Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution
EDGE -- World Question Center ^ | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 10/20/2006 8:52:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-256 next last
To: cornelis
"And yet, why must [genetically modifying non-human organisms by giving them human genes, or creating human-animal chimeras or hybrids] be inevitably immoral?"

Humans are, properly, a different and higher moral class than non-rational animals because we have the kind of consciousness that makes us morally responsible for our actions.

It is impossible for anyone to continuously exhibit the consciousness which makes us at once transcendent and rational and moral, and so we impute rights and responsibilities to others simply because they are like us (others of the same species, others with the same nature.)

If we brought into being quasi-human entitites which might or might not be truly persons, we would have to test each one to see if it (or he or she) were in the human community, or not. And this is impossible, because the required consciousness does not manifest itself unambiguously and continuously. It's not easily or perfectly testable.

The result would be, not to elevate new entitites to the human status, but to destroy the foundation for human identity and dignity, and thus degrade all.

I realize that every sentence I have written could be expanded into a paragraph or a chapter; and that each will be disputed by people who lack either the ability or the inclination to read paragraphs and chapters.

So, here's my shorthand argument: Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") and C.S. Lewis ("The Abolition of Man") ought to be attended to carefully by anyone who want to think through the new humanism issues (post-, quasi-, and trans-humanism).

It encourages me that Huxley was an agnostic (though "mescaline mystic" or "humanist dystopian" comes closer to his belief); and Lewis a pagan-turned-orthodox-Christian; it makes me think that the pro-human-dignity argument really is universal, ultimately affirmed both by natural law and religious insight.

Excuse my rambling. Nuff said.

151 posted on 10/25/2006 10:54:06 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Mammalia Primatia Hominidae Homo sapiens. Still working on the "sapiens" part.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
[ A big bang is just as possible as a Universe that always was. To ask what caused the bang is a good start at forming a hypothesis. ]

True.. The big bang however is a meme of Hinduism... not Judeo-Christian thought..

152 posted on 10/25/2006 10:54:34 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The premise of first cause arguments are well supported by observations and mathematical deduction made in 21st century:

The Nobel committee cited their work especially for lending further confirmation of the big bang model, and for refining the age of the universe. The universe has an age because it had a beginning: Thus the universe is not eternal.


Backing up to a point in time where the entropy of the entire universe was 0 (and the corresponding theoritical end "heat death" is a possible final state of the universe, where the entire universe has reached maximum entropy) is another well supported by observations/mathematical deduction made in 21st century which demonstates that the universe had a beginning, as the change in entropy of the entire universe is always positive dS/dt >= 0 if the entire universe is considered an isolated system. Entroy being negative is perhaps more far-fetched then imaginary time.

In the beginning, the entire universe was not an isolated system, it was open as God the first cause of thermodynamic order exported thermodynamic order aross the boundary.
153 posted on 10/25/2006 10:55:53 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; Alamo-Girl; A. Pole; hosepipe; FreedomProtector; marron; Quix; metmom
If we reserve the concept of eternity belonging strictly to the divine and only divine ... then the concept of eternal life as belonging to human beings suggests to us a possible secondary meaning of eternal. For the Platonist, a metaxy is necessary in a universe of plurality.

Thanks for elaborating, cornelis. It appears to me that the metaxy is some sort of juncture (if I might put it that way) between the human being as a work of becoming in time, and his true being in (timeless) Eternity -- an intersection between time and timelessness of which a human being can become aware. Still, this does not put God "in" the spatiotemporal order. Were this to happen, God would be reduced to a work of becoming. Moreover, if God were "in" time and space, then the metaxy would collapse.... (I think maybe Hegel was fiddling with this very idea.)

or so it seems to me. What do you think?

154 posted on 10/25/2006 11:00:52 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe
...calling them *heaven* and *hell* will only incur the mockery and disdain of the enlightened scientific elite. Better to call them *alternate universes* or *alternate dimensions* if you are going to believe in others than ours to at least give it the cloak of respectability.

