Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Toonami Infolink: Forums
Toonami Infolink :: View topic - Yet another philosophical/religious discussion/rant
Toonami Turner Cartoon Network Thundercats Voltron Space Ghost Birdman Herculoids Dino Boy Galaxy Trio Mighty Mightor Moby Dick
Shazzan The
Impossibles Max Fleisher's Superman (a.k.a. Roulette) The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest Robotech Sailor Moon DragonBall Z Filmation Superman Batman Superfriends ReBoot
Ronin Warriors G-Force Powerpuff Girls Batman: The Animated Series Gundam Wing Tenchi Muyo! Universe in Tokyo Superman Outlaw Star Big O CardCaptors Mobile Suit Gundam O8th
MS Team DragonBall Batman Beyond Gundam 0080 Zoids: Zero Hamtaro Zoids: Chaotic Century Guardian Force G Gundam He-Man and the Masters of the Universe Transformers: Armada
G.I. Joe .hack//Sign Yu Yu Hakusho Rurouni Kenshin QuickTime .mov MOV AVI .avi MPEG .mpg Movies movie Videos Clips Sounds articles rants essays images files CNX inner circle
cn2 revolution Japan japanese multimedia saban funimation toei graz harmony gold mainframe Tyler Zogg TylerLToonami Turner Cartoon Network Thundercats Voltron Space
Ghost Birdman Herculoids Dino Boy Galaxy Trio Mighty Mightor Moby Dick
Shazzan The
Impossibles Max Fleisher's Superman (a.k.a. Roulette) The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest Robotech Sailor Moon DragonBall Z Filmation Superman Batman Superfriends
ReBoot
Ronin Warriors G-Force Powerpuff Girls Batman: The Animated Series Gundam Wing Tenchi Muyo! Universe in Tokyo Superman Outlaw Star Big O CardCaptors Mobile Suit Gundam
O8th
MS Team DragonBall Batman Beyond Gundam 0080 Zoids: Zero Hamtaro Zoids: Chaotic Century Guardian Force G Gundam He-Man and the Masters of the Universe Transformers:
Armada
G.I. Joe .hack//Sign Yu Yu Hakusho Rurouni Kenshin QuickTime .mov MOV AVI .avi MPEG .mpg Movies movie Videos Clips Sounds articles rants essays images files CNX inner
circle
cn2 revolution Japan japanese multimedia saban funimation toei graz harmony gold mainframe Tyler Zogg TylerL
Post subject: Re: Yet another philosophical/religious discussion/rant
The subject of this discussion has been updated, with Miscellaneous Babblings by the Bono. _________________ Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "
Wed May 21, 2003 11:42 am
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Post subject:
Fak, did you update your file with my comments yet? _________________ This space left intentionally blank.
Wed May 21, 2003 4:54 pm
Force-Attuned_Krogoth
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Post subject: Re: Yet another philosophical/religious discussion/rant
Fak, did you update your file with my comments yet?
NO, I want you to cut off my arms and legs with a chainsaw.
. . .
[/sarcasm]
John, if it doesn't show up with intermittent blue text, you need to un-cache it. I put it up during 4th Period. _________________ Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "
Wed May 21, 2003 5:36 pm
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Post subject:
For spm reason, I didn't see your post. Strange... _________________ This space left intentionally blank.
Thu May 22, 2003 5:37 pm
Force-Attuned_Krogoth
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Post subject:
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo wrote:
For spm reason, I didn't see your post. Strange...
