Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If that is your position, then I have no real arguments with you. My apologies for misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I may disagree that I don't think we can get any absolute truths, but I believe in the endeavour to try to find them and learn them so we may better ourselves, so any position which aims/strives for truth I don't have conflicts with.
He was wrong in sending them out, and the Bible never justifies it. I thought you were talking about his daughters after that.
The common descent picture. Bear in mind those are evolutionary artist's impressions. Bear in mind that there is no evidence that those creatures evolved one into another. Every change would have had to work right the first time. I'm sorry, I don't have the faith to believe that, though apparently you do. Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened. That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.
The so-called similarity in DNA was made from selected genes. When the entire genome sequence is taken into account the similarity is much lower.
It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it. And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.Quote:
no real stock is taken in its involvement because it actually doesn't matter to their faith
I know that. But it is still a life-from-non-life belief.Quote:
Evolutionists do not suggest maggots come from meat magically
Common ancestor or common designer? By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.Quote:
Great many genetic trees show similar traits and even the same 'spelling mistakes'. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards a common ancestor
OK, I said that wrong. Replace evolutionist with atheist, many of whom are evolutionists. Some people, and PVC is probably one of them, have been told over and over that evolution is true and don't know any better, no slight on his intelligence, but evolutionism is much more prevalent in our culture than creationism. Those are not the ones I am talking about.Quote:
the thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being.
I don't see a problem here. Just because something might be partially or fully flawed doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be partially or fully flawed. You can find a diamond in a pile of refuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Why do you think that the 10 commandments are OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It is, but not in Exodus, though the context is about murder. Jesus referencing the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19:18 quotes it as "Thou shalt do no murder".Quote:
I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible
It depends on the reason for killing, God instituted the death penalty for various crimes, but did not condone murder, as that was the primary reason for the death penalty. Murder flies in the face of God, the creator of life. When one being takes an innocent's life, he forfeits his own right to life.Quote:
There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
An understandable view. Mankind is very fallible. However, there is a doctrine of preservation, described in the book of 2 Peter 1:21 (and other places), stating the the men were writing the words as directed by God, and part of that doctrine is that the Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its recording, that is, the men were divinely helped to write without mistake, and that continues through the different translations (Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, etc., there were a total of seven). The modern Bibles were translated from the Critical Texts rather than the Received Text (the traditional text), by people who did not even believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I am not including those in my list, and please do not turn this into yet another fiery debate, this time about Bible versions. There is a time and a place for that discussion, and now is neither. I will not respond to any comments regarding Bible versions. I myself use the KJV, what you use is between you and God.Quote:
I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7
Because I do not see a situation where they would lose their relevance or would require a revision. I might be mistaken of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
It's pretty much guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Heard of other religions?
Where are you getting the 'right the first time' from? Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show. There is a lot of 'failures' and some mutations are very harmful and kill us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
It wasn't as simple as a 'proto-horse suddenly popped out a modern day horse' it was a process of them gradually changing over a long time to get that way.
But there evidence is there within our DNA code. By comparing the similarities and differences, we can see how mutations occurred and what directions they took.Quote:
Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened.
By comparison, it would be me going into your living room, sitting on your sofa, putting my feet up on the table and eating out of a yogurt pot then left. Then, you walk into the room, you see the dent where I sat on the sofa, the small sprinkle of mud from my shoes upon the table, and the finished yoghurt pot.It is very likely from this information, you can recreate that someone was in your room, with their feet upon the table and ate a yoghurt.
The evidence is as obvious as that. In comparison, there is no evidence for creationism. Zip, zap, none. Especially young-earth creationism. I am guessing by similar comparison, instead of me eating a yoghurt pot, you are arguing that Santa Claus came in, ate a mince pie and sat himself upon the TV.
I know which I would rather believe.
Really.. ?Quote:
That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.
.... Really?
I mean.. really?
Well, that is a issue for you, because sadly no one sane actually believes in a literal genesis, not even the Pope.Quote:
It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it.
There is three fundamental problems with this statement:Quote:
And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.
1) Science is not absolute, it is discovering and exploring reality, attempting to demonstrate and understand the world around us. If something is inaccurate, it self-corrects and this is usually brought about with advances in technology and other knowledge, to give us better understanding.
2) By contrast as you said yourself, the Bible is 'literal truth', it is absolutely right and cannot be wrong. So compared with Science which is constantly updating our current knowledge, your belief is that we already know the answer, therefore, change is very bad.
3) The Bible account has changed a great many times. There are the various councils, the Apocrypha, the Dead-Sea scrolls, Torah, Gospel of Barnabas and Thomas, from the differences due to the Septuagint...
So ignoring 1 and 2 is linked with 3 and since number 3 is something far more tangible...:
We have the Codex Sinaiticus, here is a link to a news article about it. Or the 1500-year old Turkish bible shown here. This is forgetting the differences between many of the new bibles, such as the New International version (version 2, it was updated!) and the King James.
There is also a great debate about the creation story in genesis too. You can get your bible out, and lets take a look at Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. See before your eyes, the following:
Ch1: Water is created before land.
Ch2: Land is created before water.
Ch1: Plants, Animals and then God creates man and woman.
Ch2: God creates man, he then creates the plants and animals, than a woman from the mans rib.
Ch2 is sometimes argued as a postscript version of chapter 1, but then, it wouldn't be the literal truth, would it?
Psalm 104 - this is a different order.
We then have Job 38 has another account.
These seem to be different stories to me.
This is the biggest difference between a fundamentalist, and the majority of mainstream Christians, such as ICantSpellDawg, rvg, PVC, etc. Perhaps you should consider asking them how they keep their faith knowing the Bible isn't the literal truth, word for word.
How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction ?Quote:
By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.
The only species alive are the 'survivors', those who fail to adapt or evolve to changing environment end up dying, like the do-do. I don't know of any species which have 'mutated' themselves into extinction, unless you are discussing cancer. Now that is a horrible cell mutation.
The beauty of beliefs is that you can believe in whatever you want. You can believe in evolution and a Heliocentric system, and in a God that is involved in our daily lives for some reason, and in angels, but not in politicians and not in natural supplements etc..
Why not? Is Richard Dawkins going to be at the gates, judging you on how logical you were in your life? Who cares? Religious yourself out all over the place. Have fun. I have fun - I do whatever I want, but I try to go to Mass every Sunday (failing miserably this summer). Why not? I have values and they are more consistent in some ways with devoted Catholics than anybody else. But not too devoted. I'm not sure why I have values, I don't know if they are valuable. Or what valuable is. Or really anything at all.
