Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No,I didn't. You're reading that into my post. Nice piece of eisegesis by you.

All I said is that in a supposedly purposeless universe, one man's delusional purpose is as good as another's. What's the matter you don't like my theory of Relative Purpose to go along with your Moral Relativism.? I think they're a good fit for each other.

See a doctor soon about your memory problems

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Hcap, here's a guy who found his purpose in life. His story should warm your heart and send tingles up your leg.

Tingles? Why would I find anything admirable in a a serial killer's activities?

Do you get off on multiple murders? Warms your heart bunky? Dom you get all tingly?

Why would I?

[bpiets]

all that exists proves a mind created same because it took and takes so many minds to figure out what is and thus create what we now live with and by....so God has given the creation a mind to try to figure out His works ...and in doing so mankind is destroying every thing big time...every where...our planetary system should not exist as it is because all theory is way off as far as facts of reasoning are concerned from what exists as far as planets and their moons etc are concerned...it takes a mind to have made our planetary system and the galexies etc that exist ...but God decided the time frame as to what has happened in our earths history as fas as inventions are concerned etc...or any thing else ...thanks to Jesus Christ , the son of God, by the Holy Spirit and the spirits of Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom with Prudence , Insight , Forsight , etc etc etc

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

See a doctor soon about your memory problems


Tingles? Why would I find anything admirable in a a serial killer's activities?

Do you get off on multiple murders? Warms your heart bunky? Dom you get all tingly?

Why would I?

Why wouldn't you or any other moral relativist find anything admirable in a serial killer's activities. You're not judging the man unrigheteously, are you, by implying that your purpose compared to his is more righteous and noble than his?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why wouldn't you or any other moral relativist find anything admirable in a serial killer's activities. You're not judging the man unrigheteously, are you, by implying that your purpose compared to his is more righteous and noble than his?

Total nonsense. First of all my morality is not yours to judge, and if it wasn't for your total depravity.....total deprivation, you would know most civilized members of society have made a moral compact which originated when people first decided to live in social groups. Whether or not a deity had anything to do with that, is purely your biased speculation.

Social evolution led to cultural evolution. A feeling functioning conscience was either god given or man given. End result......love and compassion and the golden rule.

Serial killers are not of the moral compact. Let alone owning a feeling, functional conscience.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Total nonsense. First of all my morality is not yours to judge, and if it wasn't for your total depravity.....total deprivation, you would know most civilized members of society have made a moral compact which originated when people first decided to live in social groups. Whether or not a deity had anything to do with that, is purely your biased speculation.

Social evolution led to cultural evolution. A feeling functioning conscience was either god given or man given. End result......love and compassion and the golden rule.

Serial killers are not of the moral compact. Let alone owning a feeling, functional conscience.

So human intelligence has directed evolution, heh?

But it's okay for you to judge the serial killer's morality, right? What gives you the right to judge him by comparing him to yourself!? You obviously think you're morally superior to him, don't you?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So human intelligence has directed evolution, heh?

But it's okay for you to judge the serial killer's morality, right? What gives you the right to judge him by comparing him to yourself!? You obviously think you're morally superior to him, don't you?

I am not going to argue evolution with you. But your claim that a serial killer is the same morally as other civilized human beings is absurd. And comparing me or anyone else to a serial killer appears to be your nonsensical total depravity twisting your limited brain cells.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not going to argue evolution with you. But your claim that a serial killer is the same morally as other civilized human beings is absurd. And comparing me or anyone else to a serial killer appears to be your nonsensical total depravity twisting your limited brain cells.

I guess Moral Relativism is okay for you as long as your sense of morality is superior to everyone else's, heh? But you know why you feel so superior? You set the bar too low for yourself.

There was a man who walked this earth once who taught that when we hate someone, that this constitutes a form of murder. How many times have you hated someone?

You see...you have more in common with the serial killer than you think.

I would love to discuss evolution with you so that we can learn from you just how much of a role human intelligence played in directing our own evolution. Don't you want to wax smart and teach us?

[hcap]

So now you think everyone not like you are serial killers.
Hey bunky after 2 1/2 "religious threads, you finally have summarized your definitive boxcarian lunacy.

Good luck with that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So now you think everyone not like you are serial killers.
Hey bunky after 2 1/2 "religious threads, you finally have summarized your definitive boxcarian lunacy.

Good luck with that.

No, I just think you have a set the bar of morality pretty low for yourself. And this is why you think, for example, that that serial killer is so morally inferior to you. You see...it's easy to wax self-righteous when you set that bar so low.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I just think you have a set the bar of morality pretty low for yourself. And this is why you think, for example, that that serial killer is so morally inferior to you. You see...it's easy to wax self-righteous when you set that bar so low.

You are the fool that brought up serial killers out of nowhere

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Hcap, here's a guy who found his purpose in life. His story should warm your heart and send tingles up your leg.

And claimed I was like him.

You are losing it big time. Guess it's time for IV.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are the fool that brought up serial killers out of nowhere
And claimed I was like him.

You are losing it big time. Guess it's time for IV.

No, it wasn't from "nowhere". That man, too, obviously led his life as though he had purpose. Did that point sail clear over the top of your pointed noodle?

We're all like him to some degree. Another point that eluded you. You have never hated anyone in your entire life? How 'bout Bush, Reagan, Trump, etc., etc.? See...when the bar of morality is raised to our innermost, secret, darkest sins of the heart, that no one else but God can see, we're not so very different from serial killers, are we?

[boxcar]

7 Justices Split 5 Ways in Deciding Peace Cross Doesn’t Have to Go

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/...nt-have-to-go/

At least the SC didn't sidestep this case as it has the more important ones dealing with religious freedom. A small victory but I'll take it.

[boxcar]

I'm reading a Systematic Theology work written by a professor of theology Dr. Robert L. Reymond. And I'm on the section dealing with the order of the decrees of God, and even more specifically the two major views within the Christian church that deals with this order. One argument is the Infralapsarian view that sees God's decrees only historically (or chronologically), while the other is the Supralapsarian perspective that sees his decrees logically (or telelogically). I hold to this latter view for several reasons, among the chief of them is because the way a rational mind works. And it's this working I want to briefly share with an excerpt from the good doctor's book -- from a sub-section titled :

The Purposing Principle Governing The Rational Mind

All supralapsarians aver a second consideration (though only those who affirm the revised scheme offer an order of the decrees consistent with this consideration) that in all purposive planning the rational mind is governed by the principle of determining first the end to be accomplished and then the several appropriate means to attain that end; and in the case of the means in the plan, each of which becomes an "end" of the immediately following means, the rational mind determines them in retrogade order from the end or goal back through all the means necessary to that accomplishment of that ultimate end. The rational mind recognizes that only in this way is each element of the plan is purposive and contributory to the coherence of the entire plan. And God is a purposive planner!

To illustrate: suppose a rational planner decides to buy a car. This is the end he will pursue. With this end determined , only then will he determine the appropriate means to achieve it. (A rational mind is actually capable of doing both simultaneously; by the phrase "only then" we intend a logical or telelogical order, not a chronological order. Never would a rational car buyer first leave home with twenty thousand dollars in his pocket, understanding his action to be a means of something, and only then determine the end which his action was intended to be a mean to. The end always precedes the means in a rational mind.

The rational planner also realizes, if he would achieve his end, that he must actually execute the means he determines are essential to that end in a particular order. For example, suppose the car buyer has determined that between the point where he finds himself at home and carless -- and his determined end of purchasing a car stand five means necessary to his becoming a car owner: (1) getting out of bed, (2) leaving home, (3) arriving at the car dealership, (4) agreeing with the car salesman on the purchase price of the car, (5) arranging a loan through the bank for that sum. The rational car buyer realizes that he cannot first arrange with the bank for the agreed-upon sum, then agree with the car salesman on the purchase price of the car, then get to car dealership in order to speak with the car salesman, then leave home, and then get out of bed. Never would a rational car buyer even try to execute the means to his end in a manner that would frustrate his plan and lead to failure. (emphases author's)

Dr. Feser demonstrated this with architect building a house, and I demonstrated this by conceiving ends in my intellect when designing a module for my buddy's program, and conceiving rating for contender identification, and when my wife and I conceived in our intellect our dream kitchen.

Effects always precede causes in rational minds. And this proves conclusively that man is more than matter. Man is assuredly a composite of immaterial and material elements. We know this because in the physical world, ends and effects always follow or are simultaneous with means or causes. In the physical world effects can never precede causes, nor do ends precede means. Only in intellect, only in a rational mind must the reverse order occur!

And all of this is self-evident. It's the way we human beings work. We are by nature purposive beings.

[hcap]

Although I have box on ignore, thought I would update everyone on how two spiritual leaders feel about our president.

Pope says he would confront Trump directly on border wall
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SY23S

May 28, 2019
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis said he was willing to tell U.S. President Donald Trump in person that it is wrong to build border walls and appeared to warn him not to resume a policy of separating families.

And more recently....

Dalai Lama says Donald Trump has a 'lack of moral principle'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oral-principle

.....Asked about the US president, whom the Tibetan spiritual leader has previously unflatteringly impersonated, he said: “His emotions [are] also a little bit,” and made a gesture waggling his finger near his temple. “One day he says something, another day he says something. But I think [there is a] lack of moral principle. When he became president, he expressed America first. That is wrong. America, they should take the global responsibility.”

YouTube (Short URL)

Whereas the only "spiritual leader" supporting the Donald may be Jon Voight

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Although I have box on ignore, thought I would update everyone on how two spiritual leaders feel about our president.

Pope says he would confront Trump directly on border wall
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SY23S

May 28, 2019
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis said he was willing to tell U.S. President Donald Trump in person that it is wrong to build border walls and appeared to warn him not to resume a policy of separating families.

And more recently....

Dalai Lama says Donald Trump has a 'lack of moral principle'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oral-principle

.....Asked about the US president, whom the Tibetan spiritual leader has previously unflatteringly impersonated, he said: “His emotions [are] also a little bit,” and made a gesture waggling his finger near his temple. “One day he says something, another day he says something. But I think [there is a] lack of moral principle. When he became president, he expressed America first. That is wrong. America, they should take the global responsibility.”

https://youtu.be/BDA69lldWvE

Whereas the only "spiritual leader" supporting the Donald may be Jon Voight

So, Mr. DL wants to wax moral by saying that "America...should take moral responsibility"? Okay...I counter with this: We don't owe the world anything. The world owes us! If it weren't for our power, all nations would be communist-run by now.

Secondly, since the United Numbskulls are the world's wanna-be moral arbiters, then why doesn't the U.N. take action against governments that oppress its people, instead of blaming countries who want to preserve their culture and traditions with strict immigration controls? How is the U.S. morally responsible for the plight of the impoverished, oppressed peoples of the world? The U.N. needs to attack the source of the problem which are the corrupt, authoritarian governments that oppress their citizens.