Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 7:58 AM
145 online now:
candle2 (1 member, 144 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,559 Year: 2,596/19,786 Month: 678/1,918 Week: 266/266 Day: 3/35 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 142 (16706)
09-05-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Quetzal
09-05-2002 12:30 PM


Quetzal,
What is memetic evolution? Guess I could look it up, huh.
I'll do that.
TJ
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 12:30 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 3:57 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 62 of 142 (16729)
09-06-2002 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 7:46 PM


TOKYOJIM REPLIES:
Quetzal, of course I agree with you 100% on both points. I never stated such. You mentioned people masquerading in religious cloaks and anyone who genuinely thinks that Hitler was a Christian has some grave misunderstandings or perhaps they are wilfull misunderstandings. I agree to about what you say about Stalin, but I still say both were at heart atheists. And I think that because they feel there is no god they need to answer to and no absolute standard of morality, they are more likely to end up perpetrating atrocities than others. You can't say dogmatically that acting like that is wrong or immoral since there is no absolute standard to appeal to. You can say you don't think it is good or that you don't like that, etc. but appealing to a standard that doesn't exist seems contradictory. Just my opinion.
____________________________________________________________________

And again you show yourself to be a hateful bigot Tokyojim. You say they were both "at heart atheists" (wonder how you know them at heart in the first place) and that Hitler was not a christian only to make yourself feel better and to deny that christianity is fully as capable of committing the worst atrocities and any other religion or lack thereof. The one with the wilful misunderstandings is you. Considering your constant distortion of the facts you should at least come forward and admit you are a prejudiced person....to quote you..stand up for what you believe! You hate people that don't "bend their knees" to your god or at the very least feel superior

Tokyojim:
"but appealing to a standard that doesn't exist seems contradictory."

You mean like preventing yourself from running amok because of a god for which there is no evidence..great morality there jim...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 7:46 PM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tokyojim, posted 09-06-2002 12:30 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4518 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 63 of 142 (16730)
09-06-2002 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Quetzal
09-05-2002 12:30 PM


I wish you luck with that. I would get out of the way of your attempts but I find it difficult to let his lies about atheists being the root of all evil crap slide by unchallenged. That he does not know what memetic evolution also bodes ill for any further conversations on the topic you want to engage him on assuming you can get past his anyone who disagrees with him is philisophically phylogenetically linked to Hitler and Stalin trip.

cheers
Mammuthus

quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
No doubt, my friend. I'm trying to get past all this fluff so we can get to the heart of the argument. I want to challenge him on the psychological/physiological basis of belief, memetic evolution, and the evolution of altruism. But I can't seem to get him past the philosophical chaff - which I'm not really qualified to argue in the first place.

Sigh.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 12:30 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 09-06-2002 9:33 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 142 (16758)
09-06-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mammuthus
09-06-2002 4:11 AM


"Ain't no thang". Feel free to engage in any discussion you wish. I enjoy your posts, as always. This isn't a private conversation by any means - nor would I want it to be.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:11 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 142 (16780)
09-06-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mammuthus
09-06-2002 4:07 AM


OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:07 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-06-2002 12:44 PM Tokyojim has responded
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:23 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 142 (16785)
09-06-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tokyojim
09-06-2002 12:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ

Are the following people or institutions Christian, TJ?;

Timothy McVeigh

The Ku Klux Klan

Randal Terry

The Catholic priests who protected criminal child molesors because they were also priests


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tokyojim, posted 09-06-2002 12:30 PM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tokyojim, posted 09-07-2002 7:41 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 142 (16786)
09-06-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 12:19 PM


Mammuthus said:
You also seem to consider atheism an origanized religion which illustrates just how little you understand about other worldviews...I guess you would, by the logic of your post, consider all Hindus to be evil as well.

************************************************************
Tokyojim responds:
Sorry. Of course it is not an organized religion, but don't fool yourself that it isn't a religion. I'm sure you have read the Humanist Manifesto and seen how many of it's signers view their ideas as religious. I can find some quotes for you if you want.

I say: A lot of assumptions on your part there. Are you then claiming I am a co-signer? I think I have only met about 10 other atheists before and we don't hold meetings
You make a lot assumptions without any basis.