Interesting, metmom! I hadn't thought of heaven and hell as alternate universes. But it makes sense. And it seems they would be unknowable from our side of the spatiotemporal divide (if i might call it that) except for divine revelation....

Thanks so much for the fascinating suggestion!

155 posted on 10/25/2006 11:04:41 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Thank you for your important reply!
156 posted on 10/25/2006 11:06:50 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
[ One correction: the Eternity does not mean infinite time. ]

Eternity makes time irrelevant but not timing..
Timing is composed of the moment and is creative..

157 posted on 10/25/2006 11:08:04 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; cornelis
[ if God were "in" time and space, then the metaxy would collapse.... ]

thats Heavy...

158 posted on 10/25/2006 11:12:02 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; A. Pole
What do you think?

I think that there are several related questions and that they should be kept distinct and treated in some kind of order:

(a) eternity
(b) eternity in space and time (aeon is created)
(c) eternity as a strictly divine property (aeon as uncreated)
(d) eternity as a human property (created or uncreated?
(e) metaxy, or the human participation in divine properties
(f) metaxy, or the divine participation of human properties

I don't think the question for (e) and (f) will yield identical answers. But this is too quick a reply for a big topic. I just wanted to remark on the other meanings of aeon for A. Pole--I'm off now to bring my daughter to her violin lesson.

159 posted on 10/25/2006 11:16:59 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; metmom; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; cornelis; Whosoever
[ I hadn't thought of heaven and hell as alternate universes. ]

even elements of a Spiritual Dimension.. existing in tandem with this one(universe)..

160 posted on 10/25/2006 11:27:52 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much, FreedomProtector, for providing the details of Aquinas' arguments WRT to causation. He, of course, was a student of Aristotle (among other things).

The strength of Aquinas arguments WRT to causation was the reliance on Aristotle thought and Aristotelian logic. The reliance on Aristole to Aquinas writings as a whole was a weekness. Aquinas didn't expend much effort discrediting parts of Aristotelean thought which are invalid. In the years to follow, the teachings of Aristotle became elevated to that of scripture and orthodoxy. Although not writing something is not equivalent to cause, nor do I believe Aquinas elevated Arisotle to the level of scripture, this is one of the only criticisms of Aquinas which I believe has some validity.

thoughts?
161 posted on 10/25/2006 11:43:41 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
Most "scientists" don't really believe in science. To get to be a research scientist you have to follow the party line, which is one reason I became an engineer.
162 posted on 10/25/2006 12:01:21 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem; betty boop
Thank you so much for your reply!

To respond to your radioactive decay assertion, we'll need to clear up the difference between the terms randomness, unpredictability and pseudorandomness (unpredictability as the effect of a cause.) If you are game, let me know.

LaPlace actually threw a lot of fuel on the Deist (also strong determinist and predestination) fire by declaring God as an unnecessary hypothesis for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Newton did not hold that view - nor was that the intent of Liebnitz' questions "why does it exist" and "why does it exist this way and not some other way."

163 posted on 10/25/2006 12:22:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Does eternal life remain on this side of eternity?

Hard question. I will venture a tentative opinion.

Perhaps both. Since men are created as temporal physical beings and their individual nature is not going to be erased, then their life after death will retain some time aspect.

But because if saved they will contemplate the eternal Glory of God and share in His eternal Bliss and also because the human nature was united with the divine through the Incarnation, they will have link to Eternity as well.

Either way, I would rely on the words of Saint Paul who said: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1Cor:2:9) and "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1Cor:13:12)

164 posted on 10/25/2006 12:22:54 PM PDT by A. Pole (Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: outdriving
I don't get this whole debate

Me neither. He should have stuck to doing Family Feud

165 posted on 10/25/2006 12:24:07 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (If you dont vote on election day, then who are you electing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What an outstanding essay-post, betty boop! Thank you!

