Subject:
|
Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 00:46:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1130 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Maybe, if it weren’t for that whole pesky “faith” thing...
|
But you can’t just play in your little room of Science and have no opinions
about concrete things that Science cannot address. I am speaking about
Creation.
|
You lost me there. What’s a concrete thing that science can’t address?
|
“I am speaking about Creation.”
| |
| |
| |
But that construction breaks from the “absolute” as soon as human faith
comes into it. An actual revelation for you is just hearsay for me, so
that’s where “absolute” falls apart.
|
We have been given intellects, and some revelation along the way. Heck, we
may even be hardwired to God via our consciences.
|
Hmm? Hardwired how? Hardwired to believe in him (in spite of free will?)
Or hardwired to want to believe in him? Not me.
|
I was referring to our conscience. The knowledge deep down of right and wrong.
| |
| |
We can achieve enlightenment if we have God as our source of inspiration
(what do you supposed fueled the Renaissance in the first place?)
|
Approximately one zillion things fueled the Renaissance, which culminated
with the Enlightenment so thoroughly despised by the Right.
|
I’m citing a book whose title eludes me. I’ll see if I can find it. In the
mean time, I’ll accept merely 1 million out of the zillion or so cites from
you;-)
| |
| |
| |
Lacking a true, transcendent, and verifiable absolute, we’re only left with
consensus, and for that we need no higher power.
|
But then we are like the blind leading the blind; trying to navigate in a
storm at sea, without a compass. Truth rings free, and respectful, honest,
and humble people should recognize it.
|
Well, that’s witnessing, of course. It’s also mildly misanthropic, a la
“Life is a vale of tears” (so don’t bother trying to understand it).
|
Many people believe that, without God, life is a valley of tears...
| |
No, thanks. If there is an absolute truth, we have no way to ascertain it
short of direct, personal revelation for each of us individually. Short of
that, we’re just as well off to assume that it doesn’t exist, since we can’t
know it anyway.
|
Who is to say that this isn’t the case? I would say that the process would go
like this:
- Person A gets a revelation (in some manner)
- Person A shares that revelation with person B
- Person B recognizes (in some manner) for him/herself the Truth in the shared revelation, thus creating a revelation to Person B
| |
Having gotten past that, we realize again that we’re all in the same boat, so
let’s try to make it pleasant for as many people as possible.
|
Forever why?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) But that doesn't really get us anywhere. At most, Person B can say "I've thought it over, and I think you're correct about X. Of course, I have no way to verify that X was communicated to you via revelation, but I still like it." So X, whether (...) (20 years ago, 9-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) You lost me there. What's a concrete thing that science can't address? (...) Hmm? Hardwired how? Hardwired to believe in him (in spite of free will?) Or hardwired to want to believe in him? Not me. (...) Approximately one zillion things fueled (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