Did I claim that you are a co-signer? Forgive me for making any assumptions. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were aware of and had read the Humanist Manifesto. If you have read it, you prefer to make me look stupid by accusing me of making assumptions. If you haven't read it, then I guess you were too embarrassed to admit it. You always keep things so vague in your messages that one never knows. Have you or haven't you read it? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Here is what the leading atheists are saying about atheism:

You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda. Read the Humanist Magazine if you donft believe me. Herefs one quote from there:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
Herefs another one from the now deceased Madelyn Murray OfHair: "The atheist realizes that there must not only be an acceptance of his right to hold his opinion, but that ultimately his is the job to turn his culture from religion, to eliminate those irrational ideas which have held the human race in intellectual slavery."
"The atheist must abandon his defensive positions, take up the cudgels and go forward, rather than into the retreat of apathy."
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the American Atheists Organization. Quotes from her speech at their annual convention in Sacramento, California, on April 10, 1993 (from C-SPAN)

So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.
Regards, TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 12:19 PM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:36 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 142 (16790)
09-06-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 12:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:

Then I consider your religion weak if your so called right or wrong are based on punishment and reward from a mythical being. I rather know that my actions and decisions are based on my own character and choice.

*************************
TJ's reply
I'm not surprised at what you said. Of course I agree with you if indeed God is a mythical being, but that is where we will just have agree to disagree. And my standards of right and wrong do not come from what you said. Yes, I do have a healthy fear of God meaning a deep respect for His authority and commands, just as I hope you have a healthy fear and respect for the police, civil authority, and the laws of the land. No difference there. I don't follow your ridicule.
Yes, I do believe that God will reward me for works done with pure motives in heaven, but that is not the only reason I do them. I also do them out of love for Him and to show my thanks for all He has done for me. I do them because I think they are right.

Now, here is the point I want to bring out. You say your decisions are based on your character and personal choice. So is it OK for everyone to make behavioral decisions based on those same standards which will certainly vary from one individual to the next. Is that what you are saying is the best way for moral order to be preserved in society. I'm not assuming, just asking.

Tokyojim asks:
Question for you: Do you believe in an absolute standard for morality or is it anything goes?

M replies:
Nope, I don't believe in an absolute standard and I DON'T believe that anything goes either.

**************************
TJ replies:
OK so you don't believe in an absolute standard, but for you personally that doesn't mean that anything goes. However, if someone else does believe that anything goes, that would be OK? If you answer no to that question, then you are appealing to an ultimate standard of morality which you just said doesn't exist. Or at least to a standard which you think is better than the others.

***********************************
Tokyojim asks:
By the way, when you use the word evil in the above question, how do you define evil and good as an atheist?

I reply: That which does harm....oh and religious fundamentalism

**************************************************************
TJ REPLIES:
Aha. So here is the standard which you are appealing to. Anything that does harm is wrong. Evil. Is that just physical harm or does that include emotional harm? Are you saying here that this standard applies to everyone in the world or is that just your personal view?

Mammuthus, I'm curious. Please answer me on this. Don't just make some sarcastic mark and avoid my question! Would you say that any of the following actions cause harm to others? Divorce, abortion, marital spats, pre-marital sex or adultery, alcoholism, lying, disrespect for people, making fun of others, refusing to forgive others, using abusive speech, swearing, watching porn movies(ask your wife if that would cause her harm if you were to watch them if you want to know the answer to that? OK, I know, I'm assuming you are a male and that you are married. Forgive me.) How do you apply your standard to your every day life?
And finally, what does it matter in the end if you were married, found someone you liked better, ditched your wife and family, and went after personal happiness? So you caused harm to a few peopel? So what? There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?
I'm curious to see how your personal behavior code applies to your every day life.
Regards, TJ
No more time tonight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 12:19 PM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 PM Tokyojim has responded
 Message 80 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 6:03 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 142 (16799)
09-06-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tokyojim
09-06-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?

Well i`m not Mammuthus but I`ll give you an answer....

Yes there is....

Me...

Geddit...

