| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph Geloso" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 09:27:21 AM |
| Object: |
Absolute character of Moral Theology |
This is a response to the thread, "There is NO Consistency in
Morals--NO "Objective Right From Wrong," without getting involved in
that thread.
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread. Here is the verse:
The Command of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eye. The precepts
of the Lord are right, all of them just.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 10:53:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 10:27:21 -0500 in alt.atheism, Joseph Geloso
(Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
This is a response to the thread, "There is NO Consistency in
Morals--NO "Objective Right From Wrong," without getting involved in
that thread.
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread. Here is the verse:
The Command of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eye. The precepts
of the Lord are right, all of them just.
Oh wonderful. All you have to do now is demonstrate the existence of a
God and then show that notions of right and wrong necessarily derive
from it.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ALOHA" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 12:21:03 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
The fact that you cross-posted your message to so many newsgroups unmasks
you as nothing more than a silly TROLL, with a pushy Christian agenda of
dictating what is orthodox to everyone else.
Fortunately, your numbers are decreasing, as science shines its light upon
your superstitions, exposing them as the silly fairy tales that they really
are.
You bible thumpers are not only in darkness yourselves, but you will do
whatever is required to try to keep others in ignorance and superstition,
too. Fortunately, we live in a time when mankind is able to receive other
points of view, without them having first been censored by people like you.
Your psychologically-destructive myths of "original sin," the "virgin birth"
and "blood atonement" are not going over too well in this new, free, open
environment.
The fact is that, to be a Christian, one must set aside the powers of reason
that his Creator gave him, and accept the teachings of foolish men that wear
strange robes and practice silly rituals. Even among Christians there is no
consensus as to which of these teaching or rituals will result in gaining
access to "heaven." One denomination preasches "salvation through faith,"
while another teaches that "good works" are necessary. The Protestants do
not accept the same books as do the Catholics as their scripture. The
Eastern Orthodox have even more canonical books than do the Catholics and
Protestants. And the Mormons have an additional collection of scriptures as
found in their book of Mormon.
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Each denomination accuses the other of
unbelief, but for my part I DISBELIEVE THEM ALL!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 12:57:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning. I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
The fact that you cross-posted your message to so many newsgroups unmasks
you as nothing more than a silly TROLL, with a pushy Christian agenda of
dictating what is orthodox to everyone else.
The fact of the cross-post was dictated only by the previous
cross-post that this is a response to.
Fortunately, your numbers are decreasing, as science shines its light upon
your superstitions, exposing them as the silly fairy tales that they really
are.
I am not a fairy tale. I am real.
You bible thumpers are not only in darkness yourselves, but you will do
whatever is required to try to keep others in ignorance and superstition,
too. Fortunately, we live in a time when mankind is able to receive other
points of view, without them having first been censored by people like you.
Your psychologically-destructive myths of "original sin," the "virgin birth"
and "blood atonement" are not going over too well in this new, free, open
environment.
I am neither a Bible-thumper nor a censor. And fortunately for the
whole world, I have not been overcome by the popular superstition that
God is wrong.
The fact is that, to be a Christian, one must set aside the powers of reason
that his Creator gave him, and accept the teachings of foolish men that wear
strange robes and practice silly rituals. Even among Christians there is no
consensus as to which of these teaching or rituals will result in gaining
access to "heaven." One denomination preasches "salvation through faith,"
while another teaches that "good works" are necessary. The Protestants do
not accept the same books as do the Catholics as their scripture. The
Eastern Orthodox have even more canonical books than do the Catholics and
Protestants. And the Mormons have an additional collection of scriptures as
found in their book of Mormon.
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Each denomination accuses the other of
unbelief, but for my part I DISBELIEVE THEM ALL!"
That is your perogative of course. For me it is not a matter of
proving another's point of view wrong. Love, is supreme. Love unites
rather than divides. And Love will conquer the world, and dissolve all
opposition to Love.
My message is that Love is the absolute in Moral Theology, and when
human beings come to realize that, they naturally seek to obey God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ALOHA" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 05:28:15 PM |
|
|
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk1d20pe3ugajigvfksm6k7ietuuusqaoe@4ax.com...
