[quote]pat wrote:
I am a lover, not a hater.[/quote]
Wrong forum, too few women, unless of course…
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am a lover, not a hater.[/quote]
Wrong forum, too few women, unless of course…[/quote]
Nah, not a switch hitter. 
Not that kind of lover either… Just that I am a peacable feller. And just 'cause I live in Georgia doesn’t mean I play the banjo and fancy my relatives…We’re actually quite cosmopolitan.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I understand tirib because he hates Catholics and has destined them to hell, <<<>>> I know tirib believes we’ve been predestined to go hell, >>>[/quote]I expected a pathetic smokescreen exactly like the one you’re foisting on this forum again. Where did I say, not you say I say, where did I say I hated anybody? Where did I destine ANYBODY to hell nevermind any whole group by saying that God wouldn’t save them? Where did I say I know the identity of ANYBODY who’s been predestined to hell OR heaven, again to say nothing of an entire group? Where did I say that I believed there was ANYBODY who could not be saved? ANYBODY? Where did I say that “Catholics” have been predestined to go to hell? WHERE?
It may take a little while because I have to be in prayer about this one, but if you do not simply say that you have woefully misrepresented what I’ve said, I am going to put together a post consisting entirely of my previous words and yours demonstrating in loud irrefutable fashion the nefarious and perfidious tactics that you will stoop to to unjustly smear somebody you’re AFRAID OF. You have no security in your beliefs or you wouldn’t follow me around railing on every syllable I post no matter who it’s too.
You have maligned my integrity, my sanity, my intelligence and my communication skills while CONSTANTLY attributing views to me that I have gone out of my way to disavow to no avail with you. It’ll all be in there in our own words. I may even start a new thread because I don’t want to hijack this one any more. Ya know what’s funny? I really really have wanted to believe that you’re better than this. I am tellin you before my God that is the truth. This is no fun for me which is why I put it off for months trying over and over, not to get you to agree with me, but simply to stop misrepresenting me. Make no mistake my friend (no I still do not consider you my enemy) you WILL knock it off when I’m done or you will terribly discredit yourself on this site attempting to weasel out of your own words. Just say you were wrong and stop it? And as far as I’m concerned it’s over.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am a lover, not a hater.[/quote]
Wrong forum, too few women, unless of course…[/quote]
Nah, not a switch hitter.
Not that kind of lover either… Just that I am a peacable feller. And just 'cause I live in Georgia doesn’t mean I play the banjo and fancy my relatives…We’re actually quite cosmopolitan. [/quote]
Nothing wrong with the banjo, it’s a fine instrument with a very practical and good sounding G D G H D tuning. I would be impressed if you played it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I understand tirib because he hates Catholics and has destined them to hell, <<<>>> I know tirib believes we’ve been predestined to go hell, >>>[/quote]I expected a pathetic smokescreen exactly like the one you’re foisting on this forum again. Where did I say, not you say I say, where did I say I hated anybody? Where did I destine ANYBODY to hell nevermind any whole group by saying that God wouldn’t save them? Where did I say I know the identity of ANYBODY who’s been predestined to hell OR heaven, again to say nothing of an entire group? Where did I say that I believed there was ANYBODY who could not be saved? ANYBODY? Where did I say that “Catholics” have been predestined to go to hell? WHERE?
It may take a little while because I have to be in prayer about this one, but if you do not simply say that you have woefully misrepresented what I’ve said, I am going to put together a post consisting entirely of my previous words and yours demonstrating in loud irrefutable fashion the nefarious and perfidious tactics that you will stoop to to unjustly smear somebody you’re AFRAID OF. You have no security in your beliefs or you wouldn’t follow me around railing on every syllable I post no matter who it’s too.
You have maligned my integrity, my sanity, my intelligence and my communication skills while CONSTANTLY attributing views to me that I have gone out of my way to disavow to no avail with you. It’ll all be in there in our own words. I may even start a new thread because I don’t want to hijack this one any more. Ya know what’s funny? I really really have wanted to believe that you’re better than this. I am tellin you before my God that is the truth. This is no fun for me which is why I put it off for months trying over and over, not to get you to agree with me, but simply to stop misrepresenting me. Make no mistake my friend (no I still do not consider you my enemy) you WILL knock it off when I’m done or you will terribly discredit yourself on this site attempting to weasel out of your own words. Just say you were wrong and stop it? And as far as I’m concerned it’s over.
