First, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that morality is rooted in compassion and sympathy.[/quote]
I can’t prove to you when or how a concept was invented, especially since that probably happened thousands of years ago, but in the absence of an outside source the only way morality could be imagined was through empathy and compassion, as an extension of the golden rule.
The physical manifestation of the golden rule are mirror neurons.
[/quote]
That’s not what I was asking you to prove. I don’t give a crap about the history of evolution. I want to to prove that morality is rooted in empathy and sympathy. You don’t have to know how it came about or where it evolved from to know that.
Of course then you got strait to the ‘physical manifestation of the golden rule’ ← Everything you’ve been professing indicates there is no such thing as ‘the golden rule’ it’s a metaphysical construct and you believe it’s all biological.
Reasoning to concepts like morality is only logical. You can’t know it any other way… There is nothing assumed here.
Good and evil do not coincides with desirable or non-desirable behavior. Technically, morality is bad for the species, because it protects the weak which conflicts with survival of the fittest. So even if evolution dreamed it up, it was a titanic fuck up.
You don’t have to know the source of it to know it exists. If you want to know though, just apply causal regression and it will take you there.
And after I took all the time explaining how it’s impossible for man to create or destroy anything in metaphysics you come up with this crap. Sadly with nary a shred of evidence, or an ounce of logic to back you up. Oh you have wishful thinking, but that’s it.
So now you’ve managed to paint yourself into another corner, show me how humans invented morality. This ought to be good.
This is a mere continuation of misunderstanding what relative morality is [to me].
I can condemn slavery on my own accord, but we both view this subject from the perspective of our times. It doesn’t matter whether we can look back and condemn past practices as always having been wrong.
I have no doubt, were we born 1500 years ago, that our perception of morality would be very different. And the fact that morality changes over time, as perceptions of morality changes over time, means that morality is relative.
Yes, I worded that poorly. Mirror neurons are the precursor to the golden rule. From empathic feelings we began to develop social contracts, and from those social contracts an ideal arose: morality.
This is simply not true. The weak and the feeble have a role to play in society. They contribute to society [tribe] in a meaningful way: caring for children and the sick. Making art or play a religious role.
Even in wolf packs, the lowest ranking male, the omega-dog, plays his part and, as a diffuser of tension, contributes to the pack. There is no evolutionary downside to caring for your weaker members of the tribe.
Morality is an idealised version of a social contract born from the necessaty of having a peaceful society in order to be succesful.
Tell me this pat: where is morality written down? If I were a sociopath, devoid of human emotion, and I was taught about morality; where would you begin?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If TigerTime is ever interested in an actually biblical exposition on this matter, take it to Hijack Haven and I will correct Pat’s woeful misrepresentation of the mind of God. For the… (pick a big number)th time.[/quote]
Am I to understand that you contend human’s ARE worthy of Hell-fire by birthright? [/quote]You are to understand that in Adam all died (1st Corinthians.15:22), they continue in sin and death (Ephesians 2:1-12) there are no exceptions (Romans 3:9-19), save for Jesus alone (2nd Corinthians.5:21), until they are raised in Christ (Colossians 3:1). In a nutshell.
Systematic theology, wherein the bible alone and in it’s entirety is studied critically using the histroico-exegetical method is all but lost today. The text must be first taken in it’s historical context(what did it mean to them) and then applied to us (what does that mean for us). Cultural form and trans-cultural principle. When that is done for the whole bible under the assumption that God is God and I am not, you end up with 44 of the 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention in remarkable agreement about what they at least said they believed the bible teaches.
It is at once accessible to a child AND beyond the ultimate reach of the most brilliant and learned of godly men. The Word of God in short. Yes, as King David has so eloquently told us in the 5th verse of the 51st Psalm: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”
I’ll be impressed if you actually look those up.
[/quote]
And you are okay with this?
For example, do you agree that aborted babies should go to Hell because they haven’t been baptised? Do you agree that it is fair for the sins of the father to be pushed on the son? [/quote]No I am not okay with anything the Word of God says. I celebrate and cherish it as such. I said above that in the absence of evidence to the contrary I choose to believe that children who die in an undefinable period of infancy are mercifully imputed with the merit of the blood of Christ. No, I can’t prove that and I might be wrong. The sinS of the father are not pushed on the sons. The nature of death is passed on to the sons who then commit their own sins. While I do not have a serious problem with infant baptism in the Presbyterian tradition, I also would consider myself a baptist in that I believe that a sounder biblical case can be made for adult baptism.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Good and evil are inventions; merely a different way to assign value to wanted vs unwanted behaviour.
[/quote]
Kinda, Good and evil as the being the only meanings of good and bad is an invention. However, good is not an invention (evil is just the lack of good in something).
