Winstonm, on Jul 19 2006, 06:19 PM, said:
I do not accept the concept of "right or wrong", as shocking as that may seem.
i assume by that you mean you don't accept the concepts of morality and immorality... we've (not you and i, i don't think) had this discussion before (i'd use the word 'debate' but there were far too many logical fallacies committed to justify the use of the word)
according to your view, an act is either legal or illegal but neither moral nor immoral... which reduces to my argument in a previous thread - without an objective morality, legalities are based on the 'might makes right' principle...
for example (and you can correct me if i'm wrong), one might say that the gassing of the jews by hitler was amoral - neither right nor wrong, per se... it was, in fact, perfectly ok to do since it was a legal act... i'm not speaking of the rest of the world's views on the subject, i'm speaking of the legal system in place at that time in that place... the rest of the world might have thought such an act to be illegal, and proved that to be the case by using it's might to enforce it's right
i used this example in that other thread, but since i like it i'll use it again... if you personally don't believe an act can be objectively moral or immoral, an act such as the rape, torture, and murder of a small child is only legal or illegal... and the legality would depend on when and where it occurs... have i misrepresented your views?
Quote
very true... but let me ask you this... IF God exists (pretend he does for a moment), would you not grant him the right to do what he wants with what is his? would he not have the right (or even duty) to judge as he sees fit?
Quote
I just want to make sure you guys know that I am not purposefully disparaging your beliefs - I respect your right to believe as you wish.
your posts have been courteous, respectful even... i have had many online debates with atheists regarding the existence of God, and (as intelligent as most atheists seem to be) they usually degenerate into name calling (not by me, i hope), and they abound with fallacies... so believe me when i say that it's like a breath of fresh air when someone can argue a position without resorting to those tactics (and i don't mean to imply that you are an atheist, by the way, i was just using that as an example)
Quote
My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter?
i can tell you what i believe, others might believe differently... i believe that faith has been given to all of us, more than enough to believe that God exists... as is so often the case, paul says it better than i... "by grace are you saved through faith - and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God - not of works, lest any man should boast" and "for he (God) has given to each the measure of faith [necssary to believe in him]"... paul says that, in addition to faith, God has given man two evidences of his existence - creation and an internal voice (the concious)... paul even goes so far as to say that man has to deceive himself, has to lie to himself, in order to deny he exists...
Quote
Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times?
the bible says (
) that anyone who believes God has saving faith... the book of hebrews is the best example of this, and todd touched on some of it... to believe God is to be credited with righteousness, or to be justified, and that was true far before sacrifices were instituted... that's really all God has ever wanted, and it hasn't changed...
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)