[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:<< Do you mean whether it was frowned upon? You always make early America out to be some type of moral golden age. There were MANY brothels that were frequented. Abortion was legal in many colonies and were performed at a later stage than now and why would there be divorce when the woman was practically owned by the husband? There was no need when all she did was cook, clean,work, and raise HIS children. [/quote]There will be no such thing as a moral golden age while sin persists in this world, but some are far better than others. Like I say. We ascended. In spectacular record breaking fashion until the 1960’s when we began a steep spiraling DEscent which we are in the final stages of now. YES YES YES, in a direct cause and effect manner. Look at the way you denigrate the utterly essential feminine functions of womanhood. Especially when you sneer: “raising HIS children”. You’re a poster child for the death of this nation. There will be even non Christian wives who read your bigoted misogynistic post and say to themselves “is THAT all I do?!?!?!? Well. I better get on the ball and find some meaning in my life. Sheesh”. Poster child. It’s over folks. It was nice run, but God will not allow His name to be dishonored by a people who spit in His face after the enormous blessing he has showered on them.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< When someone acts in a way that’s detrimental to me or my kin there’s no reason whatsoever why I can’t call such actions wrong.[/quote]WELL!!! I sure am glad that’s cleared up now.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It’s over folks. It was nice run, but God will not allow His name to be dishonored by a people who spit in His face after the enormous blessing he has showered on them.
[/quote]
Christianity is spreading rapidly in Africa, so God is probably not ready, don’t throw in your towel yet.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Christianity is spreading rapidly in Africa, so God is probably not ready, don’t throw in your towel yet.[/quote]I’m well aware. Eastern Europe and China too. We have people over there as I type this. I’m talking about the United States. This statue is named “The Spirit of Detroit” . It represents the city, holding the glory of God high in one hand and a FAMILY, consisting of one man, one woman and their children in the other. The inscription is directly quoted from the 2nd epistle of the apostle Paul to the Church at Corinth, 3rd Chapter, 17th verse. [quote]NOW THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT, AND WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY."[/quote] It was erected in 1958 when my country was peaking in power, prosperity and prestige. The motor city was the industrial engine of the world and the people gave open glory and honor to the God of the bible. It’s still there.
By 1978, Detroit was the murder capitol of the country, the auto industry was floundering and people were fleeing. What happened? The hippified debauchery of the 60’s happened. families, like the one on the statue, were under direct assault. Oh YEAH YEAH YEAH, somebody will start spouting abuncha economic numbers and other circumstances alleged to account for our fall, I know. All symptoms as I’ve spelled out in detail a hundred times already.
Today Detroit is a burned out shell of her former glory. 40% of the buildings abandoned, literal rubble and debris almost literally everywhere. A city once the host of 1,800,000 proud citizens when our statue went up, is now a cesspool of sickness and violence with a population of barely 800,000. Murderous, dead hearted, feral beasts disguised as children roam the streets, parentless hopeless and futureless.
You people can tell me whatever you want. Once we declared open public glory, not just to any ol general “god”, but “THE LORD” of the bible by direct quote? His enemies would not sit still and allow that to go unchallenged. What’s the perfect strategy? Destroy the family unit upon which this great society was built. How? Sex SEX AND MORE SEX. All kinds, everywhere, Kill the children it produces along the way too as a bonus.
Take the magnificent life producing gift of God which He gave as one of mankind’s most intensely pleasurable experiences of the giving of one person to another. According to the apostle in the 5th chapter of his letter to the church at Ephesus, a God ordained representation of the risen Christ’s love for His church bride in the covenant of marriage. Take it and turn into a filthy depraved ritual of self obsessed hedonism AND abort the life it was designed to bring forth.
Most folks will yawn and write this off as the blitherings of a religious extremist. Fine. Meanwhile we will continue to descend. God is not mocked, He is not surprised and He will NOT be defeated. So as ya’ll go on patting each other on the back for all your enlightened progress. Make no mistake. The holy God of heaven and Earth always brings glory to His own name even in and by the sin of rebellious man. The day IS coming when whoever reads will look back and wonder if that maniac on that website might have had a point after all.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Cortes, what is a metaphysical entity?[/quote]
The laws of logic. Physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics. Math. 2+2=4 (one for Tirib there). Ideas. Morality.
