[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Slavery 2.0?[/quote]Listen I know you’re kinda new here, but I’ve been over this a thousand times. The state sponsored programs alleged to be helping black people are and have been a soul crushing internal prison whereby generations of blacks are now enslaved in the welfare system that has decimated their families and crushed their hope for the future. Detroit is the sick dying object lesson in this very thing. The church I now go to, which is about 95% black, attracted me in part because they get that. I’m not up to plowing this very old ground again at the moment. Really, nuthin personal.
[/quote]
Gotta link to an old thread?[/quote]This is thge best I can do for now and it isn’t really what I wanted. It’s a PM I sent somebody about black families during the campaign in the spring of 08.
[quote]"This, my friend, is THE, THEEEEEE issue facing blacks. I live 2 blocks from the Detroit city limit, the blackest big city in the United States where the vast majority of children are born out of wedlock, no fathers anywhere though theirs they may be better off without and mothers entirely unequipped to raise them.
I don’t think I ever told this story here so I will now. One of the singularly most memorable conversations of my life.
I spent 7 long miserable years living in New York, Long Island, and for 3 of them in the early nineties I drove deliveries for a non prescription pharmaceutical supplier in NYC, Westchester county and eastern Jersey.
One of my deliveries was a pharmacy on 125th street, ironically also called Martin Luther King Jr. blvd, right across the street form the Apollo Theater. This is Harlem and nary a white face in sight. My first time there I was delivering saline irrigation solutions which are very heavy boxes of bottles of liquid.
This place has one of those doors that no matter how hard you try to throw it open with your foot it closes too fast to get yourself in with a handtruck. The black owner who it turns out was a believer in Jesus Christ, in about his fifties or so, saw me killing myself trying to get that first load through the door and came out to help. He walked out on the street and said to my utter shock, in a loud voice clearly designed to be heard by the crowds all over the sidewalk: I’ll GET THAT FOR YA SON, THESE NIGGERS AIN’T GONNA HELP YOU!!
I kinda sheepishly thanked him and when we got inside he could see the discomfort and puzzlement on my face at what he’d said. He said, don’t mind me, I just really can’t stand what’s become of this place and a conversation ensued.
I wound up in his office with him showing me a picture album of when he was a kid growing up there in the forties and fifties. Children in uniforms lined up at school, family gatherings, church, funerals etc. He was visibly upset. He told me how he remembered when you got smacked in the mouth by your own father if you lipped off to your elders and now kids roam the drug filled streets with guns, parentless and futureless.
It was from him I first heard the statistic that 78% of violent crime in NYC was black on black. He sneered, all I ever hear is how white people are the problem and we’re raping and murdering EACH OTHER. He did all the talking. He said he believed it was the disintegration of the family in the wake of government programs that absolve men of their fatherly responsibilities that largely facilitated this.
He even said he would gladly go back to the days of real institutionalized racism if this were the alternative. I spent about a half hour with him that day, blew my whole delivery schedule and was late for my workout later. I was riveted and a whole bunch of controversial topics lost their controversy for me that day. I’ve never viewed black white relations in this country the same since. We became friendly and he was the only one of any of my stops, black or not, that gave me a Christmas card and a tip along with a hug.
Barack Obama, far FAR from standing for “change we can believe in” represents more and more and more and MORE of the SAME big government crap that got us here in the first place. Racism is an abomination. It needed and needs to be expunged from our national fabric, but we have done all the wrong things to accomplish that and an Obama presidency will be a disastrous latest chapter in that already tragic book."[/quote]
[/quote]
That’s pretty interesting. When I went to Louisiana Tech university (Great school btw), I was much closer to some of these issues than when I was in a +95% white HS. The whole fatherless thing, racism, befriending people who escaped the ‘hood’ through academics. One of the things I learned is that there are only a few options to ‘escape the hood’ as one of my friends put it: sell crack to make enough money to start a legitimate job outside the hood, athletic scholarship, academics, and entertainment (rapping, comedy, etc).
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Unfortunately, my church leaders were wrong. My sexual orientation never changed, >>>[/quote]I know nothing about that church, but what never changed was your heart and standing with and before God. That is in no way to say that deliverance is necessarily instantaneous (but maybe) or without serious struggle. I’m at war with my flesh every second of every day. The fact that it isn’t with homosexuality doesn’t make me any more naturally inclined to righteousness than you are. It is of great significance that a simple bite from a piece of fruit was decreed the catalyst for this whole mess. Any and all sin is damnable.