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
My point is, the Church today isn’t the same as the Church from hundreds of years ago. The morality the Church has evolved into something softer in order to keep the morality relevant and at least acceptable with the times. This is why I say the morality of the Church has evolved, changed… Because it has.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]This is why the Catholic church, following protestant liberalism will never ever impact the modern world. You really don’t see what gobbledy gook this is do you Christopher. The Catholic church has no philosophy (which is an unbelievable hallucination), but philosophy is the handmaiden of theology? The church however uses a man made one? (which is true). You changed philosophy because society has changed? You are gonna see this for the devilish trickery that it is one day Chris. I can taste it in my soul. The gospel is idiotic to the world. It’s SUPPOSED to be laughed at and scorned. Every attempt to make it more palatable to modernistic God hating unbelievers is an insolent presumption upon the cross which is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness. (1st Corinthians 1) A scandalon in the Greek. An object of ridicule. Beware when men speak well of you.
This Severiano guy made some very good points and they apply just as readily to the liberal self professed protestants around here as well.
This is a mere continuation of misunderstanding what relative morality is [to me].
[/quote] You technically don’t matter in the equation as you aren’t the determinant of what is and is not moral.
The question isn’t about looking back. And of course perceptions were different or they wouldn’t have had slaves. But the question on the table is, even if you lived 1500 years ago, and believed slavery was fine, would it have still been wrong.
It’s a simple question really. If your perception of something makes it what it is, then anything can be moral so long as your perception of it is ok.
LOL! So if I feel empathetic to a killer, that’s a precursor to morality? Further, you can also make the ‘right’ decision based on things besides empathy like situational awareness. It happens all the time.
Empathy can be misplaced, so can a lack of it. It’s a poor thing to place judgment calls on. Morality is often counter intuitive. Like spanking a child to correct their behavior to ultimately do them good.
Depends on how weak. Many species abandon their weaker members. A weak member who has something useful technically isn’t weak. We’re not talking only physical strength. There is an evolutionary downside to propagating useless populous as perpetuates weakness in the species.
Hmm, really? Because society isn’t all that peaceful really. Second, it’s not necessary for society. Cooperation is, but that’s not necessarily rooted in morality. You can have a cooperative society that is wholly immoral, but able to survive and be successful.
Well, it’s written int millions of places, but I never made any claim about it being written. As a mater of fact it’s a metaphysical construct and our language is not sufficient to articulate it exactly. We can only tell it by it’s affect.
Now sociopaths may be devoid of empathy, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know morality. Simply being a sociopath doesn’t make you inherently evil. And I certainly wouldn’t try to explain it from the point of empathy. I would explain that you cannot cause suffering to other conscious creatures if you are trying to be moral. That you have to take actions that beneficial to others to do a moral act.
Morality is exemplified in what you do, not how you feel.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
[/quote]
LOL!
You really need to educate yourself. I get your pissed at the archdiocese, but most of your information is just flat false.
Divorce simply doesn’t exist in the Church. there is the ability to annul the marriage, but that’s not the same as divorce. The story about fornicating with whole in front of bishops is amusing, but complete and utter bullshit. Let’s see the proof of that one.
Galileo status was changed a while back and the church did apologize for the behavior of it’s predecessors. The church is run by people who are far from perfect.
The church does occasionally do a course correction, but I’d hardly consider that it’s ‘softened’ anything. I mean if you consider things like having the mass in native languages a big softening. Hell we can’t win, some people complain we’re to hardass others complain we’re to soft. We’re not here to please man, so whatever.
Last, I think you just pissed at what happened to your situation. I can tell you that that’s not an unusual practice though. People try to take advantage of the church all the time, it has to have some protection in place. I assume you got your records out of hoc. So all is well.
I don’t see the point in repeating ad hoc stories that one time somebody said that somebody’s uncle’s, cousin’s friend had heard that once upon a time you have to get it on with a whore to prove you can’t get it up. Life’s to short for this garbage.
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it. Yes, I do determin what’s moral and what’s not, and so do you.
What is a moral rule you live by but don’t agree with?
Yes, to you it’s moral. It may not be moral to someone else though.
I don’t think spanking a child is particularly moral, but sometimes it’s necessary.
I agree. And to be very honest, I don’t think we do ourselves, as a species, a favour by allowing the [uselessly] weak and feeble to procreate. We can’t go as far as preventing them from having children, but we shouldn’t encourage it either.
An unstable society that’s wrecked by inner turmoil will not survive. That’s what I meant by “peaceful”.
Can you name me one society that, by your standards, was wholly immoral yet succesful?
But our actions are governed by our feelings and emotions, imo.
If morality can be simplified to “do no harm” then it would still not be exempt from my “mirror neuron excitation” hypothesis.
