Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
No more irrational than speaking about space without time, and time without space. Take away one, you can't have the other.
This puts an interesting philosophical spin on God's existence before (if we can even say that) creation.
What's even more interesting, is God's rebuttal to this:
I am that I am
No references to space, or time.
Truly, it is profound beyond words.
Then if you dispense with the divine law-giver and judge, what can "guarantee" your fully human status, to hold it unimpeachable against all the natural enemies you have arrayed against you, not least the progressive ideologues with their various proposals for utopia [the doctrine of so-called "evolutionary humanism" comes to mind]?
If it is not Truth -- that is to say, God (by another of His Names) -- then what could it be to hold you firm -- as tpaine, as your unique self -- in the coming storm???
But of course, I freely and gladly acknowledge that you are a "fully human" human being. The question is, if you "toss God," how long do you think you can (realistically) keep/maintain your [God-given] human nature, specifically and so gloriously expressed as one "tpaine?"
It must be time for sleep. And so I wish you, dear friend, a fond good night and pleasant dreams!
In scholastic theology (Aquinas) space and time are contingent things with no absolute nature. They depend on extension and succession of being.
These kinds of disputes are light entertainment if nothing else. And that may be their attraction on a "slow" day.
But I'm sure we'll eventually get back to meater subjects.
Just primates..
Who loves ya baby?.. (pops sugar pop into mouth)(does eyebrow thing)
Look "T" a hyperbolic situation explained by less than hyperbole is just disinformation.. and probably propaganda and bull squeeze.. Whatever happened to Sandy Burgular is he in Levenworth yet?... Why would a republican President be lobbying heavily FOR 20+ million brand NEW democrats getting amnesty?.. Who many are already voting democrat and will screw up vote demographics in the U.S. probably FOREVER..
Then it is redundant to say you have neither.
Then who do you submit created the primates, or even the world they inhabit?
Well, the proposition that the statment, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" doesn't describe an act of creation, or that the statement "and the earth was void and without form" doesn't imply that there had already been some event of creation at that point seem problematic.
tpaine—You feel that I ‘feel’? How silly
Irish...No ‘silly,’ that’s not what I said. I’m simply an observer of the consequences of the effects that your ‘self-centered’ feelings are having upon you, your ability to reason rationally, etc.
tpaine—I don’t. Our inalienable [not infringable] rights are self-evident and do not require a creator to be valid.
Irish...This claim is inconsistent with the tenets of evolutionary humanism. There can be no such thing as “self-evident’ when ‘matter is in motion.” All you have is continuous ‘change.” For this reason, EO Wilson frankly admits that there is no source for self (personhood).
Furthermore, your talk of ‘rights’ is likewise inconsistent with the tenets of evolutionary humanism for the same reason as above. All you have is whatever ‘privileges’ the higher evolved deign to allow you as per their ‘impulses’ of the moment.
Betty, can you cite your support that our [constitutional] rule of equal justice under law is essentially a Christian concept?
No cite was [or could be] made, as the concept is as old as the hills.
Diamond, thanks for your cite of Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex
by Jon Roland
"-- The title, Lex, Rex, is a play on the words that conveys the meaning the law is king.
When theologian Samuel Rutherford published the book in 1644, on the eve of the revolutions that rocked the English nation from 1645 through 1688, it caused a sensation, and provoked a great deal of controversy. It is ostensibly an argument for limited monarchy and against absolute monarchy, but its arguments were quickly perceived as subversive of monarchy altogether, and in context, we can perceive that it provided a bridge between the earlier natural law philosophers and those who would further develop their ideas: the Leveller movement and such men as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney, which laid the basis for the American Republic.
This book has long been undeservedly neglected by scholars, probably because it is written as a polemic in the political and sectarian controversies that are distasteful to later generations, and many of its references are somewhat obscure, but a closer reading reveals how it laid the foundation for the contractarian and libertarian ideas that came to be embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Thus, we see that a Christian theologian admits that an earlier 'natural law' had the concept of equal justice under law.
Where can we find a standard reference on theology or philosophy that lists these "tenets of evolutinary humanism" you keep talking about? Are you just making all of this up as you go?
This claim is inconsistent with the tenets of evolutionary humanism.
It's a constitutional truth, not a claim based on some tenets you've defined.
There can be no such thing as 'self-evident when 'matter is in motion.' All you have is continuous 'change.' For this reason, EO Wilson frankly admits that there is no source for self (personhood).
You've lost me. - I simply can't respond to "matter in motion", and "no source for personhood" comments. Get real.
I haven't, but my father was one of 12 children, eleven of whom lived and married. My mother was one of seven. Medicine and effective birth control are rather new. Most families before 1900 lost children. Nearly every couple that doesn't use birth control will lose a pregnancy; most of the time this will be called a "late period," but it will be a spontaneous abortion.
As for cats, if you have to ask, you don't know much about cats.
Good morning tpaine!
Where do you suppose the idea of "natural law" comes from?
We learn the golden rule at our mothers breast. - Don't bite the tit that feeds you.
Do onto others ---
tactical..Where can we find a standard reference on theology or philosophy that lists these “tenets of evolutinary humanism” you keep talking about? Are you just making all of this up as you go?
Irish...The essay provides many referenced citations by evolutionary scientists in which it is made clear by them exactly ‘what’ man has been reduced to: electrons, fish made over...dogs to be trained ( peruse the Russian Manual on Psychopolitics), etc. Additional citations make it very clear that in order to remain logically consistent with the philosophy of materialism (continuous change), there can be NO possibility of moral absolutes without God, thus there can be NO possibility of enduring principles or rights.
All you may have is whatever ‘privileges’ the highly evolved deign to allow you according to what their impulses of the moment intuit. All of which will eventually lead to the recreation of the hellish nightmare within which millions of Russians suffered and died.
One final note: the possibility of ‘standard’ references cannot exist within a worldview based in chance and continuous change. Situational ethics (impulses of the moment)——that’s all you have.
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.