Motivation is real simple if I don`t I feel like a 6 foot tall walking turd....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tokyojim, posted 09-06-2002 1:21 PM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tokyojim, posted 09-07-2002 3:17 AM joz has responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 142 (16833)
09-07-2002 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
09-04-2002 10:55 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
I would say my “worldviewEshould be fairly obvious from my post. However, my particular philosophy has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for yours or dogmai’s claims (or those of anyone else, for that matter). I’ll be quite happy to evaluate whatever evidence you’d care to provide in support of whatever assertion you’d care to make.

quote:
TJ's post:
In calling man supreme, it is true in the Christian worldview that the earth and the animal kingdom were created for God’s glory first of all, but God also created it for man. So in Christianity, man is supreme Efundamentally different and of more value than the animals. Only humans were created in God’s image and only humans have a spirit that lives on after death. This is what the Bible teaches. So yes, I do believe that we are special! Is. 45:18 says that God did not create the earth to be empty, but He formed it to be inhabited. He created it specifically for us humans to live on. It is interesting that of all the heavenly bodies we see, only the earth is so well prepared for support of life. Some believe that is just luck of course. Yes, we humans are special. No other creature that God created was created in God’s image. Man was the last thing God created Ethe climax of his creation. Jesus became man to pay for the sins of mankind. He did not become an angel or an animal(animals cannot sin anyway). So yes, we have different points of view on the identity of mankind. You state 'This is patently untrue.' I'm sorry but you are exercising faith when you make a dogmatic statement like that. That is your particular belief and you are entitled to hold that belief, but you have no proof for that outside of the fact that it fits your worldview.

Q's reply:
I have several problems with this outlook.

In the first place, it is inconsistent with the basic fact that all life on earth is interrelated. For example, every living thing on this planet shares a specific biochemistry. If initial conditions had been different, life would either not exist or would be recognizably different. Along the same lines, all the processes that have shaped the various forms of life also apply to humans. We process energy in similar ways, we replicate, we are effected by the same abiotic environmental factors. Ultimately, at the macro level, anything that upsets the balance too far will also directly effect our existence. This mitigates against the idea that humans are separately created.

******************************
TJ's rebuttal:
Only if you hold to naturalistic worldview presuppositions is it inconsistent. Quetzal, you are making an assumption here based on your worldview when you say that everything is interrelated. If you want to say everything has much in common, that is a statement of fact, but the other is a scientific guess or an interpretation of the facts. It may be the best guess or interpretation of the facts at this time, but it is not proof. It is more proper to call it evidence supporting your interpretation of the scientific observations that have been made. However, I can use the same scientific observation as support for the Creationist position. I hear this argument often from scientists, but I have never yet heard one admit that the same facts can be used to support the Creationist position. They either are ignorant of that fact or conveniently ignore that fact in order to more persuasively state their case.

Quetzal, you have to realize here that we are both biased when it comes to interpreting scientific observations. Evolutionary science, a bit of a misnomer anyhow since evolution cannot be repeated and tested in a laboratory and confirmed as scientific truth. But that's beside the point. Evolutionary science starts from a biased position. Let me back up that statement.

One of those presuppositions or a priori assumptions is that "There is no Creator." That is an assumption for which there is no proof. All kinds of evidences to support this will be brought up, like the one you stated above, but these so-called evidences have been derived through research that has been done and interpretations that have been made assuming tha naturalist worldview to be true. It assumes from the start that there is no Creator, so certainly a Creator could not be used to explain that fact in your worldview. In the next paragraph you accuse me of circular reasoning, but here it seems to me that you are guilty of the same. Ifll confess if Ifm guilty. I havenft gotten there yet. But do you see what I mean? You observe, (rightly so of course,) that biologically speaking, living things have much in common and so the immediate conclusion is that everything is interrelated. Why? Simply because it supports your worldview presuppositions. Now obviously, if there is a God and He did actually create the earth, scientists are never going to come up with the right answer because they have eliminated Him from the equation from the beginning.