I'm just glad that I don't have to collect nuts all summer and get eaten by foxes. But even then, maybe you would just deal with it?
Heading back in the territory of morality, I have been talking to a Jewish friend of mine in regards of the Torah.
Apparently even during the days of the old testament, there was quite a number of disagreements with what was written and reality, with the Sanhedrin (the highest court of the great temples) overruled the Torah itself in certain cases and it certainly wasn't called as the end-all book of laws. This is also why there are later law books like the Mishnah and the Talmud which clarify the rules sert forth.
There are instances where 'rebellious sons' should be stoned, for simply disagreeing with their father, yet this rule is so stringent, it wasn't enforced.
Majority of current Torah scholars say that it is a guideline of how to live/parables than anything else. Not the 'literal truth'.
Your own argument falls on itself when you start mentioning not to believe in things such as homeopathy~Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Unfortunately, a lot of beliefs are harmful. Whilst thinking a microwavable spaghetti monster fondled the universe in existence with its noodly appendage is not going to hurt anyone, forcing Tolkien's version of creation upon everyone and trying to return everyone to a dark age of elves and orcs is.
Bad manners sure, but where is the imperative not to do things harmful to others? You seem to suggest that it is "truth" that one should not harm others. Why? What if someone were to desire the harm of others. It wouldn't be their truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
To suggest that people "just don't do that" is patently false. To suggest that doing harm to others necessitates that harm be done to you is false. So, why shouldn't you do it?
Personally, I believe that I will be inescapably punished for wrongdoings. This is generally why I don't do terrible things that I feel like doing. I don't particularly fear punishment in this life - the human mind finds ways to cope. I do believe in a superlative and unexplainable judgement for wrongdoing. If I didn't, wrongdoing is a lot of fun and who cares what happens to others. Terrible stuff makes life more interesting - and most people value interesting more than being nice. Seriously.
I'd still be a pretty nice guy, with the occasional low drag behind the back suspension and prostitute in the passenger seat.
Found in a trash can, unless I am thinking the Vaticanus. Those two are the basis for most of the modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, and virtually every modern version. Part of the Critical Text. Bible manuscripts is something I have actually studied, so I know something about it.Quote:
We have the Codex Sinaiticus
Then you can't say evolution is true, because other findings may disprove it. Whenever that has happened, they just changed their beliefs instead of trashing it. After all, when the main alternative is Creation...Quote:
Science is not absolute
Heard that argument too. A detailed creating of the planting of the Garden of Eden. If you are referring to Genesis 2:4 about day, that is a different use of the word "day" than a 24 hour day, just as we would say "back in my day". There are multiple meanings we use for the word day, that is talking about when he created it in the past, not as a 24 hour day. Psalm 104 seems to be talking about the flood. Anyway, the dry land was under the water, 1:9. The waters separated by the firmament were those in the atmosphere and those in outer space. There is water, albeit ice, in outer space. Job 38 is not a creation account as it were, but God mentioning some of the stuff he did at creation.Quote:
creation story in genesis too
Our genetic code would be so scrambled that we could not survive.Quote:
How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction
The Apocrypha and such like books were never accepted as biblical canon. True, the original KJV had it, but the translators of the KJV did not believe in it for doctrine, but for good reading.Quote:
The Bible account has changed a great many times
As far as changing science. The biblical account never changes. How many times has science changed? Leaving creation for the purpose of this question, where is the Bible wrong? Everybody who has tried to prove it wrong has ended up with egg on their face. And you know what? It makes sense.
As to the DNA, the supposed evolution would require new information being created. Mutations only lead to a loss of information. And sure, some mutations may be beneficial in select circumstances, but overall those mutations are harmful. Again, information is lost, not gained.
Then how do we know it is happening at all? You only assume that, nobody has actually been around long enough to verify it. I will bring up one evidence of young creation, found out by an evolutionist who decided that the discrepancy was due to his own error and left it there. The earth is not yet at equilibrium for Carbon 14. Starting with none present and only forming in the atmosphere, we should reach equilibrium in around 30,000 years. Yet we are not there. He used valid methods, but because it did not match up to what he believed, he just figured he had made a mistake and left it there. I have heard of peer review sessions where somebody in front of a bunch of evolutionists goes through his work, everybody agreeing on what he has done, until his work showed that the earth was young. Then they just say they made a mistake, when everybody had been agreeing up to that point. There are many other evidences for the biblical account, not "none" as you say. As I have already pointed out, the data is the same, the interpretation is based on worldview. I do find it interesting how as soon as God came into the picture, everybody went on the attack. It drove them mad.Quote:
Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show
How can the bible ever be thought of as set in stone never changing?
It's called the New Testament because its a variation/appendix/new version of the older belief system.
The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. The New Testament tells of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. When the Bible was actually compiled, there were set guidelines used to determine whether or not to accept a book. A big part of that was authorship, who wrote it. It has been too long, though I could probably dig out my materials on that stuff. Bear in mind that initially the church did not have a Bible as we know it. Books were expensive, and many times the epistles were sent to various churches, not everybody had all the materials. Also, they saw no need for the collection of the Scriptures (New Testament manuscripts, mainly) because they were expecting the imminent return of Christ. Those who will mock that, I direct you to to 2 Peter 3. I think it was around AD 200 that a full copy of the Scriptures was finally compiled, it has been too long so don't quote me on that.:rolleyes: I am getting off for the time being, it is getting late. I hope this does not erupt like it has before. That was interesting. Thanks for your help Rhy, rvg.
I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety. Psalm 4:8
Why are all the new people coming in religious fundamentalists? It frustrates me to no end. Why can't there be one guy or girl that is normal and has a different view on things that doesn't rely on ignoring modern science or slapping on bible quotes in bold at the end of every post as if we will see the light just by reading the LORD's words.
ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.
I definitely agree with your last point about Mill. That's why I am not interested in Utilitarianism at all actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Hold on Rhy, you are asserting the conclusion before we reached any. The question is about if you can have absolute morals without God, I said it seems that good Christians are better people than good atheists, you can't simply go straight to "it's because atheism is incompatible with absolute morals". First give an example of these contradictory views and lets see if it holds up.Quote:
I think there is more to it than the theists just caring more. I think that atheists that attempt to hold to absolute morals must realise that on some level that they hold some rather contradictory views - in those circumstances, they are going to be half-hearted. Also, although this is off-topic, I do not agree that the only difference between religions is superficial rituals. Prior to around 33AD I would have agreed - religions were all 'religions of works' as people from all faiths across the world (not just ancient Judaism) tried to fulfil that law that they know by nature. But since Jesus died for our sins we now have a 'religion of grace' which is drastically different from the 'religions of works' that so many people still hopelessly slave under. Christianity is the one that stands out.
