"Love, Love, Love...

[1robin]

Wrong. Laws creates rights and the rights it creates are real.

I was wondering when the wheels were going to come off. If your being serious, I guess about now would be that point. First, confirm your being serious and that you read what I posted about Jefferson, then I will respond to this. I almost feel like I am insulting you by considering that you might be serious.

 

[allfoak]

I was wondering when the wheels were going to come off. If your being serious, I guess about now would be that point. First, confirm your being serious and that you read what I posted about Jefferson, then I will respond to this.

When one pulls the lug nuts off of someone's wheels we should expect them to come off.

 

[savagewind]

Neither and both.

You stated: I need to know the "who" or at least the "that" to respond to you. If you mean atheists and all of it, I can agree, but if anything else then I will need to know which.

I also don't want to miss out on any irony. I honestly don't know where it was in my post. I hate missing jokes even if they are about my posts.

Yes, atheists. The joke was that you said, "I was saying that pretty much every person who has ever lived has dominated, killed, eaten, rode, or used all other forms of life we share the planet with in some way or another." and I thought of all the insects, microorganisms and plant life, and imagined them riden, dominated, and of course, they have been eaten, but do you think that is a bad thing? You know, to swallow some care-free bacterium?

 

[savagewind]

Are you guys being mean to me?

 

[savagewind]

I was wondering when the wheels were going to come off. If your being serious, I guess about now would be that point. First, confirm your being serious and that you read what I posted about Jefferson, then I will respond to this. I almost feel like I am insulting you by considering that you might be serious.

I do not understand. I shall consider this a failure to communicate. God is not needed to know righteousness, imo.

 

[allfoak]

Are you guys being mean to me?

Being mean is counter productive.
I do not engage in being mean.

 

[savagewind]

It is my opinion that God is needed to love right. Justice isn't about love. Reasonableness isn't the same as love. Even righteousness can be cold, without love, imo.

 

[savagewind]

Being mean is counter productive.
I do not engage in being mean.

Not even by accident?

 

[allfoak]

Not even by accident?

Free will and ignorance are the cause of people missing the mark.
None of us can avoid it.

 

[1robin]

When one pulls the lug nuts off of someone's wheels we should expect them to come off.

What are the allegorical lug nuts you are referring to? Actually I have to close the lab and leave in a minute. I will check back tomorrow.

 

[savagewind]

What are the allegorical lug nuts you are referring to? Actually I have to close the lab and leave in a minute. I will check back tomorrow.

Are you being paranoid?

 

[1robin]

Yes, atheists. The joke was that you said, "I was saying that pretty much every person who has ever lived has dominated, killed, eaten, rode, or used all other forms of life we share the planet with in some way or another." and I thought of all the insects, microorganisms and plant life, and imagined them riden, dominated, and of course, they have been eaten, but do you think that is a bad thing? You know, to swallow some care-free bacterium?

With God we have the perfect worldview for what we assume is true about human beings being more important than other life forms. We are to be good stewards over creation but with God we have the sovereignty we inherently perceive. I thought I anticipated your conclusion by using the word "or" in my quote, but it isn't important.

 

[1robin]

I do not understand. I shall consider this a failure to communicate. God is not needed to know righteousness, imo.

You misunderstand. Without God there is no objective moral truth for anyone to know. Your also confusing moral epistemology (how we come to know of a thing) with moral ontology (what a thing's nature is). I do not have time right now but I will explain more soon.

 

[savagewind]

With God we have the perfect worldview for what we assume is true about human beings being more important than other life forms. We are to be good stewards over creation but with God we have the sovereignty we inherently perceive. I thought I anticipated your conclusion by using the word "or" in my quote, but it isn't important.

I think we agree that the forum is probably not important like we might think it should be.

So, were you nice to the bacteria today?

I have a question. If you ever hang a hammock, would you hang it from a tree? Why or why not?

 

[savagewind]

You misunderstand. Without God there is no objective moral truth for anyone to know. Your also confusing moral epistemology (how we come to know of a thing) with moral ontology (what a thing's nature is). I do not have time right now but I will explain more soon.

I disagree. Here is what I know: Without God, there is no objective moral truth that anyone might agree on for sure.

 

[savagewind]

One the other hand, I know for certain, that even with God there is no objective moral truth that anyone might agree on for sure.

 

[savagewind]

I believe it is inherent in human beings to know right and wrong. It doesn't work as a fine-tooled instrument, but I think that it is innate. So, I choose moral ontology as the real one.

 

[metis]

What part do we have? Who gave it to us? How did the person who gave us this requirement get it, to give it to us in the first place? What is it based on? Who is the judge? What if I believe that we have a duty to our own citizens to halt all refugees coming into this country, how do you know if I or you are right? Why don't you be an example by leaving your front door open when you leave for the day, or simply let me decide who gets to live with you in your own house? BTW it appears that the people you find repugnant amounts to basically the people who disagree with you.

All I see with the above is a complete lack of compassion for those who are downtrodden, including children. It is just so telling that you seemngly divide the world up into we and they, with a "don't care" attitude about the latter. According to Pope Francis [and even a majority of evangelicals according to a recent poll], he says that not helping these refugees is "un-Christian"-- and I agree.

So, go sing your hymns to the Jesus you appear not to believe in, thus forsaking even innocent children:
Matt.1[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." Children are children, and it's so pathetic that you're more than willing to ignore the plight of so many of them.

 

[metis]

I knew there was summin' I loved about you! Hehehe. (I have seen them live twice. )

Ya beat me by one.

 

[Prestor John]

Well said, imo, and I completely agree.

For just one example, I feel it's morally repugnant when we hear or read people virtually not caring about the refugee situation and not willing to take a stand for us to do our part, and yet some of these same people will attend religious services over the weekend, singing their songs while ignoring the messages found within them and those found in their scriptures. And the question I have to ask: "What it were your children that were in harm's way?" .

I can't disagree with this enough.

You willingness to love and take care of others should end with you.

You should not try to force other people to pick up the bill that you feel compelled to pay.