Lastly, the machine analogy for living beings works superficially, but quickly falls apart on closer inspection. Two points here: (1) machines are fully subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but living systems (to be living) are able to work against it (at least during their lifetimes); and (2) living systems are able to alter their paths away from the paths predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the laws of physics. That is, they are not completely causally determined; but the same cannot be said of a machine. All it can do is execute its program.

Just because it needs to be repeated...

166 posted on 10/25/2006 12:24:11 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Thank you so very much for your encouragements!
167 posted on 10/25/2006 12:25:12 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

>>When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. <<

Wow! I mean, WOW!

I guess it is true about "book learnin' vs. common sense.

Let me know when you get a computer endowed with a free will.


168 posted on 10/25/2006 12:26:39 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; betty boop; A. Pole; hosepipe; FreedomProtector
Thank you all so much for this fascinating sidebar on the nature of time!

If I may, I'd like to add one distinction for your consideration - that is the difference between infinite time and timelessness.

It is roughly the same difference between zero and null.

God precedes "all that there is" both spiritual and physical (Col 1).

He is the existence which is ("I AM that I am") and is therefore uncaused and relevant to this discussion exists in not just zero dimensions, but no dimensions: no time, no space, no energy, no matter, no physical causation, no thing.

OTOH, infinite time is time without boundaries. It is thingly, dimensional.

We Christians usually speak of infinite time when we talk of eternity, but per Col 3:3 - we are actually alive in timelessness, with Christ in God the Father, even while yet in the flesh. That is the Spiritual leaning I have - the awareness I experience, my testimony on the matter.

169 posted on 10/25/2006 12:35:04 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Thank you so very much for your encouragements and for your excellent research above and for sharing your insights.
170 posted on 10/25/2006 12:36:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did.

That's justice. You murder another human being, you pay with your own.

Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour.

I'm anxious to read the rest of this thread and see if any evols comment negatively about Dawkins attempt to blend his moral views with science.

171 posted on 10/25/2006 12:41:29 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
To get to be a research scientist you have to follow the party line

Shhh! Evols get all upset when you point out that the scientific community is affected by politics.

172 posted on 10/25/2006 12:45:03 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Aquinas didn't expend much effort discrediting parts of Aristotelean thought which are invalid. In the years to follow, the teachings of Aristotle became elevated to that of scripture and orthodoxy. Although not writing something is not equivalent to cause, nor do I believe Aquinas elevated Arisotle to the level of scripture, this is one of the only criticisms of Aquinas which I believe has some validity.

I've heard this criticism of Aquinas and the allegation that Aristotle had been elevated to the status of scripture and orthodoxy, FreedomProtector. I can agree with the first part; yet I can't say I've seen any evidence to support the second assertion. So much is "in the eye of the beholder," I gather.

Thank you for your wonderful contributions to this discussion!

173 posted on 10/25/2006 12:55:58 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; wideawake
But . . . but I thought that replacing G-d with Darwinian evolution would leave all our morality in place! What about all those atheist FReepers who have been crowing that society will still have to cage people like animals and fry them in the electric chair because "ve must have order"? I thought only a "religious fanatic" would connect G-d to morality!!! [/sarcasm]

I still say that Dawkins wouldn't be nearly as brazen with "indigenous pipples" and their quaint (and totally valid!), non-western worldviews. It's easy to push redneck American Protestants around, but that's because Dawkins and his ilk (including those here on FR) are cowards and bullies. But of course they know that already.

And btw, in the absence of G-d, "the truth" has no moral superiority whatsoever to falsehood, which means neither Darwinism nor scientism even justifies its own existence.

174 posted on 10/25/2006 12:56:41 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Elleh toledot Noach, Noach 'ish tzaddiq tamim hayah bedorotayv; 'et Ha'Eloqim hithallekh Noach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
But this is too quick a reply for a big topic.

