------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

Secular humanism is distinguished from the broader category of humanism in that the secular humanist prefers free inquiry over dogmatic wisdom—upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting revealed knowledge and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith. Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, objectivists, rationalists, skeptics and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists and Confucians.

Its basic tenets may be simplified as:

* Humans have value and can solve human problems;
* Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together;
* There is nothing supernatural.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I know Wikipedia is a unreliable source but I have not got the time to research this topic as I am in the process of downloading Mandrake.

By the looks of it I feel as I fall under this category.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

If so, yes. The people who lead the country will control it based on their beliefs. It has always been ran that way.

Since USA is democracy the people do have the power to change things, and the more Seculars your have will result in the country being lead that way.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

[This message has been edited by jaykay (edited November 03, 2005).]

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

As for Seculars if you read my other post it mentions:

* Humans have value and can solve human problems;
* Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together;
* There is nothing supernatural.

Those are the reasons why they have this "hostility" towards morals.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

and read it. My intent is just to shed some light though it isn't mine, I just feel led to do so.
In Christ,
Valkyri

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

God made the world, the stories in the bible.

i can argue further, but im just plumb tired!

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

Also im not tired yet. Just got out of class.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

quote:

---

If it is aimed at me I have no hostility towards morals other than it prevents progress.

---

Quite the contrary. Without any form of morals whatsoever, anarchy would rule, and corruption would be a million times worse.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited November 04, 2005).]

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Off topic:

Where in the bible does it say playing violent video games is bad? Now I know it wont say it that clear cut, but is there something relating to it? Like thinking evil thoughts and what not? A friend is wondering and it has sparked a hot debate.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

quote:

---

Morals prevent progress becuase as soon as someone researches or steps into a direction that the "morally superior" society finds offensive then it is restricted. Also, there is a differnce between right and wrong and morals.

---

This is not a fault of the general concept of morality, but rather specific instances. Also, the idea of progress is to be beneficial to mankind; if "progress" is immoral, then I question whether it is truly progress.

Also, there is a difference between morality and offensiveness.

quote:

---

Where in the bible does it say playing violent video games is bad?

---

From what I gather, it is not only actions athat are sinful, but thoughts as well.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
From what I gather, it is not only actions athat are sinful, but thoughts as well.

---

Yes lustful and other bad thoughts are sin.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
(Colossians 3:5, KJV)

I'd say actions are worse but thoughts lead to actions. Jesus also teached that adultery can be committed in heart.

------------------
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. - Ecc 7:5

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW]

Progress is always progress even if it is not morally correct. Such as the whole stim cell research started. That will surely start another line of research that will make even more progress. And for certain instances of progress that get hindered by morals. Well obviously becuase not every form of research is going to offend people.

As for gaming violence being wrong I suppose if your doing the actions in game you are obvious thinking about those actions so it is wrong.

Who would see it that way? All Christians or just the hardcore Christians?

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jaykay:

As for gaming violence being wrong I suppose if your doing the actions in game you are obvious thinking about those actions so it is wrong.

Who would see it that way? All Christians or just the hardcore Christians?

---

That's the way I see it. But what do you mean by hardcore Christian?

------------------
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. - Ecc 7:5

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW]

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

quote:

---

Such as the whole stim cell research started.

---

First of all, it's stem cell research.

Secondly, using aborted fetuses is not required. In fact, despite the supposed potential of fetal stem cells, most of the real progress so far has been with adult stem cells (bone marrow, umbilical cord cells). In addition, there's been promising progress that may allow us to use stem cells without having to use aborted fetuses.

IMHO, the whole stem cell thing is mostly a media blitz to give morals a bad rep.

Lastly, should we really be willing to ignore morals for the sake of progress? If full grown adults needed to be killed for the sake of progress, should we do it?

Is "progress" really something that should be pursued at all costs? If so, why?

quote:

---

Well I know some christians who cuss, smoke, and have sex.

---

Cussing is a grey area somewhat - it's based mostly upon the idea that many cuss words misuse God's name, although that is admitedly a weak premise (many cuss words have nothing to do with God).

IMHO, cussing is simply poor use of the English language anyways, so I discourage its use.

Smoking - again, it's based loosely upon certain verses (forget which ones).

Sex? Well, nobody would have children without it . The Bible doesn't really condemn it - it just places some limitations on it. In fact, once somebody's married, there's almost no limitations on sex with one's spouse.

