Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An object lesson
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 91 of 131 (76810)
01-06-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 11:42 PM


Re: Begging the question?
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Re being created or evolved, or both: The dichotomy stems from failure to acknowledge the creator's intent and credit His glory in dealing with His creation.
What intent? What glory? How are we to reliably test for those? I think you've begged the creator question.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
We can imagine a creator starting a big bang, and then stepping back and letting the rest work itself out without any further involvement. But, the creation idea came from the Bible, in our culture at least, where the creator is a very involved Person in the working out of history (His Story!).
Sorry, Stepehen, but our culture does not have exclusive rights to it's particular creation story. Furthermore, the Big Bang is not appropriately considered a beginning to the universe. It may be a beginning to space-time (then again, it may not be), but space-time is not the same as the entire universe.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
My point is, if He is your creator, and made you to prosper and be happy with certain notions of right and wrong, then those judgments would be the "right" ones for you.
Does not follow. I can choose to agree with them, yes, but the simple fact that a "creator" had certain purposes for me does not necessitate that I accept those purposes. Farmer's raise pigs for the purpose of making bacon, but that hardly makes life meaningful for the pig, nor is the pig required to acquiesce to that purpose.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
You do have the freedom, of course, to choose otherwise, and it is good that you recognize that you may have to pay a prosperity price for asserting your wisdom of right and wrong over that of your creator.
His status as creator does not automatically make him the wisest judge of morality.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
You cannot know that until you have done what can be done to get an interview with your creator, in case He is really out there, and ask Him.
Sorry, I don't believe a creator exists.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
But, according to the bible, a common basis for the creation idea, there is a means of determining the answers (or the lack of answers) to the questions. Ask Jehovah. Become one of Yeshua's sheep. Then He will never leave nor forsake you, and you will know His voice, and He is the Truth, so you can ask Him. That any of this is possible is debatable, of course. Never know till you try!
I have tried, so I do know. The above failed.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
To me, to be the creator of something means that one has the right to decide what that something is for, which in turn determines what is right for that something.
I think there's been a subtle miscommunication, and it might be a result of some sloppy language on my part, but let me try to make it clearer here:
This "creator" might have his own ideas about what is right and wrong for me, but he can never dictate what is right and wrong to me. Likewise, he might have his own ideas about what my purpose is, but I will confidently assert my individuality and right to decide that for myself. Confidently, of course, because I don't believe this creator of yours to exist.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
In other words, He did give you sentience, but so you could know Him, not kill yourself by trying to be like Him in knowing good and evil.
Still begging the creator question. Obviously my god is not your God.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
As to might and right, well, what we have from God is a potter and clay analogy.
And it is a faulty analogy.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
It's His universe, He created it. He has the right to do with it what He will.
Does not follow.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
And, He was smart enough not to make a matrix, a creation that could take Him down. He has and retains the might to do what is His right. All we can do is deal with it.
Y'know, the more you discribe this God of yours, the more glad I become that I don't believe it to exist.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
The gut feeling that we ought to be gods, since we have this sentience, actually starts coming to fruition as soon as we take our eyes off of the goal.
Still begging the creator question. Obviously my god is not your God.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
We humble ourselves, wanting to live, even as created beings, if that's what we must do to live. And then He comes along and raises us up. This works on such a micro-level, that it actually can be the basis of personal experiments, to see if one can get experience confirming that all of this is actually reality.
All personal experiments that I tried to confirm the supposed intents of your God, failed.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
The act with the most moral integrity is to give Jehovah a break!
Let me get this straight -- you want me to unconditionally pardon Jehovah for all of his transgressions, and yet submit myself to his fire and brimstone corporal system from which there is only conditional pardon? And you believe this guy to be the ultimate source for moral wisdom?? How is that scenario fair? Because Jehovah says it is?
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
At least, get to know His voice, and ask Him for understanding of these difficult matters.
Tried. Nobody was home.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
The Amalekite babies? The ones that escaped Molech? Who would have grown up to toss their own babies into fiery idols? Who, in their infancy might have escaped the corruption, the stumbling blocks, of their culture. Who might have had, in their childlikeness, a faith in a mysterious "Spirit-god" that had been poured out on all flesh?
Sorry, but ad-hoc assumptions about their futures are not a valid defense against Jehovah's actions.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Who now rejoice in heaven, because they were never made to lose this faith?
Again, sorry, but you're begging the Age of Accountability question. Not all Christian sects lend credence to that idea.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
It still seems to me that arguments here that do not examine ideas that, if true, would color the evidence differently, are weak.
If true, perhaps, however they've not been shown true, and in my personal experience I have reason to believe them false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 11:42 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 10:30 PM :æ: has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 92 of 131 (76814)
01-06-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phat
01-06-2004 5:21 AM


