Imperefct God

[Immanuel Can]

Is it not the case that the good person takes up the good cause?

sure in a black white world - but sadly we have a gray one

Not "gray," just "immoral."

But if a person chooses simply to remain neutral in the face of evil, doesn't that tell you that they are amoral,

sometims maybe,

Actually, it's pretty much the definition of "amoral."

I personally think most folsk that do evil are good

I personally think that's nuts. People are revealed by their deeds. A good man does what is good; a person who does evil is definitionally evil, especially if so far gone that he's too evil even to realize he is evil.

[Immanuel Can]

if you cca;t square that box its your prob not mine.

Quite the opposite. Evolutionism is, perhaps, your creed; it is not problem to me, unless you practice it on me, which I would not permit anyway. The fact that you live with an ideology you don't believe in enough to practice doesn't change the price of bread where I live.

But I do think it's a bad idea.

[gaffo]

have you ever seen the 70's movie The Duelists

No, but I've been meaning to. I like Ridley Scott movies.

I love Alien for the perfect Creature Feature - but The Duelists might be better - its all about the nature o fHonour (and its abuse by Kitel - for person ego (hat the upper middle class - a blue collar wiht "issues) Richard Carradine (I think i said Rob before - my appolozis to Rich for that) - plays just a good guy who finds himself in the crosshairs of Kital - the fud lasts for a decade.

in fights its fully 50/50 - and when Carradine has a chang to ride him of Kitel - when finding Litel was on the death list - makes moves to remove him from that list (out of honour) - kitel then - not knowing he was on the death list nor Carradine removed him from it - reususe his pigheaded assult to re-dual - and they do.


i love the monolog at the edn. it desmantles Kitels as a man per the rule of honour - without killing him. Carradine remains honouralbe and spare kitls life, wheil kitel is suspects learns nothing (but you can't fix broken folk - all you cna do is not kill then if you don't hav to).

it might be Scotts bst movie per "thinking" about stuff - nature of honour and the men that claim to follow it/etc............and it is beautafully shot, up there with Larence of Arabia in cenematigraphy. i have the spainish bluray - not sure if americans have it or not - i bought the sapn one 7 yrs ago and remvoed the region code via FABblu via my PC.

[gaffo]

if you cca;t square that box its your prob not mine.

Quite the opposite. Evolutionism is, perhaps, your creed; it is not problem to me, unless you practice it on me, which I would not permit anyway. The fact that you live with an ideology you don't believe in enough to practice doesn't change the price of bread where I live.

But I do think it's a bad idea.

I don't plan on precticing uegenics anytime soon so i think we can agree and here and not part company /.

[gaffo]

Well, he was a Catholic Inquisitor, actually. But he has nothing to do with Christ, or with me.

why so defensive?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if you regard Torquemada as a "Christian," you've obviously got the story wrong. He was no such thing.

he claimed to be - so in your camp not mine.

if you want to argue how many angles fit on the head o fa pin - do so with other Chrsitians. for me outside of your camp - both he and you are Christians.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't plan on precticing uegenics anytime soon so i think we can agree and here and not part company /.

I hope not. And knowing what little I know about you, I don't expect you would.

But the problem remains. Because from an Evolutionist perspective, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't advocate eugenics, and every reason why you would, if you were wanting to advance that version of the world. You should be ruthless in applying "survival of the fittest" to the human situation: and eugenics in things like the breeding of horses, dogs and other animals has been so obviously successful in producing desired changes in the gene pool, it must be horribly tempting to think you could do the same with humans.

And if there's no God to tell you that's wicked, even if it's something you could do, then there's also no reason why you wouldn't just do whatever is most successful, and whatever is most commensurate with the ideology of Evolutionism...no matter how traditionally "evil" it might be.

So we might part without unkindness here; but I would remain concerned about that ideology. Because sooner or later, these ideologies that people believe seem to end up getting practiced...by somebody. And Hitler was only one of the advocates of eugenics.

[Immanuel Can]

why so defensive?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if you regard Torquemada as a "Christian," you've obviously got the story wrong. He was no such thing.

he claimed to be - so in your camp not mine.

Not mine. And I say so on the authority of no less a Person than Jesus Christ Himself. Nothing He taught gave Torquemada the right to do what he did, and then to call it "Christian." In fact, Christ put the lie to such a claim.

The idea that all somebody has to do is "claim" something in order to "be" it has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[gaffo]

I don't plan on precticing uegenics anytime soon so i think we can agree and here and not part company /.

I hope not. And knowing what little I know about you, I don't expect you would.