Also, I never really gave much thought to that distinction you pointed out about Christianity and other religions. It's interesting.
That wasn't such a good decision imho, backroom was better when it was more of a hidden gentlemen's club. It's still way better than any other forum I know though. I would love a followup on MRD stories of his experiences in Afghanistan, but because it's now fuly public I am not getting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Edit, in no way critisism of our moderators. Freedom of speech goes VERY far when compared to other sites.
Well, the situation is not particularly different, now. Except for Vincent Butler and myself, nobody of the Backroom poster is what I would describe with the words "newbie" or "troll".Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I agree mostly, but why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yea, no passing trolls! Only established, long-standing trolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Totalrelism, Kurdishspartakus, Vuk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Just because we've been in a lull in the last few months doesnt mean they dont exist and keep showing up.
My god (pun intended). You sir, are growing on me. Who are you really? Margaret Barker is that you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Give 'em all of the Deutoronomic reform while you are at it. (You are completely right BTW)
And on the evolution thing... quote Genesis 1:20. The version where the waters brought forth living creatures including the fowls (dinosaurs).
You people haven't learned about the Heavenly Mother yet?
http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_...ent_mother.asp
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I didn't mean to offer it so much as a conclusion, as a potential explanation. Of course, whether or not atheism and absolute morality are truly contradicting views is what we are here to debate. But regardless of the truth of the matter, it is worth remembering that many atheists who hold to absolute morality don't really know why they do it. Christianity offers an easy explanation in the form of an all-powerful God. On the other hand, as our discussion of Kant, Mill etc testifies to, finding such a foundation for morality within an atheist framework is considerably more difficult, if not necessarily impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
For that reason, I still think that, for the average atheist who doesn't really dig into such things, they really will be half-hearted in living out their moral ideals.
Now, if an more investigative atheist like yourself goes about a serious philosophical enquiry in order to reconcile his atheism with his morality, you may be able to buck that trend. But only if you find the answers you are looking for.
Aye, and don't let anybody ever tell you otherwise by debasing the Christian message with the old "do good works to earn a place in heaven", or just as bad, "say a prayer to get into heaven" tripe. If you are only in it to get into heaven, then you won't be going there.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I realise that your experience of Christianity will be tainted by the rather toxic culture/sub-cultures that exist within mainstream American Christianity, of which, from the sounds of things (advocating piracy, abandoning the faith etc), your ex would have been a part of.
But, at least in the sense of analysing a philosophical system, try and give Christianity a chance for what it is, and not for what humanity has corrupted it to mean.
What do you care about?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Eh, you are aware of the difference between something being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
What next? Will you tell me to build a calf and worship it because Aaron did so?
I'm almost surprised that some Church of England female priest over at the Guardian hasn't written a column about how Genesis 19:30-38 is an example of female empowerment. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
When I struggled with my old faith, I thought the word was so twisted by man and those who want it to exploit it for power, that I did research/readings in the origins and older text. Instead of hopefully being greeted by some simple divine truth to stake it on, I found that (Semitic Mythology/Deuteronomic reform). Along with other examples like Gibbons and friends on the early church where great pagans converted over, bringing their teachings, stories, poems and art with them to establish Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Whilst all historically interesting, it pretty much removed the reason I searched in the first place.
No worries, I never thought you were. Plus, I'm often guilty of posting in a thread then disappearing, I need to stop doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
If I may stop you there, that is really all I wanted the atheists here to come out and say, because I believe that view to be a necessary consequence of atheism. I have to ask though, how can you make your system of relative morality binding when it is entirely subjective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
In raising that passage of Romans, my point was simply that the prevalence of morality across times and places is in fact consistent with the Biblical position, rather than (as Kadagar in particular reckoned) an argument against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
The evolutionary view of religion (the idea that we 'developed' from animism to polytheism to monotheism) has now been discarded by the majority of the academic community. All across the world, the evidence suggests that polytheism was a degeneration of an original monotheism. The most ancient Hindu texts are actually monotheistic, eg the Rig Veda. Likewise, the Oracle Bone scripts, which is the most ancient example of written Chinese, shows they worshipped a single God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Also, I do have an interest in Semitic mythology and indeed the mythology of the ancient world. I am currently reading 'The Ark Before Noah' by Irving Finkel. It is very interesting in that is corroborates Biblical history with other sources. Of particular note was the fact that Finkel noted the causal way with which "the flood" is referenced in various tablets (eg, before the flood, so-and-so was king, or so-and-so ruled for x years before the flood, etc).
How do you mean by 'binding' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I am guessing you are meaning: "How do you get others to accept your version of morality" or "how does society construct its morality" without some sort of absolute source. So I will respond to you with this premises.
Effectively, we as the vast majority have the same genetic makeup which allows us to experience empathy and has the cognitive functions to reason and come to conclusions.
Everyone wants to be treated well or to at least acceptable standards. No one wants to be treated unfairly.
It is clearly observable when you treat others well, you get treated well in return.
When you are treated unwell, you are sad/angry/upset and this feels bad. Doing the same with others makes them feel the same.
Again, we show resentment and other emotions when done in this way.
So now we got the 'fundamental basics' to work from and the tools to reason at our disposal.
Obviously, through the ages vast majority of these arguments have been done, but lets keep it simple.
Someone said as an argument against this earlier in the thread: 'Paedophiles like children, so it is good?" So lets examine this.
First we have to look at the action, sex. What effect does this have in general:
- Diseases, Illnesses and all those things.
- Possible pregnancy
What effect this has in the specific situation:
- Size difference can cause severe injury.
- Lack of pleasure for the minor, pain.
- Not fully developed systems which can cause disfigurement.
- Emotional immaturity. Can cause terrors and mental scarring. (see Child Abuse cases)
- List of other things.
So looking at this, you can clearly see that this action is very negative to one of the participants, even if it is a 'positive' for the other. These actions are also not justifiable in any kind of context either.
This gets even murkier, when you take a look at the participants as well. Children are unable to give consent, due to lack of emotional, intellectual maturity and understanding the consequences and information about those actions. Won't go into details about this, but those for arguments, feel free to googlefu.
Without much stretch of imagination, you can clearly see that practising paedophilia is immoral.
Now! Lets pick something more interesting, I am going to go with a classic, the Heinz's dilemma.