You seem to be more or less supporting my position. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point?
There are only a few spots where I have direct criticisms, though they are not really about the overall topic (absolute metaethics)...
quote:
If 5 guys out of a hundred see pink polka dotted bunnies, we could assume that they have a unique sense of reality. If over a billion people worldwide claim that Jesus is Gods Son and that He lives, we may still claim that they see it their own way. 1 out of 6 is better than 1 out of 20, however.
I'm unsure if you can really make the claim that more is better, it is simply more. For example at one time no one believed in Christ, then a very very few did (as opposed to overwhelming numbers of Pagans and nonXian monotheists), and even now Xianity is not the majority belief. If 1of 6 is better than 1 of 20, then what does that make 5 of 6?
I might even point out that the specific belief of what Jesus actually is, even if labelled God's son, varies widely across Xianity.
quote:
why does God allow genocide in OT? Because the people who are getting wiped out have already chosen their destiny and are unable/unwilling to change. Thus, the mutation must be eliminated!...This is not mean. It is actually preserving the "chosen".
Three problems:
1) In the OT God has children wiped out who have clearly never had a chance to choose much less made a permanent choice of what they believe in.
2) Why must one kill in order to survive? I understand this may have been useful when much of the world was barbaric (which just goes to show Jews and Xians were never more civilized than anyone else), but if you really have an allpowerful God which can protect you... why not be like the Amish and practice Jesus' actual teachings?
3) This is the same reasoning any madman can use. Hitler had his chosen people. Stalin had his. etc etc. Heck, Osama's God has his chosen people... I am a little perplexed that this would be listed as valid reasoning. Anyone that acts on such reasoning deserves whatever punishment they get, as what you are advocating is genocide.
You've seemed pretty peace-loving in other posts. Do you really believe genocide is a good, or necessary method to keep an ideology alive?

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 01-06-2004 5:21 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 131 (76934)
01-06-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by :æ:
01-06-2004 12:06 PM


Re: Begging the question?
:ae:
You ask, referring to Jehovah's putative intentions and glory in His creation,
What intent? What glory? How are we to reliably test for those? I think you've begged the creator question.
Actually, I am grateful to you for this insight. I now see that begging the question is an essential part of the hypothetico-deductive method, in getting from one's theory to one's predictions. But, as debate, it in no way enhances the plausibility of the theory. Not until the predictions are shown to be implausible and confirmed.
The theory in question is that this Jehovah Person is out there. Cannot be said to exist, since He asserts that He is, and is out of nothing. Thus, ex- (out of) -ist (what is). He created us, and wrote this book, the Bible, to guide us to Him and to the truth about how to live prosperously. This book says that His intent in creating us was to properly manage the rest of His creation--we are formed to be sort of gardeners. He also enjoys praise and recognition for the gloriousness of what He made, so we are supposed to do that as part of our job. So, if this is true, what do we predict, that we can test, that is otherwise implausible? Especially implausible given that natural selection, random mutation type evolution is true. (Strong inference).
Let's say we get some sort of happiness, guiltlessness, brain scan. Then, let's take some people, keeping close track of where they are coming from in terms of religious backgrounds, current philosophical positions, etc. We show them inspiring photos of eagles, redwoods, and so on, and ask them to say one of two praising remarks. One remark would give Jehovah all the glory, as the creator of what as said. A qualifying addition to the statement might make it palatable to unbelievers, such as "Jehovah, if You really are out there and made that eagle, that is one heck of a sight, and You deserve the highest praise for what you have done." Believers normally wouldn't mind saying, "That is a glorious sight!"
The people say these things while their brains are being monitored, to see if they "feel blessed" of "feel good about myself." in measurable ways.
We would pray before the experiment, that we wanted Jehovah to confirm that He wanted praise for what He had made, and would reward those who praise Him with greater joy and well-being. We would wait for someone who was prophetic to confirm that Jehovah had signed on to the experiment.
Am I ready to write NIH?
I actually agree with much of your next comments, about your freedom to disagree with Jehovah about morality. It all depends on what we see as "right." To me, if it kills me and results in my spending an eternity in Hell, it isn't what I would choose to call "right." But, I can see someone deciding that "right" is my exercising my freedom to determine what is moral, and I will do right whatever it costs me. Am I understanding your stand?
I have tried, so I do know. The above failed
This was refering to your attempts to get Jehovah to talk with you.
Naturally, as a scientist who tried and succeeded, I am interested in your materials and methods. If you are a scientist, you ought to be interested in mine.
Y'know, the more you discribe this God of yours, the more glad I become that I don't believe it to exist.
My first thoughts, when He first spoke to me and confirmed His reality to me, were "Oh, no! I don't want to have to deal with this Person!" And I told Him, "I don't like You, much less love You. But I want to live, so tell me what I have to do." That was then. After I got to know Him better, it got better. And now, the ways He has that I (still!) cannot abide, I have some hope will turn out to be better than they seem to me. He didn't mind any of this. Just said, "I understand. Just do this, and stay in touch."
Let me get this straight -- you want me to unconditionally pardon Jehovah for all of his transgressions, and yet submit myself to his fire and brimstone corporal system from which there is only conditional pardon? And you believe this guy to be the ultimate source for moral wisdom?? How is that scenario fair? Because Jehovah says it is?
Actually, I do. Want all of the above. C'mon :ae:, outGod God. You can do it, and I hear Him saying He'd give you an attaboy for it. Or am I into the "Let's you and Him fight?" amusement? No, He really likes you, hopes you pull it off.
But, what I asked was, don't unconditionally forgive, but do ask, "Please explain yourself, sir!"
Sorry, but ad-hoc assumptions about their futures are not a valid defense against Jehovah's actions.
We're talking about Amalakite babies. I was just trying to give you an inkling about how complex the question of the justice of those babies being killed might be. Please, avoid P=1 for your opinions, and concede that there might be something you haven't thought of, that would change your mind. Something only an omniscient God could think of.
Again, sorry, but you're begging the Age of Accountability question. Not all Christian sects lend credence to that idea.
Please remember that I am convinced that all Christian sects are the work of the devil, and that all their members are sons of Satan. Tares, goats, chaff! I have to pray to not rejoice at the thought of their burning up. And my prayer is not always answered. One good thing, it reminds me that I am not a nice person.
God saves even, actually especially, the unborn. More childlike, able to enter the kingdom, often more prayed for. It's why I'm politically pro-choice. Grace is amazing. It really is.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 01-06-2004 12:06 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 12:34 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 95 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 12:38 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 01-07-2004 12:55 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 131 (76982)
01-07-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-06-2004 10:30 PM