I know why. Sometimes, it takes the server a while to figure out that another page of posts is up. If that happens, just set the tag at the end of your address bar to &start=[(next page #-1)*15]. You can tell when it's rolled over if the alleged last poster did not post the last thing you see. _________________ Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "
Thu May 22, 2003 11:50 pm
TheWorldWeKnow
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Post subject:
coincidentally enough, I bought Mere Christianity several weeks ago, and brought it along with a bunch of other books with me on vacation for summer reading...however, I haven't read it yet, and perhaps I can give better commentary once I do
but here are some problems I have with your all's commentaries:
you ask the question, how does the similarities in moral laws across ancient cultures imply that a god does exist? while certainly not a strong argument (and I doubt that C.S. Lewis, considered by many to be the greatest Christian theologian of his time, felt that this was an all-powerful argument), the point I think is that this morality MUST come from somewhere; where's the original source for this morality? is there a reason why there did not exist a civilization far from the reaches of the cradle of civilization that was totally backwards in its values? is it perhaps because God instilled in us all a natural law of how we should act? do we all, deep down inside ourselves, know the difference b/w right and wrong, and have the same values of right and wrong? maybe, maybe not...interesting question, though, and certainly worthy of thought
as to your comments about monarchies...certainly, monarchies are almost always corrupt (by today's definition of corrupt in modern, western society); after all, the old addage goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and despite the lack of truly absolute monarchs in the history of the world, monarchs (who aren't just figurehead leaders) have had control that might as well be called absolute, as they could control the lives of many simply on a whim; however, the question is WHY were monarchies set up? why are there governments? why don't we just let everyone run free in an anarchy? governments are around for the people, a basically non-selfish reason; did a bunch of rich people get together in ancient Babylon and say, "let's establish a government so that we can steal money from the people and live in luxury"? no...though that thought was certainly in the minds of many officials and leaders in later periods, the foundations of government are obviously to lead people, to create a system of order, and to help people, no matter how warped the ideas of helping were or were to become; and the focal point of this specific passage by Lewis is that "selfishness has never been admired" - while selfishness is a trait that many had, it's true, it's never been an admirable quality...no civilization has ever been populated entirely by peoples who prized their own needs above everything else...for if that was true, brother would kill brother, sons would kill mothers, and society would collapse; this commentary I write here might be a little warped itself...sorry, when I write without organizing first, my ideas are kind of stream-of-consciousness, not always fitting together, making sense, or even supported by good facts/details/arguments...
when you speak about instinctively breaking C.S. Lewis's law of nature being the ACTUAL law of nature...that's a nice idea, but it's all semantics...here, we're speaking about Lewis' definition
Narrator 5: I believe you're overanalyzing here...he's just merely setting up an argument, and I think he's done a good setup...you should relook at this and comment how how he setup the argument he's going to use
Narrator 6: Lewis isn't suggesting that God is "mute," by any means; I don't think any Christian would ever say that...now, how God talks to us is different; he says to examine the things of this world, these are some of his "words" to us; to a non-Christian, the other ways he speaks to us may seem to you as foolishness, craziness, or just ridiculous (or maybe a combination) - and this is throught scripture, meditation, prayer, sudden insights in our minds...and many ways THROUGH these methods...I don't know how many times I know in my heart that God has spoken to me when I've said a prayer to him and opened up the Bible directly a place that specifically addressed my exact need (when I had no idea this chapter/book talked about what I was longing to learn) - this is one way he uses the Bible...there are many others
Narrator 7: as for his two pieces of evidence, they are certainly "unsubstantiated," as you say; however, take them into consideration...the perfection of the universe, the awe of life...
here's something I read today in The Raggamuffin Gospel, by Brennan Manning
"The slant of the earth, for example, titled at an angle of 23 degrees, produces our seasons. Scientists tell us that if the earth hade not been titled exactly as it is, vapors from the oceans would move both north and south, piling up continents of ice.
If the moon were only 50,000 miles away from earth instead of 200,000 the tides might be so enormous that all continents would be submerged in water - even the mountains would be eroded.
If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, and without it all animal life would die.
Had the oceans been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life would exist..."
And it goes on. Whether or not you believe there is a heavenly creator, you must still admit that the Earth is just such a breathtaking, awesome place. This beauty and precision that is Earth, is a piece of evidence. It is not indisputable, or classifiable as a fact, but it's evidence, nonetheless.
and then comes your exclamation of yet another "unsubstantiated claim" - Lewis is not dealing with historical documents in his evidence, he is dealing with "evidence," which is not necessarily "substantiable," or "provable," or "scientific." What else is there, then, you're asking? It depends how you look at it...I believe that the majesty of the earth is a very strong piece of evidence for the existence of a higher power (others may not), while I don't see the moral law argument as an especially strong one; it's all in the eye of the beholder; admitedly, I'm not keen on my argument here entirely...needs to be developed...so tear it apart if you want
Okay, so that's my commentary on your commentary on Lewis's commentary. Incidentally, sorry that I referred to both you (FAK) and you (Bono) as one person...I'm lazy. Rest assured that I recognized you as different individuals and saw your individual arguments as coming from different people, as well.