I will leave it open and I hope for your response to this. I would prefer if you didn't try to 'cheat' or re-use someone elses answers, because I would like a look at your morality, especially in regards to 'absolute' morality.Quote:
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
I will write up my answer now using the formulae I have pretty much given, and lets see what our results look like.
If anyone else wants to chip, feel free to as a little forum game.
My problem with your argument here is that you are trying to rationalise something that is really just abhorrent at a more visceral level. As much as this is a disgusting subject to discuss, it is possible for a paedophile to abuse a child without risking physical injury, disease or pregnancy. Also, although I personally believe that any child who is abused by a paedophile will be mentally scarred, bizarrely, there are victims who claim otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
A case in point: Richard Dawkins has revealed that he was sexually abused as a child. However, he has said himself that it didn't do him any harm. He seems to dismiss it as something that just happened back in those days. Now, since you seem to be taking the view that an action only takes on a moral value isofar as it relates to a person's health and happiness, how then can you condemn the teacher that did this to Dawkins? I can condemn the teacher because I see the action itself as morally reprehensible. I can say that the lusts that that teacher has were vile and perverse. But you are only concerned with the affect the action had on Dawkins, which Dawkins himself claims was non-existent.
If Dawkins was still a child, you might say that he simply did not yet have the mental capacity to appreciate the severity of what happened to him. But your line of reasoning runs into serious trouble when Dawkins, as a fully matured adult, continues to claim that he suffered no adverse affects as a result of his sexual abuse, either in the immediate or the long-term sense.
So, I would like you to tell me: what do you say now? Was this particular act of paedophilia excusable? Or are you going to open that can of worms of saying that Dawkins is somehow too traumatized, too repressed, or perhaps even so normalized to his abuse, that he is simply blind to the fact that he did suffer at the hands of his abuser?
I think another difference between our viewpoints is hinted at when you made this remark:
I find it interesting that you went to the trouble to note that "practising" paedophilia was immoral. Would you feel that it is moral for a paedophile to have paedophillic urges, so long as he did not act on them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I will just give you my gut response: no, he should not steal the medicine to save his wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Nope, there isn't an excuse due to many factors I listed. There is no moral dilemma involved. Even if Mr. Dawkins in your example wasn't too affected by it, I doubt he is signing up to have it done again, he just learnt to cope with it or brush it off. There is still the matter of consent, and there was not any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The thing you fail to mention is that many people in the past, even during the bible times practised what we call paedophilia today. This was more a mistake of our past that we have progressed from, but in your absolute terms, they all must have defied god's will and be roasting in the fiery place.
If you thought "That Tiaexz is annoying, sometimes I wish he jumped off a bridge", have you committed a crime?Quote:
I think another difference between our viewpoints is hinted at when you made this remark:
I find it interesting that you went to the trouble to note that "practising" paedophilia was immoral. Would you feel that it is moral for a paedophile to have paedophillic urges, so long as he did not act on them?
Maybe not be nice, but am I being harmed by your thought? Are you acting in any manner such as meeting up on tower-bridge, with an untied bungee cord ? I had an nightmare once where a space alien ripped apart my family, is it my fault this happened, should I be punished?
I am not playing thought police and it would be pretty wrong to do this.
I wish you went into more detail, such as explaining 'Why not' !Quote:
I will just give you my gut response: no, he should not steal the medicine to save his wife.
Food for thought, how do you know what normal is? Maybe you are, maybe we are, maybe neither of us is. Normal is not an absolute, and abnormal is not always a bad thing.Quote:
Why are all the new people coming in religious fundamentalists? It frustrates me to no end. Why can't there be one guy or girl that is normal
I am seeing a lot of people talking about using their reason to determine what's right and wrong. But not everybody reasons the same, my reason differs from yours. Why is your reason any better than mine? Reason is not an absolute. I base my reason off of absolutes. Anybody can reason themselves to allow anything.
Thou shalt not steal. I have a basis for saying that. Why do you say stealing is wrong? Also, for those who reference the ten commandments, there is more than just those. Christ summed it up by saying that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second was thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Those are the two greatest commandments. Note that if you follow the first, the second will fall into place. And everybody uses the second to preach tolerance or justify themselves when told they are wrong, they leave out the first.Quote:
I wish you went into more detail, such as explaining 'Why not'
But what bothers people varies from person to person. I tend to have thick skin, and personal insults bounce off. Other people are easily offended or bothered. So your fundamental basics are not constant. Please clarify something I have been wondering. You are saying that absolutes are not needed, not that there are no absolutes, right?Quote:
Everyone wants to be treated well or to at least acceptable standards. No one wants to be treated unfairly.
It is clearly observable when you treat others well, you get treated well in return.
When you are treated unwell, you are sad/angry/upset and this feels bad. Doing the same with others makes them feel the same.
Again, we show resentment and other emotions when done in this way.
So now we got the 'fundamental basics' to work from and the tools to reason at our disposal.
nvm.
Game on.
Heinz' dilemma sound to me like the Javert vs Jean Valjean story.
Saving lives should be the overall goal. Heinz tried to reason with the scientist, but the bastard wanted a unreasonable percentage profit. The moral thing would be to round up a posse and make the scientist give up the drug for less money :sneaky:
Not exactly the false dichotomy you were looking for? ...
Very well. Steal the damn drugs. Wife is sick and will die if the drug is not stolen. Condemning people to die for profit is the greater sin. If losing an arm is the punishment for stealing this drug, I would do it.
But I pointed out that all the physical aspects you listed can be avoided, leaving only the psychological impact, which Dawkins denies in his case. You are going into that dangerous ground I warned you of - your comment that "he just learnt to cope with it or brush it off" indicates that you are going with the second of the two options I presented - that Dawkins is simply too traumatized/repressed/normalized by his abuse to see the damage of it. I'm sure you realise that that is a very problematic position to maintain in the face of his own testimony as a fully functional, mature and rational adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I suspect you realise that the fact that he wouldn't actively "sign up to have it done again" is not really that relevant when ultimately, he says he is entirely indifferent and unaffected concerning it. Likewise, consent only becomes an issue if one party was harmed... the vast majority of everyday human interactions have to be at least initiated without consent, be it direct or tacit.
In short... on what grounds do you condemn his abuser?
I can assure you, that I am firm in the belief that every paedophile from every culture and every time will be roasting for their sin if they haven't looked to Jesus Christ for redemption. The fact that whole societies can be so caught up in their sin that they call abominable things acceptable does not in the least way excuse any individual for engaging in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Your argument here doesn't pose me any problems, nor would I level it back at you if you are happy to say that paedophilia is always wrong. It is a problem for the moral relativists who claim that morality only exists as a social construct, and not something innate to humanity.