The fact is that, to be a Christian, one must set aside the powers of
reason
that his Creator gave him, and accept the teachings of foolish men that
wear
strange robes and practice silly rituals. Even among Christians there is
no
consensus as to which of these teaching or rituals will result in gaining
access to "heaven." One denomination preasches "salvation through
faith,"
while another teaches that "good works" are necessary. The Protestants
do
not accept the same books as do the Catholics as their scripture. The
Eastern Orthodox have even more canonical books than do the Catholics and
Protestants. And the Mormons have an additional collection of scriptures
as
found in their book of Mormon.
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Each denomination accuses the other of
unbelief, but for my part I DISBELIEVE THEM ALL!"
That is your perogative of course. For me it is not a matter of
proving another's point of view wrong. Love, is supreme. Love unites
rather than divides. And Love will conquer the world, and dissolve all
opposition to Love.
My message is that Love is the absolute in Moral Theology, and when
human beings come to realize that, they naturally seek to obey God.
Nice try, but no cigar!
You sidestepped the issue that I raised in my post, and you went off on the
"Universal Love" tangent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 01:03:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:28:15 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk1d20pe3ugajigvfksm6k7ietuuusqaoe@4ax.com...
The fact is that, to be a Christian, one must set aside the powers of
reason
that his Creator gave him, and accept the teachings of foolish men that
wear
strange robes and practice silly rituals. Even among Christians there is
no
consensus as to which of these teaching or rituals will result in gaining
access to "heaven." One denomination preasches "salvation through
faith,"
while another teaches that "good works" are necessary. The Protestants
do
not accept the same books as do the Catholics as their scripture. The
Eastern Orthodox have even more canonical books than do the Catholics and
Protestants. And the Mormons have an additional collection of scriptures
as
found in their book of Mormon.
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Each denomination accuses the other of
unbelief, but for my part I DISBELIEVE THEM ALL!"
That is your perogative of course. For me it is not a matter of
proving another's point of view wrong. Love, is supreme. Love unites
rather than divides. And Love will conquer the world, and dissolve all
opposition to Love.
My message is that Love is the absolute in Moral Theology, and when
human beings come to realize that, they naturally seek to obey God.
Nice try, but no cigar!
You sidestepped the issue that I raised in my post, and you went off on the
"Universal Love" tangent.
No, you miss the larger point. There is no relevant issue at all
besides universal love.
You began your post saying, "the fact is..." and then you proceeded to
make assertions. Now it is up to you to back those assertions. You
present as argument that there is disagreement between differnet
groups calling themselves Christian. Then you state,
To paraphrase Thomas Paine, "Each denomination accuses the other of
unbelief, but for my part I DISBELIEVE THEM ALL!"
but that is not an argument.
The differences between Christians are temporary, and in any case, the
Church has always stood, as the place to agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 01:27:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 01:03:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
11 Feb 2004 05:18:03 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:03:41 -0500 didst Joseph Geloso speak
thusly:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
You know, none of the above makes a lick of sense...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 08:33:37 AM |
|
|
In article <76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
snip
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
Such as?
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
What's the evidence?
All these things
are Real.
Unsupported assertion - Can you prove this?
I do not believe superstitions.
Sorry, but you do.
You would do well to learn
the distinction.
You might want to do that yourself.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Hobson" |
|
| Title: TQOTM : Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 11:59:07 AM |
|
|
Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
*****nominated portion****
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
*****nominated portion*****
Typical thesist rationalization. God's real cause he said so. It's
amazing that people can bend their brains this much. His proof that
his belief isn't a superstition? More superstitions, of course.
seconds?
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brenda Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM : Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 04:28:29 PM |
|
|
(Alan Hobson) wrote in message news:<d1d6cbe3.0402090959.3a3ef558@posting.google.com>...
Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
*****nominated portion****
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
*****nominated portion*****
Typical thesist rationalization. God's real cause he said so. It's
amazing that people can bend their brains this much. His proof that
his belief isn't a superstition? More superstitions, of course.
seconds?
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
Seconded.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM : Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
11 Feb 2004 02:34:21 AM |
|
|
In article <311596a5.0402091428.76eb62ec@posting.google.com>,
(Brenda Nelson) wrote:
alhob@earthlink.net (Alan Hobson) wrote in message
news:<d1d6cbe3.0402090959.3a3ef558@posting.google.com>...
Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in
this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us
that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been
brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without
question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any
sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
*****nominated portion****
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
*****nominated portion*****
Typical thesist rationalization. God's real cause he said so. It's
amazing that people can bend their brains this much. His proof that
his belief isn't a superstition? More superstitions, of course.
seconds?
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
Seconded.
Recorded.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM : Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 10:14:16 AM |
|
|
In article <d1d6cbe3.0402090959.3a3ef558@posting.google.com>,
(Alan Hobson) wrote:
Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been
brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any
sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
*****nominated portion****
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
*****nominated portion*****
Typical thesist rationalization. God's real cause he said so. It's
amazing that people can bend their brains this much. His proof that
his belief isn't a superstition? More superstitions, of course.
A classic, for sure, especially when one considers the invocation of
"Heaven, Church Triumphant, [and] the Communion of Saints". That's
some pretty weighty "proof."
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Hobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 12:05:42 PM |
|
|
Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<76ce20tgo8iqhlal0ctdfu9puetisi9vug@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:27:04 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:57:26 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:21:03 GMT, "ALOHA" <ALOHA@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Joseph Geloso" <josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nalc205dod0238bso3r4887cgskludhqk8@4ax.com...
A simple verse from Scripture will suffice to demolish that false
notion, and it will provide a simple start for the discussion in this
thread.
That presumes that your sacred text is actually sacred. Those of us that
have been able to regain our powers of reason, after having been brainwashed
by the Christian Church to accept whatever it teaches without question,
understand that your scriptures are man-made and are not sacred in any sense
of the word.
It is not God's fault if you failed to think for yourself from the
beginning.
You have yet to establish that your imaginary friend exists in the
first place. You might want to do so if you want anyone to take your
assertions based on that unsupported premise seriously.
I have sacrificed neither reason nor faith, and I have come
through victorious.
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God. My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real. I do not believe superstitions.
So you don't belive in superstitions because you have these other
superstitions to back it up? (the whole company of Heaven, Church
Triumphant, the Communion of Saints)
You would do well to learn the distinction.
You owe me for a new irony meter... and the titanium reinforced box
that was destroyed by its explosion.
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 01:57:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:03:41 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
Such as?
My evidence
that He is, is myself,
How is that evidence for the existence of your "God"?
along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real.
Where's your evidence that any of them are real, either?
I do not believe superstitions.
Your own words reveal otherwise.
You would do well to learn
the distinction.
I have. You, apparently, have not. Nor do you have the foggiest notion
of what constitutes evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 02:37:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:57:26 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:03:41 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
Such as?
My evidence
that He is, is myself,
How is that evidence for the existence of your "God"?
along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints. All these things
are Real.
Where's your evidence that any of them are real, either?
I do not believe superstitions.
Your own words reveal otherwise.
You would do well to learn
the distinction.
I have. You, apparently, have not. Nor do you have the foggiest notion
of what constitutes evidence.
I have realized of late I've been too grandiose about what I think I
can do. The glory belongs to God, not to me. Humiliation only belongs
to me, as what I deserve for my rash statement above, that I am proof
of God.
Having said this, it only remains for me to say, more correctly, God
Himself does provide proof of His veracity as He sees fit. I can't
tell you how. His ways are His ways.
I believe these things are real, and I have both rational and
super-rational reasons for believing as I do. And I simply invite you
to investigate!
Also, I replied to Jos Flachs about my experience of healing from God
as one of the bases for my Faith. That part of the thread should be
just above this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 04:44:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:03:41 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
All these things are Real.
Not even close.
I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
Superstition: their religion.
Religion: their superstition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 01:21:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:44:08 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:03:41 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
All these things are Real.
Not even close.
Your assertion.
I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
Superstition: their religion.
Religion: their superstition.
As long as you maintain that evident wall of security around your
heart, I'm not even going to try to break through. Let God send
someone else to fetch you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
09 Feb 2004 09:27:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
All these things are Real.
Not even close.
Your assertion.
No, it is an observation. About the pathetic low level of your
'answer'. That things are real is not proof of any god.
I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
Superstition: their religion.
Religion: their superstition.
As long as you maintain that evident wall of security around your
heart, I'm not even going to try to break through. Let God send
someone else to fetch you.
You want to penetrate my ribcage? What for? My heart is a muscle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 02:37:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources. Healing of me from the malady of sin.
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love. Healing of me interiorly from my
own failure to love. These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion. The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I think the proof exists in the writings of the Saints.
All these things are Real.
Not even close.
Your assertion.
No, it is an observation. About the pathetic low level of your
'answer'. That things are real is not proof of any god.
But the existence of Love, and the way Love guides those who seek Him
to find Him, is.
I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
Superstition: their religion.
Religion: their superstition.
As long as you maintain that evident wall of security around your
heart, I'm not even going to try to break through. Let God send
someone else to fetch you.
You want to penetrate my ribcage? What for? My heart is a muscle.
I apologize for my abruptness above. It was uncalled for. I meant your
heart in the poetic sense of the interior of your soul.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 07:58:33 AM |
|
|
In article <u16h20lvofuo6ei73aqidfe4uo8nqaqrgq@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources. Healing of me from the malady of sin.
What does that mean?
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love. Healing of me interiorly from my
own failure to love. These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion.
Perhaps you've made some self-improvements in your attitude to practicing your
religion - However, this does not validate your religion, nor does it prove your
god exists.
The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
Cites? What saints?
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I think the proof exists in the writings of the Saints.
How so? Hows does the writings of these long-dead "saints" prove that your god
exists? It is merely their subjective experiences and heresay.
All these things are Real.
Not even close.
Your assertion.
No, it is an observation.
No, it's your assertion that they are real.
About the pathetic low level of your
'answer'. That things are real is not proof of any god.
But the existence of Love, and the way Love guides those who seek Him
to find Him, is.
Unsupported assertion, opinion, etc.
I do not believe superstitions. You would do well to learn
the distinction.
Superstition: their religion.
Religion: their superstition.
As long as you maintain that evident wall of security around your
heart, I'm not even going to try to break through. Let God send
someone else to fetch you.
You want to penetrate my ribcage? What for? My heart is a muscle.
I apologize for my abruptness above. It was uncalled for. I meant your
heart in the poetic sense of the interior of your soul.
Please prove the soul exists.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 06:07:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:58:33 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <u16h20lvofuo6ei73aqidfe4uo8nqaqrgq@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources. Healing of me from the malady of sin.
What does that mean?
Which part gave you trouble?
God's healing of me is a reason for me to accept the veracity of Him.
I know I was unable to heal myself.
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love. Healing of me interiorly from my
own failure to love. These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion.
Perhaps you've made some self-improvements in your attitude to practicing your
religion - However, this does not validate your religion, nor does it prove your
god exists.
What proof would you accept? I was asked to present the reasons I
have, and I have presented some. If you want a reason to believe,
perhaps one quesiton I might ask you is why seek a reason to believe?
Do you have a desire to believe? That might be a place to start. Do
you have a desire to understand why I believe?
The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
Cites? What saints?
Saint Louis deMontfort is an example cited by me in the past, and he
outlined a program for attaining sanctity, which he then carried out.
Keeping in mind, though, that no one can attain to sanctity unless God
gives it. Nonetheless, Saint Louis's "experiment" is a reproducible
set of steps, given together with an understanding of why and how this
works, how to avoid pitfalls that accompany the path, and a
description of the goal.
If you email me with your snail mail address, I will send you a copy
of two of his books, free of charge, no strings attached. Then you can
examine his "experiment" for yourself, and perhaps carry it out, if
you so desire.
He is not the only one who had something similar that could be shown
to the world, but he is the one who appealed to me.
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I think the proof exists in the writings of the Saints.
How so? Hows does the writings of these long-dead "saints" prove that your god
exists? It is merely their subjective experiences and heresay.
If you do the things it says to do in the books, you will obtain the
effects described therein.
Please prove the soul exists.
You exist, Robyn. I for my part am pleased to make your acquaintance,
and thank you for engaging me in rational discussion.
The soul is the *you* part of you. Not the ego per se, but that self,
that being, that animates your body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
11 Feb 2004 10:37:06 AM |
|
|
In article <1ggi20dtf3l044in2pdue02c0stnv95eln@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:58:33 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <u16h20lvofuo6ei73aqidfe4uo8nqaqrgq@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources. Healing of me from the malady of sin.