Then I hope if you can find the leisure some time you'd consider fleshing out the topic for us. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

175 posted on 10/25/2006 12:58:00 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

If I understand the point of this gibberish, I suppose he is correct..IF..you accept his premise that man is skin sack of bio-chemicals that were configured into a system as the result of time and chance.

The problem with his silly analysis is that in a "scientific, mechanistic view" of man's being you cannot define anybody as a "faulty unit" as there is no objective basis for the definition. If, for example, I want to kill Richard Dawkins, drag his family off as slaves and take his stuff, he may view it as faulty behavior but evolutionary science would view it a just another survival strategy that I undertake because it was hard wired into my brain by my Viking ancestors.


176 posted on 10/25/2006 1:01:25 PM PDT by Busywhiskers (Democrats delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Thanks. I thought you would have a thought on the matter. : )


177 posted on 10/25/2006 1:02:05 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?

I have no problem with regarding them as faulty units that need scrapping. Any useful parts can be harvested in the process.

178 posted on 10/25/2006 1:04:11 PM PDT by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I still say that Dawkins wouldn't be nearly as brazen with "indigenous pipples" and their quaint (and totally valid!), non-western worldviews. It's easy to push redneck American Protestants around, but that's because Dawkins and his ilk (including those here on FR) are cowards and bullies.

Hey, why would they want their heads to be chopped off?

179 posted on 10/25/2006 1:08:10 PM PDT by A. Pole (Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Busywhiskers
If, for example, I want to kill Richard Dawkins, drag his family off as slaves and take his stuff, he may view it as faulty behavior but evolutionary science would view it a just another survival strategy that I undertake because it was hard wired into my brain by my Viking ancestors.

Well said :)

180 posted on 10/25/2006 1:09:58 PM PDT by A. Pole (Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
I thought you would have a thought on the matter. : )

Wasn't much of one.... :^)

Thanks, FreedomProtector!

181 posted on 10/25/2006 1:30:51 PM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: metmom
.....will only incur the mockery and disdain of the enlightened scientific elite.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe..... For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 1 Cor 1:19-21,25

182 posted on 10/25/2006 1:39:26 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I'm anxious to read the rest of this thread and see if any evols comment negatively about Dawkins attempt to blend his moral views with science.

Don't hold yer breath.

183 posted on 10/25/2006 1:51:36 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>>This guy is a piece of work. Now it was the *law* as given by Moses that set for the death penalty for specific law breaking. Christ said he came NOT to change one jot or tittle (Matthew 5:18) of the law that means the law is still in effect.

Yes I know that many Christians claim the *law* was fulfilled but they are wrong.<<

That is intereting, because the Matthew 5: 17,18 actually says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

If these people are wrong, what do you suppose Jesus meant he was fulfilling?


184 posted on 10/25/2006 2:12:40 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

If the purpose in life is to direct ones future evolution, and people are nothing more then intellectual animals, then
there is no difference to helping an elderly lady across the street, or running her over because she is "unfit".

Our conscience tells us otherwise, there are Laws are written on our conscience. Objective value, what makes a hero a hero, or a villian a villan, the laws written on our heart imply a Lawgiver.


185 posted on 10/25/2006 2:16:30 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Your translation does not quite capture what Christ said.

KJV.. Matthew 5:17 Think NOT that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am NOT come to destroy, but to fulfill.

So what laws were fulfilled in Christ coming?

18. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Do you know what it means that 'heaven and earth pass'?

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called last in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now if you keep reading Christ says the law against 'murder' is still in effect, plus even added to be angry with a 'brother' without cause is danger of the judgment. Christ continues to list the law and what Christians are to do and not do.

His coming fulfilled the promise of a 'virgin shall conceive', etc. and his death fulfilled the requirement of a blood sacrifice for remission of 'sin' which is the transgression of law. Christ fulfill for one and all time that requirement of blood sacrifice, as he was the perfect sacrificial lamb.