[/quote]
Damn Shirley keep your shirt on, I am an ass man.
I see that you did not deny that you said “If there are any Catholics in heaven, it will only be because of the extreme mercy of God.”
So it stands as is. You don’t have to say, “I hate you” to hate, you don’t have to say “I condemn you” To condemn. Have you used the exact words, no. Do you hate and do you condemn, that is a resounding “HELL YES!” …Can I get an amen! And Alleluia!
Don’t fear, I don’t hate you at all, I don’t even dislike you…I think your weak though.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am a lover, not a hater.[/quote]
Wrong forum, too few women, unless of course…[/quote]
Nah, not a switch hitter.
Not that kind of lover either… Just that I am a peacable feller. And just 'cause I live in Georgia doesn’t mean I play the banjo and fancy my relatives…We’re actually quite cosmopolitan. [/quote]
Nothing wrong with the banjo, it’s a fine instrument with a very practical and good sounding G D G H D tuning. I would be impressed if you played it.[/quote]
I am impressed with anyone who plays it. It’s rythem it’s lead, it’s cool.
I will give an answer that will somewhat have the thread back on track even though it will be mostly derailed.
I see the question of as to why God created Satan strongly tied in into the problem of evil so much in fact that it’s more a question as to why God created a world in which he knew evil would arise in. Now I cannot give a theodicy as to why God created a world that contained evil in it but I can give a defense as to why he did. First the question as to why God created Satan. God created Satan and the angles with free will knowing that Satan would be the first one to fall bring with him a third of the angles which he uses in his providence to execute his plan in the grand scheme of things.
As to why God would create a world which contains evil in it, it may be possible that in any world he creates where beings are given free will given a certain amount of beings that come to exist some of them chose to do the morally wrong. Now God doesn’t cause or determine them to do whats only morally good for if he does, than the beings are not free morally. Also the greatest thing possible that can be done for fallen beings, the atonement and incarnation can only be done in a world with great evil and suffering. Had God made mince meat out of Satan and his cronies from the onset said incarnation and atonement wouldn’t have happened for the human race. It may be also due to the nature of the fall of Satan and a third of the angles that atonement isn’t available for them. Because of the atonement humans who are saved get to stand in much closer relationship with him than if humanity never fell. His incarnation is proof that he isn’t distance from our pain and suffering but that he joins us in it and paid the ultimate penalty so that we may be redeemed. Thus there is no implicit contradiction in the syllogism.
- A omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God exists.
- Evil exists.
Since God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist even though we might not know what they are. This is made evident in the book of Job where Job’s thinking God has no reasons for allowing him to be afflicted but upon Job seeing who God really is, even though God doesn’t tell Job what his reasons are. That God is not arbitrary in his actions and Job repents and praises God.
Here some youtube videos that discuss the problem of evil and suffering.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
[/quote]
Okay, so please explain to me how you would handle the situation I proposed.
[/quote]
Well it wouldn’t exactly be the same situation given that I don’t plan on ignoring my kids ideologically speaking, but If I am to take the core of your example (J/W coming to my door giving answers and my kids begin to listen) then I suppose all I could do is warn them if they’ll give me the time of day and let them do what they think is best.
I don’t agree with you either, but if my kids grew up to be Christian that would be okay with me. They aren’t my property, I have no right to tell them what they can and cannot think.
Perhaps they would debate me as you all have debated me here and maybe I change their minds, maybe I don’t, it doesn’t matter because they are people in their own right and I respect their right to make decisions for themselves. The same goes for anyone else I know IRL. I don’t go around looking for an opportunity to wage intellectual war on other people. [/quote]
Thanks for explaining.
Let’s take this line of thinking a step further then, if you don’t mind.
Would you at least be willing to tell, not advise, your child that murder, robbery, exploitation, rape, selfishness and lying malevolently are always bad and always to be avoided under all circumstances? (Again, keeping things simple, I don’t care if killing a baby will save five million people, I’m talking about the act itself applied generally). Can we both at least agree that there are certain acts that are wholly incorrigible, with absolutely no redemptive aspect, that will never be tolerated by you, the parent, under any circumstances?