In the end, though, the Bible isn't just about a bunch of rules. The Bible is about salvation. People who are caught up in all the rules and regulations are making the same mistakes Pharisees made - failing to see the big picture, and instead getting all caught up in details.

quote:

---

Also hardcore Christians IMO do not do anything wrong.

---

More stereotypical than "hardcore" - the Bible says fairly clearly that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Somebody who's really hardcore with the Bible would know that.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited November 05, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
More stereotypical than "hardcore" - the Bible says fairly clearly that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Somebody who's really hardcore with the Bible would know that.

---

Yeah but I think jaykay means Christian who think they can continue sinning all they want since their sins are washed away.
Which is not the case because we are called to repentance and our old man is crucified with Him:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
(Romans 6:6, KJV)

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(Hebrews 10:26, KJV)

Because:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(John 8:34, KJV)

And no one can serve two masters.

And there is sin that is unto death and sin that is not unto death:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
(I John 5:16, KJV)

And I'd say cussing is bad and saying God's name in vain is bad:

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
(Matthew 15:18-19, KJV)

Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
(James 3:5-6, KJV)

Who told Adam and eve that they were naked? And who told people to cuss?
Why does people yell Lord's name in anger?

Think about it... and pray about it.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
(Hebrews 12:14-15, KJV)

God bless.

------------------
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. - Ecc 7:5

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW]

[This message has been edited by jari (edited November 06, 2005).]

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

Christian humanism is founded upon the belief in God and the centrality of God.

Secular humanism is founded upon the belief that there is no God and the centrality of Man.

As a result of this foundational difference virtually every aspect of the two systems is different, despite the fact that some of the principles seem similar.

For example, both systems believe in the value of "free inquiry" and freedom to question conventional wisdom.

Yet Christian humanism recognizes the concept of revealed knowledge, the idea of absolutes, and the idea of self evident knowledged. Christian humanism bases its application of reason and logic upon revealed principles and self evident absolute principles.

Secular humanism does not allow for revealed knowledge, absolutes, or the idea of self evident knowledge. Secular humanism demands that in order to be accepted as true something must be provable, thus it can not validly base its own reasonings and logic upon either revealed knowledge or self evident knowledge, this then leads to the denial of absolutes in the moral/ethical arena.

Now.. the problem here is that secular humanism is full of assumptions that must be taken to be either revealed or self evident knowledge. The very idea that you must be able to prove something in order for it to be a valid belief is unprovable thus it must be accepted as a self evident fact, or revealed knowledge. It must also be accepted as an absolute.. something the vast majority of humanists absolutely deny

Look at the three basic tenets of secular humanism listed in wikipedia
*humans have value
*science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together
*There is nothing supernatural

Two out of the three are completely impossible to prove and must be either held to simply be self evident truths, or must be held to be revealed knowledge. (which in the end are essentially the same thing).

Secular humanism denies dogmatic wisdom... yet its own core of doctrine is dogmatic, because it can't be reasonably proven by logical argument.

The wikipedia definition states that secular humanism does not necessarily deny faith.. yet this again is contradictory to the rest of their assertions. I would argue that this is merely an inaccuracy on the part of the article, however. I have never yet met a true secular humanist (one who actively holds the philosophical view) who did not hold the idea of faith in complete derision.
Secular humanism places all of its value on the ability to prove its beliefs through reasonable, logical, and scientific inquiry. Faith is seen by the vast majority of humanists as the opposite of reason (a view in which they are mistaken incidentaly). But faith does undeniably fall into the catagory of revealed knowledge, or self evident knowledge.

Secular humanism holds a relativistic view of morality which, even by their own admission creates great problems for their ethical views. Humanists attempt to be ethical upholding such "virtues" as compassion etc.. yet their own belief system has no logical reason for those ethics, no proofs as to why they should be valued, and no way of demonstrating that those ethics are required. Again this simply forms a contradiction to the basic tenets of secular humanisms theories on knowledge and beliefs.
They deny God, deny theistic morality precisely on the grounds that God, and thus God's rules can not be proven. Yet they then turn around and advocate the necessity and superiority of ethical values which.... can not be proven.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

Who created the Big Bang?
Who created Humans?
What made atoms?
Why does God give free will to humans?
Why is there no proof of Adam and Eve?
How come Humans evovled from Apes(or is it monkeys)?
If Humans did evovle from Apes as there is proof then how did God create humans?
If I do not believe in God will I go to hell?
Is there a hell?

I do not want to go there over something as not believeing in God. You might say I have the fear of God, a person I do not totally believe in.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jaykay:
Okay so let me ask some things and you tell me if I am secular or christain.