If I wished in my heart that you were dead (and I do not, I actually quite enjoy talking to you), then I would say that that would be wrong of me. I could not feel right with myself if I felt such a thing, even if I knew no harm came to you by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Of course it is not a crime, in the sense that it should be legally prosecuted. But it would be a sin, it would be immoral.
To bring it back to the example you were responding to: are you saying that it is not immoral for a paedophile to lust after children? I would like you to answer that particular example.
Apologies, I got the feeling you just wanted a straightforward answer, first thing that popped into my head type thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
To delve into a bit of detail... I do not believe in doing evil for the greater good. I think part of the 'problem' with this puzzle is that it plays on the human tendency to view the sick as objects purely of care and nurture, and thus we tend to view the husband and the chemist as the only rational agents, acting on behalf of a totally defenceless and passive agent in the form of the wife. Thus, from this misconception, the actions of the husband become (potentially) selfless, while the wife is absolved of all moral responsibility.
Of course, the wife is in fact a rational and moral agent just like her husband. And if she advocates stealing from the chemist to save her life, then she is advocating for the suffering of another (because, of course, being a victim of theft causes suffering beyond the loss of property) for her own personal gain. From this more correct perspective, the husband goes from being somebody acting selflessly in aid of the helpless, to somebody active and complicit in aiding and abetting the selfish desires of another.
Now, even if the husband did this without his wife's knowing, or even if she was in a coma, he is not absolved of his wrongdoing. Because although the wife is not in that moment a rational agent, he is acting in for her in her capacity as a rational agent. He may himself be selfless, but he is acting on behalf of what is essentially a hurtful desire on his wife's behalf. Gah I'm in a rush I'll try to explain that last bit better later.
At this stage, I would say that is my position on this dilemma.
Here is what I wrote:
Heinz Dilemma in its very nature has several themes which result in the action of theft. In order to give an ‘overall’ answer, you need to look at the specifics of the case. Again, I will keep these brief.
A person’s life is on the line:
Due to the balance, death is argued as the worst outcome of a situation so this ‘fundamental right to life’ and this is shared by many religions and non-religions. If jumping into the water to save someone’s life only risked your clothing, it is a moral obligation to jump in to save them from death, as being irresponsible would cost them dearly and wouldn’t you want people to jump in after you to save you too if you were in that situation?
Personal Property/Patents:
The druggist develops the drug to provide food on his table, put shelter over his head, and to essentially live their life. He has worked and laboured to be able to do this, thus denying him access to food/shelter so he suffered greatly would be inexcusable.
Lack of Compromise:
Heinz has offered $1000 and a promise to pay the rest later. The production cost to produce 1 bottle is $200. We can have assumption that the druggist involved is producing a lot more and trading them away at the full-cost because that is how it works in reality and the fact the druggist only objected on the grounds he wants to make more money for the sake of it, opposed to a real need to impact his real situation (as in the second paragraph). But even then, there is a large upfront payment and we have reason to assume Heinz would keep to his promise due to its delivery to offset this.
Desperation:
There is a sense of urgency that it cannot be done ‘later’, but now. The consequence of this is the person’s life (Heinz’s wife). This urgency is not shared by the druggist in the given statement.
The Options:
The article only gives 1 choice for you to make, either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, with the reasoning of ‘why’ or ‘why not’ and as such, this would influence the overall answer I would give. This doesn’t allow any opportunity to make compromises, ie: “Take the drug, but leave the $1000 behind and a note saying he will make the rest of the payment”, though there is also the interesting response which can be “Heinz shouldn’t have stolen it, but the druggist shouldn’t have denied him the drug due to x,y,z”, this is not what is meant by the spirit of the question.
Overall:
“Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?” – Yes
“Why or Why not?” –
Because on the balance, there was a great and urgent need to save someone’s life (his wife), and the motivation of preventing that is attributed to greed/self-interest, despite fair arrangements for compromise. Any delays would have made the situation significantly worse. The person’s right to life is greater than the person’s right to property. This scenario does not provide any information or facts such as that medicine bottle being earmarked for someone else who did manage to pay, where someone else’s life is put into danger because of the consequences of Heinz’s actions.
7) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. Romans 3:7,8Quote:
To delve into a bit of detail... I do not believe in doing evil for the greater good
This verse clearly teaches against moral relativity.
For those who are contrary to the Christian worldview. If we are wrong, how are we hurt? If indeed after death we cease to exist, we will at least have lived a good life, done good to others, been faithful to our beliefs, and really, not missed out on other stuff, such as getting stoned or drunk. Really, by avoiding a carnal lifestyle, what have we missed? But the flip side, if we are right, then we go to heaven, and those who have rejected Christ will go to hell. I think Christians are better off either way.
3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:3,4
For those who don't like us quoting Scripture, telling us to leave it behind is like telling a soldier to leave behind his weapons. Also, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That is why we use it.
Out of common decency, the pharmacist should have agreed to Heinz's deal, but he was under no moral obligation to do so, so from my previous post, no, Heinz should not steal the drug.
Your personal opinion that you have no basis for. In fact, according to survival of the fittest, he should not have helped out Heinz. Heinz's wife apparently was not fit to survive. Evolution makes no provision for charity or kindness, those instances where one organism helps another, it would be for the benefit of itself, not the other organism.Quote:
The person’s right to life is greater than the person’s right to property
I do not see a situation where paedophilia is 'right', Reasons come from abuse of authority, abuse of trust, abuse of responsibility.. there is a long list and even if your example said they 'enjoyed it', there are factors in my mind and opinion which still make it 'wrong'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
It could be argued there are different levels of 'wrongness'. As some actions are more 'wrong' than others. With what you argue, you could suspect what happened to the person wasn't as wrong as a different situation, but the situation is never 'right' in absolute terms.
You can accuse me of having 'different shades of grey' in a situation, that is a point I will agree to, as I do not think the world is black&white.
This again comes back to language and unfortunately, language is not my strongest point.Quote:
If I wished in my heart that you were dead (and I do not, I actually quite enjoy talking to you), then I would say that that would be wrong of me. I could not feel right with myself if I felt such a thing, even if I knew no harm came to you by it.
Of course it is not a crime, in the sense that it should be legally prosecuted. But it would be a sin, it would be immoral.
To bring it back to the example you were responding to: are you saying that it is not immoral for a paedophile to lust after children? I would like you to answer that particular example.
I value/judge people more on their actions, intentions and thoughts pretty much in that order. To point this in the bible, think about the Parable of the Widow (Mark 12:41-44). Whilst the rich men gave in abundance to the Church, something I presume you say is 'the right thing to do', the value of their action is significantly less than the widow.