Yes or no?
[/quote]
Everything in context. Can you say that robbery is wrong if the alternative is a starving family? In a case such as this, the act of robbery isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem; poverty. Even if robbery is not the only option for a person, again it is only a symptom of the problem. This person is sick. Either carrying some mental compulsion to hurt others or due to a hormonal imbalance, either way the robbery is just a symptom. An imposed moral framework won’t bring the family out of poverty, nor will it provide psychological or hormonal balance because it only deals with the symptom, not the problem.
These acts are the coughs of the cold. You can mask the coughs with medicine, but if your body doesn’t have what it needs to fix itself then your cure will only be superficial. Inside the problem still exists and grows - and you can only mask the symptoms with cough syrup for so long.
From my perspective, to say the acts are wrong is simply a way to divert responsibility. The actions aren’t the problem, the problem is internal. I someone is acting out violently, the solution isn’t “stop acting out violently”, you need to look deeper.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, google tells me that these laws aren’t decreed obsolete in the bible and you’re cherry picking which verses to follow… but I doubt that’s what you wanted me to find 
[/quote]
Google nor anyone else told you any such thing, DisingenuousTime. You know it. I know it. Your mom knows it.
The only cherry picker is Tony-the-pseudo-Bible-scholar-Tiger. Your posts and mine reflect that. You have no idea what you’re talking about it; you’re simply arguing because you’re on the internet. You’re throwing stuff up hoping it will stick. You’re certainly more capable talking about medieval Irish history but you’re hopelessly out of your league here.
[/quote]
http://www.atheistperspective.net/p/bible-verses.html << Oh well, you can’t win em all…
Seriously though, you can find any expressed opinion on Google… It just wasn’t a smart move to try and call me out on something than could be shown to be true simply by using Google to find a site that suggests Christians cherry-pick.
I don’t know why you’re trying to make it out as though I came here to argue with you. YOU responded to ME. I’m not forcing you to respond to my comments and you’re free to not respond to me anytime.
This is a very simple game of logic; God has condemned wearing clothes with mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc. You say these laws are obsolete so I ask you were in the bible these laws have been decreed as such. If this can’t be done (and I don’t think it can) then I guess these things are still banned as far as God’s concerned. [/quote]
Have you ever read the bible? Or are you criticizing something you’ve never read? I am guessing the latter…I had the feeling this was another set up. Another pseudo genius atheist who thinks he found reason in the unreasonable tenet of atheism.
I’ll give you the one main reason atheism is flawed at it’s very core. It posits that something can come from nothing and the things can happen for no reason what so ever. Now, what makes it even more ridiculous with all this belief and trust in science is that there is not a single solitary mircofragment of evidence to even remotely support such a ridiculous notion.
The difference between you and I is that believe in something that is actually possible and you believe in something that is verifiable impossible…Now that you let the cat out of the bag of your true intentions, let’s see how smart you are:
Prove something can come from nothing, as an atheist you MUST believe this to be true or you are not an atheist. It’s that simple…
I won’t be holding my breath.[/quote]
That’s great and all but… where exactly did I say I was an atheist again?
I won’t be holding my breath. ;)[/quote]
You said you don’t believe in God, so, same thing.[/quote]
And where did I say that?[/quote]
“TigerTime wrote:
I cannot believe in any such God.”
[/quote]
You’re deliberately taking this quote out of context. Even within what you’ve quoted anyone can see I’ve added the qualifier “such” as in reference to “such” a God who would eternally punish a man for a finite infraction.
I see now that this conversation is going nowhere. Please, go bother somebody else. [/quote]
I actually took this quote from somebody else who apparently took your quote out of context.
So do you believe in God or not?
You still haven’t answered the question, did you read the bible? But I will take you lack of answer your young age to mean no …And I’ll bother who I please, your not the boss of me. You have the freedom to ignore me. You have the freedom to criticize a book you’ve never read.
But how can you comment intelligently on something you actually have no real knowledge about? [/quote]
Alright, your questions are fair, so I’ll let you bother me a little while longer.
First, you’ll have to define God. In your own words of course.
Yes I read the bible. My grandfather died four years ago and I got his bible. I’ve read it and re-read it and continue to re-read it as needed (though the internet has largely removed the need to read any hard-copy). Sorry, I know you were REALLY looking for another reason to dismiss my points (regardless of if they are actually correct or not), but it looks like not this time. ;)[/quote]
Why do I have to define God? God is creator of existence. Anything else is not God.
You’ve read the bible several times at 18? Fair enough, I cannot prove otherwise. So when I question I will question as if you have an in depth knowledge of scripture as someone who has been through it in multiples should.
[/quote]
Why should you define God? I can’t, as an honest person, agree with God’s existence if I don’t know what you mean by God. Is creating the universe all there is to it? A scientist might say that the “big bang” is the creator of the universe.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, I don’t believe Tiribulus has ever categorically condemned every Catholic soul to hell. To the contrary, he’s said specifically that some Catholics will in fact be saved, although he believes it is in spite of the church rather than because of it.
Now the church itself…yes he has repeatedly and unashamedly condemned the church as a tool of Satan rather than of god. But that is different from saying every Catholic will be damned.[/quote]
No, no in fairy land, you can simutaneously condemn people to hell love them at the same time. You know how he proclaimed his undying love for Morman’s, too damn bad God destined them all to go the the 7th level of hell.
Like how much he loves JW’s but God is shoving them in the the pit of Gehenna…
It’s the weird dichotomy you must have when you believe the words of self serving, power hungry pig of a man in John Calvin…I prefer God’s word unmolested myself.[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t see him as any different than any other believer, or any other well-intentioned person, for that matter. He cares about people, given the way he sees the world. Don’t get me wrong, I find his beliefs about the nature of god repugnant, and contradictory to what Jesus taught. I believe Jesus was about unconditional love, although god’s love doesn’t automatically absolve people from the consequences of their actions.
What I mean is, Tiribulus wants people to be happy, to find peace, and ultimately to be saved. He doesn’t believe it will happen unless they are born again and see the world as he does, but is that any different than Catholics, for example? Catholics don’t believe I will ever be truly happy, find peace, and be saved unless I am born again and see the world as they do, including their view that same sex relationships are an abomination before god.
I think you are more tolerant than most, but you still view homosexual behavior as a sin. You don’t judge me for it, but you believe I will be judged by god.
I’m ok with that, because I know your intentions are sincere. I believe Tiribulus’s intentions are sincere as well.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
[/quote]
Okay, so please explain to me how you would handle the situation I proposed.
[/quote]
Well it wouldn’t exactly be the same situation given that I don’t plan on ignoring my kids ideologically speaking, but If I am to take the core of your example (J/W coming to my door giving answers and my kids begin to listen) then I suppose all I could do is warn them if they’ll give me the time of day and let them do what they think is best.
I don’t agree with you either, but if my kids grew up to be Christian that would be okay with me. They aren’t my property, I have no right to tell them what they can and cannot think.
Perhaps they would debate me as you all have debated me here and maybe I change their minds, maybe I don’t, it doesn’t matter because they are people in their own right and I respect their right to make decisions for themselves. The same goes for anyone else I know IRL. I don’t go around looking for an opportunity to wage intellectual war on other people. [/quote]
Thanks for explaining.
Let’s take this line of thinking a step further then, if you don’t mind.
Would you at least be willing to tell, not advise, your child that murder, robbery, exploitation, rape, selfishness and lying malevolently are always bad and always to be avoided under all circumstances? (Again, keeping things simple, I don’t care if killing a baby will save five million people, I’m talking about the act itself applied generally). Can we both at least agree that there are certain acts that are wholly incorrigible, with absolutely no redemptive aspect, that will never be tolerated by you, the parent, under any circumstances?
Yes or no?
[/quote]
Everything in context. Can you say that robbery is wrong if the alternative is a starving family? In a case such as this, the act of robbery isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem; poverty. Even if robbery is not the only option for a person, again it is only a symptom of the problem. This person is sick. Either carrying some mental compulsion to hurt others or due to a hormonal imbalance, either way the robbery is just a symptom. An imposed moral framework won’t bring the family out of poverty, nor will it provide psychological or hormonal balance because it only deals with the symptom, not the problem.