But the problem remains. Because from an Evolutionist perspective, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't advocate eugenics, and every reason why you would, if you were wanting to advance that version of the world. You should be ruthless in applying "survival of the fittest" to the human situation: and eugenics in things like the breeding of horses, dogs and other animals has been so obviously successful in producing desired changes in the gene pool, it must be horribly tempting to think you could do the same with humans.

And if there's no God to tell you that's wicked, even if it's something you could do, then there's also no reason why you wouldn't just do whatever is most successful, and whatever is most commensurate with the ideology of Evolutionism...no matter how traditionally "evil" it might be.

So we might part without unkindness here; but I would remain concerned about that ideology. Because sooner or later, these ideologies that people believe seem to end up getting practiced...by somebody. And Hitler was only one of the advocates of eugenics.

I listen to my inner vioce - my conscience - and if God gave me that as an Atheist, great - or if via evolution equally geat - i hav it ither way. thank your God.

[gaffo]

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if you regard Torquemada as a "Christian," you've obviously got the story wrong. He was no such thing.

he claimed to be - so in your camp not mine.

Not mine. And I say so on the authority of no less a Person than Jesus Christ Himself. Nothing He taught gave Torquemada the right to do what he did, and then to call it "Christian." In fact, Christ put the lie to such a claim.

The idea that all somebody has to do is "claim" something in order to "be" it has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

happans all the time Pol Pot was a Buddist.

you can find million of killers from all Faiths - all prim and proper "orthodox" doing the killing in thier gods names.........throughout history.

you cna just deny they were "Real" theists all you want - but you just look foolish when you do - History shows this much.

[Immanuel Can]

I listen to my inner vioce - my conscience - and if God gave me that as an Atheist, great - or if via evolution equally geat - i hav it ither way. thank your God.

Well, I agree...God gave all men (and women) a conscience. They know what's right and wrong, even when they pretend they don't. And any ideology, even Evolutionism, is not able to shut that down completely. Unfortunately, it can cripple and warp it, in those who respond to their ideology instead of to conscience. And yes, I'm very glad some people don't do that.

[Immanuel Can]

you cna just deny they were "Real" theists all you want

I don't have to. Christ denies that they are His. I just take His word for that.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can , if God gave each man a conscience, He also gave each man reason.

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel Can , if God gave each man a conscience, He also gave each man reason.

He’s bluffing again. There is no sentient creature who is conscientious.

Sentient organisms are endowed with natural forming automatic senses. A tool used to propel the organism along the evolutionary trail. Many organisms have died along the way, just so that the organism known as the human body was able to be here at all.

For every sentient creature that is alive today, there is an automatic reflex to avoid the “ouch” that is sensed as pain. No God is involved in that automatic reflexive action.
As a sentient sensing organism, it’s automatically known that pain is bad and must therefore be avoided. As a sentient sensing organism, it’s automatically known that the natural avoidance of a bad situation results in an ideal situation, namely good. In reality sentient sensing organisms spend their fleeting allotted time here on earth, avoiding the bad situations, namely the pain of experiencing what it is like to be sensing living reflexive sentient organism.



No God is involved in what is natures automatic knowing that the absence of a bad situation is a good one, this is just nature’s natural intelligence. She makes no claim of personal ownership or authority. Only men of the cloth do that, those fictional characters seen as images in a holy book. Images in the form of symbols and people, they identify with them in their desperate need to know themselves. They basically look at an empty image of Jesus and call that “me”….humans are insanely deluded.



In reality, nothing needs to know itself, knowing doesn’t know it knows. How could it, nature is never personal.

Nature can spawn you into existence, give you cancer at two years old and watch you die without ever batting an eyelash, no, she’s definitely not personal.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can , if God gave each man a conscience, He also gave each man reason.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. A mentally-challenged person can still have a conscience. But if we are modest in what we mean by "reason," then I'd say you could argue that.

What do you make from that observation?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can , if God gave each man a conscience, He also gave each man reason.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. A mentally-challenged person can still have a conscience. But if we are modest in what we mean by "reason," then I'd say you could argue that.

What do you make from that observation?

The acquiring of what you call a conscience has been dealt with by several theories of children's age related moral development.
Adult men and women have been brutalised so that they no longer have consciences appropriate to adults.
Both moral conscience and reasoning ability are age related and neither will thrive unless the growing child learns from his significant adults. This is why the Christening ceremony welcomes the baby into the cultural fold of the church, so that the baby has a wider community to nurture his growing conscience and reason.