I’ll even submit, for your consideration, that all our actions are premeditated through feelings and emotions.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< I don’t think spanking a child is particularly moral, but sometimes it’s necessary >>>[/quote][quote]ephrem wrote:<<< to be very honest, I don’t think we do ourselves, as a species, a favour by allowing the [uselessly] weak and feeble to procreate. We can’t go as far as preventing them from having children, but we shouldn’t encourage it either. >>>[/quote]Your homework assignment for tonight Ephrem is to go to your room, get on your knees and beg forgiveness of the most high God for ever being so cosmically hypocritical as to accuse Tiribulus of insanity or arrogance. When a man has decayed to the point where the immoral is necessary and he believes that fellow humans, not as “useful” as himself should be frowned upon for pursuing their God given right to produce and nurture a family? AFTER assaulting others for denying someone’s rights in the form of a woman barbarically butchering her own child?
A man who loves death on all sides. Kill the babies and prevent the imbeciles. I, me me me, am the arbiter of right and wrong… FOR OTHERS, I don’t see as fully human and or as useful as myself. Repent Ephrem. You are a slave of sickness and death. It is however the natural conclusion of the pagan autonomous worldview of godless uncertainty you so proudly proclaim. It doesn’t have to be like this for you man. You make me sad my friend. I do so sincerely want more for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is why the Catholic church, following protestant liberalism will never ever impact the modern world.[/quote]
Strange, because the Pope is ranked as one of the most influential people in the world. Why the Bishops are leading the religious freedom battle in America (and are in the MSM news everyday), Catholics are in front of the pro-life movement, &c.
Yes, do you know what the quote even means?
Sure, like Paul using the Stoics philosophies against them in the market place when he reasoned with them.
I think I have some left over blood pressure medicine. Haha.
I guess the saying is true, and enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if you call your enemy your friend. Lol.
I knew you wouldn’t miss a chance to try and blind side me. Lol.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I knew you wouldn’t miss a chance to try and blind side me. Lol. >>>[/quote]I’m sorry Chris. I see now that it wasn’t right for me to interject when I did with what I did. However, you have my word that I did not see his post just above mine until 5 minutes ago. That played no part in my response whatsoever. It was the one you quoted in the post I was quoting you from. I didn’t see his next one at all until this morning. I see now how you took me the way you did. Please accept my apology.
[quote] I, me me me, am the arbiter of right and wrong… FOR OTHERS, I don’t see as fully human and or as useful as myself.[/quote]That’s rich coming from you![/quote]I view ALL men(and women) as the highest creation of almighty God bearing His very image and likeness Ephrem. Including you. Sin is a twisted and ugly thing. How well I know. I lived enthusiastically in it for the first 20 years of my life. I repeat, I will never stop believing for you.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
This as opposed to many Christians who believe in evolution and would entertain the idea of morality being an evolved thing. Perhaps they believe morality evolved a little differently than an evolutionary biologist may believe, perhaps they believe our morality evolved in a deterministic way with God behind the scenes pulling the strings necessary for us to evolve in such a way that aligns with say the ten commandments. It’s pretty complicated, but Christians, especially Catholic leadership has constantly, and consistently changed interpretation and philosophy in an attempt to stay somewhat modern. It took them a while to admit Galileo was right, men don’t have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of a room of Bishops to prove they failed to conceive in order to have a divorce, and the Papacy isn’t purchased, the Catholic Church is ever evolving as well. [/quote]
Want to show me what you mean by interpretation? Yes, we have changed the philosophy we used because…society has changed how they think. The Catholic Church has no philosophy to speak of. So, we use the best one man has come up with to explain it to modern man, after all philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
And, I don’t quite remember anyone admitting that Galileo was right. After all, how can you prove yourself right, when you didn’t provide proof (besides his half cocked wave explanation).
I have no clue what fornicating with whores has to do with anything, and within the Catholic Church divorce is impossible.
Yes, ever new, ever ancient as the motto goes.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic High School, I was baptized, holy communion, and confirmation. For the record, Galileo was considered a heretic by the church, his status as such was changed in 2008 on the 400th anniversary of the telescope.
Also, the Church used to not allow divorce. It was normal for men to prove that their marriages were illegitimate because they had not yet, “deflowered” their wives. In order to prove such, they had to come up with some explanation, say impotence. In order to prove impotence, men would have to fail at fornicating with whores in front of bishops. Often times the woman would have to prove her virginity by losing it. These are known as the impotency cases… Here’s a citation. The Galileo one is very easy to find. European History Archives | History Cooperative
When I finished my Junior year at this high school, I found out my single parent mother had fallen behind in payments to the school, I was an athlete and had a partial scholarship. Rather than drive my mother into further debt, I asked her if I could just finish up my senior year at a public school. Well guess what? The Arch Diocese decided not to release my grades until my mother paid what she owed, and I was stuck in a continuation school for my senior year. I did four years of work that year and graduated, 2 months before graduation the end of the year the Diocese released my grades. I’ve been screwed over by the Church myself…
I can go on, the Church also believed Blacks had no souls and were savages.
