Posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:14 PM PDT by betty boop
Oh jeepers, gcruse, I gather you mean we have to be vigilent against the emergence of the boogy-man hiding under the bed!
Yet if MORAL is what makes a free, prosperous, and peaceful civil society, then what, exactly, is wrong with MORAL?
Not that I in the least imagine that the American civil order is in any way, shape, or form a CHURCH. I leave that construct to the Wahabbis (Islamofascist jihadists).
The point is you cannot deny -- assuming you've read the Declaration of Independence -- that the American civil order -- our very Constitution -- is established on the basis of the specifically Christian view of man, and of the Creator God who endues him with his inanlienable rights. And that all men are "created equal" precisely because each is equally the child of God. That is ineffably a MORAL insight.
FWIW. Thank you for writing!
Baptist Ping
Well, here's what gets me. An evolutionary explanation for all moral conduct requires that such conduct be genetically determined. Morality rides on the genes, as it were, and one generation passes on favorable morality to the next, according to the evolutionists.
If moral virtues are genetic — a random combination of molecules, why do we see fluctuations from generation to generation in moral standards? Why have we seen an explosion of illegitimate births and single parenthood in the current generation - - is that the result of inherited genes or the result of a change in moral standards?
If illegitimate births have increased through the process of natural selection, then evolutionary forces have "selected" rather odd behavior patterns to effect the survival of the species. I mean, don’t those dunderhead genes know two parents are better than one?
Thanks for the Ping.
Amen, dear Amos. This is the "unpleasant truth" that utopians and doctrinalists of all persuasions would most dearly love to ignore. But they simply can't, at least not in the long run. To fall afoul of that truth is to set oneself up for the day when the Truth "bites one on the butt." So to speak.
Man did not make this world, nor give it its rules. God did. And we cannot evade our accountability to Him for the "truth" of the way we live.
Thank you so much for writing, Amos!
So very true.... Thank you so much, milagro, for this "indispensible" insight!
Some not believing "essential truth" may be NOT BE from a negative motive.. Could be they must believe as they do according to the 2nd reality they live in.. I do not fault them for that..
The competition between truth and UNtruth proves the truth.. and challenges the UNtruth, always.. I believe it is a Holy Drama.. And Free Republic highlights that drama.. After all whom has total truth among us.. I appreciate the reparte'...
Almost universally I agree with you(so far), at least that that I can understand that you transcribe.. Sometimes you go over my head.. Spiritual merging might cure that(BookOFWorms).. but that is for a future time.. Same with me to you but I appreciate your spirit..
Morals observed, is observed, in different ways.. which is a drama all its own.. Free Republic has been beautifully preserved (by Jim Robinson) to allow that drama.. I relish his wisdom.. It takes a boatload of UNtruth to cover up ONE truth.. As the EVOS (and other closet liberals) prove daily..
Now there's a brilliantly asked question! Thank you for asking it!
I try very hard myself not to "fault them" for that. But to the extent that I value Truth above all else, I find forgiveness very difficult under the circumstances. Fortunately, I am no man's judge.... That's God's job.
May the Lord forgive me my shortcomings.
FreeRepublic really is a "microcosm" in its diversity of opinion, isn't it? And JimRob affords hospitality to all points of view -- provided the respondents observe the rules of civil, rational, good-faith debate....
Thanks so much for writing, dear hosepipe!
OH! God.. me too... Guard me from arrogance and hubris..
Cling to that false belief if you really can after all that has transpired here in the past year, but don't expect those of us who have been paying attention and been deeply involved in this issue to be naive enough to fall for it.
Once again, I must insist that you respect my oft-repeated statement that I have no desire to have you ping me to any of your through-the-looking-glass posts or threads, at any time, for any reason. You have burned that bridge too thoroughly, and then been so disingenuous as to pretend not to know the reason why even after it has been explained to you more than once. Whatever you choose to say, I have no interest in it. Do not ping me.
Some people just need a good dose of peroxide
ping
That sure states it clearly. The accusations of people with certain religious views as being *pig ignorant* and other more derogatory terms, is all part of the strategy. Try to make them look so stupid that others will not want to be associated with them and pull back and lend their support to the *scientific* view. All that'll do is hasten the day when Christian morals are no longer considered valid and anything goes.
A freeper, whose screen name I unfortunately do not remember, commented that right now, we are still riding on the coat tails (so to speak) of the moral hertitage we inherited and so that although, there is moral compromise now, there is still enough to protect us. But in a couple generations, our grandchildren will be reaping what we are now sowing and it just may be too late to do anything about it then.
Yes, you are so right, Metmom. We used up the interest a long time ago and we are right now living off the principal, which is disappearing fast.
I heard a minister preach a sermon to that effect, said we were living "off the fumes" of our parents and grandparents
Thanks betty boop, for the great thread.
It's even more than that. There is reality that exists beyond which science can know or measure. To try to reduce everything to merely it's physical properties,to act like anything that's not physical is not real but a fairy tale or delusion, is what's being *intellectually dishonest*.
It's like a horse with blinders on, they can only see a small part of reality, it gives a distorted view of the world around them and to say that that's all there is and it's accurate is incorrect. For them to pontificate about things they have no knowledge of because they have deliberately excluded them from their consideration, is deceptive.
Just because science cannot measure or record it, doesn't mean it's not real.
There's a difference between amoral and immoral. I agree the science in and of itself is amoral. It's what's done with it that has the morality attached to it.
Oh, pul-eeze dude. Haven't you found a half-decent rational argument so to engage in serious rational discourse in support of your position, after all this time? And so I see that what you do instead (as usual seemingly) is to insist that I never speak with you again? Well, that solves everything: That helps to illuminate the public discourse regarding thorny public issues in science, technology, ethics, et al. NOT!!!
And pul-eeze stop crying like that in public: It's embarrassing to at least some of the rest of us....
Thanks a lot.
Truly I hope you will do better on your next outing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.