You could argue that the last two are just the product of our nature, but the rest are going to give you a bit more trouble.
I’m aware of the destruction of your hometown. What can I say, I have been very lucky when it comes to the place (E: and time) on this earth where I have had the chance to raise my children.
[quote]groo wrote:
There are plenty of objective moral systems that exist with no supernatural being.
There is much disagreement within even the same denominations about all of the moral principles that would make up a particular religion’s moral system. Generally this is negated when brought up by the “not a true scotsman” deal.
In the end morality in the grey areas tends to be a matter of personal taste.
We are all hypocrites which allows beliefs like the following to exist in the same person…or its converse.
Its terrible to abort a child yet its ok to use bombs to kill 160k of the other.
Its terrible to kill 160k with bombs but abortion is ok.
Positive rights are good and moral to uphold and laws should be made to enforce them but its terribly immoral to try to legislate any negative rights.
[/quote]
Nah, they’re both wrong. And neither matter. The no true scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in cases where the idea being discussed has clearly defined parameters.
Murder itself is what is wrong. So, abortion is wrong, and so is bombing 160K to death, and so is suicide, and so is suicide to save 160K babies from being aborted via bomb.
One may be necessary, or justified to save a greater amount of lives, or unavoidable. Regardless; circumstances, reasons, excuses and justifications have absolutely zero effect upon the intrinsic morality of any individual act.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Cortes, what is a metaphysical entity?[/quote]
The laws of logic. Physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics. Math. 2+2=4 (one for Tirib there). Ideas. Morality.
You could argue that the last two are just the product of our nature, but the rest are going to give you a bit more trouble. [/quote]
I could argue that the so called physical laws are just models that we have created and tinkered until they mimic reality to some degree. Enough that we can make predictions based on that info. Maybe i could say the same about logic and math, too, I dont know. I haven’t studied these things. But they are all dependent on language and and the users of that language. And people have developed those languages over time to correspond with reality.
But I was just curious when you made such a drastic distinction between metaphysical entities and products of nature.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Cortes, what is a metaphysical entity?[/quote]
The laws of logic. Physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics. Math. 2+2=4 (one for Tirib there). Ideas. Morality.
You could argue that the last two are just the product of our nature, but the rest are going to give you a bit more trouble. [/quote]I would go so far as to say that “metaphysical” is a practical synonym for “spiritual”. That which exists as an entity not extended in space (props to Dr. Bahnsen) can be said to be metaphysical or spiritual. The laws of logic are a perfect example. Where are they? Nowhere, in the usual sense of that word, but we use them every second of every day.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Cortes, what is a metaphysical entity?[/quote]
The laws of logic. Physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics. Math. 2+2=4 (one for Tirib there). Ideas. Morality.
You could argue that the last two are just the product of our nature, but the rest are going to give you a bit more trouble. [/quote]
I could argue that the so called physical laws are just models that we have created and tinkered until they mimic reality to some degree.
[/quote]
You could, but then your entire concept of reality and everything you believe would necessarily come tumbling down. Science in particular.
You really saying you think that language may dictate 2+2=4?
[quote]
But I was just curious when you made such a drastic distinction between metaphysical entities and products of nature.[/quote]
Because the distinction is, indeed, drastic.
I know that Cortes is not saying that there can exist a circumstance wherein sin MUST be committed? I KNOW that.
How and why?
No, language, in this case maths, models reality, it doesn’t dictate, that would be magic.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I know that Cortes is not saying that there can exist a circumstance wherein sin MUST be committed? I KNOW that.[/quote]
Been the longest day of my entire year (not in a bad way). I will just ask you to go ahead and say what it is you think I’m saying. Or not saying.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
No, language, in this case maths, models reality, it doesn’t dictate, that would be magic.[/quote]
Wait, so you are saying that there is a reality that exists beyond our perception?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I know that Cortes is not saying that there can exist a circumstance wherein sin MUST be committed? I KNOW that.[/quote]
Been the longest day of my entire year (not in a bad way). I will just ask you to go ahead and say what it is you think I’m saying. Or not saying. [/quote] God does not ever put believers at least in a circumstance wherein sin is unavoidably the only option. That’s the bible’s position. I assume you agree.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I know that Cortes is not saying that there can exist a circumstance wherein sin MUST be committed? I KNOW that.[/quote]
Been the longest day of my entire year (not in a bad way). I will just ask you to go ahead and say what it is you think I’m saying. Or not saying. [/quote] God does not ever put believers at least in a circumstance wherein sin is unavoidably the only option. That’s the bible’s position. I assume you agree. [/quote]
Nope, wasn’t saying that.
Strike the word “necessary,” if you want. I understand it is important to be precise when discussing these matters, but I also tire of having to defend every little conceived misspeak on my part.
[quote]Cortes wrote:Nah, they’re both wrong. And neither matter. The no true scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in cases where the idea being discussed has clearly defined parameters.
Murder itself is what is wrong. So, abortion is wrong, and so is bombing 160K to death, and so is suicide, and so is suicide to save 160K babies from being aborted via bomb.
One may be necessary, or justified to save a greater amount of lives, or unavoidable. Regardless; circumstances, reasons, excuses and justifications have absolutely zero effect upon the intrinsic morality of any individual act.
[/quote]I was talkin about this. It sounded like you were saying that sometimes the lesser of 2 sins must be committed to promote the greater good. I wasn’t accusing you of it, it just sounded that way which I was asking you to clarify. Sorry about your long, but good day btw. (I think)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:Nah, they’re both wrong. And neither matter. The no true scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in cases where the idea being discussed has clearly defined parameters.
Murder itself is what is wrong. So, abortion is wrong, and so is bombing 160K to death, and so is suicide, and so is suicide to save 160K babies from being aborted via bomb.
One may be necessary, or justified to save a greater amount of lives, or unavoidable. Regardless; circumstances, reasons, excuses and justifications have absolutely zero effect upon the intrinsic morality of any individual act.
[/quote]I was talkin about this. It sounded like you were saying that sometimes the lesser of 2 sins must be committed to promote the greater good. I wasn’t accusing you of it, it just sounded that way which I was asking you to clarify. Sorry about your long, but good day btw. (I think)
[/quote]
Certainly not what I meant, but that does bring up a good question:
Say you ARE put in a situation in which you either shoot this innocent person in the head or Dr. Evil will kill him along with 10 others.
So, is the act of killing that one to save the others immoral, but not sinful? Or would the only true moral, sinless path be to let them all die?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:Nah, they’re both wrong. And neither matter. The no true scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in cases where the idea being discussed has clearly defined parameters.
Murder itself is what is wrong. So, abortion is wrong, and so is bombing 160K to death, and so is suicide, and so is suicide to save 160K babies from being aborted via bomb.
One may be necessary, or justified to save a greater amount of lives, or unavoidable. Regardless; circumstances, reasons, excuses and justifications have absolutely zero effect upon the intrinsic morality of any individual act.
[/quote]I was talkin about this. It sounded like you were saying that sometimes the lesser of 2 sins must be committed to promote the greater good. I wasn’t accusing you of it, it just sounded that way which I was asking you to clarify. Sorry about your long, but good day btw. (I think)
[/quote]
Certainly not what I meant, but that does bring up a good question:
Say you ARE put in a situation in which you either shoot this innocent person in the head or Dr. Evil will kill him along with 10 others.
So, is the act of killing that one to save the others immoral, but not sinful? Or would the only true moral, sinless path be to let them all die?
[/quote]I would let him kill me first and whoever else he kills is between him and God. My responsibility is to not disobey my Lord. As wise as it may seem to man, it is most unwise to freelance God’s commands in the name of what I may think is a better idea. If, in the act of executing a righteous war, I unintentionally kill non combatant civilians, that is bad, but not sin.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
No, language, in this case maths, models reality, it doesn’t dictate, that would be magic.[/quote]
Wait, so you are saying that there is a reality that exists beyond our perception? [/quote]
Our senses are very limited, most of reality is beyond our perception. I think it was the assyrians or babylonians that invented zero, so they could use it as a placeholder in calculations. It turned out to be very useful for the development of mathematics.
Languages help us create an inner picture, but we don’t actually know if this inner picture stands in any relation to what it models. But it seems to work, especially mathematics and physical laws, we have plenty of proof for it. Anyway, metaphysical entities are created/described with languages and language is the only part of it we know in away that we can share. Language comes from people and people come from nature. So definitely there is reality beyond our perception, but I can’t say anything about it, only about the models and languages I use to describe it.
E: Well, I can say something, but only within the model I use.