PureX
Well-known member
Ditto. :wave2:Well said. To answer you, no I didn't think less of you, and it's great to have you back.
Mods, why was The Barbarian banned?
- Thread starter Kdall
- Start date
noguru
Well-known member
Well said. To answer you, no I didn't think less of you, and it's great to have you back.
Sometimes one must lose the battle in order to win the war.
Leftist politicians (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10) are claiming that she needs to uphold the law of the land today. She is. :thumb: Laws come from God not man (Gen. 2:18–24, 1 Ti 1:8-10, Ac 5:29). Looks like we've got a remnant left who doesn't want to see our country turned into Sodom and Gomorrah (Esth 4:14).
"The Rosa Parks of religious liberty." ~ Laura Ingram Jn 8:36 :straight:
Last edited:
Are you a Sodomite ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13])? :smokie:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Agreed! I try to moderate my tone when I care deeply about something but I think one's feelings about a subject are important. They mustn't, however, be allowed to so cloud one's judgment that harm is the result.
noguru
Well-known member
No. And that question is irrelevant to my point.
Are you are moron?
Oh wait, I already know the answer to that.
You misquoted me (Eph 4:14).
Are you a Sodomite ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13])? :smokie:
:yawn: 2 Ti 1:7, Mt 10:25
noguru
Well-known member
That does not matter.
When you can use those Biblical verses and your own words to make a cohesive in context statement/question, then come on back talk to me some more and ask me some questions.
Right now you are like an annoying little gnat buzzing around my ear that needs to be swatted. The only difference between you and a gnat is that you have deluded yourself with your claims of being a "Christian" into thinking that your comments are relevant.
It usually doesn't (Pr 26:4, Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10). :mario:
noguru
Well-known member
I don't see any way that I could possibly think less of you than I already do barbarian.
I should take this opportunity to thank you for participating on TOL, as people like you truly do motivate me to become politically active.
You say that like it's a bad thing ... :chuckle:
Y'know, I have a problem with this for several reasons:
1. In a debate, one should proceed from mutually agreed premises to conclusions about which there is disagreement. My friend is aware that I don't think that human beings evolved from pre-existing living things, and you are on a forum in which there is a strong right wing evangelical Christian sentiment which entails, among other things, an outright denial of macroevolution in general (which even I don't deny).
What's the point of bringing it up?
2. Even if I granted that human beings evolved from pre-existing living things, I would still have to remind you, RexLunae, that "survival of the fittest" and all such teleological views of evolutions (i.e., that things are evolving so as to become "better") simply isn't an accurate representation of what's going on, from the viewpoint of biology.
It's not the "best" genes that get passed down. The genes which get passed down are whatever just so happens to get passed on. A random mutation doesn't have to be beneficial. It just has to leave the animal "good enough" to reproduce itself, even if that mutation ultimately is harmful to the animal.
Do I really have to talk about hereditary genetic diseases?
So, no, even if human beings have been evolving for millions of years, that doesn't really tell us anything about how intelligent the average human being is. For one thing, the brain isn't the cause (even the material cause) of intellectual knowledge (to understand this, you'd have to be familiar with Aristotle's De Anima). But even if it were, all that this tells us is that human beings have sufficiently good (or sufficiently non-defective) brains to permit them to survive long enough to have babies.
And I will point out to you, RexLunae, the fact that really stupid, uneducated, etc., people have lots of babies. This was the whole premise of the movie Idiocracy.
"I hope that there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter. Therefore, I believe that there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter."
So, currently in my Ph.D. graduate studies, I am: 1. in the process of writing lectures for a rational anthropology course I am teaching and 2. preparing a dissertation proposal.
If you want copies of said lectures, be sure to let me know. :wave2:
Yes. That is my point. That's why what Evoken said was silly and why the assertion in question is actual, literal nonsense (i.e., doesn't mean anything).
Again, that's why, when I asked you what such a world would look like, your delightfully useless answer was: "It would look intentional."
You have no such criteria for distinguishing such a world because there are no such criteria.
All of this, of course, is utterly crushing for the design arguments which were popular in Hume's time, but utterly inconsequential to Thomistic and Neoplatonic metaphysics (of which Hume seemed to be, by and large, unaware; he quotes Plotinus in the work, but apparently without any real understanding of his doctrines.
I subscribe by and large to St. Thomas' conception of God. You will, I am sure, tell me that the fifth way is a design argument. I'll answer: "No, it isn't."
I completely agree with this. The particular arrangement of the universe tells us absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. In terms of the sciences, the question of God's existence only arises in metaphysics (in the Aristotelian sense).
If you've read Hume's work in question, I'm surprised you need even ask. Do you recall Hume's discussion of a "rational," "thinking" God, i.e., the sort of God who is a kind of "intellectual cosmos or universe"?
If the conception in question is Christian, Neoplatonic and/or Thomistic, then the assertion is meaningless. I believe in a God "who inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
The Catholic hymn "holy darkness" comes to mind.
I believe in a God, who for all intents and purposes, is silent with respect to us.
My assumption is that his beliefs were Catholic beliefs. :idunno:
You're equivocating. Christian doctrine is that God became man vis-a-vis the hypostatic union. In other words, Jesus Christ fully is God and fully is man. Thus, we can use the word "God" to supposit for (i.e., "stand for") the person of Jesus, i.e., the Divine Word, and say: "God is a man."
It doesn't anthropomorphize the divine nature (i.e., deity) itself. In other words, it doesn't make divinity into humanity.
Consult the ISIS thread (and if interested, consult St. Augustine's On the Usefulness of Belief (De Utilitate Credendi)). That's not really a fair assessment.
Connie writes:
Understandable. I'm a heterosexual libertarian Christian.
Well thank you.
You've been very useful on occasion, Connie. I expect you will continue to be, from time to time.
Understandable. I'm a heterosexual libertarian Christian.
Well thank you.
You've been very useful on occasion, Connie. I expect you will continue to be, from time to time.
I felt better about myself because those who I disagree with on just about everything also had a big problem with you
so
how would you go about explaining that?
the best explanation I can come up with is you argue around the edges
so
it is impossible to pin you down
and
I don't see you as an honest person
Still yet, on his very worst day, he's 10 times more honest than you are ...
I don't think that's a good way to base one's self-esteem.
Probably because my opinions tend to not fit any particular agenda but my own. So I have disagreements with most people on something or other.
Don't know what that means. Maybe because my opinions don't match up exactly with the "sides" you've marked off?
I suppose it's hard to put me in a category. On abortion, maybe, but I'm just not an extremist by nature. So pretty much any position I take is going to be moderate, not extreme. "On the edges." I guess the closest thing to that concept in your party is "RINO."
I've heard the same thing from doctrinaire leftists. Not so much from moderates, though.
If you think about it, you might figure out why.
alwight
New member
Ah! the aCW Seal of Disapproval, well done Barbarian! :first:
Yep. The nicest thing he could do for me.