These acts are the coughs of the cold. You can mask the coughs with medicine, but if your body doesn’t have what it needs to fix itself then your cure will only be superficial. Inside the problem still exists and grows - and you can only mask the symptoms with cough syrup for so long.
From my perspective, to say the acts are wrong is simply a way to divert responsibility. The actions aren’t the problem, the problem is internal. I someone is acting out violently, the solution isn’t “stop acting out violently”, you need to look deeper. [/quote]
Boy this is certainly getting interesting.
Are you really saying that rape is something that needs to be viewed in context? How about the rape of a 5 year old that results in her agonizing, lonely, terrified death?
I’m not talking about extraordinary circumstances, and I clearly said so in anticipation of this kind of answer. I’m talking about explaining right and wrong, good and bad, to a child, who has no context yet to judge these acts and behaviors against.
How are you going to explain to a young child that malevolent violence is sometimes excusable? It’s okay to tell lies that hurt others in certain situations? Selfishness is alright, depending upon your circumstances? Have you actually thought this through?
I’m sorry but I have a very hard time believing that you actually believe you would do this. If you do truly think it, then all the guys here harping on your age (you’ll notice I never was one) should have every right to continue doing so. Because it’s about as naive an idea as I’ve ever heard anyone come up with in terms of parenting advice.I can tell you from direct personal experience that you’ll do a 180 very, very quickly when you start to experience the results of this kind of parenting.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Now the church itself…yes he has repeatedly and unashamedly condemned the church as a tool of Satan rather than of god. But that is different from saying every Catholic will be damned.[/quote]
This part right here, you wrote and I assume you see it.
Paul tells us that we “are” the body of Christ, the Church. Catholics believe this, he didn’t say we go to the Church, he didn’t say we walk into the Church, St. Paul says we ARE the Church (though we only make up the tarnish-able material side, not the incorruptible spiritual side, which is Jesus himself).
Let’s give Tirib the benefit of the doubt. He knows the scriptures, well at least thoroughly knows the small part of the Bible that is the New Testament. Tirib knows the above mentioned verses. So, when he condemns the “Church,” he knows that any Catholic that has ever heard the scriptures (which Catholics hear more scripture than Protestants do) will know that Tirib is condemning them directly. If he doesn’t realise this, then doesn’t he remember that what happens to one happens to all?[/quote]
Not to speak for him, but I don’t think he believes Paul was speaking to you. Paul was speaking to the actual church founded by Christ, and Tiribulus believes some (but not most) Catholics belong to that spiritual church.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, I don’t believe Tiribulus has ever categorically condemned every Catholic soul to hell. To the contrary, he’s said specifically that some Catholics will in fact be saved, although he believes it is in spite of the church rather than because of it.
Now the church itself…yes he has repeatedly and unashamedly condemned the church as a tool of Satan rather than of god. But that is different from saying every Catholic will be damned.[/quote]
No, no in fairy land, you can simutaneously condemn people to hell love them at the same time. You know how he proclaimed his undying love for Morman’s, too damn bad God destined them all to go the the 7th level of hell.
Like how much he loves JW’s but God is shoving them in the the pit of Gehenna…
It’s the weird dichotomy you must have when you believe the words of self serving, power hungry pig of a man in John Calvin…I prefer God’s word unmolested myself.[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t see him as any different than any other believer, or any other well-intentioned person, for that matter. He cares about people, given the way he sees the world. Don’t get me wrong, I find his beliefs about the nature of god repugnant, and contradictory to what Jesus taught. I believe Jesus was about unconditional love, although god’s love doesn’t automatically absolve people from the consequences of their actions.
What I mean is, Tiribulus wants people to be happy, to find peace, and ultimately to be saved. He doesn’t believe it will happen unless they are born again and see the world as he does, but is that any different than Catholics, for example? Catholics don’t believe I will ever be truly happy, find peace, and be saved unless I am born again and see the world as they do, including their view that same sex relationships are an abomination before god.
I think you are more tolerant than most, but you still view homosexual behavior as a sin. You don’t judge me for it, but you believe I will be judged by god.
I’m ok with that, because I know your intentions are sincere. I believe Tiribulus’s intentions are sincere as well.