Here is one example of this that was given in the context of the debate about how evolution is to be taught in Kansas schools: Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
eEven if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalisticf
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

Although not rational a rational conclusion, at least he is being honest. No matter what the data says, we are going to teach and believe the opposite. Granted he said -even if-, but that is the point. The data, the facts, are not given priority. Priority is given to the presuppositions of the naturalistic(atheistic) worldview.
So, even if the facts can be interpreted in different ways, even if the facts don't fully support us, we cannot allow God into the picture. Now there's an attitude I can really respect!

Here is another one. Professor Richard Lewontin, is a geneticist and one of the worldfs leaders in evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation, regardless of whether or not the facts support it. When you read his quote, you will see that it goes without saying that he is an atheist. Now tell me if this is the proper attitude for a true scientist in search of true conclusions to hold: (dashes added by me)

eWe take the side of science -in spite of- the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, -in spite of- its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, -in spite of- the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.f
Richard Lewontin, eBillions and billions of demonsf, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

Again at least you have to appreciate his honesty. He said it himself. We factored out God from the beginning. I wish others would be so forthcoming. Here we see an unabashed wholehearted endorsement of an unsubstantiated philosophy – the philosophy of materialism. Quetzal, you were complaining to me in another post about majoring on the philosophical side of things. It is precisely for this reason. The whole basis for evolutionary research and worldview comes down to this commitment to a materialistic philosophy! Now tell me, have his fellow scientists been up in arms about this kind of a statement seemingly unfit for a true scientist? I can't say for sure, but when a creationist admits his bias, everyone immediately cries foul - he's nothing but an unscientific religious bigot is scientific clothing! Some people aren't fooled by these double standards.
Now, you may not be as wholeheartedly and stubbornly committed to the materialistic philosophy as these scientists are, I donft know. But, even if you are not, in your serch for truth, you have been evidently been persuaded to believe the resulting scientific interpretation of origins that is based on that philosophy. Not all scientists though will admit it so clearly, but (imho) your worldview/philosophy of life, whether you realize it or not, has been by and large, derived by people with just such a bias.
Somehow scientists have succeeded in perpetrating the lie that scientists are unbiased, whereas Christian scientists are very biased. In fact they are ridiculed and people claim they are not even capable of doing real science because of their mistaken presuppositions. How quickly we forget the discoveries of the well-respected famous Christian scientists in the past. Atheistic scientists are not biased while Christian scientists are biased unscientific bigots. What a bunch of hooey! Let's just be honest here and admit the fact that we are both biased!

We creationists are biased too and we're honest enough to admit it. We start with the basic assumption that there is a Creator and interpret scientific facts based on that assumption. So, back to your first sentence in your post above, this idea that all living things have much in common biologically speaking is exactly what you would expect in the Biblical worldview. I mean after all, everything was created by the same Creator and therefore of course you would expect things to look alike in the basics of things. It is a good design. It works well. Why re-invent the wheel? But when you get into the externals of various living things you see wonderful, amazing, and even mind-boggling differences among even creatures of the same species. Here is where we see Godfs amazing creativity and appreciation for beauty.

Herefs another quote:
"In seeking to understand why the Haeckelian view(idea that the human embryo goes through various stages (fish, reptile, animal, etc) in the womb.) persisted so long, we have also to consider the alternatives. We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view." Keith Stewart Thomson, "Marginalia Ontogeny and phylogeny recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 274

He's right of course. This haeckelian theory has been used to propagate their theory for years. Only recently has it been debunked as a fraud - purposeful deceit by Haeckel to support his theory. But, the worst thing is that it is still taught in some schools as substantiated scientific fact and is still found in many textbooks. Why? I think he answered it well. Honesty? No. Good science? No. Simply a commitment to remain faithful to their philosophical presuppositions. (imho) This is just one of many such examples.

That's enough to think about for today. My goodness Quetzal, that was quite a post. It will take me a year to work through all that. I don't think I'll last that long. I already feel guilty that I am neglecting more imortant things to do this. I'm not implying that you guys are unimportant, but my purpose for being here in Japan is not to carry on computer conversations, but I'll keep plugging through you post Quetzal. The pace might slow down though. Thanks for understanding. Today's post almost concludes my comments on the above paragraph we started with.