Who created the Big Bang?
Who created Humans?
What made atoms?
Why does God give free will to humans?
Why is there no proof of Adam and Eve?
How come Humans evovled from Apes(or is it monkeys)?
If Humans did evovle from Apes as there is proof then how did God create humans?
If I do not believe in God will I go to hell?
Is there a hell?

I do not want to go there over something as not believeing in God. You might say I have the fear of God, a person I do not totally believe in.

---

well I wouldn't say you are either a secularist or a christian at this point.. I'd say it sounds like you haven't decided what you believe.

as for your questions

Who created the big bang... this is a fundamental question... Either the universe must have existed forever without beginning... or the universe had a beginning. Everything we currently know tells us that the universe did have a beginning and it is commonly referred to as the "big bang". If the universe had a beginning then the question becomes what began it. Everything we know about existance tells us that nothing simply pops into existance without a cause.. So if the universe had a beginning.. then there must have been something before the universe that caused the universe.. that something is God. Thus logic demands that there must be something that is eternal.. a necessary entity.. something that must exist eternally without beginning.. you have the option of believing that thing is either the universe... or God. So it comes down to, do you want to believe in eternal matter, or eternal God.

Whoever or whatever created the universe is responsible either directly or indirectly for everything in the universe.. thus based on the above question you must believe that either God created man.. or the universe created man.

What made atoms... see questions one and two.. either God did.. or the universe did.

Why does God give free will to humans do you have a few years to discuss this?

Why is there no proof of Adam and Eve.. Well exactly what kind of proof are you looking for... there is very little physical evidence remaining from entire civilizations that existed as little as a few thousand years ago... the chances of finding physical evidence of two people who lived at the beginning of time are almost as bad as the odds of random chance process of mutation giving rise to life out of nothing and then creating the diversity of life you see all around you...
As for genetic evidence... it is now believed by some geneticists that all of humanity can be traced back to as few as two or three female ancestors... as genetic knowledge increases it is entirely possible that they could push that down to one.. and then you'd have evidence of eve.

How come humans evolved from Apes... Humans didn't evolve from apes.
This is actually a popular misconception. Even in evolutionary theory it is not believed that Humans evolved from Apes. Rather it is believed by evolutionary theory that humans and apes have a common ancestor, which at one point was neither a human or an ape.. but something which no longer exists.

There is an extreme lack of physical evidence to back up the proposed evolution of the human species. Most of the specimens used to construct the chain of human evolution have either been discredited or simply have disappeared. The vast majority of fossil evidence of "early man" is of such a close nature to modern humanity that if you saw them alive and walking down the street you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and everyone else.

if you don't believe in God will you go to hell... If there is a God and there is a hell then yes probably.

Is there a hell.. I believe so, but I can't prove it to you.

If you like reasonable analysis of things consider this (pascals wager)

If you don't believe in God and are wrong.. you go to hell
If you don't believe in God and are right.. you simply cease to exist

If you believe in God and are wrong.. you simply cease to exist
If you believe in God and are right.. you go to heaven.

Thus.. the atheist is risking everything by being wrong to gain nothing if he is right..
while the theist is risking nothing if he is wrong, but stands to gain everything if he is right.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

Oh well, people have been accepting those scare-tactics at face value for several thousand years...

In any case, feel free to actually try to use some logic and reasoning rather than making an emotional appeal. Just accusing our views of being "scare tactics" doesn't disprove our beliefs, or prove yours.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

What is eternity, and if it truly exists is it worth it?

Again this is just to make yall think.

In Christ,
Valkyri

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

Yep, just try to leave the world a nicer place on your way out. People might not remember you after awhile, but hopefully you've fixed something or even started a chain reaction of 'goodness'!

I still think "good" and "bad" are as variable as the people who use them, so they are just labels, and don't really exist. However, if you ran over my family, I would still be very pissed, although it'd really just be atoms being re-arranged.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CheeseStorm:
Riiiight, a perfect being who finds it necessary to have his own creations tormented forever... simply for not believing in him.

---

You know how Adam and eve sinned and chose the wrong way because they desired that way more than God's way?
It's not simply about believing because even Satan knows God exists and he shudders, it's more like about what we love.

------------------
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. - Ecc 7:5

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW][Blog]

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

P.S. Shane's crawling and at 29 lbs and 31.5 in. now! Verrrrrrryyyy vocalllllllll too. He loves the feel of screaming in our hurting ears. lol

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

God created us for Him but He doesn't need us in anyway, but because of our free will God can show us the greatests love there is and His almighty being is proven in there, to say the least.