Re: Begging the question?
Please remember that I am convinced that all Christian sects are the work of the devil, and that all their members are sons of Satan. Tares, goats, chaff!
Can you please explain what you mean by this?
"Christe eleison"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 10:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-07-2004 4:13 PM grace2u has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 95 of 131 (76983)
01-07-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-06-2004 10:30 PM


Re: Begging the question?
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
The theory in question is that this Jehovah Person is out there. Cannot be said to exist, since He asserts that He is, and is out of nothing. Thus, ex- (out of) -ist (what is).
I think this is semantic obfuscation, honestly. The universe is as equally "out of nothing" as you postulate Jehovah to be, yet it is still meaningful to speak about the existence of the universe.
He created us, and wrote this book, the Bible, to guide us to Him and to the truth about how to live prosperously. This book says that His intent in creating us was to properly manage the rest of His creation--we are formed to be sort of gardeners. He also enjoys praise and recognition for the gloriousness of what He made, so we are supposed to do that as part of our job.
I'd just like to note at this point that the above is your interpretation of the Bible, and not necessarily the only correct one.
So, if this is true, what do we predict, that we can test, that is otherwise implausible?
When it comes to supernatural entities, nothing is objectively testable.
Let's say we get some sort of happiness, guiltlessness, brain scan. Then, let's take some people, keeping close track of where they are coming from in terms of religious backgrounds, current philosophical positions, etc. We show them inspiring photos of eagles, redwoods, and so on, and ask them to say one of two praising remarks. One remark would give Jehovah all the glory, as the creator of what as said. A qualifying addition to the statement might make it palatable to unbelievers, such as "Jehovah, if You really are out there and made that eagle, that is one heck of a sight, and You deserve the highest praise for what you have done." Believers normally wouldn't mind saying, "That is a glorious sight!"
The people say these things while their brains are being monitored, to see if they "feel blessed" of "feel good about myself." in measurable ways.
Did you know that they've actually performed a study very similar to what you've just described? It indicated that Buddhists tend to be the happiest people. Funny, that.
We would pray before the experiment, that we wanted Jehovah to confirm that He wanted praise for what He had made, and would reward those who praise Him with greater joy and well-being. We would wait for someone who was prophetic to confirm that Jehovah had signed on to the experiment.
Am I ready to write NIH?
As Orville Wright once said: Don't sell the bike shop just yet, Wilbur.
But, I can see someone deciding that "right" is my exercising my freedom to determine what is moral, and I will do right whatever it costs me. Am I understanding your stand?
More or less. The point is that my morality is primarily derived from the golden rule (don't get too excited, Speakers were preaching the golden rule long before Christ came around). Many of Jehovah's actions as described in the OT are inconsistent with it.
This was refering to your attempts to get Jehovah to talk with you.
Naturally, as a scientist who tried and succeeded, I am interested in your materials and methods. If you are a scientist, you ought to be interested in mine.
They're rather irrelevant, actually. There's no way to exclude the possibilty that your test results were frauds perpetrated by the trickster god, Loki. That said, I prayed, I humbled myself, I "knocked" on the proverbial door... Jehovah didn't answer.
My first thoughts, when He first spoke to me and confirmed His reality to me, were "Oh, no! I don't want to have to deal with this Person!" And I told Him, "I don't like You, much less love You. But I want to live, so tell me what I have to do." That was then. After I got to know Him better, it got better. And now, the ways He has that I (still!) cannot abide, I have some hope will turn out to be better than they seem to me. He didn't mind any of this. Just said, "I understand. Just do this, and stay in touch."
Good for you.
Actually, I do. Want all of the above. C'mon :ae:, outGod God.
Hardly makes him worthy of the title, IMHO, if he can be out-godded by a mere mortal.
Or am I into the "Let's you and Him fight?" amusement? No, He really likes you, hopes you pull it off.