So I do not simply see these as "both right", but in fact, different shades.
So when you say lust, lets assume there was a mature looking 14 year old at an angle, so the viewer didn't know better and thought "She looks good" - is he wrong?
Upon further inspection and information, he finds out or the angle changed and sees she is younger than he first though, and go "Oops" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Damn, perhaps in a few years when she is an adult" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Cruds, she does look good" - is he wrong ?
I could continue this for a while, but this is a demonstration how it isn't simply black and white. The person in question committed the 'sin' as you described based on a misconception, but the different responses show the intention and perhaps reasoning about it.
For me, I draw the line where it results in perverse actions.
There is also the question where you can think something is aesthetically pleasing but do not have any lustful desires, like I think my dog is adorably cute and there is definitely nothing untowards thought or acted upon, or that you might have a niece who looks pretty and you have nothing wrong/immoral thought in any way.
I will save my response because I am interested in your thoughts on what I said, but I have one question. You mentioned the wife as a moral agent, but you seem to be neglecting the druggist.Quote:
At this stage, I would say that is my position on this dilemma.
Do you think it was right of him to deny treatment even when offered suitable compensation?
Actually, there are a great many existing arguments for this, and I kept it brief and didn't go into detail. But there is something you said which is a misconception...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
You really do not understand evolution at all, 'survival of the fittest' or even the basic evolutionary adaptations which are the basis of creating a society. The reason the great many of us are altruistic is because it leads to a greater degree of survival than being a 'lone-wolf'. This is seen in the animal kingdom with pretty much all species from ants, lions, dogs, monkeys, elephants, all assist each other and sometimes other species, because the end result is better survival.Quote:
In fact, according to survival of the fittest, he should not have helped out Heinz. Heinz's wife apparently was not fit to survive. Evolution makes no provision for charity or kindness, those instances where one organism helps another, it would be for the benefit of itself, not the other organism.
'Survival of the fittest' is on the species level, not the individual level and helping eachother ensures we as a species prospers better.
Heinz should have enough money to buy the drug because he is a filthy rich ketchup magnate.
Oh yeah, the problem with that is when people claim to follow the first and show no trace of the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
That's pretty weird if the second follows automatically from the first.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm talking about people who call themselves Christians and then go to demonstrate asking Obama to deport or shoot all the filthy immigrant kids.
The love love your neighbor or your next (i.e. everybody else) rule sort of demands a certain level of tolerance, especially when you couple it with the whole do not judge others lest you get judged yourself.
Excuse me if I don't get the quotes right, I did all my bible reading in German so far and things probably don't always translate too well directly.
Ok, now we get to the definition of "survival of the fittest", apparently we are not agreed on that. You are talking a herd mentality for protection. I am talking the inability to survive on one's environment. As the environment changes, the organism must adapt, die, or move. That is what survival of the fittest means. The lion does not care if he hunts the monkey to extinction, he will just hunt something else. The monkey would like for the lion to go extinct. By the way, would would motivate a single celled organism to evolve into anything else? It has it made, no enemies, nothing to wipe it out. Energy? Where did the energy come from? The universe? Where did the universe come from? And if you say that "Where did God come from?". God is eternal. Time is his creation, therefore he is beyond the bounds of time. As humans, we cannot comprehend that, for time is all we know. Eternity past makes sense from either view, what was there before time began? Time is told with the celestial bodies, and we both agree they have not been around forever. You just believe they have been around longer than I do.
I will take your word that you have a basis for your opinion. Just saying, mine doesn't change, and it is eternal.
If they don't follow the second, they are not following the first, because loving God with all your heart, mind, and soul will entail doing what he wants, and he wants us to do good to others, see Galatians 6:10.Quote:
Oh yeah, the problem with that is when people claim to follow the first and show no trace of the second.
That's pretty weird if the second follows automatically from the first.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek knowledge before you flaunt your ignorance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
For the rest of your post, I say keep your god. It does not contradict evolution in any way, and the vast majority of Christians accept evolution without losing their god(s). Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of any divine being, it only disproves the idiotic pseudoscience of young earth creationism.
That was my point, a lot of the conservatives who want a return of christian values also support wars, the death penalty, harsher punishments for minor "crimes" and sometimes also shooting someone in the back if he runs away with 20 bucks he stole from you. To me that is the very definition of showing no trace of the love for others they should have if they were real christians. And that is also why just asking for more christian values does usually not convince me as a lot of people who say that seem to imply that theiy want people who think otherwise somehow subdued, marginalized or out of sight. And I do not think that is the right mindset to promote christianity, thankfully you do not seem to have it. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Is anybody else getting tired of this line of conversation? It is going nowhere. I am not going to convince you guys, you guys will not convince me.
Flaunt what ignorance? Maybe I don't have the original origin quite right, but I am close enough to make my point.Quote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek knowledge before you flaunt your ignorance?
Not going too far into it, you refuse to acknowledge my point about historical vs observational science. Just pointing out that much virtually all our science today is built on the work of creationists. Maxwell's equations work the same for you as for me, that is observational science. Interpreting the past based on what we see, that is historical science, no way for sure to say what happened because scientists were not there to observe it. For every evolutionist explanation, there is a valid creationist explanation. Bear in mind that just because creation scientists don't agree with evolutionary ones, they still use the same laws of science in their work. After all, true science can be observed and repeated in the lab, no matter what view you hold.Quote:
it only disproves the idiotic pseudoscience of young earth creationism
As for things like the death penalty, wars, stuff like that. God instituted the death penalty, mainly for murder but also for other crimes, listed in the Bible. God commanded the children of Israel to go to war, in fact I think it is in Psalms that it says that God is a man of war, so pacifism is not a biblical teaching.