Regards,

TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 10:55 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 142 (16835)
09-07-2002 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by joz
09-06-2002 2:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?

Well i`m not Mammuthus but I`ll give you an answer....

Yes there is....

Me... Geddit...

Motivation is real simple if I don`t I feel like a 6 foot tall walking turd....


*****************************************
TJ's reply:

Come on Joz, get serious. Or are you? I'm trying to understand how that would work. Imagine if everyone got to be the judge in his own trial. Do you think everyone would take the laws of society much more serious and have a much deeper respect for them? Do you think crime rates would fall or rise? Do you think it would be a real deterrent to crime? I see we're on different wavelengths here. Try and run for office on that idea and see how far you get.

How does your idea work in your own life JOZ? Do you discipline yourself when you violate your own personal behavioral code? What are some of the disciplines you have used on yourself? If you haven't disciplined yourself, why? Isn't it because it really doesn't matter at all if you do violate your code since it is just a personal thing anyhow? All you have to put up with is feeling like a turd for a little while and that feeling soon passes and the next time you do it, you don't feel as much like a turd. Pretty soon you can do it without even a second thought. You have now evolved from a turd into a fool. I'm sorry. I'm not attacking you in particular. This happens to us all, me included, when we violate our God-given consciences. Just because we don't feel like a turd anymore, we think the action is OK. In my opinion, personal choice, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, just cannot effectively maintain law and order in society. So we have to continually make more laws. New laws to cover things that haven't been covered before to try and control crime. Just look at today's society and I think there is ample evidence of that.

Here's another problem for atheists. Since we all have our own personal behavior codes, what happens when those codes conflict with the personal choices of another? Whose code then is right and valid or takes priority?
food for thought,

TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by joz, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 PM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by joz, posted 09-07-2002 11:55 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 142 (16837)
09-07-2002 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 8:11 PM


TJ: Many regrets, but I'm going to be traveling for the next week (returning on the 15th), so will be unable to continue this conversation for a bit. If you will, we can pick it up again when I return.

In the meantime, don't go away!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 8:11 PM Tokyojim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tokyojim, posted 09-07-2002 7:44 PM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Tokyojim, posted 09-12-2002 8:14 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 142 (16855)
09-07-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tokyojim
09-07-2002 3:17 AM


Do you construct bipedal 4 limbed sculptures out of dried wheat stalks professionally or only as a hobby?

Given the wording of:

[quote][b]There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?[/quote]

[/b]

I thought it excluded secular law enforcement...

As for the rest I haven`t noticed any sort of slide into moral degeneracy personnally (and believe me I watch for it) neither has my Xtian wife so I`m sorry but the experimental evidence is against you there...

Maybe some people can take feeling like a turd better than me...

[quote][b]Since we all have our own personal behavior codes, what happens when those codes conflict with the personal choices of another? Whose code then is right and valid or takes priority?[/quote]

[/b]

Well if you are relligious you know you are right because your infallible God says so...

If you aren`t theres at least a chance of talking things through to a compromise....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tokyojim, posted 09-07-2002 3:17 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 142 (16876)
09-07-2002 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
09-06-2002 12:44 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ

Are the following people or institutions Christian, TJ?;

Timothy McVeigh

The Ku Klux Klan

Randal Terry

The Catholic priests who protected criminal child molesors because they were also priests

TJ REPLIES:
I'm not excusing what they did, but so what if they are?

Your point is what?

Because some Christians struggle with sin Christianity is bad? Is that your point? That same thing can be turned on you as well.

Atheism has some pretty dark spots in its history. And as I mentioned in another post before, when a Christian does evil, he is going against his worldview. It is inconsistent with his beliefs.

Regards,

TJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-06-2002 12:44 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 6:12 AM Tokyojim has not yet responded

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 142 (16877)
09-07-2002 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Quetzal
09-07-2002 3:57 AM


Have a good trip. I'll try and hang in there, but I can see that I'm spending too much time on this and neglecting other things. I also see that I am totally outnumbered and cannot possibly hope to adequately deal with every argument thrown my way, but that's just the way it is.
TJ
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 3:57 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:48 AM Tokyojim has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019