I must say though that sexual sin does carry a heavy grievousness factor with God because it betrays, pollutes and corrupts the beautiful design of a man and a woman typifying the awesome relationship of ultimate intimacy between the bridegroom Christ and His church bride (Ephesians 5:22 —> as well as completing the very image of God in man which encompasses both sexes.
There are men and women living in godly victory over same sex attraction. Not that you would want to because you say you don’t believe there’s a God who cares, but there it is.
[/quote]
Reminds me of Paul’s thorn in the flesh.[/quote]“A messenger of Satan sent to buffet him”
I have to be honest. I don’t think I exactly follow.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.
From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]
Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.
Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]
Now that you admit that your evolutionary morality isn’t morality at all; how do you deduce natural rights from your evolutionary ethic. How do you defend that mass rape isn’t in the interest of evolution when it is the most successful method man has come up to spread his genes up to date(genghis khan for example).[/quote]
I don’t deduce any natural rights.
And, it should be plainly obvious that on a historical scale, strategies like mass rape are not successful. I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like the best idea for a long-term, stable society… which tends to be better for the entire human genome.
I’ve stated here before, and I will again: What we evolve into in the next hundred, five hundred, thousand years or whatever increment you pick, may appear repugnant to our current sensibilities. We may succeed. We may fail… we may be extinct with the next hundred years. In many ways, it’s hard to say.
Evolution can be brutal, but wanting comforting answers and finding those answers to be true are two different things. [/quote]
Since you can’t deduce natural rights or say that mass rape is wrong as an evolutionary tool http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html from an evolutionary perspective. Do believe in morality and that morals come from somewhere or are they just subjective “values” you hold that contradict the logical conclusion of evolutionary ethics.[/quote]
Define the logical conclusions of “evolutionary ethics.”
[/quote]
I am only evolutionary successful if I spread my genes, for the human species as a whole to be more successful eugenics programs to improve our evolutionary fitness letting only healthy people reproduce in such a way that maximization of genetic variation is the result etc etc …[/quote]
You are conflating evolutionary ethics with evolutionary morality and mixing in an ideology of “survival of the fittest.”
Evolutionary morality simply proposes that morals emerged from evolved cognitive tools.
Maximization of genetic variation as a goal would actually call for preserving as many lives as possible so that more genomes have a chance to reproduce. This would be the opposite of eugenics programs which typically call for a reduction in genomes to favor more “desirable ones.”
[/quote]
Then we are going to have to agree upon a working definition of morality that works for the both of us although I assert that a transcendent morality is the only one of any value.
Although genetic variation is good a good think you really think that conservation of genes that produce sickness and deformity is a good thing?[/quote]
Why do we have to agree on a definition of morality?? That’s the whole point here… we disagree. You keep insisting, as did Cortes for page after page, and Tbolt for page after page, that the only way my definition of morality can be valid is if it agrees with yours.
I think that what is missing from many of these discussions is the acceptance that there are well-established, perfectly logical and sane definitions of morality out there for atheists to look to. They are just not very well known outside of the studies of cultural anthropology or evolutionary biology. Atheists seem, for the most part, less concerned with divining the origins of their moral reasoning than religious people do in denigrating it.
And, yes. There are plenty of examples of genomes that create sicknesses and deformities that are for the most part good. In malarial countries there is a sickle-cell adaptation that inoculates against malaria, for instance. Also, when you consider that we are not talking about “genes” but rather “genomes,” you realize that the genome that creates one maladaptation could simultaneously be producing and adaptation of off-setting value.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First of all you are misconstruing Chaos theory and quantum mechanics incorrectly, both theories are logically consistent in and of themselves and both attempt to describe what we can infer and deduce from nature and this hangs on the assumption that we can describe and perceive the world rationally. Highly sensitive initial conditions or having to describe the electron as a probabilistic wave function due to the mathematically deduced Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn’t do away with the assumption that we can perceive and make statements about our world with any sense of intelligibility; otherwise there would be no value to the scientific method. Einstein has said “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” which makes perfect sense from his and most materialist’s world view.[/quote]
I may have misused Chaos Theory here, but I certainly didn’t misuse Quantum Mechanics. The observer effect & the inability to determine the exact time at which an electron decays have both been described as irrational… by none other that Einstein himself.
Back to what the interviewee had to say though… he said “All science is based on a fundamental faith that the universe is rational and intelligible.” This is just false. I’ll give you another example: Roger Penrose, for decades held that what was before the big bang was unintelligible and irrational to physics. In fact, this was the dominant position on cosmology for at least 20 years.
Science attempts to explain the universe with rationale and logic, but this does not require that the universe itself be rational.
My point in addressing this statement of his is to show that one of the underpinnings of his argument is VERY arguable. He treats it as if it is incontrovertible truth… which is silly.
Are you serious?
Natural selection is not an intelligent process. Why would I attempt to argue from the position that it is? That’s just silly. Of course evolution or natural selection don’t care… neither have an intelligence with which to care. Natural selection is nothing more than a crucible that rational intelligence happens to be suited to overcoming.
And, as I mentioned to someone else earlier in this thread, the argument that we can’t trust our cognitive tools such as rationality can go any number of ways.
How do you know that you even exist?
How do you know that what you see as the color red is the same thing that I see as the color red?
How do you know that you have not been tricked into having faith in the Devil?
When you (or Wfifer) bring this in to the argument and apply it selectively to rationality as a tool of evolution, you are being willfully, selectively ignorant.
And, do you care to defend his statement that evolutionists perceive their thoughts as no more than “the random motion of atoms” in their brains? As I mentioned in my first response, this is a pretty blatant straw man.
Doesn’t have much to do with what he brought up??? Are you kidding? I was responding specifically to what he said in that interview… quotes and all.
I’m sorry, but your response here is just lazy.
You did ask me what I though of it.
[/quote]
First of all the observer effect is not irrational, all of science is based on that the world can be interpreted logically. If you do not understand, Ill give you an example of how the scientific method. If we observe a thing either in experiment or in observation of our natural world that contradicts what a theory predicts we hold that the theory is wrong due to applying the law of non contradiction that holds the statement that “what the theory predicted and our observations from experiment are both true in the same way” to be false. [/quote]
Well, I guess you just have an opinion of the nature of quantum mechanics that goes against the majority. I really don’t know what to tell you. Quantum mechanics, specifically the unpredictability principle, describe a world that is irrational by nature of its indeterminateness and randomness.
We’re just gonna’ have to go on disagreeing here. No matter how many different ways that you repeat it, I will not buy the premise that science requires the universe to be rational.
Einstein said the same thing. Oddly enough, shit tons of other scientists disagree with his assessment and embrace a model of the quantum space that is irrational. I guess they’re not doing science?
[quote] Electron decay? If your talking about radioactive decay, probabilistic functions even though they accurately describe phenomenon just didn’t jive well with Einstein since if he could he would have quantum mechanics replaced with a theory that would predict which specific atom decayed at a specific time. Although one cannot have such a theory due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which also is not irrational in addition to Godel’s and Bell’s theorem.
Roger Penrose is right, you cannot apply the scientific method to the universe before the universe existed although one can apply logic to it. Science has other limitations as well.
“Science attempts to explain the universe with rationale and logic, but this does not require that the universe itself be rational.” Oh I see so we only have faith that the universe itself is rational. Applying logic and rationality to a universe that isn’t just doesn’t make sense. [/quote]
You have faith. I don’t.
I really wish that every religious poster who insists that everyone must have faith in something would accept that they are not being lied to, that some people just don’t need it.
As to the sense of applying logic and rational to making sense of an irrational universe. How else do you propose we try to understand it?
Really? Try to understand this;
If we discover that it is highly probable that the universe is fundamentally irrational, do you really think that science will suddenly cease to exist?
This is the point that Wfifer made. It’s stupid. In fact, many physicists posit that at the quantum level the universe is irrational, unpredictable, and indeterminate.
I know. It’s a really hard pill for a determinist to swallow. I don’t much like it either. However, that doesn’t mean that there are not theories of irrationality out there supported by good science.
What question are you answering here?
I never said that natural selection is unfit to explain rational intelligence. This is Wfifer’s argument… another one that requires that he place himself against the majority view in a big way.
[quote] I do not know whether I exist, see the color red in the same sense that you do or whether you or I have been tricked into having faith in the devil and neither do you. My point is that all of us start off with presuppositions and axioms that either justify why we have faith to believe that we are rational beings or not(although some like Ephrem do not anyone is rational at all or whether there is truth or not). Although I have faith(and so do you) which the majority of the human population considers reasonable even though there is no proof of such things, there are other minds then my own, that this world is real and that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age and that we are rational beings. The difference between me and you is that the reason I believe my rationality is justified in an eternal being who is the God of Truth and in him there is no darkness and is knowable, even for your purposes you can call him as an impersonal first cause.
Sorry the argument doesn’t apply to evolutionist as there are many people who believe in evolution on this board who are theist.[/quote]
What argument? You really should try to write more clearly.
Electrons are components of atoms, so they are subject to the mechanics of the quantum space.
Perhaps what Wfifer doesn’t understand, and what you seem to be missing, is that there is evidence for irrationality and randomness at the quantum scale, but not at the scale of organized systems… whole atoms and above. I may have randomly moving, subatomic particles in my head, but the atoms line up to become molecules, which organize into tissues, which collect into organs, which are all driven by determinate and predictable processes.
The thoughts in my head are NOT the product of random movement. There may be random movement within the systems that develop those thoughts, but the systems themselves are not random.
My entire point in this is that even a hobbyist like myself can see the absurdity of Wfifer’s claims. He presents an offensive lack of real logic and critical thinking in development of his arguments and doesn’t have much more than his opinion to back them up. He then uses these claims to build into some real whoppers like stating that Christian theology is based on evidence that rivals astrophysics. I notice that you still have not chosen to address this.
Not only that, he begins his argument with a distasteful mischaracterization of a published piece of work that anyone can pick up, read, and use to uncover his dishonesty.
He’s a hack… it would be like me posting an interview of myself on youtube, refuting all of quantum mechanics by stating that science requires the universe to be determinate and for cause to precede effect. Sounds good… and I’m sure lots of people who don’t understand the topic would buy it, but it would still be garbage.
Joab, is your position really that transcendental morality is the only morality with any value whatsoever, or only that it provides more value than human morality? If the former, I have to challenge you on that point. Clearly, human legal systems based on human values provide at least some benefit to society.
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And making all those dark skinned folk work their whole lives for no money had nothing to do with the success of the United States? Where exactly does the issue of human slave ownership fit into your nonsense fantasy of US history? Weren’t all those slave owning Christians commiting a grevious sin against other human beings? Why then would your just and loving God not only allow slavery, but allow HIS followers to own slaves, and BLESS their country for it?
Lobotomized religious fanatic indeed.[/quote]Here we go again. Do a little research pal. The conscience of this nation as a whole was expunging slavery from it’s midst right from day one. If the southern colonies hadn’t been absolutely needed to win the war, the DOI would have itself condemned slavery as it was in the initial drafts. Christians worked like dogs to help free slaves right up through and beyond the civil war. I’m not doin this with you. Nobody has been tougher on this than I have and even my detractors here will, if honest be forced to recognize that. We were growing in the generally right direction on this front until LBJ instituted slavery 2.0.
The founders were clear, even the pagans. They were depending on Christian morality to give teeth to their concept of very limited government. They would not recognize this communist whorehouse that still flies their flag.
[/quote]
And just as many Christians were slaveowners and profiting from it.
Little history lesson for ya: America was able to become a nation due in large part to financial aid from the French. The French had the money thanks to slave labor in Santo Domingo, modern day Haiti. Guess what religion all the African slaves in Santo Domingo were forced to convert to? Give you a clue: Starts with Cathol and ends with icism.
But I suppose yet another example of the historic tradition of Christians owning slaves doesnt count, yeah? Kind of undermines your wacko notion that Christians are now, or have ever been, bastians of morality or that being Christian is at all connected to morality. Shame.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[/quote]
Tiribulus, I know you’re unlikely to believe what I’m about to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I completely, 100%, know where you are coming from. I’ve been there myself. For many years, I would and did say exactly what you said above, and I deeply meant every word of it. I’m glad that you have found such a meaningful sense of purpose in your life, and that it gives you happiness.
I hope you can understand and respect that others may find enduring peace, purpose, and happiness on a different path than yours. If you’re like I was, that isn’t the case, since you firmly believe that true joy and redemption are only possible through Christ. However, your perspective may grow over time, and even if it doesn’t that’s ok too.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[/quote]
Tiribulus, I know you’re unlikely to believe what I’m about to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I completely, 100%, know where you are coming from. I’ve been there myself. For many years, I would and did say exactly what you said above, and I deeply meant every word of it. I’m glad that you have found such a meaningful sense of purpose in your life, and that it gives you happiness.
I hope you can understand and respect that others may find enduring peace, purpose, and happiness on a different path than yours. If you’re like I was, that isn’t the case, since you firmly believe that true joy and redemption are only possible through Christ. However, your perspective may grow over time, and even if it doesn’t that’s ok too.[/quote]You’re absolutely correct. I don’t believe a single syllable you just said as it would require calling the God of all truth a liar. I don’t even believe you believe it. Let me clue ya in friend. “happiness” wouldn’t be in the top ten of words I’d use to describe my life in Christ. What I have is peace, joy and fearlessness despite experiencing nary a moments happiness in my entire life. There is a great gulf fixed betwixt the two. Happiness ebbs and flows with circumstance. Christ, the rock of salvation IS my piece and joy regardless of any circumstances.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[/quote]
Tiribulus, I know you’re unlikely to believe what I’m about to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I completely, 100%, know where you are coming from. I’ve been there myself. For many years, I would and did say exactly what you said above, and I deeply meant every word of it. I’m glad that you have found such a meaningful sense of purpose in your life, and that it gives you happiness.
I hope you can understand and respect that others may find enduring peace, purpose, and happiness on a different path than yours. If you’re like I was, that isn’t the case, since you firmly believe that true joy and redemption are only possible through Christ. However, your perspective may grow over time, and even if it doesn’t that’s ok too.[/quote]You’re absolutely correct. I don’t believe a single syllable you just said as it would require calling the God of all truth a liar. I don’t even believe you believe it. Let me clue ya in friend. “happiness” wouldn’t be in the top ten of words I’d use to describe my life in Christ. What I have is peace, joy and fearlessness despite experiencing nary a moments happiness in my entire life. There is a great gulf fixed betwixt the two. Happiness ebbs and flows with circumstance. Christ, the rock of salvation IS my piece and joy regardless of any circumstances.
[/quote]
The worse the bs, the better the marketing has to be. If the ol’ “YOU’LL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY UNLESS YOU SAY I’M RIGHT” doesn’t work, switch to the “My life is better than yours” tactic.
You feel joy and peace because you’ve deluded yourself so thoroughly.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< You feel joy and peace because you’ve deluded yourself so thoroughly.[/quote]Joy and peace are not feelings, but just be thankful that you haven’t so deluded yourself with such silly nonsense then. There. It’s all solved and you can find more intelligent things to do with your time. Or, you can keep telling me how deluded I am and I’ll still be fulla the joy of the Lord which is my strength (Nehemiah 8:10) and His peace that passes understanding. (Philippians 4:7) I even find peace and joy in praying just for you, as CappedAndPlanIt because I don’t know your name, but no matter, God knows who I’m talkin about.
Odd… I posted a lengthy response to that video, and JSOZ hasn’t responded to it…, even though he has moved on with the thread.
On the assumption of our own existence, the veracity of our senses, and our ability to reason. There are essentially three ways that I am aware of, of treating these topics:
Work within the assumptions… because it is the best we have to work with. It is the most plausible scenario that our cognitive tools are both real and useful.
Seek out philosophical, spiritual, cognitive, etc… transcendence. This is obviously a popular trend in human history… more so in the Eastern traditions as it relates specifically to this topic.
Examine these things as thoroughly as possible from a scientific perspective. Penrose and Eccles (among others) have been examining the relationship between nerve impulse timing and our reaction times to stimulus… our brains’ treatment of disjointed visual stimulus, etc… There are a number of inconsistencies that may hold proofs to our consciousness, etc…
It is also entirely possible to trace the origins and evolution of cognition. To find comfort in this, though, requires that you be able to accept useful knowledge in stages. It’s not at all different from cosmology. At some point, you have to be able to accept the current level of progress in the field and work to build on it in reasonable steps… as opposed to demanding that an all-encompassing solution be available.
Demanding absolute knowledge is one way to wind up religious. [/quote]
Descartes tried to assume nothing and failed epically. You’ve separated “working within the assumptions” from the other two points…but isn’t it still a prerequisite for both? In any case, I intend to explore all avenues. Transcendence is a really interesting idea. So many ways to treat it, too.
Can you go into more detail about the third point (the “inconsistencies”)?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[/quote]
I think you need to distinguish between human nature and fallen nature. Humans are naturally good, they don’t turn away from God. Fallen nature (concupiscence) makes us turn away from God, but with Jesus we have the power to do that.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And making all those dark skinned folk work their whole lives for no money had nothing to do with the success of the United States? Where exactly does the issue of human slave ownership fit into your nonsense fantasy of US history? Weren’t all those slave owning Christians commiting a grevious sin against other human beings? Why then would your just and loving God not only allow slavery, but allow HIS followers to own slaves, and BLESS their country for it?
Lobotomized religious fanatic indeed.[/quote]Here we go again. Do a little research pal. The conscience of this nation as a whole was expunging slavery from it’s midst right from day one. If the southern colonies hadn’t been absolutely needed to win the war, the DOI would have itself condemned slavery as it was in the initial drafts. Christians worked like dogs to help free slaves right up through and beyond the civil war. I’m not doin this with you. Nobody has been tougher on this than I have and even my detractors here will, if honest be forced to recognize that. We were growing in the generally right direction on this front until LBJ instituted slavery 2.0.
The founders were clear, even the pagans. They were depending on Christian morality to give teeth to their concept of very limited government. They would not recognize this communist whorehouse that still flies their flag.
[/quote]
And just as many Christians were slaveowners and profiting from it.
Little history lesson for ya: America was able to become a nation due in large part to financial aid from the French. The French had the money thanks to slave labor in Santo Domingo, modern day Haiti. Guess what religion all the African slaves in Santo Domingo were forced to convert to? Give you a clue: Starts with Cathol and ends with icism.
But I suppose yet another example of the historic tradition of Christians owning slaves doesnt count, yeah? Kind of undermines your wacko notion that Christians are now, or have ever been, bastians of morality or that being Christian is at all connected to morality. Shame.[/quote]
Lol @ your argument.
So, because Catholics don’t always follow their morals and aren’t perfect that means that our morality is wrong? That makes sense, what happened when they tried to persecute the Nazi’s when they said they were just following the “law”? Well, by God almighty, they pulled out what Catholics have been saying is morality, formally known as Natural Law.
Sure, Catholics don’t follow their own Church’s stated morality all the time, but at least we have an absolute answer to the question of what is morally right that we always come back to. Does that mean it’s wrong? No, it means those Catholics aren’t perfect, that they are like the rest of humanity, they sometimes conform.
When slavehood, killing of homosexuals, honor killing, witch hunts, &c. come back in vogue guess what will still be against it, Natural Law. It has never changed, the behaviors of people that are supposed to abide by it and preach it have no merit on Natural Law’s truthfulness.
So, when the whole population conforms to a bad idea, and you need to prove them wrong who do people look to? Catholic teaching on morals, and who is told to STFU when someone wants to kill innocent children? Catholic teaching on morals. I guess people are too utilitarian, what they don’t realise is that the most utilitarian approach to life is in fact Natural Law.
Odd… I posted a lengthy response to that video, and JSOZ hasn’t responded to it…, even though he has moved on with the thread.
On the assumption of our own existence, the veracity of our senses, and our ability to reason. There are essentially three ways that I am aware of, of treating these topics:
Work within the assumptions… because it is the best we have to work with. It is the most plausible scenario that our cognitive tools are both real and useful.
Seek out philosophical, spiritual, cognitive, etc… transcendence. This is obviously a popular trend in human history… more so in the Eastern traditions as it relates specifically to this topic.
Examine these things as thoroughly as possible from a scientific perspective. Penrose and Eccles (among others) have been examining the relationship between nerve impulse timing and our reaction times to stimulus… our brains’ treatment of disjointed visual stimulus, etc… There are a number of inconsistencies that may hold proofs to our consciousness, etc…
It is also entirely possible to trace the origins and evolution of cognition. To find comfort in this, though, requires that you be able to accept useful knowledge in stages. It’s not at all different from cosmology. At some point, you have to be able to accept the current level of progress in the field and work to build on it in reasonable steps… as opposed to demanding that an all-encompassing solution be available.
Demanding absolute knowledge is one way to wind up religious. [/quote]
Descartes tried to assume nothing and failed epically. You’ve separated “working within the assumptions” from the other two points…but isn’t it still a prerequisite for both? In any case, I intend to explore all avenues. Transcendence is a really interesting idea. So many ways to treat it, too.
Can you go into more detail about the third point (the “inconsistencies”)?[/quote]
Now that I think about it, there are actually a number of other possibilities… this topic has been in ht aback of my mind for a few days… thanks for reminding me. I suppose there could be a way to “transcend” cognition without first making the leaps in faith required by religion, spirituality, or mysticism.
This is a topic I have some interest in and may try to follow up on when I have the time.
Anyway, the last few chapters of About Time deal with the human brain’s interaction with the world around it… specifically its pace. As it stands, there is an inconsistency between the understood speed of nerve impulses and the “pace” at which we experience reality. Basically, we experience immediate interaction with stimuli, etc… but it may take as long as 6 seconds for the mind/body to actually react to them. That’s the more extreme end of the inconsistency, but there are clearly some gaps that we have trouble explaining.
It could come down to distributed functions, but the little bit I read was interesting.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris and Tiribulus, I see what you’re saying and in fact agree with you. If there were an actual god that condemned homosexuality, no amount of misery in this life would justify turning against that god, relative to the eternal happiness you would receive in the next life. That was exactly why I fought my sexual orientation for so many years.[/quote]One more time. Nobody turns against God. Every single human being ever conceived by man in the history of this universe is “against God” by nature and wouldn’t have it any other way if God Himself did not first resurrect them from that state of condemnation and death.
You CAN’T fight your “sexual orientation”. I am no different in my own sins. If you are one of His it was nailed to His cross and He rose triumphant defeating it. Only living in that supernatural victory will bring freedom.
I don’t serve, worship and adore Jesus because I’m afraid of hell. It’s because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy dead in my sin fully deserving of all His consuming wrath. I understand that because He has made me understand it. I wouldn’t trade anything this pathetic temporary life could possibly offer for the coming day when I will see His magnificent beautiful face.
[/quote]
Tiribulus, I know you’re unlikely to believe what I’m about to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I completely, 100%, know where you are coming from. I’ve been there myself. For many years, I would and did say exactly what you said above, and I deeply meant every word of it. I’m glad that you have found such a meaningful sense of purpose in your life, and that it gives you happiness.
I hope you can understand and respect that others may find enduring peace, purpose, and happiness on a different path than yours. If you’re like I was, that isn’t the case, since you firmly believe that true joy and redemption are only possible through Christ. However, your perspective may grow over time, and even if it doesn’t that’s ok too.[/quote]You’re absolutely correct. I don’t believe a single syllable you just said as it would require calling the God of all truth a liar. I don’t even believe you believe it. Let me clue ya in friend. “happiness” wouldn’t be in the top ten of words I’d use to describe my life in Christ. What I have is peace, joy and fearlessness despite experiencing nary a moments happiness in my entire life. There is a great gulf fixed betwixt the two. Happiness ebbs and flows with circumstance. Christ, the rock of salvation IS my piece and joy regardless of any circumstances.
[/quote]
Come on, Tiribulus. I gave you a sincere response, and in return you quibble about word definitions and accuse me of not believing what I wrote. Again, I’ll ask you to respect my sincerity just as I respect yours.
I specifically mentioned joy in my last paragraph, and yes as a Christian I experienced soulful, transformational, redeeming joy as a result of my faith and acceptance of Christ.
Of course, I see things differently today than I did back then. But that doesn’t change the fact that I would have heartily echoed and affirmed every word you’ve written about Christ and his infinite, redeeming love.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sure, Catholics don’t follow their own Church’s stated morality all the time, but at least we have an absolute answer to the question of what is morally right that we always come back to.[/quote]
A: Having an absolue answer is bad when that answer is based on nonsense.
B: What does it matter that you “have an absolute answer” if (as has been proven time and time again) you’ll ignore that answer when it suits you to do so?