People have a right to believe what they believe. You not believing what I believe does not hurt me, my beliefs do not hurt you. And people have a right to believe anything they want, such as the four or seven percent who believe the country is being run by lizard people. By the way, I see you are in Essen. That was a major German production facility or something during WW2, right?Quote:
And that is also why just asking for more christian values does usually not convince me as a lot of people who say that seem to imply that theiy want people who think otherwise somehow subdued, marginalized or out of sight
The crux of your argument is that "since were not there to see it, secular scientists are merely putting forth ideas, and creationist scientists put forth their own ideas which also fall in line with the historical science that have been made". The problem with that, is that evolution is not historical science. I can take some e.coli and put it in a dish. And add an amount of antibiotics to the dish. And the e.coli will die. I take another dish with e.coli and I put the smallest amount of antibiotics my pipette can hold in it and most of the e.coli die. I wait for the e.coli to grow again and I put that small amount in again and a lot of e.coli die as before. And I do it again, and again and again. And I find that the small amount is not killing e.coli as well anymore and even when I put in the normal amount of antibiotics, some e.coli are now surviving that amount. This is literally the origin of antibiotic resistant diseases which have been sprouting up in the last two decades. Antibiotics did not even come into prevalent use until the mid-20th century and now bacteria are already adapted to it. Guess what, we have seen all of this happen with our own eyes. If you honestly think evolution is false, tell me at what point did God decide to pop these antibiotic resistant diseases into existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Thing is that cooperation is a very effective survival strategy. Add partial genetic survival. That is, it's better for me to die for a stanger's children than there being no children at all. Your children>siblings' children>extended family's children>stranger's children>no children at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Basically, the personality of the man that let's his wife die to get a new younger one and have children with her, will fail more on average and will thus be quite uncommon, compared to the man that tries to do everything to save her.
Your post on C14 was very vague with actual fact, but yes, the C14 isn't in equilibrium atm. That's because there has been nuclear tests, that produces extra C14.
And the problem with creationist scientists are that they place conclusions first, facts second. Fact doesn't fit the conclusion? Twist it to fit. The reason why young earth creationism was abandoned were because it was simply impossible to reconcile that theory with the evidence presented. It's the same way as geocentrism got abandoned.
In the old testament perhaps but if you're going to base your christianity on that, then you're almost a jew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Which raises another good question by the way. If the jews go to heaven, why did Jesus preach to them and try to turn them into christians? He said the only way to get to the father is through him, but jews do not recognize him as their saviour, so why do so many christians give the jews blanket support as brothers in faith?
Quite frankly a lot of what Jesus taught seems to conflict with what was taught in the old testament, especially regarding violence. And if Jesus was the messiah who was promised to the jews, then they should indeed accept him as their saviour and the new rules he brought about, shouldn't they? Can you give any examples from Jesus where he justified or sanctioned something that would support the death penalty or is that all based on the old testament? And does sacrificing a young sheep for your sins work as a substitute for accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
And Essen was one of the big industrial towns in the Ruhr area, famous for coal and steel production, but that is mostly a thing of the past nowadays.
But what are those factors that still make it wrong when victims like Dawkins have said they suffered from none of the ills you have already listed? I say that the act and the desire are in themselves reprehensible, can you tell me why you find them to be so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
For me, shades of grey don't come into it. Strictly speaking, the Christian position would be that, as Jesus said, if you commit murder in your heart, you are no better than a murderer. Likewise, if you lust after women in your heart, you are no better than an adulterer. The fact that some people might not carry through such desires, or carry them through to limited degrees, doesn't make the desires or the limited actions themselves any less immoral.
But you seem reluctant to call a thought itself immoral, and are maintaining the position that actions are only moral/immoral depending on how they relate to the happiness of others. Give me a concrete answer from your moral framework on just how this teacher was immoral to abuse Dawkins as he did. Things like abuse of authority or abuse of trust indicate Dawkins was in some way wronged, yet he himself maintains that he was not.
I would say that what matters in this scenario isn't so much the difference between the different 'shades' of the sin, but rather if any immoral intention was there in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I will use an extreme hypothetical example so as to avoid any confusion here... let's say there is a girl who is 16 (let's just be cautious when discussing this sort of thing), but she has an extremely rare medical condition that means she in fact looks and behaves like a fully mature, 40 year old woman. She has the physical looks, dress style, and mannerisms of a 40 year old woman - in every way she would appear as a 40 year old woman. Now, if a man was to see her on the street, and, having no awareness of who she was or her medical condition, was to look at her lustfully, then I would not accuse that man of having paedophillic thoughts.
On the other hand, if that man knew of her condition, or had any reason to believe she may be younger than she really was, then I would accuse that man of having paedophillic thoughts.
Intention is central to morality.
So, to be clear on this: would you say that it is not immoral for a man to knowingly lust after, say a 16-year old (lets go with 16 as I said earlier), even when he was fully aware of her age, so long as he did not act upon it at all? Without going into the details on any different shades of morality, I would like you to answer simply yes/no as to whether you think it would be immoral at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I know that I would without a doubt call such thoughts totally immoral. But I would like a simple yes/no answer from you on this. Is it immoral at all?
Of course, we are talking about inappropriate/wrong thoughts here. You can recognize beauty without any sexual element. For an obvious example, the beauty of a mountainous landscape, or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I thought it went without saying that the chemist was the real bad guy in the scenario. Of course, he should have given the medicine to the husband. He may or may not rightfully demand some payment according to his own economic situation, but he should ensure that ultimately the dying woman gets the medicine, even if the husband was not able to offer anything for it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
As for my thoughts on your answer, well I disagree because of the reasons I stated in my own. Either the wife desires another's harm purely for her own gain, with the husband complicit in this; or else the husband presumes such a desire on his wife's behalf, and acts on behalf of this presumed selfish and immoral desire. The wife, the husband, and the chemist are all immoral in the former situation; only the husband and the chemist in the latter.
The whole scenario is basically designed to get people to bend their morals in the face of hardship and an unjust world. Christians are called to be perfect - to respond to hate with love, to respond to selfishness with selflessness - not to use the hate and selfishness of others to justify our own descent into theft and deceit. This is the only morally defensible position.
There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
' For me, shades of grey don't come into it. Strictly speaking, the Christian position would be that, as Jesus said, if you commit murder in your heart, you are no better than a murderer. Likewise, if you lust after women in your heart, you are no better than an adulterer. The fact that some people might not carry through such desires, or carry them through to limited degrees, doesn't make the desires or the limited actions themselves any less immoral.'
Sorry but wht shouldn't I lust for me friend's girlfriend. She is pretty, and he does't mind
The inventor of the MRI, Raymond Damadian, is a creationist. Dr. John Baumgardner, a leader in the field of plate tectonics, is a creationist. As I said, Maxwell's equations work the same for you and me (I use Maxwell because I am studying electrical engineering). As I have already pointed out, Bacon (who formulated the scientific method, and who has an awesome name), Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, to name a few, were creationists. That is really what a scientist is, he experiments and observes. Part of science is observation. If it can be repeated with the same results, then it starts to fall into the category of true observational science. Then your view on origins does not come into play either way, at least as far as the science itself works. I cannot recreate my view of creation, you cannot recreate yours.Quote:
There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?
