess that's why you don't understand, or at least I hope thats why.
Believe it, or not, i do understand what you are attempting to say. I disagree. You appear to think simply because you read something it is the only viewpoint allowed. And you attempt to apply it in situations that are not applicable.
Actually no, I've read most of the bible and find it ridiculous. However when one reads about people who have been studying people who don't feel fear it's rather compelling. Plus it seems everyone one else agrees with me. That's why we have laws in place. That's why some religious people attempt to extort behaviour with the fear of God's wrath. I believe you are much smarter than you pretend. You just have to be.
No rad man. That statement 'everyone agrees with me' is indicative of an ongoing problem I consistently run across when questioning your penchant for making sweeping assumptions from one article you have run across. Everyone doesn't agree with you. You read one article. I notice two posters have questioned me about statements you made, they being unwilling or unable to differentiate between posts made by different hubbers.,
That being said, three does not constitute everyone. Of course, neither does one. We disagree. Deal with it
The study didn't teach me about fear, the study of evolution and common sense did that. The study did confirm what I already knew and what I thought was common knowledge.
Perhaps the problem you are confusing fear with anxiety.
" In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it"
You have yet to address the claims you made, the ones we have questioned you about. So far, you haven't been able to put together an argument, so we can conclude you don't have one.
No, no no, in her defence she said something about common courtesy is what prevents us from drinking and driving because that's what the fellow about to turn the key is thinking when he was out have a few to many pops. "I should be courteous to my fellow citizens and take a cab as they may be offended by my drunken stupor".
That quote you posted are the thoughts of an idiot. Do you think that way? Do you assume most people are idiots? If you assume others are idiots that might explain your argument.
Well, it is what you told us. Common courtesy is the reason you gave as to why people don't drink and drive. I always assume others are smarter than myself. It's the old I'm okay, your okay way of looking at life.
No.I said i don't drink and drive because of common courtesy, among other reasons. You quoted what you assumed a drunk thought.
I quoted what a drunk would think if he was worried about common courtesy. I'm sorry you can't see how ridiculous that is.
You appear to be unable to grasp the concept that people are different. Different things motivate different people. If you think anything I've said implies that all people think the same you've misunderstood something.
You keep embarking on these bizarre tangents. I think, perhaps, you are attempting to sidestep the fact that your claims that fear is the primary motivator were off base.
LOL Are you afraid to admit you're wrong?
I'm going to let you in on a little known secret. We are all humans and as such we are motivated by the very same emotions, unless one of us have a defect.
I'm going to share a piece of information that is no secret. Although we share similar emotions we do not react the same way to stimuli. We are not driven to act in the same manner nor do we have emotional responses to the same things. I'm sure it would be easier if we did. We could take one study and apply the results found to each and every human. But, then, we wouldn't be human. Would we?
That's right, we don't drink and drive or pet wild animals because of common courtesy. LOL
That comment is an example of the problem. You attempt to take a statement and apply it across the board. I didn't say that. There was no we in anything i said. Nor did i say I don't pet wild animals out of common courtesy.
Why do we talk? You either don't listen or don't understand what is said. I'll leave you to your fallacious beliefs. You appear comfortable with a failure to communicate and your continued penchant for twisting things so you can continue to be confused is pointless.
What are you talking about? I'm using your exact words, I can't help it if they sound silly.
It's the holiday season! Calm it down. It's not that big of a deal. Show some love...
No. You are rearranging them. I never said consideration of others is why I don't pet wild animals. What I said was your assertion that fear is what motivates us to sound judgment is shallow. Fear is not a primary motivator in the examples you offered. I'm sorry that you can't accept that everything you read doesn't apply to all in all situations. That's life.
But, you did make claims about common courtesy, but haven't substantiated or explained those claims.
You could also explain why you don't pet wild animals if not common courtesy? Considering that both not driving drunk and not petting wild animals are both based on fear, there is no reason to not conclude you pet wild animals out of common courtesy.
You haven't said anything yet, we are still waiting for your explanations?
I don't have to substantiate claims I make about myself. If you don't believe me what purpose would it serve to attempt to substantiate? Wouldn't it follow if you don't believe the first thing I say you won't believe any subsequent comments?
If you don't know why one wouldn't pet a wild animal I doubt I could help you. Since I don't agree that they are both based in fear your conclusion would automatically be fallacious. I'm surprised you can't understand that.
Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind, it helps me to weed out those with no credibility. Thanks.
I know you can't help me based on your lack of answers. But, that wasn't the point nor the motive of asking you to substantiate your claims.
Look ATM. If I say I don't pet a wild animal because I know the consequences and don't feel compelled to do something stupid, if you don't believe that...what should I do to substantiate my claim? Not pet a wild animal? I could send you a video of me not petting wild animals. Would that help?
If I say consideration of others is why I wouldn't drink and drive...how should I substantiate that?
Give me a break. Your whole post is ridiculous.
The consequences are based on fear, which is what we've been trying to tell you.
You haven't yet, but we already know why, it's because of fear and not consideration of others.
Perhaps you simply can't understand simple statements. Or, maybe it's that you aren't capable of accepting that what motivates you is not what motivates the entire human race. Since you seem to be unable to process simple information without extrapolating in a faulty manner, I'll leave you to your limited comfort zone. This conversation is pointless.
I will say we teach our children to fear that which they cannot view from a position of full understanding. Fear is not a factor in things we understand completely. When we can see the bigger picture we make decisions based on all of the facts, without fear. I can accept that although some fall into the category of adults by age, they are not mature enough to function intelligently and fear must continue to motivate. If one falls within this category I can see why they would be unable to understand another position.
There's really been no conversation. There's been you making unsubstantiated claims, us asking you to substantiate them and then you following them up with comments like that.
Now you've admitted fear, which is what we were saying all along.