Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
And a trillion years ago is was nothing.
Sort of like getting slapped with a Man-Bag er, purse.
Quoting: "I don't know HOW He did it, but I think it's so."
Ahh, the ever-present-but-unseen argument.
This argument is not allowed when students flunk engineering exams. Bridges have to hold up according to secular science, and you are not allowed to use God or fairies in your analysis.
Good thing, too.
But, I'm not USING it as an argument.
Many bridges have been built NOT using science, but seat-of-the-pants knowledge of strength of materials available.
NO bridge will 'hold up' if too much load is on it.
[i]Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.[/i]
This did not occur without design and planning. This infrastructure occured due to smaller scale planning and desgin of private organization and individuals. The basic laws of commerce also acted as "designers" for this system.
I think there is plenty of wisdom in the bible. The same goes for Atlas Shrugged. I just think both of them have to be taken as "inspired" books, and not "infallible."
Jesus himself took parts of what are now the bible with a grain of salt. Remember the woman taken in adultery?
parsy, the holy.
Too many posts to scroll through. Gotta let it go.
I would've loved to throw in some puns if any had been suitable.
Cheers!
If the urges are simply dispersal of seminal fluid, Bob can just wank off every so often.
What you're doing in that story -- don't know if you hold it as a general principle -- is equating happiness to sexual fulfillment; and suggesting that doing the right thing never involves suffering, either your own or others'.
Try reading Rush Limbaugh's piece on the suffering of those who signed the Declaration of Independence...
Even their families were miserable afterwords; including one whose son was starved to death in prison.
Did they do the right thing?
Full Disclosure: In other words, sometimes one is in a situation where no matter WHAT you do, people suffer. And to make it worse, you don't know for sure in advance what that suffering will be. Your story is a strawman.
If anything I'd argue an atheist or agnostic who is a deeply moral and ethical person in his actions is more impressive than a religious person who is equally deeply moral and ethical person in their actions but is doing so because they're expecting a post-death reward or avoiding a post-death punishment.
Impressive to you. But maybe not to God ;-) Which is precisely the point many Christians would make; but not all religious people.
But your last sentence interests me. Why are you assuming so many religious people are motivated by fear of punishment or for rewards? King David (try reading the Psalms) talks as if he were motivated by loyalty to God and love of God; you can find similar sentiments in many New Testament writings...
Full Disclosure: ...I've not forgotten about those 72 Virginians we keep hearing about ? KABOOM! :-( Cheers!
How is this possible?
Bullwinkle knows, but even Boris and Natasha couldn't get him to talk.
Cheers!
Gotta go read real work and do my sit ups!
What you're doing in that story -- don't know if you hold it as a general principle -- is equating happiness to sexual fulfillment; and suggesting that doing the right thing never involves suffering, either your own or others'.
No. As I remember I was trying to illustarte how a blind adherence to the words in the bible can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering. I think that they do. Sadly, the alternative often leads to suffering also. I think you have to weigh out the suffering. If you accept literal meaning, you are deprived of this choice.
parsy, who suffers from a lot of stuff
Well I agree with that.
I think you have to weigh out the suffering. If you accept literal meaning, you are deprived of this choice.
But obedience to scripture could also prevent other problems: if all homosexuals had just engaged in celibacy, or at worst, masturbation, we'd have no Michael Jackson or Catholic priest molestation trials, and MUCH less AIDS.
The problem here is that our society is so radically
[ even fundamentally, perhaps? ;-) ] different from the all kinds of strictures in the Bible, that it's hard to make realistic comparisons. What would happen if the 10th commandment (thou shalt not covet) were enforced? Poof, there goes the luxury car market :-) ...
But still, your response is more thoughtful and respectful than many posts from those questioning or challenging religious truths or doctrines...
Cheers!
The way in which the theme of liberty is portrayed in the Christian Bible—through the concepts of salvation, free will, the opportunity to choose good over evil—is indeed unique.
And “liberty as a woman,” from the link you give, describes another concept central to the Christian Bible. The ultimate form of liberty. Liberty as freedom from sin, the liberty of our Blessed Virgin Mary.
Thank you for the nice comments. I do not disrespect the bible even if I do not believe it word for word. I do not believe that this universe or life just happened by accident. I just can't make the jump from that belief to creationism, per se.
parsy, who sometimes doesn't leap.
Careful now, parsifal. We don't want any outbreaks of goodwill and mutual respect on crevo threads, do we? ;-)
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.