What does that mean?
Which part gave you trouble?
Nevermind - I see the question was too difficult for you to answer.
God's healing of me is a reason for me to accept the veracity of Him.
I know I was unable to heal myself.
But what needed to be healed? And why do you think this "healing" came from an
outside source?
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love. Healing of me interiorly from my
own failure to love. These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion.
Perhaps you've made some self-improvements in your attitude to practicing your
religion - However, this does not validate your religion, nor does it prove your
god exists.
What proof would you accept?
Objective, verifiable, extra-biblical evidence.
I was asked to present the reasons I
have, and I have presented some.
Yes, but it's merely subjective evidence and your opinion. Consequently, it
doesn't prove anything to anyone but yourself.
If you want a reason to believe,
perhaps one quesiton I might ask you is why seek a reason to believe?
Why are you asking me? I'm not looking for a reason to believe in the
supernatural.
Do you have a desire to believe?
Not at all - Especially since there's no evidence.
That might be a place to start. Do
you have a desire to understand why I believe?
Not really. And while I do understand why YOU believe, that doesn't prove that
you believe in something that actually exists. If you want to believe, go
ahead. I couldn't care less.
The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
Cites? What saints?
Saint Louis deMontfort is an example cited by me in the past, and he
outlined a program for attaining sanctity, which he then carried out.
Keeping in mind, though, that no one can attain to sanctity unless God
gives it. Nonetheless, Saint Louis's "experiment" is a reproducible
set of steps, given together with an understanding of why and how this
works, how to avoid pitfalls that accompany the path, and a
description of the goal.
If you email me with your snail mail address, I will send you a copy
of two of his books, free of charge, no strings attached. Then you can
examine his "experiment" for yourself, and perhaps carry it out, if
you so desire.
Oh hell, no. See my comment about about not being interested.
He is not the only one who had something similar that could be shown
to the world, but he is the one who appealed to me.
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I think the proof exists in the writings of the Saints.
How so? Hows does the writings of these long-dead "saints" prove that your god
exists? It is merely their subjective experiences and heresay.
If you do the things it says to do in the books, you will obtain the
effects described therein.
I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps I'll take you up on your offer.
Can't you just post here what the heck you're supposed to do to be able to see
your god. I'm a busy woman and don't have that much spare time to waste.
Please prove the soul exists.
You exist, Robyn. I for my part am pleased to make your acquaintance,
and thank you for engaging me in rational discussion.
Thanks, but you didn't prove that the soul exists.
The soul is the *you* part of you. Not the ego per se, but that self,
that being, that animates your body.
Sorry, but this in an unsupported assertion.
Got any evidence other than your opinion?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
25 Feb 2004 03:44:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:37:06 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <1ggi20dtf3l044in2pdue02c0stnv95eln@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:58:33 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <u16h20lvofuo6ei73aqidfe4uo8nqaqrgq@4ax.com>, Joseph Geloso says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources. Healing of me from the malady of sin.
What does that mean?
Which part gave you trouble?
Nevermind - I see the question was too difficult for you to answer.
God's healing of me is a reason for me to accept the veracity of Him.
I know I was unable to heal myself.
But what needed to be healed?
1. Interior harm from a variety of sources.
2. The malady of sin.
And why do you think this "healing" came from an
outside source?
Because what was healed was, in (1), my interior, and thus the healing
could not have come from the thing that was being healed. A broken arm
needs to be set by a physician or at least one who knows how to set
the arm, or else the healing that the body itself does will end up
worse than the break. In (2), without God, there would be no way to
even realize that I had sin in the first place.
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love. Healing of me interiorly from my
own failure to love. These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion.
Perhaps you've made some self-improvements in your attitude to practicing your
religion - However, this does not validate your religion, nor does it prove your
god exists.
What proof would you accept?
Objective, verifiable, extra-biblical evidence.
I was asked to present the reasons I
have, and I have presented some.
Yes, but it's merely subjective evidence and your opinion. Consequently, it
doesn't prove anything to anyone but yourself.
If you want a reason to believe,
perhaps one quesiton I might ask you is why seek a reason to believe?
Why are you asking me? I'm not looking for a reason to believe in the
supernatural.