------------------
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. - Ecc 7:5

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW][Blog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CheeseStorm:
Yep, just try to leave the world a nicer place on your way out. People might not remember you after awhile, but hopefully you've fixed something or even started a chain reaction of 'goodness'!

I still think "good" and "bad" are as variable as the people who use them, so they are just labels, and don't really exist. However, if you ran over my family, I would still be very pissed, although it'd really just be atoms being re-arranged.

---

lol and this illustrates the internal contradictions and all around silliness of the relativistic position.

Just try to leave the world a better place... good is completely variable... ahem... good and better are just differing degrees of the same word. Thus if good is completely variable.. so is "better" thus the idea "leave the world a better place" is completely meaningless.

if you really believed this postion you could just as easily say that Hitler left the world a better place, as say mother theresa left the world a better place.

And that brings me to the point.. The relativistic position is completely hypocritical in 99% of the people who claim to hold it. (the other 1% being what most people would consider "insane"). In one breath you claim to believe that good is entirely variable depending on the person.. yet you have a concept of "better" that you inherently expect everyone else to share. If you didn't expect other people to share your idea of "better" there would be no point in using the word.. you might as well say "I just try and leave the world a gleep place when I leave" because it would have the same amount of meaning.

Your very arguments and your very language reveal that, despite what you claim, you do believe that somethings are good and some are bad and you inherently expect others to know what your talking about, thus you expect them to have the same idea of good and bad.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

So, while still bound by emotions, the 'best' thing you could hope to do is make the world a 'better' place from your point of view (and hopefully it is a point of view shared by the people affected). The alternative is to go hardcore Buddhist and realize that the Self is an illusion, and then so too must be the labels which it uses... well that's my take on it. Sort of closer to Taoism I guess.

quote:

---

From a third-person point of view, I'd say there is still no 'better' or 'worse'.

---

It's not the "point of view" that makes a difference, but rather the definitions. We have "good" and "evil" because different things fit our definitions (or, in the case of the Christianity, God's definitions) of "good" and "evil."

quote:

---

Grr, emotions should be controlled by the user, not the other way around... Need to meditate more.

---

I know, refusing to accept the idea that "good" and "bad" can have meanings is a totally emotional response. You could try accepting the fact that words have definitions/meanings, it would make things a whole lot easier.

quote:

---

The alternative is to go hardcore Buddhist and realize that the Self is an illusion

---

Too bad it's irrelevent. You have to live, breathe, and respond to this world, and you are bound by the laws of physics no matter if this world is illusionary or not . Some silly Buddhist belief isn't going to change the nature of the world you live in, or the nature of the meanings of words.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Neither your acceptance or my refusal are totally emotional responses. We both have good points and are obviously putting some thought into expressing them.

Yes, we have to live, breathe, and respond to this world, and no, it's not (unless we're all brains in jars) an illusion. I'm not sure why you felt the need to point that out (I never claimed otherwise). Secondly, Buddhism is not intended to change the nature of the world you live in or the meanings of words, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Buddhism is simply about identifying the causes of suffering, which are desires and cravings. This does not mean that the solution is to become an emotionless robot. You are 'enlightened' after reaching the state of Nirvana - freedom from all desires. At this point, the illusion of the Self is realized, because it is the 'Self' that causes suffering through desire "I want that cake, all I have is this stupid bread!"

Surprisingly I'm still kind of on topic, because that freedom from Self would be the perfect third-person viewpoint, where nothing is good or bad, but simply is.

*edit* Just so you know, I'm definitely not a Buddhist, and don't believe in reincarnation or karma. Every religion has a few things I like and a few things I hate...

[This message has been edited by CheeseStorm (edited November 21, 2005).]

P.S. Please don't flame me lol

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valkyri:
Heres a scary thought but please don't shoot me for it, its just a thought, If God gave us free choice then that means we have freedom of choice and everything that entails. Sounds obvious but then would that not mean that if that is the case then in the school system all beliefs should be taught in some way or other? Not just creation and christian morals but also everything else. Think about it.

---

You mean it would be God's will to give choise and teach about religions? No I don't think so. Think about back in the beginning, God told adam and eve not to eat from the three of knowledge of good and evil but they had their free will and they ate.

------------------
And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: - Mar 11:9

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW][Blog]

[This message has been edited by jari (edited November 22, 2005).]

quote:

---

Heres a scary thought but please don't shoot me for it, its just a thought, If God gave us free choice then that means we have freedom of choice and everything that entails. Sounds obvious but then would that not mean that if that is the case then in the school system all beliefs should be taught in some way or other? Not just creation and christian morals but also everything else. Think about it.

