Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
Why did Joshua put innocent women and children to the sword?
Or why God "commanded" it according to the Old Testament?
OR why you don't consider it murder?
I've found this interesting concept that once you state your belief, no matter what you do, with the Grace you have received, it is forgiven. Commit adultry, forgiven. Commit murder, forgiven. Rob a bank, forgiven. Fornicate....forgiven. Covet.....forgiven.
I don't think that was the intention of receiving Grace. I belive it covers the unintentional sins, the sins that are human failings.......not a get out of jail free card. Yet many demonimations believe and profess that.
Think different said that "Everything is permitted under any religion as long as you convince yourself you're acting in the name of God." I was simply expanding on that comment.....even though it may not be an act in the name of God, depending on the view of Grace, it still may be permissible to act within the scope of religious free will and action.
A mass killer values killing other people. You cannot object, since each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values.
Hence each man’s values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and acting for himself.
The mass killer rationally assess the situation, picks the weapons, methods, times, and victims that will maximize the number of killings he commits, thus acting for himself and achieving his values.
The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”.
The mass killer is happy pursuing killing.
In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills.
Except when this restrictive boundary interfers with the pursuit of happiness. Recognizing a boundary that one should not kill other people prevents a mass killer from advancing his values, and you cannot object to his values, for each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values. It is irrational for someone who values killing others to impose a restrictive boundary like respecting the right to life of others. He need not construct such a right to obtain what he values.
The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud.
Your whole arguement of rights is based on men achieving their values. But as demonstrated above, rights are not logically necessary to achieve all values (like killing other people, and remember, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone.). You may say the killer then cannot expect to go through life without other people trying to kill him. So what? He can also value the thrill of evading and outwitting his pursuers.
Rights can conflict with values. Since, in your system, rights are derived from values, when the two conflict, values logically prevail, and rights are rationally disposed of in the pursuit of happiness (The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”).
Good to see you as well.
As I stated... the ONLY moral system which allows EACH individual to act in accordance with his own will, is one which prohibits the initiation of force or fraud.
Read first, comprehend, then comment.
Ah, so god murders in different terms. Got it. Righto.
My bad... I dropped a word.
God obviously doesn't define murder in those terms.
Funny, you seem to enjoy purposefully missing the point, or voting by turning off your brain.
Tibet is under military dictatorship by those who do not recognize the validity and/or tenets of either the four noble truths or the eightfold path, and actively seek to suppress it. I should think that would be obvious to any observer.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
What terms DOES he define murder in?
Help me understand...
Good!!
There are many who follow their conscience alone and who in turn do not believe in any God...Many of these people are not evil monsters and have done much good in this world.
JPII states in Fides et Ratio:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
Faith and reason are not incompatible: in fact, reason confirms faith. What the Randians believe is that they can derive ethics explicitly from the natural world. Note what the Catechism states:
"..."Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith."
That's the point I was trying to make. Morals come from other places, and are confirmed by reason.
An excellent book on the superiority of Judeo-Christian ethics and their complete compatibility with reason is A Clash of Orthodoxies by Robert George (2001).
Ships crossing in the night. Humanae Vitae said that you can not be a moral absoulutist. See? Re-read his post.
Being that you're an atheist, and deny the existence of the metaphysical soul, you obviously can't be a moral absoulutist.
However, that apparently hasn't stopped you from being a moral absolutist.
And it's not really that hard (for me) to see how you got there -- after all, Christians do not believe that the Mind of Man died in the Fall of Eden (his capacity for rightly comprehending his relations to other men), but rather his Spirit died in the Fall of Eden (his capacity for rightly comprehending his relations to God). Which is to say, if Christians really believe that the Moral Law of Neighborly Love is absolute, not subject to change or exception, then we should expect that some atheists would be able to figure it out by the Observation and Experimentation of Enlightened Self-Interest ("Hmmm.... I deduce that it will be useful for me to not murder or steal from or defraud other men; so that they will consent to agree to extend the same respect towards me... yes, that makes sense...") just as men discover the Physical Laws through Observation and Experimentation.
An Atheist Man is spiritually dead, not mentally dead. He may be Spiritually pre-disposed and tempted to violate the Moral Law (as are all men); but I don't believe he is Mentally incapable of comprehending it, and by Observation and Experimentation comprehending the Moral Law to be absolute (i.e., deducing that any breach is always attended by Consequences).
Can you post anything that doesn't resemble the output from a random character generation program, or am I talking to a robot?
Did he take an extended vacation? Maybe you just don't know where to look for him.
Lets take a look at your post, it's very interesting.
We're in hock for trillions,
If God had been around he would have opted for a budget surplus? Oh, I forgot, we had one during much of that time.
our industrial base is in China,
God would have erected trade barriers?
there are no real jobs left,
95% of the people have jobs and the standard of living is the highest in history not to mention the history of the world, but they must not be "real" jobs if you aren't sewing t-shirts together.
the Chinese and North Koreans are in position to fire missiles up our collective ass!
I guess God would have had us "smote" them in the last ten years.
Odd conception of God you have, IMO.
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.