 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » "There Is No Moral Law" Admits Famous Darwinist... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sound of Trumpet... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means
that
there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as
revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there
is
nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like
humanism and evolution.
Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be
struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the
continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being
consistent
with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what
others
believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in
their own view?
The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals
that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that
knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy
(Romans
1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this
also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that
there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does
believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending
what he thinks is “right.”
For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13),
but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the
Lord
Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should
perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who
was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the
first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apt
to go by Paul as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| duke... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
[quote]First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
[/quote]
Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and
instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| IAAH... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 11/1/09 9:00 AM, * Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[quote]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong.
[/quote]
And that is where your argument fails, since you
had to lie about what Myers wrote. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
[/quote]
NEW WAY OF RESPONDING:
....we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal
Sense of Right and Wrong - by Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
OLD WAY OF RESPONDING:
Moral Sense Theories
Theories postulating a special moral sense which either enables us to
perceive special moral qualities of virtue and vice in action (which
thereupon affect us favorably or unfavorably), or else simply arouses
feelings of approval or disapproval in us on contemplating the
ordinary qualities of actions (it is not always clear which
alternative is intended).
These theories were popular in the 18th century, and are associated
especially with Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury
(1671-1713) and Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746).
Though sometimes classed as a version of intuitionism, the theories
stood in contrast to contemporary intuitionism which claimed that we
intuit moral facts about actions, rather than being sensitively
affected by their qualities.
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/moral-sense-theories.php |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| raven1... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
Your inability to read for comprehension is breathtaking.
[quote]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means
that
there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as
revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there
is
nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like
humanism and evolution.
Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be
struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the
continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being
consistent
with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what
others
believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in
their own view?
The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals
that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that
knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy
(Romans
1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this
also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that
there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does
believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending
what he thinks is “right.”
For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13),
but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the
Lord
Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should
perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who
was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the
first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apt
to go by Paul as well.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
[quote]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
[/quote]
AIG is an organization of professional liars who make their money
getting the religiously credulous to give them money to spread their
lies. They are profoundly unethical and cannot be trusted about anything
at all. Only fools believe what AIG tells them.
.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| VoiceOfReason... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[quote]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum...
[/quote]
Proving the dishonesty of creationists is not hate speech. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action.
[/quote]
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action.
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
MG
[/quote]
Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat
adjustment box, or thermostat. Individual temperaments and sensory
experiences can adjust the temperature of the response but the adjust-
ability is trapped within a limited range of options. In short it
comes out as a strong feeling, feelings based upon past trials and
similar situations stored in a way that functions fine outside of the
domains of a theory of mind and conscious experience; but through
science are beginning to be seen with more and more advanced brain
scanners. Thats what dogmas are up against now, a rapidely advancing
technology, quickly making apparent the working of human subjective
experience.
....innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow.
Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary
perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine
the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences
and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory
of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In
a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick
begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm
proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if
anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are
somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different
prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as
close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's
rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal
state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud,
and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls
rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in
those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment
with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their
personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though
consulting a hidden oracle.
That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most
probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.
Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual
apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in
the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this
ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among
the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our
destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our
biological properties to precise steering based on biological
knowledge.
Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated
arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the
philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature
as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the
natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can
conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology
cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic
history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own
physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be
left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be
achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical
knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum
choices among the competing criteria of progress.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
....by appealing to the core principles of neurobiology, evolutionary
theory, and cognitive science, practitioners of a new human science
can reach a deeper understanding of why we feel certain courses of
action to be intrinsically correct. They can help us to understand why
we have moral feelings. For now, though, the scientists can offer no
guidance on whether we are really correct in making certain decisions,
because no way is known to define what is correct without total
reference to the moral feelings under scrutiny. Perhaps this is the
ultimate burden of the free will bequeathed to us by our genes: in the
final analysis, even when we know what we are likely to do and why,
each of us must still choose.
The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very
great—in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws
and institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in
virtual blind ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature. By
relying on moral intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of
right and wrong, people remain enslaved by their genes and culture.
Their minds develop along the channels set by the hereditary
epigenetic rules, and while they exercise free will in moment-by-
moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and its value to the
individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the physical
basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning will
people have the power to control their own lives. They will then be in
a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social
regulation needed to maintain the precepts.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action.
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
MG
Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat
adjustment box, or thermostat.
[/quote]
No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats
man can access, try again.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Tingle... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[quote]Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.
[/quote]
[snip mildly incorrect, unimaginative characterization]
Not very controversial. Your point is?
Regards,
Jack Tingle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Frankie Lee... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:00 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com>
wrote:
[quote]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means
that
there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as
revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there
is
nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like
humanism and evolution.
Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be
struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the
continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being
consistent
with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what
others
believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in
their own view?
The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals
that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that
knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy
(Romans
1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this
also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that
there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does
believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending
what he thinks is “right.”
For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13),
but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the
Lord
Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should
perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who
was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the
first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apt
to go by Paul as well.
[/quote]
***Good posts.
Whether they admit or not,what has been the fact no one can gain-say. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Frankie Lee... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:32 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
[quote]On 11/1/09 9:00 AM, * Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong.
And that is where your argument fails, since you
had to lie about what Myers wrote.
[/quote]
**Why you lied and then accused others? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Miller... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
duke wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and
instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
[/quote]
What about those of use who have NEVER sinned? Does your sky
pixie intend to give us a "Get Outta Hell Free" card?
Besides, NO ONE could love YOUR god... and I seriously doubt
your neighbors feel anything but contempt and embarrassment
for you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:33:52 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
<papa_fox at (no spam) cybertown.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
[quote]
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum...
Proving the dishonesty of creationists is not hate speech.
[/quote]
Creationists hate to have their lies pointed out to them. They think
that they have the right to lie about science without having anyone
point out their lies to the world. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:19 pm
|
|