[/quote]
You define everybody, not ‘believers’. Everybody has their own paradigm and everybody thinks world would be a better place if people lined up with it.
There’s nothing I can do it being a sin. Being a homosexual isn’t a sin, homosexual acts are. In any event, it is what it is. I didn’t write the rules, so to speak.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Why should you define God? I can’t, as an honest person, agree with God’s existence if I don’t know what you mean by God. Is creating the universe all there is to it? A scientist might say that the “big bang” is the creator of the universe.[/quote]
To further define is to limit, which is something I cannot do.
What created the big bang? The other thread goes into nauseating detail about that.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, I don’t believe Tiribulus has ever categorically condemned every Catholic soul to hell. To the contrary, he’s said specifically that some Catholics will in fact be saved, although he believes it is in spite of the church rather than because of it.
Now the church itself…yes he has repeatedly and unashamedly condemned the church as a tool of Satan rather than of god. But that is different from saying every Catholic will be damned.[/quote]
No, no in fairy land, you can simutaneously condemn people to hell love them at the same time. You know how he proclaimed his undying love for Morman’s, too damn bad God destined them all to go the the 7th level of hell.
Like how much he loves JW’s but God is shoving them in the the pit of Gehenna…
It’s the weird dichotomy you must have when you believe the words of self serving, power hungry pig of a man in John Calvin…I prefer God’s word unmolested myself.[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t see him as any different than any other believer, or any other well-intentioned person, for that matter. He cares about people, given the way he sees the world. Don’t get me wrong, I find his beliefs about the nature of god repugnant, and contradictory to what Jesus taught. I believe Jesus was about unconditional love, although god’s love doesn’t automatically absolve people from the consequences of their actions.
What I mean is, Tiribulus wants people to be happy, to find peace, and ultimately to be saved. He doesn’t believe it will happen unless they are born again and see the world as he does, but is that any different than Catholics, for example? Catholics don’t believe I will ever be truly happy, find peace, and be saved unless I am born again and see the world as they do, including their view that same sex relationships are an abomination before god.
I think you are more tolerant than most, but you still view homosexual behavior as a sin. You don’t judge me for it, but you believe I will be judged by god.
I’m ok with that, because I know your intentions are sincere. I believe Tiribulus’s intentions are sincere as well.
[/quote]
You define everybody, not ‘believers’. Everybody has their own paradigm and everybody thinks world would be a better place if people lined up with it.
There’s nothing I can do it being a sin. Being a homosexual isn’t a sin, homosexual acts are. In any event, it is what it is. I didn’t write the rules, so to speak.[/quote]
I believe men wrote the rules; you believe a god did. No way to know for sure who is right, as with so many other questions.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Did you miss the part where I was talking about prefacing my advice? There’s a difference between imposing your own ideology onto your kids (intellectual violence) and offering advice. It’s the same difference as shoving a chicken wing down someone’s throat vs. asking them what they’d like to eat. The former, I would call abusive, selfish and sadistic. Even given what you assumed I meant, the worst you could honestly call me would be neglectful.
[/quote]
Okay, so please explain to me how you would handle the situation I proposed.
[/quote]
Well it wouldn’t exactly be the same situation given that I don’t plan on ignoring my kids ideologically speaking, but If I am to take the core of your example (J/W coming to my door giving answers and my kids begin to listen) then I suppose all I could do is warn them if they’ll give me the time of day and let them do what they think is best.
I don’t agree with you either, but if my kids grew up to be Christian that would be okay with me. They aren’t my property, I have no right to tell them what they can and cannot think.
Perhaps they would debate me as you all have debated me here and maybe I change their minds, maybe I don’t, it doesn’t matter because they are people in their own right and I respect their right to make decisions for themselves. The same goes for anyone else I know IRL. I don’t go around looking for an opportunity to wage intellectual war on other people. [/quote]
Thanks for explaining.
Let’s take this line of thinking a step further then, if you don’t mind.
Would you at least be willing to tell, not advise, your child that murder, robbery, exploitation, rape, selfishness and lying malevolently are always bad and always to be avoided under all circumstances? (Again, keeping things simple, I don’t care if killing a baby will save five million people, I’m talking about the act itself applied generally). Can we both at least agree that there are certain acts that are wholly incorrigible, with absolutely no redemptive aspect, that will never be tolerated by you, the parent, under any circumstances?
Yes or no?
[/quote]
Everything in context. Can you say that robbery is wrong if the alternative is a starving family? In a case such as this, the act of robbery isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem; poverty. Even if robbery is not the only option for a person, again it is only a symptom of the problem. This person is sick. Either carrying some mental compulsion to hurt others or due to a hormonal imbalance, either way the robbery is just a symptom. An imposed moral framework won’t bring the family out of poverty, nor will it provide psychological or hormonal balance because it only deals with the symptom, not the problem.
These acts are the coughs of the cold. You can mask the coughs with medicine, but if your body doesn’t have what it needs to fix itself then your cure will only be superficial. Inside the problem still exists and grows - and you can only mask the symptoms with cough syrup for so long.
From my perspective, to say the acts are wrong is simply a way to divert responsibility. The actions aren’t the problem, the problem is internal. I someone is acting out violently, the solution isn’t “stop acting out violently”, you need to look deeper. [/quote]
Boy this is certainly getting interesting.
Are you really saying that rape is something that needs to be viewed in context? How about the rape of a 5 year old that results in her agonizing, lonely, terrified death?
I’m not talking about extraordinary circumstances, and I clearly said so in anticipation of this kind of answer. I’m talking about explaining right and wrong, good and bad, to a child, who has no context yet to judge these acts and behaviors against.
How are you going to explain to a young child that malevolent violence is sometimes excusable? It’s okay to tell lies that hurt others in certain situations? Selfishness is alright, depending upon your circumstances? Have you actually thought this through?
I’m sorry but I have a very hard time believing that you actually believe you would do this. If you do truly think it, then all the guys here harping on your age (you’ll notice I never was one) should have every right to continue doing so. Because it’s about as naive an idea as I’ve ever heard anyone come up with in terms of parenting advice.I can tell you from direct personal experience that you’ll do a 180 very, very quickly when you start to experience the results of this kind of parenting. [/quote]
Rape is also just a symptom. Normal people don’t go out and suddenly feel the urge to rape something. It’s a build-up of psychological tension, or in some cases a hormonal imbalance.
My point is, placing the focus on the action itself is pointless. Is murder bad? Well, it’s certainly problematic if society is to function, but to split actions into “good” and “bad” is to miss the point. The problem is internal. Is poverty immoral? Is psychological instability immoral? Is a hormonal imbalance immoral?
These questions can’t be answered in a vacuum (as you’re trying to suggest) because these words; good, bad, moral, immoral - they are non-cognitive. They don’t actually mean anything by themselves. They only exist within context. Is happiness good? Is net utility good? What is “good” in a vacuum? If you can’t say what “moral” and “immoral” is in a vacuum then how can you say any act is entirely one or the other in the same vacuum?
As far as I’m concerned, morality is pointless. It consists entirely of hollow statements that act as ambiguous circumlocution.
But, if you insist on looking at the action you’ll have to define what “good” is if you want a black and white answer.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Why should you define God? I can’t, as an honest person, agree with God’s existence if I don’t know what you mean by God. Is creating the universe all there is to it? A scientist might say that the “big bang” is the creator of the universe.[/quote]
To further define is to limit, which is something I cannot do.
What created the big bang? The other thread goes into nauseating detail about that.[/quote]
Well, m-theory suggests multiple dimensions, most of them greater than time. So it is theoretically possible that the nessissary components to create our universe could have always existed. In that same line of thought, however, it is also feasible that a hyper-dimensional being conciously created the universe, but this is really a topic deserving of its own thread.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<>>
But, if you insist on looking at the action you’ll have to define what “good” is if you want a black and white answer.[/quote]
OMG.
Can we lay off the sophistry? I asked you what you would tell your kid.
I don’t have to define “good.” You do. To your kid. That’s what we’re talking about.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<>>
But, if you insist on looking at the action you’ll have to define what “good” is if you want a black and white answer.[/quote]
OMG.
Can we lay off the sophistry? I asked you what you would tell your kid.
I don’t have to define “good.” You do. To your kid. That’s what we’re talking about.
[/quote]
I don’t use these words. I already told you in that same post that I find moral frameworks to be pointless.