[/quote]
LOL!
You really need to educate yourself. I get your pissed at the archdiocese, but most of your information is just flat false.
Divorce simply doesn’t exist in the Church. there is the ability to annul the marriage, but that’s not the same as divorce. The story about fornicating with whole in front of bishops is amusing, but complete and utter bullshit. Let’s see the proof of that one.
Galileo status was changed a while back and the church did apologize for the behavior of it’s predecessors. The church is run by people who are far from perfect.
The church does occasionally do a course correction, but I’d hardly consider that it’s ‘softened’ anything. I mean if you consider things like having the mass in native languages a big softening. Hell we can’t win, some people complain we’re to hardass others complain we’re to soft. We’re not here to please man, so whatever.
Last, I think you just pissed at what happened to your situation. I can tell you that that’s not an unusual practice though. People try to take advantage of the church all the time, it has to have some protection in place. I assume you got your records out of hoc. So all is well.
I don’t see the point in repeating ad hoc stories that one time somebody said that somebody’s uncle’s, cousin’s friend had heard that once upon a time you have to get it on with a whore to prove you can’t get it up. Life’s to short for this garbage.
[/quote]
Perhaps you do not follow history closely, or maybe the truth is making you upset. You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. When a couple goes through a legal process that ends their marriage, that is usually called a divorce. In the past the Church used to have a say in marriage, because marriages were and still are considered a sacrament, church and state weren’t necessarily completely separate entities. I’m aware that when Jesus came around, he said marriages were for life, but that does not mean that people didn’t get married, go through a process and end up not married. Like I said, most people call that a divorce, but if that is getting you upset, then call it an annulment. In order to have an annulment, people often claimed impotence, or that a spouse was impotent. Often times the Church would need proof of such, they would stick wax penises and all sorts of different in women to test their impotence. Men would be tested for impotence as well via various tests including the one I described.
As for the history of the Catholic Church and blacks, look no further than the history of Mexico. When the Spanish were colonizing Mexico there was much debate as to whether the indigenous people had souls or were beasts. If you are unaware, Spain had a conquest model based on something academics call the Mission System, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it because it answers the question as to how Spain colonized Mexico, and why Mexico is predominantly Catholic today.
Anyhow, end of the day since the Church decided indigenous Mexicans were, “innocents.” They brought black slaves for labor because they were considered to be beasts without souls by many. Yes, historically the Spanish brought African Slaves to Mexico for the Mission System. You know what? There were Popes with slaves as well, I believe Paul III was one of several.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed there was reason for slavery… Immanuel Kant, who is one of my heroes was a Lutheran who believed blacks were an inferior creature as well. I understand how much it sucks that some people we consider great were flawed and racist, but we change and evolve socially as well as spiritually, nothing wrong with it. I think you should maybe do a little more reading. You hold the church in such high esteem, it bugs you when people bring up it’s flaws. Anyhow, I hope you decide to brush up on your history. Sometimes sources outside of the Church are good especially if you want to get a more robust understanding of history. The victor usually writes history, but sometimes people just don’t bother to read the history at all.
[quote] I, me me me, am the arbiter of right and wrong… FOR OTHERS, I don’t see as fully human and or as useful as myself.[/quote]That’s rich coming from you![/quote]I view ALL men(and women) as the highest creation of almighty God bearing His very image and likeness Ephrem. Including you. Sin is a twisted and ugly thing. How well I know. I lived enthusiastically in it for the first 20 years of my life. I repeat, I will never stop believing for you.
[/quote]
All you believe, and all that motivates you, is all about you T, without exception.
You don’t really care about others in the way you profess, all you care about is how it makes you feel.
And that’s not extraordinary; that’s just in our nature. You just have an elaborate way of accomplishing that.
[quote] I, me me me, am the arbiter of right and wrong… FOR OTHERS, I don’t see as fully human and or as useful as myself.[/quote]That’s rich coming from you![/quote]I view ALL men(and women) as the highest creation of almighty God bearing His very image and likeness Ephrem. Including you. Sin is a twisted and ugly thing. How well I know. I lived enthusiastically in it for the first 20 years of my life. I repeat, I will never stop believing for you.
[/quote]
All you believe, and all that motivates you, is all about you T, without exception.
You don’t really care about others in the way you profess, all you care about is how it makes you feel.
And that’s not extraordinary; that’s just in our nature. You just have an elaborate way of accomplishing that.[/quote]All is yellow