---

I agree that we have freedom of choice, but just because we have that freedom, it doesn't make it right to promote or choose the wrong answer... I'm not sure if that's what you meant... I apologize if not!

------------------
Your love, O Lord, reaches to the heavens, your faithfulness to the skies.
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep.
O Lord , you preserve both man and beast.
How priceless is your unfailing love!

Clarity, clarity

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valkyri:
sighs and smiles, think a little more harder.

---

Hmm you mean that we wouldn't have free mind..?

------------------
And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: - Mar 11:9

string LordAndSaviour() { return "Jesus Christ"; } // [VoHW][Blog]

On topic:
When God gave us free will he doomed the ones that choose not to believe. I feel as I am being jipped. I want so hard to believe in "God" but the most I can come to is a greater power, god. Not the Christian "God", or any other religion god.

How do I come to find "God", the christian god?

As for valkryi, stop trying to make us think. You think for us, so we know what your talking about instead of us doing the brain work. It is very frustauting(spelling?) to be asked why over and over again to every day questions and answers. It is a fallacy to an argument as you know, or should of learned from our english teacher. Sorry to dawg you like this but I am standing and typing with jerkoffs bumping into my back. Much love bro.

------------------
You cannot prove God's existence by repeatedly asking why, but by looking around one can decide himself if he exists.

quote:

---

When God gave us free will he doomed the ones that choose not to believe. I feel as I am being jipped. I want so hard to believe in "God" but the most I can come to is a greater power, god. Not the Christian "God", or any other religion god.

How do I come to find "God", the christian god?

---

You said that you can come to know a greater power god. How does the greater power god stand up to everyday reality? How did you come to the knowledge of his existence? Perhaps cause he is very powerful, and intelligent enough to design this amazingly detailed universe, and even more amazingly detailed human beings? But does that have anything to do with us as persons? Or with the nature of our morality? Or with the strong sense of justice that we so naturally profess? It only addresses one thing. That there is a God out there who is very powerful, and He is our Creator. But most people don't like to deal with the other things, like right and wrong, good and evil... why is that?

You also said you want so hard to believe in God, in Jesus Christ. Now if that is so, then you must face yourself, and ask what it is that holds you back from putting your faith in Him. Most of the time, it's either lack of info, false info, or just refusal to believe... maybe you've never heard the gospel before?

The simple message of the gospel is that we have all sinned, we have broken God's law. Because of this, we stand guilty before Him. If you've ever lied before, that makes you a liar. God won't pretend that we haven't sinned, dismiss our wrong doing, and let us slide by. If He did then He would not be a Holy God. He would not be the absolute standard of goodness and justice. But since He is then He has to judge our sins. A time is appointed when God will judge every seen, and unseen sin of every person who has ever existed, and has rejected His plan of salvation.

Now 2,000 years ago, God sent His Son (Jesus) into this world to suffer, and die on the cross for the sins of mankind. If you believe in Him, if you believe that He died for your sins, and that He rose from the dead, then He will forgive and forget your sins, in His eyes you will be totally righteous. You will at that very moment cross over from death to life. You will be born-again, snatched from the devils hands and saved from the eternal agony and loneliness of hell.

If you are serious, then I'd suggest this. Read the gospel of John in the Bible. You must trust that God knows best, and trust in Him. He is dealing with you.

------------------
Your love, O Lord, reaches to the heavens, your faithfulness to the skies.
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep.
O Lord , you preserve both man and beast.
How priceless is your unfailing love!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jaykay:

How do I come to find "God", the christian god?

---

Before I found Jesus I believed that there is God, but I did not know anything about God (Probably in similar way as you think). I did not seek for God's kingdom, I merely thought that there is some one who sees everything and that He is good. That made me think twice about my actions and I tried to do the right thing and be good.
Well then on one day God opened my eyes.... I saw that I was a sinner and that I deserved to burn in hell... There was no other punishment great enough for my sins, it was the right judgement for me and I knew that.
So what had I done to deserve that? The greatest sin of them all... I had not lived my life loving God, but I had lived for my self.

Thank God He send His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to die for my sins for by He's precious blood I am saved!

Hear the word jaykay and you all.

[This message has been edited by jari (edited December 01, 2005).]

quote:

---

I think the point of view makes all the difference to the definitions.

---

You're groping for straws now. Sure, it's possible to have ambigious definitions, but it's also possible to have definitions that are clear. Right now, it seems you're afraid of clarity.

quote:

---

Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

---

Please explain.

quote:

---

The third-person is the clearest mindset because it's not contaminated by preferences, mood swings, etc.

---

Do you honestly believe your view is truly "third-person"?

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CheeseStorm:

Surprisingly I'm still kind of on topic, because that freedom from Self would be the perfect third-person viewpoint, where nothing is good or bad, but simply is.

---

Facinating idea.

"In passing, we should note this curious mark of our own age: the only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence that there is no absolute." -Francis Schaeffer

------------------
Ever wish you could take a glance at nature's source code?

I'm neither "groping for straws" nor "afraid of clarity". I've simplified my room down to a desk, a bed, and a closet of clothes, I deepen my meditation almost daily, and my end-goal is to know as much as I can. If I was afraid of clarity, hell, I could just join any number of religions that uses angels and godly powers to "explain" everything.

And I'm definitely not in a third-person point of view. Something as stupid as one of my CD's breaking will set me off. Enlightenment would be sweet but I'd settle for some better control. Happy people make more happy people. Being happy for no reason must be true happiness.

quote:

---

The definitions vary from the point of view.

---

In some cases, yes. However, that does not mean we cannot understand each other. With good definitions, we can keep the misunderstandings to a minimum.

quote:

---

People have disagreements.

---

This is true. This is also a broad statement, and doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

quote:

---

This is why I said "Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

---

The existence of a discussion does not prove anything about the argument.

quote:

---

I've simplified my room down to a desk, a bed, and a closet of clothes, I deepen my meditation almost daily, and my end-goal is to know as much as I can.

---

That's nice. It's also irrelevent. Perhaps if we were disussing relaxation and meditation techniques, that information could be useful, but I fail to see how it's useful to the current discussion.

quote:

---

If I was afraid of clarity, hell, I could just join any number of religions that uses angels and godly powers to "explain" everything.

---

Or you could do what you're doing right now . It's nice to know you're aware of different ways to avoid clarity.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Sooo you think we'd still be having this argument if we agreed about what we're arguing about...?

You talked about clarity and I. Meditation clears your mind. Sounds pretty relevant.

A good example of how the labels we use have no real meaning is the cryptogram (you switch around letters of the alphabet). If you use the same code, it makes sense. We could replace the number 1 with a picture of a chimp eating a sandwich, and it'd still make sense if we used that system. We use words to describe reality but they're not needed to experience it. The words themselves can be anything; they have no inherent meaning.

quote:

---

Sooo you think we'd still be having this argument if we agreed about what we're arguing about...?

---

Actually, I've seen it happen. I've seen people who will say the same thing in different ways and think they disagree with each other.

But I don't think that's what's happening here.

quote:

---

You talked about clarity and I. Meditation clears your mind. Sounds pretty relevant.

---

I'm talking clarity as in you know what the argument is and how to discuss it. I am not talking about clearing your mind.

quote:

---

A good example of how the labels we use have no real meaning is . . .

---

Is not what I am attempting to refute. I am not saying that words can't have multiple or ambiguous meanings. I am saying that we can agree on a single meaning if we so desire. See the difference?

quote:

---

The words themselves can be anything; they have no inherent meaning.

---

Words have meaning because we define them. Without definitions, you'd best not drive on any of our roads, as you may decide that road signs, stop lights, etc have no meaning - with results that may end up getting you a ticket (or worse).

You are, in essense, telling me there is no such thing as language.

Back to the subject: We have "good" and "evil" because different things fit our definitions (or, in the case of the Christianity, God's definitions) of "good" and "evil."

Therefore, as long as I (or God) can define "good" and "evil" and distinguish between them, I can indeed claim that they exist.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

I'm definitely not saying we should give up money and try trading 3.5 chickens for 1.5 pigs or have this same discussion without using a language. As long as we all agree on the same system, things work well. Like you said though, WE define them... we could give them any meaning we wanted, so they don't have any meaning by themselves. Our labels mean nothing - I'm not saying that's bad, it's just how it is.

Your road scenario is great. The red light might not have any meaning - why not use purple, or a ham sandwich? But in this system we'd better not ignore it.

quote:

---

Your road scenario is great. The red light might not have any meaning - why not use purple, or a ham sandwich? But in this system we'd better not ignore it.

---

i can just picture that, cars stopping at the intersection, getting out of their cars, climbing poles, trying to get a bite of the ham sandwitch..

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"