Even after this in Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying,

36 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?"

37 Jesus said unto him, "Thou shall love the LORD they God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment. (law)

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the LAW and the prophets.

Check out the Ten Commandments (LAW) and notice that the first five relate to the LOVING the LORD they God and the last five commandments relate to the loving thy neighbor.

Oh that one remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, well Sabbath means rest and Christ became our Sabbath, we are to rest in him every day not just one day of the week.
186 posted on 10/25/2006 4:26:37 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>>So what laws were fulfilled in Christ coming?<

He didn't say laws. He said law. For me, that means ALL of it.


187 posted on 10/25/2006 4:39:30 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>>Oh that one remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, well Sabbath means rest and Christ became our Sabbath, we are to rest in him every day not just one day of the week.<<

On that we agree 100%!


188 posted on 10/25/2006 4:42:34 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

So you think the commandment against murder is no longer in effect? Or any of the rest of the commandments?


189 posted on 10/25/2006 4:43:43 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>>Your translation does not quite capture what Christ said.<<

I think you mean it does not quite capture exactly how the KJV translates the Greek. They are both close enough though. ;)


190 posted on 10/25/2006 4:43:59 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>>So you think the commandment against murder is no longer in effect? Or any of the rest of the commandments?<<

Far from it. Paul argues this much better than I can. Actually, Jesus made them even more difficult with his remarks about things like hating your brother (murder) and looking at a woman in lust (adultery). He clarified in those remarks just how valuable His sacrifice is, and just who needs it.


191 posted on 10/25/2006 4:46:14 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

So if the law remains in effect and Paul does call it our school master and Christ says to say (teach) other wise is enough to make one last in the Kingdom of heaven, then what does fulfill mean?


192 posted on 10/25/2006 4:49:30 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

"...then what does fulfill mean?"

It is a covenant thing. It is like making the last payment on a purchase agreement. It is fulfilled.

Heck, according to Dictionary.com:

1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time: He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten.


193 posted on 10/25/2006 4:55:36 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Are you not overlooking that Christ said he was not come to destroy the LAW or the PROPHETS??? The Prophets are the ones who did the penning of foretelling of His coming and Christ continually quotes the Prophets. He had much to say about Moses who is described as the LAW giver as well as a prophet.


194 posted on 10/25/2006 6:19:16 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

NO.


195 posted on 10/25/2006 8:54:19 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I eat pork, if that's what you mean.


196 posted on 10/25/2006 8:55:36 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Now I know what this scary fascist Dawkins is: a faulty unit! But I can't find any parts at Home Depot to fix him.


197 posted on 10/25/2006 8:57:21 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; betty boop
I wish I had time to read this thread. I'm happy to see so many good FReepers on it! It is Richard Dawkins who says there is no such thing as evil, and he who came up with the idea of "memes" - that religious belief (but not the religious belief of atheism) is a 'virus' in the 'programing' of our brains. LOL. In this wicked flesh of mine I sometimes wish Jesus had not said we may not call anyone an idiot.

Related Link: Alister McGrath wants the world to know that Richard Dawkins is wrong: good science is not tantamount to atheism.

198 posted on 10/26/2006 3:35:39 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
No I was not talking about eating pork.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around what you say Christ said versus what Christ said. The Prophets prophesied of His coming plus much more. (Zechariah 9:9 & 10 describe the first and second advent)

Paul said those things written about them was for our warning as to what would take place that would end this flesh age.

This word fulfill is fulfillment of prophecy and other than no longer were blood sacrifices required for remission of sins also referred to as ordinances the rest is still in effect.

I suppose I could quote Isaiah about what the Heavenly Father thinks about swine, maybe another time.
199 posted on 10/26/2006 5:28:33 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
the laws written on our heart imply a Lawgiver.

I would agree. Few evols would.

200 posted on 10/26/2006 6:12:20 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson