|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 16, 2006 2:29:57 GMT -5
Morluna and drsocc, that's a red herring. Just kidding. Ok, I'll try call them rabbit trails from now on. But back on topic... My conscience tells me that drunkenness, pornography, premarital sex, abortion, lying, stealing, murder, and homosexuality are wrong. Does my conscience agree with your conscience? Miles Seriously this time, I am about to log off and sleep. Tomorrow is another day. Cheers. Ahh, but do you know for a fact that it's all your concious? What if the concious is shaped by fears, doubts, and prejudices, as well? That's why I prefer the term 'heart'. Cuz then I can also say I'm referring to the deepest part of the heart, the part unhindered by those blocks, shields, and guards.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 16, 2006 21:53:14 GMT -5
Morluna said:
Earlier you said that "the Creator has established these bounds".
Morluna said:
So can we establish that there is a universal and absolute standard set forth by the Creator that says "love thy neighbor" and "if it is hurful to fellow human beings, it is wrong" or as the Bible says, the essence of the law is love? In other words this cannot be relative, this is an absolute truth, yes?
I have grounds to believe that the conscience is God given (the word of God). But on what grounds are you saying that the conscience comes from God? Do you say it is true because you feel that it is true? Do you say it is true because you think that it is true? You see, I would agree with you that the conscience comes from God, but on what authoritative grounds does it come from?
You are borrowing from the Christian worldview and its source (the word of God) while you have been denying the source. If you take away the foundation, upon what do you stand, other than yourself and therefore being reduced to arbitrariness and once again being autonomous?
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 22:11:41 GMT -5
Morluna said: Earlier you said that "the Creator has established these bounds". Morluna said: So can we establish that there is a universal and absolute standard set forth by the Creator that says "love thy neighbor" and "if it is hurful to fellow human beings, it is wrong" or as the Bible says, the essence of the law is love? In other words this cannot be relative, this is an absolute truth, yes? I have grounds to believe that the conscience is God given (the word of God). But on what grounds are you saying that the conscience comes from God? Do you say it is true because you feel that it is true? Do you say it is true because you think that it is true? You see, I would agree with you that the conscience comes from God, but on what authoritative grounds does it come from? You are borrowing from the Christian worldview and its source (the word of God) while you have been denying the source. If you take away the foundation, upon what do you stand, other than yourself and therefore being reduced to arbitrariness and once again being autonomous? Miles I won't even get into the idea of "borrowing" anything from the Christian world-view... do you have any idea how much of your world-view is borrowed, absorbed, and stolen from other world philosophies and religions? The Hebrews weren't even monotheistic until they hung out with the Egyptians for awhile and liked the idea of the all powerful Sun-God Amon Ra. Yes I believe that respect for fellow creatures is a concrete truth set forth by God, the human experience, whatever you want to call it. Whatever higher power you believe in, something is responsible for the undeniable truth that loving your neighbor is only right. I believe it's as a result of the conscience placed upon us by the Creator, but someone else might think otherwise, and I'm not going to contest that with them. In the end, it doesn't really matter who's responsible for it. It is true, and that's all the matters. I feel it is true, I think it is true, I believe it is true, yes. How do you know what you believe? Because you think, feel, and believe it is true. How can anyone put into words why they believe what they believe? You can't. So don't expect me to. And don't try to twist my words, to make me look like I'm contradicting myself. I'm not. I said that I believe the Creator has given us a conscience to know what is right and wrong. I believe the one universal aspect of morality is that one should not hurt others. Everything else is relative, at least that's my belief. You're certainly entitled to your own. The moment your beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of my fellow human beings, however, I have every right to step up and defend them.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 16, 2006 22:44:30 GMT -5
Says who? Who gives people rights? And where do those bounds come from? Who establishes those bounds? Ok, Now I know that I'm repeating myself one more time, again, but here goes. Wanderingtrekker, from thread "Questions for the heterosexuals" reply number 15. April 10, 2006, 1:40 am. Also, my quote from thread "Questions for the heterosexuals" reply number 16. April 10, 2006, 1:58 am.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 16, 2006 23:23:19 GMT -5
Wanderingtrekker, to sum up your entire post, you are saying you believe like Jefferson that these rights come from God? And that the bounds of "don't hurt another person" is a bound established by God?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 16, 2006 23:32:29 GMT -5
Wanderingtrekker, to sum up your entire post, you are saying you believe like Jefferson that these rights come from God? And that the bounds of "don't hurt another person" is a bound established by God? No, I am not saying that at all. What Jefferson is arguing is that all men are created with inherent rights. Knowing Jefferson, he is probably arguing along the lines of nature. The language is not meant to endorse your God. It is meant to claim that men have rights inherently, as a birthright and that it is not the business of government to interfere with those rights. He clearly says that men are created by "their creator." This could be Allah for a Muslim, YHWH/Elohim for a Christian, or Gaea for someone who is in tune with nature. For Jefferson, it is not the act of creation that is important, but rather the fact that humanity should act on a code of morals respecting the rights of others. Besides which, while Jefferson gave these principles as the foundation of American law, he didn't create them. It was the prevailing philosophy of government at the time, and like everything else spurring the American Revolution, the Declaration was a reaction against the divine right of kings, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 16, 2006 23:47:36 GMT -5
As you said yourself, man was "created" by nature with inherent inalienable rights. However, how can "nature" create or give any rights at all? How can nature exist at all without God. Without God how can any laws, moral or natural, exist?
If there is no God then there are no inalienable rights. Universal morality requires a universal God who has given universal Laws. If you deny the Universal God you have no grounds to claim any universal morality.
In the world of the atheist there is no one to say rape, murder, lying, stealing, adultery, ect are wrong other then the mere individual. But of coarse the individual is not in any universal authoritative position to dictate a universal morality and hense there could be no inherant, inalienable rights.
Morluna is right that these rights were given by God and that the boundaries were established by God. However she has borrowed from the Christian worldview, taking from the source and yet denying the source; building upon the Christian foundation and then removing the foundation and expecting the buildings to still stand. But they only stand with the foundation. And all men need to borrow from the Christian world view to make logical, reasonable sense of the world. The atheist does it. The agnostic does it. And Morluna has done it.
I have grounds to say that God gave man a conscience, the Word of God. But if you say you simple "feel" or "think" that God gave man a conscience that is sinking sand. It can be easily proven that feeling or thinking doesn't equal reality. A man may feel he can fly and genuinely think he can fly. But does that mean he can fly? No. You must stand on more then mere thoughts and feelings to say God gave all men a conscience.
I know God gave all men a conscience because God has said He has given all men a conscience. But if you reject the bible you cannot later borrow from the bible like "The Golden Rule" of do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, or the second greatest commandment "love thy neighbor as thyself" and expect them to hold any weight if you deny the source they come from.
You cannot continue your subjectivism Morluna and simply taking what you like and leaving what you don't like, picking and choosing based on personal thoughts or feelings. It is autonomous and arbitary. You must take the Christian world-view as a whole or not at all.
It's like your trying to say an airplane flies because it has wings while taking away the engine of the plane. You would therefore be disabling the plane and rendering the wings useless. It's the principle of irreducible complexity and it applies to Christianity. It's all or nothing. It doesn't work in pieces but only as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 23:55:42 GMT -5
Trekker, are you familiar at all with the Iroquois nation's contributions to the founding ideas of American government? I studied a bit about it in last semester's history class. I think it's interesting that a lot of the democratic ideas we seem to attribute to the Romans and Greeks may have actually come from indigenous peoples. The Iroquois was the greatest Indian nation in America up until their systematic anhilation by the invading European peoples, and many of our nation's basic principals of liberty and democracy line up with their systems of government. It's thought by many historians that the early US borrowed a lot of their principles when putting our systems together.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 17, 2006 0:11:15 GMT -5
Trekker, are you familiar at all with the Iroquois nation's contributions to the founding ideas of American government? I studied a bit about it in last semester's history class. I think it's interesting that a lot of the democratic ideas we seem to attribute to the Romans and Greeks may have actually come from indigenous peoples. The Iroquois was the greatest Indian nation in America up until their systematic anhilation by the invading European peoples, and many of our nation's basic principals of liberty and democracy line up with their systems of government. It's thought by many historians that the early US borrowed a lot of their principles when putting our systems together. I wasn't aware. Perhaps you should can elaborate, because Jesse is probably inclined to disbelieve you. Or worse, he might censor you. Which culture did we get censorship from anyway? Is that a Christian principle? Oh, yes of course it is. That's why they think that the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre was a good movie, because it censors all of the social justice stuff that Jesus of Nazareth talked about. Oh, well, it was probably too long and deep for these simplistic minded facists to understand. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 0:13:45 GMT -5
As you said yourself, man was "created" with inherent inalienable rights. However, how can "nature" give any rights at all? How can nature exist at all without God. Without God how can any laws, moral or natural, exist? If there is no God then there are no inalienable rights. Universal morality requires a universal God who has given universal Laws. If you deny the Universal God you have no grounds to claim any universal morality. In the world of the atheist there is no one to say rape, murder, lying, stealing, adultery, ect are wrong other then the mere individual. But of coarse the individual is not in any universal authoritative position to dictate a universal morality and hense there could be no inherant, inalienable rights. Morluna is right that these rights were given by God and that the boundaries were established by God. However she has borrowed from the Christian worldview, taking from the source and yet denying the source; building upon the Christian foundation and then removing the foundation and expecting the buildings to still stand. But they only stand with the foundation. And all men need to borrow from the Christian world view to make logical, reasonable sense of the world. The atheist does it. The agnostic does it. And Morluna has done it. I have grounds to say that God gave man a conscience, the Word of God. But if you say you simple "feel" or "think" that God gave man a conscience that is sinking sand. It can be easily proven that feeling or thinking doesn't equal reality. A man may feel he can fly and genuinely think he can fly. But does that mean he can fly? No. You must stand on more then mere thoughts and feelings to say God gave all men a conscience. I know God gave all men a conscience because God has said He has given all men a conscience. But if you reject the bible you cannot later borrow from the bible like "The Golden Rule" of do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, or the second greatest commandment "love thy neighbor as thyself" and expect them to hold any weight if you deny the source they come from. You cannot continue your subjectivism Morluna and simply taking what you like and leaving what you don't like, picking and choosing based on personal thoughts or feelings. It is autonomous and arbitary. You must take the Christian world-view as a whole or not at all. It's like your trying to say an airplane flies because it has wings while taking away the engine of the plane. It's the principle of irreducible complexity and it applies to Christianity. It's all or nothing. It doesn't work in pieces but only as a whole. The idea of "love thy neighbor" exists in virtually every world belief. How conceited of you to think that your set of beliefs is the only one that holds those beliefs. I follow the teachings of Jesus, but I could do without the rest of your holy book.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 17, 2006 0:18:54 GMT -5
What is the relevence of discussing political roots in our current discussion? It seems to me to be a side topic, being neither a confirmation nor a rebuttle of the lasted arguement.
Are there any "amens" or any rebuttles to the latest arguement?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 17, 2006 0:21:43 GMT -5
What is the relevence of discussing political roots in our current discussion? It seems to me to be a side topic, being neither a confirmation nor a rebuttle of the lasted arguement. Are there any "amens" or any rebuttles to the latest arguement? Because in this country, laws are made by men (and women) based upon the foundations of our democracy. This tradition is rooted in the above-mentioned posts. Laws are not based upon what one person deems moral. If you want to live in a society where theologians make the decisions, move to Iran. They'd really love you there. And you'd fit right in. I'm sure you could work for their censorship office. And please stop saying "of coarse" the appropriate English phrase is "of course." You're driving me crazy with that.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 17, 2006 0:23:13 GMT -5
What is the relevence of discussing political roots in our current discussion? It seems to me to be a side topic, being neither a confirmation nor a rebuttle of the lasted arguement. Are there any "amens" or any rebuttles to the latest arguement? Why can't you just have a normal discussion? Not everything is a debate or an effort to call you out.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 17, 2006 0:24:04 GMT -5
I disagree. It doesn't exist in the atheist world-view or the agnostic world-view. If evolution is true, it's survival of the fittest and it's every man for himself.
Atheistm breads selfishness. Atheism, rooted in evolution, gave birth to nazism which is a worldview that doesn't include "love they neightbor".
Though many religions believe in morality, that doesn't mean they have a reason to believe in morality. Given the buddhist or the hindue worldview, on what grounds could they believe in morality? Buddhist says there is no god other then yourself, but that you can become god through good carma and what have you. And hindues have over 3,000000 gods. Which god and which laws would you choose to follow? You cannot say there is one set or one given law when there are 3,000000 gods, many of which they say are evil.
So that objection of "all world-views teach love thy neighbor" simply isn't true and therefore isn't valid as an adequate rebuttle.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 17, 2006 0:25:14 GMT -5
You should have seen him and miles last night using "red herring" every other sentence. I felt like I was in my third grade reading class discussing the hardy boys.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 17, 2006 0:25:51 GMT -5
What was wrong with my avatar?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 0:46:20 GMT -5
Trekker, are you familiar at all with the Iroquois nation's contributions to the founding ideas of American government? I studied a bit about it in last semester's history class. I think it's interesting that a lot of the democratic ideas we seem to attribute to the Romans and Greeks may have actually come from indigenous peoples. The Iroquois was the greatest Indian nation in America up until their systematic anhilation by the invading European peoples, and many of our nation's basic principals of liberty and democracy line up with their systems of government. It's thought by many historians that the early US borrowed a lot of their principles when putting our systems together. I wasn't aware. Perhaps you should can elaborate, because Jesse is probably inclined to disbelieve you. Or worse, he might censor you. Which culture did we get censorship from anyway? Is that a Christian principle? Oh, yes of course it is. That's why they think that the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre was a good movie, because it censors all of the social justice stuff that Jesus of Nazareth talked about. Oh, well, it was probably too long and deep for these simplistic minded facists to understand. Cheers Haha, chainsaw massacre... Actually, I have to say that I cried SO hard in that movie. It was really moving for me... anyone dying that way is moving... but someone who was perfect, or nearly perfect, depending on your belief... yeah. Um, I would elaborate... but... 1) it's 2am and I'm sleepy and 2) I don't really have a lot of the info at hand. PS: Also Jesse doesn't think it's appropriate to discuss politics and government here... and since we all know Jesse is god...
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 1:05:38 GMT -5
I disagree. It doesn't exist in the atheist world-view or the agnostic world-view. If evolution is true, it's survival of the fittest and it's every man for himself. Atheistm breads selfishness. Atheism, rooted in evolution, gave birth to nazism which is a worldview that doesn't include "love they neightbor". Though many religions believe in morality, that doesn't mean they have a reason to believe in morality. Given the buddhist or the hindue worldview, on what grounds could they believe in morality? Buddhist says there is no god other then yourself, but that you can become god through good carma and what have you. And hindues have over 3,000000 gods. Which god and which laws would you choose to follow? You cannot say there is one set or one given law when there are 3,000000 gods, many of which they say are evil. So that objection of "all world-views teach love thy neighbor" simply isn't true and therefore isn't valid as an adequate rebuttle. UGH. I'm sorry but your horrible grammar is really annoying. Atheistm Atheism hindue Hindu carma Karma How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even spell or use appropriate grammar? Ever hear of proofreading? Now that that's cleared up... "Virtually every" does not equal "every and all with no exceptions" Buddhism does not teach that you can become a god... it teaches the path to achieving enlightenment, which is a higher understanding of the world and the universe. According to the Eightfold Path, once one achieves enlightenment, they have arrived at Nirvana. It really isn't fundamentally that different from the idea of seeking the face of Christ to achieve greater understanding through love and compassion towards others, but I don't expect you'll understand that.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 17, 2006 10:49:57 GMT -5
Morluna,
As I said, many say they believe in conscience or love and compassion, however not everyone has a reason to believe in these things.
I don't believe you have really answered the question yet. On what grounds, or for what reason, do you say God has given all people a conscience.
You said earlier that you think, feel, and believe God has. However thinking, feeling, and believing does not equal reality. A man can think, feel, and believe he can fly but that doesn't mean he can. Is there any other reason why you believe God has given all men a conscience besides thinking, feeling, and believing?
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 18, 2006 1:32:43 GMT -5
Actually Jesse (bolded so you see this is addressed to you), Buddhism does promote morality. It preaches the Golden Rule just like Christianity does.
And while I don't speak for many newer trends in Buddhism, it's my understanding that Buddhism's answer originally was that it didn't worry about whether or not there is a God - it avoids the big questions altogether. I think that's why we can see "Christian-Buddhists" and such - people who practice Buddhism as a way of life but then use Christianity to attempt to answer the big questions.
I've never liked exclusivism, and that's definitely your view, Jesse. Inflexibility is kinda one of the 5 warning signs of a religion becoming evil. If you want me to take the Christian worldview as an all-or-none thing, then I'm going to take none, based on your exclusivist view of the religion and continue to take in the wisdom it offers. You view is very conservative and doesn't even acknowledging the existence of a more liberal viewpoint. I apologize if I've misconstrued, but that's my impression.
|
|