Finally, I'd like to make one more comment. You referred to Lewis as an "idiot." Idiots don't write The Chronicles of Narnia Idiots don't gain respect from both church and out of church circles for their theological writings. I wish you wouldn't be so judgemental. You've written your remarks on one piece of writing...not even that, snippets from a couple chapters of one book that Lewis wrote. Is that enough to condemn someone?
And speaking of condemnation, I'll tell you something else. Both this writing by Lewis and your commentaries seem to depict God as something we should not see him as. God is almight, powerful, omniscient, sure...this is the picture of Him that we get from the Bible. But there's another picture, a closer one, and insider's view if you will. God is love. God accepts all...he accepts everyone - the child rapist, the missionary, the businessman, the stripper, the college student, the atheist. He is a God of love. He is a friend. He is everything love should be. He is perfect in His justice, perfect in His grace. I wish you would get to know my God, and see how He's changed my life. I can see why people get mad a bible thumpers, who preach that they're right, you're wrong, and you'd better shape up and listen to the Bible, not taking in any outside evidence. Well, those people annoy me, too, and I think they hurt people's perceptions of what God really is. I think if people knew who God was, they wouldn't be judgemental on Christians and their beliefs (and visa-versa for "Christians" who are judgemental on others).
I'm not ready in faith to challenge an intelligent non-believer, liked yourself, do a debate, or even to some sort of lesser challenge. But whatever question you have, I'll try my best to answer and give you insights as to why, and so many others like me, believe as we do. So give it your best shot...I'll probably fail on more questions than I'll pass, but eh, I'll try!
Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:46 pm
Force-Attuned_Krogoth
Joined: Nov 10, 2002
Post subject:
TheWorldWeKnow wrote:
here's something I read today in The Raggamuffin Gospel, by Brennan Manning
"The slant of the earth, for example, titled at an angle of 23 degrees, produces our seasons. Scientists tell us that if the earth hade not been titled exactly as it is, vapors from the oceans would move both north and south, piling up continents of ice.
If the moon were only 50,000 miles away from earth instead of 200,000 the tides might be so enormous that all continents would be submerged in water - even the mountains would be eroded.
If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, and without it all animal life would die.
Had the oceans been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life would exist..."
And it goes on. Whether or not you believe there is a heavenly creator, you must still admit that the Earth is just such a breathtaking, awesome place. This beauty and precision that is Earth, is a piece of evidence. It is not indisputable, or classifiable as a fact, but it's evidence, nonetheless.
Congartulations, you have discovered the anthropic principle. You say that the fact that the Earth was within a small band of tolerance that was highly improbable. I see no problem with that. However, the fact that we came about on this particular planet is moot. If we had been on another planet, in another galaxy, since the beginning of our consciousness and recorded history, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
As for the rest, I welcome any new comments anyone can bring. This is not a war, it is a discussion (despite the Bono's outward appearance). _________________ Krogoth uses Berserk.
Attacks are enhanced but defense weakens.
"Wait, that's not the cure button ... "
Tue Jun 03, 2003 6:43 pm
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Post subject:
And, FAK, don't forget that we have a very narrow definition of life, and the fact that it is possible for it to thrive in another form. "What's all this crazy talk about atom-based life forms?" The self contained, replacating pattern of radiation asks.
On to the discection!
TheWorldWeKnow wrote:
but here are some problems I have with your all's commentaries:
you ask the question, how does the similarities in moral laws across ancient cultures imply that a god does exist? while certainly not a strong argument (and I doubt that C.S. Lewis, considered by many to be the greatest Christian theologian of his time, felt that this was an all-powerful argument), the point I think is that this morality MUST come from somewhere; where's the original source for this morality? is there a reason why there did not exist a civilization far from the reaches of the cradle of civilization that was totally backwards in its values? is it perhaps because God instilled in us all a natural law of how we should act? do we all, deep down inside ourselves, know the difference b/w right and wrong, and have the same values of right and wrong? maybe, maybe not...interesting question, though, and certainly worthy of thought
Trial and error, trial and error, trial and error. Most societies won't have a moral code and will die off, and the few that have them will thrive. I still see no argument that distinguishes god from the guess and check system. What an intelligent force that has crafted the universe.
Your next argument can be given the same treatment.
Quote:
Narrator 7: as for his two pieces of evidence, they are certainly "unsubstantiated," as you say; however, take them into consideration...the perfection of the universe, the awe of life...
Perfection of universe by your definition. Perfection is a rather opinionative definition if you ask me.
Quote:
and then comes your exclamation of yet another "unsubstantiated claim" - Lewis is not dealing with historical documents in his evidence, he is dealing with "evidence," which is not necessarily "substantiable," or "provable," or "scientific." What else is there, then, you're asking? It depends how you look at it...I believe that the majesty of the earth is a very strong piece of evidence for the existence of a higher power (others may not), while I don't see the moral law argument as an especially strong one; it's all in the eye of the beholder;
Look at it, in all its majesty (I couldn't resist).
Quote:
admitedly, I'm not keen on my argument here entirely...needs to be developed...so tear it apart if you want
Done and done.
Quote:
Okay, so that's my commentary on your commentary on Lewis's commentary. Incidentally, sorry that I referred to both you (FAK) and you (Bono) as one person...I'm lazy. Rest assured that I recognized you as different individuals and saw your individual arguments as coming from different people, as well.
Actually, they're not all that different... We have a lot of time to talk to each other.
Quote:
Finally, I'd like to make one more comment. You referred to Lewis as an "idiot." Idiots don't write The Chronicles of Narnia Idiots don't gain respect from both church and out of church circles for their theological writings. I wish you wouldn't be so judgemental. You've written your remarks on one piece of writing...not even that, snippets from a couple chapters of one book that Lewis wrote. Is that enough to condemn someone?
Not at all enough to condemn him. I just like to push the line of how far I can go when making an argument. I can usually get away with using the word idiot or moron once while critisizing someone, but I got caught this time. And yes, Chronicles of Narnia was an awesome book to read in Elementary school--it held my attention, and that's saying a lot. And yes, I am quite judgmental.
Quote:
And speaking of condemnation, I'll tell you something else. Both this writing by Lewis and your commentaries seem to depict God as something we should not see him as. God is almight, powerful, omniscient, sure...this is the picture of Him that we get from the Bible. But there's another picture, a closer one, and insider's view if you will. God is love. God accepts all...he accepts everyone - the child rapist, the missionary, the businessman, the stripper, the college student, the atheist. He is a God of love. He is a friend. He is everything love should be. He is perfect in His justice, perfect in His grace. I wish you would get to know my God, and see how He's changed my life. I can see why people get mad a bible thumpers, who preach that they're right, you're wrong, and you'd better shape up and listen to the Bible, not taking in any outside evidence. Well, those people annoy me, too, and I think they hurt people's perceptions of what God really is. I think if people knew who God was, they wouldn't be judgemental on Christians and their beliefs (and visa-versa for "Christians" who are judgemental on others).
Sigh... Thou art God. The word God is simply a tool for you to realize an idealization of yourself, in this sense I believe. And it wouldn't have to be anymore. And of beliefs, I am usually only critical, not judgmental.
Quote:
I'm not ready in faith to challenge an intelligent non-believer, liked yourself, do a debate, or even to some sort of lesser challenge. But whatever question you have, I'll try my best to answer and give you insights as to why, and so many others like me, believe as we do. So give it your best shot...I'll probably fail on more questions than I'll pass, but eh, I'll try!
Finding answers in your own argument is the best strengthening of your faith. Chances are you've already chosen the direction to go, you're just not fully committed. Don't worry--a few more months and the brainwashing will start kicking in. _________________ This space left intentionally blank.
Tue Jun 03, 2003 7:10 pm
TheWorldWeKnow
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Post subject:
Quote:
Finding answers in your own argument is the best strengthening of your faith. Chances are you've already chosen the direction to go, you're just not fully committed. Don't worry--a few more months and the brainwashing will start kicking in.
I hate to say it, but on this point, you're very wrong. And frankly, this whole comment is very belittling and condescending. You don't want an intelligent conversation, you want to mock me. Evidence? How about you saying "a few more months and the brainwashing will start kicking in." That's not a necessary comment - it's just added to say basically, "I'm right, and you're wayyyyy wrong; oh yeah, and stupid, too. So stupid, that you are not willing to weigh evidence and go with what your mind says is true. You will just go with what others have told you."
This coincides with a second point I will make, and that is this: you don't know me. All three of the sentences in your comment assume that you seem to know how I think and who I am - and I have no idea how you would know that. By my commentary? By my posts on the board? That doesn't even start to scratch the surface of who I am.
Answering questions is the best strengthening of my faith? Hardly...the best strengthening of my faith comes in two ways: 1) seeing the results of a God-led life, and 2) by daily studying/walking with Him - the more I read the Bible, the more I pray, to more I read arguments for and against His existence, the more I am convinced He lives; answering questions has nothing to do with my faith...it's something I want to do to help others with their faith or questions - it's not about me at all, it's about others
"Chances are you've already chosen the direction to go, you're just not fully committed." Possibly...but not in the way you may think. Yes, I was raised as a Christian. And yes, your upbringing determines in large part what you believe. However, I came to a decision on my belief on my own. I did not believe in God for a long time, though I was playing the hypocrite and still occassionally going to church and doing my prayers at night. But in my heart, I was so unsure. I'm not bullheaded in choosing what direction to go - I did much searching before becoming convinced that I chose the right direction. Am I not fully committed? Interesting question...I think, as fallible humans, none of us can be fully committed to a perfect God. The apostle Paul, maybe the most committed Christian in the history of civilization, was not perfect. He did not follow God in every single thing he did. I, too, am sinful - soooo very sinful. But, I still have an extremely high level of committment to God. I am uber-confident that if I felt the calling to a mission right now, anywhere in the world, whether it's a the largest Muslim country in the world in Indonesia or a Bible belt state like Oklahoma, I would pack up and go, leaving everything behind. This is my committment - I've chosen to give everything to God, my whole life...is that what you mean by not being fully committed? Are you that committed to anything in your life? Not to suggest you aren't, but I bet I can match your committment to anything with my committment to my God - and that seems to be a pretty high level of committment to me
Back to your final comment about brainwashing. I could be wrong here, but haven't you ever been mocked about your ideas? Haven't others ever criticized you for being intelligent and outspoken? How did you feel after being judged? Did you think to yourself, "I could care less." Or did you think, "I know I'm right...but I still feel angry/sad/bitter." Why would anyone purposely try to make someone else feel bad, when that person in turn has done nothing but tell his feelings? That's a very sad thing for a person to do. I could think of two reasons for this: 1) they simply don't care; it isn't part of their personal moral code to be nice to people, or 2) they didn't think out their statement, in which case, they should take a look at their moral codes and truly think about if they're living they life they want to, profess, and/or believe they should be
I liked your answers to my questions overall...though I'll take a better look at them later and maybe comment on them if I have time/interest/good answers. I was going along, having a good time reading your comment, and then BAM, along came your last comment. It's a petty, mean, unintelligent, ridiculing comment that has no place in this conversation. I'll tell you something - I'm judgemental, I'm critical, I'm mean, and I'm a hypocrite, but I would never intentionally hurt someone. Your comment didn't hurt me (though it did make me angry) - but it's still a hurtful statement - like I said earlier, it's condescending and pretenscious (sp?), and thus written in a manner that is meant to inflict some sort of hurt on the person on the receiving end of that message. I have people in my life that anger me continuously...but I never try to hurt those people. I don't care what they do to me, I try to show love in all that I do, as my Lord Jesus has (although I fail time and time again in this). How much more would I treat one who has not even wronged me?
And in response to how you've represented me through your words in that comment - I'm not a child. I'm not mentally incapacitated. I'm not deluded. I've been an honors scholar at two different universities, and I rank in the top 1 to 2% of the largest university in the U.S., GPA-wise. In other words, I'm not stupid. Please, don't treat me like I am.
Concluding, your argument angered me - because of the haughty tone implied by your statements and because you seem to be bringing this on a personal level, though this thread is NOT supposed to start arguments based on insults. I hope that we can steer clear of this type of statement in the future.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:25 am
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Post subject:
Holy cow, we keep lobbing these huge things back and forth across the court, don't we.
TheWorldWeKnow wrote:
I hate to say it, but on this point, you're very wrong. And frankly, this whole comment is very belittling and condescending. You don't want an intelligent conversation, you want to mock me. Evidence? How about you saying "a few more months and the brainwashing will start kicking in." That's not a necessary comment - it's just added to say basically, "I'm right, and you're wayyyyy wrong; oh yeah, and stupid, too. So stupid, that you are not willing to weigh evidence and go with what your mind says is true. You will just go with what others have told you."
I'm sorry, I had no other way to word said statement. And no, I wasn't belittling anyone in particular. Simply that a person's resolve under any belief hardens over time, especially when exposed to like minded induviduals.
Quote:
This coincides with a second point I will make, and that is this: you don't know me. All three of the sentences in your comment assume that you seem to know how I think and who I am - and I have no idea how you would know that. By my commentary? By my posts on the board? That doesn't even start to scratch the surface of who I am.
Probably. I said probably. And that's working off of how most people work under most situations.
Quote:
This is my committment - I've chosen to give everything to God, my whole life...is that what you mean by not being fully committed? Are you that committed to anything in your life? Not to suggest you aren't, but I bet I can match your committment to anything with my committment to my God - and that seems to be a pretty high level of committment to me
No, you were about right on the spot. My only major committments are to friends, family, and school.
Quote:
I was going along, having a good time reading your comment, and then BAM, along came your last comment. It's a petty, mean, unintelligent, ridiculing comment that has no place in this conversation. I'll tell you something - I'm judgemental, I'm critical, I'm mean, and I'm a hypocrite, but I would never intentionally hurt someone. Your comment didn't hurt me (though it did make me angry) - but it's still a hurtful statement - like I said earlier, it's condescending and pretenscious (sp?), and thus written in a manner that is meant to inflict some sort of hurt on the person on the receiving end of that message. I have people in my life that anger me continuously...but I never try to hurt those people. I don't care what they do to me, I try to show love in all that I do, as my Lord Jesus has (although I fail time and time again in this). How much more would I treat one who has not even wronged me?
So I suppose the statement that 50% of black people are idiots would upset you. _________________ This space left intentionally blank.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 11:52 am
TheWorldWeKnow
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Post subject:
I'm a bit relieved that you didn't go irate on me for writing that huge judgemental (and thus, hypocritical) thing on your one little comment...that I'm sure I took way out of context...I have a habit of doing that
Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:06 pm
counterparadox
Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Post subject:
Just a thought that popped into my head by grazing over that all up there.
TWWK said he chooses to devote himself entirely to God. Bono says he chooses to devote himself to friends and family.
The question that popped into my mind is this: Aren't these the same?
To devote one's self to God is to do his work, and that is to be compassionate to the entire human race. I think the difference is that TWWK looks at things in a spiritual light, and Bono looks at things in a scientific light. If Bono is anything like me, he would LOVE to help all of humanity, but in more of a changing of social structures type way, and not a hands on interacting with people type way. I think (and I may be wrong) That TWWK is more of the hands on interacting with people type helper. The world needs both. Whether you believe in God or not, you still have compassion and can see that the world needs both.
So in a sense, you're both on the same page. _________________ anime is teh s uck
Play City of Heroes/Villians? Look me up, Pinnacle server, @C Paradox
Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:35 pm
TheWorldWeKnow
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Post subject:
eh, the great peacemaker, CP...yes, I'll agree with you on that point, to an extent
the difference between how Bono and I love others is our motivations...I don't know what Bono's motivation is, but my motivation is simply to do that which God desires...and the Bible says that we should follow the Golden Rule; love is God's desire for us
Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:59 pm
counterparadox
Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Post subject:
To pose a Thomas Hobbes-esque question, is it truly love if you are doing it only to, for lack of a better word, please God? If you are only compassionate because God demands it, then isn't it, in truth, self-centered, and thus defeats the whole purpose?
(It's a Thomas Hobbes-esque question in that Thomas Hobbes said "All charity is self serving." As in by helping others, we, ourselves, feel better. It removes our guilt at the excess we own. Thus, noting is really charity since we do it to remove our guilt. I don't totally buy into it, but he does have a point.)
I'm not trying to break down your arguement, mind you. I'm just curious as to what it is you'll respond with. _________________ anime is teh s uck
Play City of Heroes/Villians? Look me up, Pinnacle server, @C Paradox
Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:16 pm
John_Bono_Smithy_Satchmo
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Post subject:
TheWorldWeKnow wrote:
I'm a bit relieved that you didn't go irate on me for writing that huge judgemental (and thus, hypocritical) thing on your one little comment...that I'm sure I took way out of context...I have a habit of doing that
Oh, you too, huh?
And CP, that's kind of what me and FAK are saying. God's existence is made moot by his supposed message. It's perfect circular logic and thus can never be proven or disproven. It's all a matter of faith. _________________ This space left intentionally blank.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
NO, I want you to cut off my arms and legs with a chainsaw.