Then perhaps there is no reason to continue this conversation.
Do you have a desire to believe?
Not at all - Especially since there's no evidence.
That might be a place to start. Do
you have a desire to understand why I believe?
Not really. And while I do understand why YOU believe, that doesn't prove that
you believe in something that actually exists. If you want to believe, go
ahead. I couldn't care less.
It seems there probably is no reason to go on discussing this.
The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
Cites? What saints?
Saint Louis deMontfort is an example cited by me in the past, and he
outlined a program for attaining sanctity, which he then carried out.
Keeping in mind, though, that no one can attain to sanctity unless God
gives it. Nonetheless, Saint Louis's "experiment" is a reproducible
set of steps, given together with an understanding of why and how this
works, how to avoid pitfalls that accompany the path, and a
description of the goal.
If you email me with your snail mail address, I will send you a copy
of two of his books, free of charge, no strings attached. Then you can
examine his "experiment" for yourself, and perhaps carry it out, if
you so desire.
Oh hell, no. See my comment about about not being interested.
He is not the only one who had something similar that could be shown
to the world, but he is the one who appealed to me.
My evidence
that He is, is myself, along with so many others, the whole company of
Heaven, Church Triumphant, the Communion of Saints.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I am that proof.
that is an assertion, not proof.
I think the proof exists in the writings of the Saints.
How so? Hows does the writings of these long-dead "saints" prove that your god
exists? It is merely their subjective experiences and heresay.
If you do the things it says to do in the books, you will obtain the
effects described therein.
I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps I'll take you up on your offer.
Can't you just post here what the heck you're supposed to do to be able to see
your god. I'm a busy woman and don't have that much spare time to waste.
If it's not that important to you, then perhaps you have already
eliminated yourself from the possibility of finding God, by deeming it
of lesser importance. One of the things I think you would have to do
to see my God is to make Him your number one priority. And Saint Louis
deMontfort would certainly not tell you anything different.
Please prove the soul exists.
You exist, Robyn. I for my part am pleased to make your acquaintance,
and thank you for engaging me in rational discussion.
Thanks, but you didn't prove that the soul exists.
The soul is the *you* part of you. Not the ego per se, but that self,
that being, that animates your body.
Sorry, but this in an unsupported assertion.
Got any evidence other than your opinion?
The *you* part of you exists. That is the signification of the word
"soul." So you know already that your soul exists. The question of
whether your soul is immortal is another question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 08:06:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:37:25 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:46 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:21:39 -0500, Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have sound reasons for accepting the veracity of my God.
So far, you haven't presented them.
So far, you haven't asked.
Sigh. "So what are your reasons, then?"
Healing, would probably sum it up best. Healing of me from interior
harm from a variety of sources.
Can you possibly be more vague?
Healing of me from the malady of sin.
Nonsense. Sin is a religious offense, related to a particular
religion.
Healing of me from a brokenness inside that derives from the pain of
living in a world so cold to love.
So you are lonely and solve that with an invisible buddy.
Healing of me interiorly from my own failure to love.
That is your own problem. You should work on it yourself.
These things, I know have happened in me because
of my practice of my religion.
Nonsense. Any religion can claim that.
The Saints all testified of similar
things, so there are their writings that serve as objectively existing
testimony, that can be read and verified through the reproducing of
their "experiments."
They tested nothing.
No, it is an observation. About the pathetic low level of your
'answer'. That things are real is not proof of any god.
But the existence of Love, and the way Love guides those who seek Him
to find Him, is.
Sorry, your religion hasn't got anything to do with "love". Any
religion can claim that, and most usually do.
As long as you maintain that evident wall of security around your
heart, I'm not even going to try to break through. Let God send
someone else to fetch you.
You want to penetrate my ribcage? What for? My heart is a muscle.
I apologize for my abruptness above. It was uncalled for. I meant your
heart in the poetic sense of the interior of your soul.
What is a soul?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Geloso" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
10 Feb 2004 06:07:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:06:42 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
What is a soul?
See my reply to Robyn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Drew" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 06:13:18 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
Do you believe in conscience? In Hitler's time, reason and science
had virtually nothing to offer in terms of an arguement against his
final solution. If you were alive then, would/did you decide to
abandon "reason" in favor of conscience? Perhaps you'd act according
conscience, but find a way to attribute your actions strictly to
reason.