The e.coli example. It is still an e.coli bacteria. It has not changed into anything else. It has lost some information, which loss enables it to survive in the presence of an antibiotic. Not good for us. If I recall, though, it has problems surviving in the absence of that antibiotic. Not saying that for sure, I may not be remembering correctly what I read.
On to the thing of lust, Jesus said that to look upon a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery. The point of what he is saying is that it is impossible to keep the whole law (any man I know of, outside of Jesus Christ, has been guilty of lustful thoughts, to use that example), so nobody can rely on keeping the law to get to heaven. That is why Christ came, as the Lamb of God, to make the payment for sin once and for all. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29 Humans, including Christians, commit sin. Now Christians are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so, but they are still human, and still need to confess those sins and get them out of their lives. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me: Psalm 66:18
There is so much truth in the verse: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend on one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.
There is not one sin, that does not show in somebody's heart a sense of anger, malice, perversion, deceit, selfishness, rebellion - everything bad within them. But sadly in this day and age it is so rife and so normalized that even Christians become blind to it.
Einstein wasn't religious though.
Not to mention the reproach you bring to the name of Christ if you follow through with the thoughts. Sadly, many Christians fail to think about that, or they do not care enough to put aside their own lusts. Any action begins with a thought. That is why we are supposed to guard our thoughts.Quote:
Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.
First of all, he was Jewish - christianity is a stretch ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Secondly, Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god - which is a dickish way of saying he doesn't believe in god.
EDIT: He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is ~;)
That is my understanding as well. He was Jewish, and I believe it was he who basically gave the Allies the atomic bomb in exchange for a Jewish state. Correct me if somebody else knows otherwise, it might not have been Einstein, though I think I remember it right.Quote:
Actually, he was. He believed in a constant universe that abided by universal rules. He believed in God. He wasn't a bible thumper, and I don't know that he ever called himself a Christian (or anything else), but he was a religious man.
Stalin and Big Brother approves of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Einsteins own reply to a claim he was religious:
Case closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Einstein
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Margaret ThatcherQuote:
He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is
Churchill said something to the effect that if you are in your twenties and not a socialist you have no heart, but if you are in your forties and a socialist, you have no brain. Socialism sounds nice and good, but it does not work. Communism is essentially the same situation as socialism, with a more oppressive government, but the end result being the same. One huge issue I have is that here in America, we take money from defense, and put it to social programs, while our enemies are increasing their militaries. Charity is not the government's role. Individuals should take accountability for themselves.
"A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."
A quote from an upper class twit and a mad old bag. You, sir, have convinced me.
Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors, I'll be sure to think of you at least one of the days of my 12-week paid vacation.
I've said it many times: socialism without capitalism is unsustainable but capitalism without socialism is intollerable.
Anyone who extols one while excluding the other should be viewed with suspicion and/or derision.
Personally, I'm more of a socialist on the social side of things, ie. gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, anti-war, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
On the economic side, I favour a working private sector for everything except the fundamentals(infrastructure, healthcare, justice, and so on), with a strong state with a proper whip to deal with those who cause trouble(currently: finance). In euroweenies terms, that puts me a little to the left of center, I think.
So yeah, in economic terms I would agree with your statement.
The bolded part is the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I totally agree with your statement at large. Totally.
I have no problem what so ever with people looking at the world, and just think there might be more to it than we know. Heck, I am one of them.
To have a big bang - creating a universe that can spring to life... Is nothing short of a miracle.
Science is just trying to EXPLAIN this miracle, science in no way state this isn't a miracle, though. As many creationists seem to believe.
I have said over, and over, and over again:
When theology, philosophy, and science all reach their individual peak, they will meet and greet at the very top.
There clearly is a universal strive towards complexity... The more you learn about the world, the more you believe in it.
Now, my problem is when people state that they have the answer, and that answer means that you should cut your penis or pray before bed or whatever (generally donate cash or waste your energy making the meme spread). Bollocks, to put it mildly.
We're not even close to grasping the true wonder of the universe.
I believe in a "God", in my way. I just don't believe in the material way that different churches want to dictate my everyday life.
The ultimate complexity = God.
Doesn't have to be harder than that, science support the view. And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).
From this perspective, people who adhere to a religious dogma made by a bronze age desert living tribe is....
I mentioned ridiculous already, didn't I?
Agreed.Quote:
And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).
Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.~:rolleyes:Quote:
Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors
Quote:
The natural tendency is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. -Thomas Jefferson
Pithily expressed and exactly on point. Kudos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I remember reading that. I would not classify Einstein as religious in the sense we use the term. Spiritual, possibly. Believing in some "higher power" as the Friends of Bill W. phrase it, yes. I do not believe Einstein would have or did agree with any of the then extant depictions of this higher power. For him, the music of the spheres was enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
God help us all.
I get to choose my doctor as well for the most part and if I'm willing to pay the costs myself I can probably choose any doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
That you cannot trust your government is not a problem of socialized medicine but a problem with your way of thinking, your society and how your government works.
The sweet, sweet smell of ignorance... I choose my own doctor, and my treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
But you do an excellent job at parroting propaganda without checking whether or not it fits with reality. I do not understand how you became a creationist. /sarcasm
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
Apologies to most persons, but these just need to be reposted - in short healthcare works better in practically every developed country you care to mention - and many undeveloped countries:
Attachment 14159Attachment 14160
Leaving aside the odd belief that doctors could treat based upon voting patterns (is Government ever that organised?) the cost of healthcare is off the charts - or more spceifically the charts have to be redrawn to keep the USA on them.
~:smoking:
No, not really:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.
~:smoking:
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's almost as if the Bible is not consistent. Note I said "should". I really couldn't care less about what I read in 90% of the Bible, including some of the things Jesus says. All I care about is the message of goodwill, something that is lacking among many political ideologies.
We can use the Republican complaints as the testing measure. From the start they've hated the idea and gone for full repell. If they silently forget the issue, then it's because their own base has gotten it so much better under Obamacare that repelling it would be political suicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Full circle would be remembering that most of it was originally Republican ideas, and then accusing Obama of stealing those ideas, while the Republicans were supporting it all along. I say that this one got 50-50.
Short version, the US system is so inefficient compared to the rest of the world that you can increase cover, reduce costs and improve service in a single reform.
I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.
Indeed. trying to shoe-horn a religion to have one clear message on any modern system is pointless. If one wants to do it / thinks we should do it fine. But no point putting a religion in there to add weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
~:smoking:
Why? I would rather have the public dialogue centered around the concepts of community and charity rather than "culture wars" and ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Choosing a religion is going to be choosing a culture as you can't have one without the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I don't think that any group of persons has a monopoly on ignorance.
~:smoking: