Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:10:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
935 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Justin Pankey wrote:
| |
There are numerous books that refute the claims of evolution, point out
missing links, reveal statistical impossibilities, etc. I am not blinded by
faith. If someone could reconcile all of these inconsistancies to me maybe
they could make me a believer (or at least an “accepter” :o) You should
thoroughly examine the claims of Scientists who happen to be Christians and
be able to rebut those claims before you accept the “theory” of evolution.
|
If you can recommend any such books I would be greatly interested to explore
them. I would steer you away from such authors as William Lane Craig,
William Dembski, or Michael Denton, all of whom commit grievous logical and
statistical errors. And by all means, avoid anything by Kent Hovind.
|
I’ll see what I can come up with for you.
| |
| |
I’m not looking to debate evolution as I don’t have time for that level of
debate here. I’m primarily debating what I believe is a false assumption
about what make somebody a Chritian based on defintion. If Richard has a
dictionary that states something different, there’s not much I can do about
that, but at least I’ve tried to point out that it makes little sense.
|
Dictionary definitions are sometimes inadequate in real-world discussions,
since they seldom take into account the context or connotation of the words
as they’re used day-to-day. Regarding Christianity, might we say that the
belief in the divinity of Christ is a central requirement?
|
It is ONE central requirement, yet Random House and I are stating that “adhering
to the teachings of Christ” is also an essential requirement to be catagorized
as a “Christian.”
| |
| |
Further I’d be more interested in your response to a question I posed
Richard last night. Framed differently, I’m basically asking if there is no
God and no universal truth or morality...who gets to decide what is
right...someone peaceful like Richard or the Hitlers and Saddams of the
world? What would give you the right to say they are wrong? True there
have been many wars fought over religious differences and that is tragic,
but Hitler and Saddam would be just as evil without claimimg any religion.
If all religion were eliminated, peace still would not exist.
|
A valid question. As a starting point, I heartily recommend the book
Belief or Nonbelief by Umberto Eco and Cardinal Martini. In the last essay,
Eco provides an excellent discussion of non-deity-based morality.
|
I’ll check it out.
| |
In the briefest possible terms, I do not believe that there is any
transcendent “good” or “evil.”
However, I would point out that there are some near-universal truths among
humans (we don’t generally enjoy pain, or starvation, or the loss of loved
ones, etc.), and, as social creatures, we are able to empathize with others.
If I am thus able to empathize with another person, then I am able to
appreciate that my performance of certain acts against other people (like
torture, theft, or murder) that I would perceive as “evil” if they were to
happen to me. With this in mind, I am able to conclude that these acts would
likewise be “evil” if they were performed against other persons, as well.
|
Obviously this works for you, but not for a great many other people which is
just one reason why I beleive evil is transcendent in the world. Regarding
below- throughout history it doesn’t seem humans have been very successful in
not de-humanizing each other’s “groups.” Yet another reason I argue evil is
transcendent in the world and in fact is part of our very naure as fallen
man.....
| |
| |
The fundamental distinction occurs at the point at which one is able to
|
recognize a different person as sufficiently similar to oneself for this
empathy to be a dominant factor. During WWII, this has taken the form of
dehumanizing Germans and Japanese civilians into Huns and Nips. In the
current “War on Terror,” we’ve seen attempts to paint the “enemy” as some
kind of inferior inferior idol-worshipper, or “evil-doers” or even simply as
“terrorists.” Either way, the intent is the same: to reduce empathy for the
“enemy” so that it’s easier to justify firebombing their cities and innocent
civilians into oblivion.
|
I hope you don’t really think this is what happened in the most recent conflict.
Our forces went to great pains to NOT harm civilians. It was Saddam who placed
munitions in every conceivable civilian location.
Justin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