Just like conscience can be compared to a voice from within which
tells you "this is good" or "this is not good," there's something else
called perception which can be compared to a voice from within which
tells you "this is true" or "this is not true".
These capacities, conscience and perception, are given by God to
everyone according to their ability and willingness to receive them.
Reason apart from perception and apart from God's revelation in all
its forms, is reason in a vacuum, which is not reason at all.
People who value Truth above their own intelligence, and who are not
weighed down by arrogance or other things, will make their way towards
Truth by the means of both reason and perception. And when they
perceive something of truth, of revelation, in some utterly unprovable
bit of "primitive superstition" they will embrace it, and move closer
to Truth and Rationality because of it.
Drew
--
Free Secure IM
X-IM: Encrypted Instant Messaging
http://www.x-im.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 06:26:20 PM |
|
|
(Drew) wrote in
news:7b06517d.0402081613.3ea4ebaf@posting.google.com:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of primitive
superstitions?
Do you believe in conscience?
And what exactly is "conscience"?
In Hitler's time, reason and science
had virtually nothing to offer in terms of an arguement against his
final solution.
How many people even knew about Hitler's "final solution" until after the
fact? Why wouldn't "reason" offer argument against mass murder"
If you were alive then, would/did you decide to
abandon "reason" in favor of conscience?
False dichotomy. Reason and conscience may both point to the fallacy of
Hitler's course of action.
Perhaps you'd act according
conscience, but find a way to attribute your actions strictly to
reason.
Just like conscience can be compared to a voice from within which
tells you "this is good" or "this is not good," there's something else
called perception which can be compared to a voice from within which
tells you "this is true" or "this is not true".
And who exactly to you think this "voice" inside you is?
These capacities, conscience and perception, are given by God to
everyone according to their ability and willingness to receive them.
Reason apart from perception and apart from God's revelation in all
its forms, is reason in a vacuum, which is not reason at all.
What god? How can you show that some god provided these capabilities to
anyone?
People who value Truth above their own intelligence, and who are not
weighed down by arrogance or other things, will make their way towards
Truth by the means of both reason and perception. And when they
perceive something of truth, of revelation, in some utterly unprovable
bit of "primitive superstition" they will embrace it, and move closer
to Truth and Rationality because of it.
What is "Truth"?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
08 Feb 2004 07:39:15 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
DEL@x-im.net (Drew) wrote
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote
So why did you decide to abandon reason in favor of
primitive superstitions?
Do you believe in conscience?
And what exactly is "conscience"?
A product of the brain.
In Hitler's time, reason and science had virtually
nothing to offer in terms of an arguement against his
final solution.
How many people even knew about Hitler's "final solution"
until after the fact?
Most of the world knew about it as it was happening. In a
speach or two the RC pope mentioned it but said nothing
against it. The RC church was afraid that Hitler would stop
giving them 10% of the German income tax revenues.
Opinion of Nazi official Weizsacker about Pius XII in 1943;
"By all accounts, the Pope... has not allowed himself to be
stampeded into making any demonstrative pronouncement
against the removal of Jews from Rome... He [Pius] has done
everything he could... not to injure the relationship
between the Vatican and the German government."
If you were alive then, would/did you decide to abandon
"reason" in favor of conscience?
False dichotomy. Reason and conscience may both point to
the fallacy of Hitler's course of action.
It also shows how christians supported his actions.
Perhaps you'd act according conscience, but find a way
to attribute your actions strictly to reason.
Just like conscience can be compared to a voice from
within which tells you "this is good" or "this is not
good," there's something else called perception which
can be compared to a voice from within which tells you
"this is true" or "this is not true".
And who exactly to you think this "voice" inside you is?
Yourself. Not a god.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute character of Moral Theology |
11 Feb 2004 05:19:17 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:13:18 -0800 didst Drew speak thusly:
People who value Truth above their own intelligence, and who are not
weighed down by arrogance or other things, will make their way towards
Truth by the means of both reason and perception. And when they
perceive something of truth, of revelation, in some utterly unprovable
bit of "primitive superstition" they will embrace it, and move closer
to Truth and Rationality because of it.
Which sounds like what Hitler did.
(You brought him up)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
