The God Vacuum: America and the barbarian hordes

Concerning morality, is it still a sin to bear false witness? Yes. Does the Bible allow for mitigating and aggravating circumstances? No. Therefore, in Nazi Germany if a citizen were asked if he knows of any Jews that are hiding from the Gestapo, and that citizen said “No” when he knows of such Jews, he would be committing a sin. Please explain otherwise.

This is a TRUE gem, and in keeping with your time-honored tradition of posting irrelevant bullshit.

First off, your example is not bearing false witness ... it's lying. We are ALL sinners. If telling a lie to a bloodthirsty moron would save the lives of others, I leave it to God to judge whether or not I did the right thing.
 
Let me refer you <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=505896&postcount=24>HERE</a> Regarding the definition of <i>theory</i>. It would be appropriate for José to assert that the human, rather than divine, origination of morality is a matter of fact since facts are derived from the observation of the relationships between objective events and phenomena over time. Since subjective phenomena, as in divine revelation, are unique to the individual experiencing them and thus unavailable to the outside observer, they cannot be regarded in the same light as empirical facts. They are anecdotal, at best.

Actually, I think it would be rather difficult to discuss ANY philosophical postion in terms of empirical, observed data. Philosophy is, by nature, an abstract, conceptual thing. It does not easily lend itself to measurement or sensate observation.
 
This is a TRUE gem, and in keeping with your time-honored tradition of posting irrelevant bullshit.

First off, your example is not bearing false witness ... it's lying. We are ALL sinners. If telling a lie to a bloodthirsty moron would save the lives of others, I leave it to God to judge whether or not I did the right thing.

Telling a lie about a neighbor is the same as bearing false witness. Come on. Talk straight. Is it a sin or not. Is it wrong for someone to stare at pictures of nude women in a pornographic magazine? It is the same as committing adultery - but only in your heart. Is it a sin or only a naughty behavior? I ask you straight questions that you duck and dodge worse than Bill Clinton.
 
Yadda yadda yadda. Modern science clearly contradicts the Bible. Anyway, God then rested but God is never tired, right? Look. Ha ha ha.

As I already stated, science explains only what is within human sensory perception and is limited by Man's initellect. Fortunately for science, it isn't limited by YOUR intellect or it would never get past the first word.

Science doesn't disprove a damned thing, it merely speculates otherwise. You're just too damned stupid to figure out something so simple.
 
If they are extant, they are objects of perception. And built upon the foundation of perception is conception. We substitute concepts for percepts so that we may express our experiences of the world around us.

Bully, do you believe that you are the sum and total of existence? Do things exist if you do not perceive them?
 
Telling a lie about a neighbor is the same as bearing false witness. Come on. Talk straight. Is it a sin or not. Is it wrong for someone to stare at pictures of nude women in a pornographic magazine? It is the same as committing adultery - but only in your heart. Is it a sin or only a naughty behavior? I ask you straight questions that you duck and dodge worse than Bill Clinton.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

Seems in your haste to be a smarmy little bastard you left out a few words like ...AGAINST THEY NEIGHBOR.

So, I AM talking straight. You on the other hand, are talking out your ass, as usual. I haven't ducked and dodged a thing. I think I'm being pretty straightforward in that you don't know what the fuck you are blabbing about.
 
The basis of science is that those expressions are final. Yet, how often does science discover that the original theory was incorrect? Every day.

Which makes the scientific method invaluable for exploring and discerning the way the world around us functions. It allows us to infer general principles from specific events and is self-correcting. This latter is because new information and experiences can lead to new inferences which may, actually, undercut or contradict previous inferences supporting a theory. In turn we are led to a revision of, or discarding altogether of, a given theory and starting afresh. It is this self-correcting aspect helps to validate and expand our experiences of the world and our knowledge of it.

Religious dogma, regardless of its source, has no such mechnism. It is a given and must be accepted <i>in toto</i>, without question, without revision. It is a rigid structure which has little to do with the world as it has become.
 
How often does science prove the Bible wrong?

In Genesis, birds and whales came before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.
Which scientist observed this?

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day.

God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.
Another question to ponder is, did God create light "in transit"? I don't think so, but how, then can we observe stars that are millions of light years away if the universe is only thousands of years old? Einstein was messing around with the idea that gravity distorts time. There are many aspects of the Creation model that have not been worked out, just as there are many aspects of the material/evolution model which do not match with observed facts. Our scientific knowledge is incomplete.

Very nice to see someone who is not trying to cram materialism/evolution into the Genesis account of creation. They aren't peanut butter and chocolate. :)

Concerning morality, is it still a sin to bear false witness? Yes. Does the Bible allow for mitigating and aggravating circumstances? No. Therefore, in Nazi Germany if a citizen were asked if he knows of any Jews that are hiding from the Gestapo, and that citizen said “No” when he knows of such Jews, he would be committing a sin. Please explain otherwise.

Yes, the lie is still a sin. Should the citizen reveal the whereabouts of the hidden Jews? No. In our fallen world, we do not always have the luxury of choosing between right and wrong. At times, we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
 
José;506908 said:
People... the problem with these discussions about fundamental, extreme issues is that people tend to barricade themselves around their beliefs and reflexively reject any valid point presented by the other side.

So I’m gonna build some bridges here.

The divine origin of human morality does not qualify for the status of scientific theory, because its statements cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor falsified.

The human origin of morality is more open to confirmation and falsification through anthropological studies of primitive societies and archeological findings.

So I believe the latter qualifies for the status of scientific theory.

But it’s important to point out the following:

Not everything that is scientific is true and not everything that is not scientific is false.

The divine origin of morality might even be true. The only thing Bully and I are stressing is the fact it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested.


Okay, but how does that relate to the point of the thread, which, originally was that the erosion of Godly morality (whether or not you believe in God) leaves our nation open to attack?
 
Which makes the scientific method invaluable for exploring and discerning the way the world around us functions. It allows us to infer general principles from specific events and is self-correcting. This latter is because new information and experiences can lead to new inferences which may, actually, undercut or contradict previous inferences supporting a theory. In turn we are led to a revision of, or discarding altogether of, a given theory and starting afresh. It is this self-correcting aspect helps to validate and expand our experiences of the world and our knowledge of it.

Religious dogma, regardless of its source, has no such mechnism. It is a given and must be accepted <i>in toto</i>, without question, without revision. It is a rigid structure which has little to do with the world as it has become.

I am not making an argument against science. I understand what science is and does and have no real issue with it.

However, when humans make the leap from scientific theory as scientific fact in an attempt to disprove God; which, it cannot, I DO have an argument. Science may offer alternate theories on Creation and God, but it cannot prove its theories nor disprove Creationism.
 
In general, people want to live as long and to be remembered as important after they die. Therefore, ego, the desire to be remembered as a generous person after death, and the desired future reciprocity are big reasons why people do what they do. People want to leave their mark.

But, if survival is the ultimate good, why would a man endanger his survival for a CHANCE at future reciprocity? He might not be around to receive it.
 
Yadda yadda yadda. Modern science clearly contradicts the Bible. Anyway, God then rested but God is never tired, right? Look. Ha ha ha.

The theories of materialistic origin and evolution DO clearly contradict the Bible. However, many other aspects of modern science support the Bible.

One does not have to be tired to rest. One only needs to stop exerting.
 
Which makes the scientific method invaluable for exploring and discerning the way the world around us functions. It allows us to infer general principles from specific events and is self-correcting. This latter is because new information and experiences can lead to new inferences which may, actually, undercut or contradict previous inferences supporting a theory. In turn we are led to a revision of, or discarding altogether of, a given theory and starting afresh. It is this self-correcting aspect helps to validate and expand our experiences of the world and our knowledge of it.

Religious dogma, regardless of its source, has no such mechnism. It is a given and must be accepted <i>in toto</i>, without question, without revision. It is a rigid structure which has little to do with the world as it has become.


But, when new discoveries are made, new experiences... um... experienced :) , what really changes? Our knowledge changes; what IS does not change.
 
I am not making an argument against science. I understand what science is and does and have no real issue with it.

However, when humans make the leap from scientific theory as scientific fact in an attempt to disprove God; which, it cannot, I DO have an argument. Science may offer alternate theories on Creation and God, but it cannot prove its theories nor disprove Creationism.

Science simply doesn't have the tools to prove/disprove a Deity.

It's a bit like using a hammer to put in a new windsheild, it just won't really work out all that well.
 
The theories of materialistic origin and evolution DO clearly contradict the Bible. However, many other aspects of modern science support the Bible.

One does not have to be tired to rest. One only needs to stop exerting.

Not necessarily. It depends on the idea of the 7 days. How long is a day to somebody who one blink passes in 2000 years?

Could evolution have been the tool used by a Deity to create life? Could the description of 7 days have been a mistranslation of time compared to an infinite and a temporal being? I think it could, one does not disprove the other.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top