So you say. Why don't you ask him to convince me that your statements are accurate? If you have, he has so far answered that prayer in the negative.
But, what I asked was, don't unconditionally forgive, but do ask, "Please explain yourself, sir!"
Done, and nobody answered.
Please, avoid P=1 for your opinions, and concede that there might be something you haven't thought of, that would change your mind. Something only an omniscient God could think of.
You must also concede that there might have been an alternative course of action that did not require the mass slaughter of women and children. Y'know, something only an omnipotent God could do.
The point being, ad-hoc rationalizations are not convincing, and basically beg the question.
Please remember that I am convinced that all Christian sects are the work of the devil, and that all their members are sons of Satan.
No surprise, really. They'd likely say the same about you.
I have to pray to not rejoice at the thought of their burning up. And my prayer is not always answered. One good thing, it reminds me that I am not a nice person.
It's unfortunate you feel that way about yourself. So far, I think you're a very nice person. Do your beliefs require such low self-esteem?
God saves even, actually especially, the unborn.
Then why do so many oppose a woman's right to have an abortion?Wouldn't that guarantee her child's passage to Heaven? What greater gift could a mother give her child than a guaranteed entry into Heaven?
More importantly, do you know how many people claim to have had the same direct contact from Jehovah that you have and yet report drastically different instructions with regard to his will on this matter? Are they all sons of Satan too? And how should I know that it is not YOU that is the son of Satan and rather THEY that have had the actual instruction from Jehovah?
It's why I'm politically pro-choice.
Good for you, but it seems the most reasonable stance given your beliefs should be more along the lines of abortion advocation, not just the advocation of choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 10:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-09-2004 4:51 PM :æ: has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 131 (76989)
01-07-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-06-2004 10:30 PM


quote:
My first thoughts, when He first spoke to me and confirmed His reality to me, were "Oh, no! I don't want to have to deal with this Person!" And I told Him, "I don't like You, much less love You. But I want to live, so tell me what I have to do." That was then. After I got to know Him better, it got better. And now, the ways He has that I (still!) cannot abide, I have some hope will turn out to be better than they seem to me. He didn't mind any of this. Just said, "I understand. Just do this, and stay in touch."
How do you know this is not your own mind? And if it is another entity, that it is not Satan?
Why would you even want to continue worshipping something that is repellant? Just because it is powerful and grants your wishes? Or as you state, that you want to live?
I would consider this moral cowardice, but besides that issue I do not see how you can differentiate between God and Satan. Just because something calls to you after you call for God, does not mean it is God that answers.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-06-2004 10:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 131 (77024)
01-07-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by grace2u
01-07-2004 12:34 PM


Re: Begging the question?
grace2u,
I hate evil, and was attracted by Yeshua's promise of a church that "the gates of hell will not stand against." A church that actually would shut down evil pouring into the lives of its members. So, I went looking for such a church, exploring one Christian sect after another, with dismal results. Finally, (duh) I asked Jehovah, and He said to write down what was written to describe or direct the church that was the body of Yeshua, triumphant over evil. Then I was to limit myself to groups that did those things and only those things. He confirmed this with 1 Corinth 4:6, which I had missed. I made the list, and made the discovery that all the Christian sects and denominations that I knew of kept less than 10% of these directives. Nor, when I brought this to their attention, was anyone interested.
Well, I went back to God, and He explained that the many references to chaff, tares, goats, pharisees, all as "seeds of Satan" or his servants, described how the evil one had set out to get us: disguised as a believer. Jehovah's response was to bundle up these liars in distinquishable groups, what we call Christian Sects. He showed me the passage in 1 Corinth 1, about believer's naming themselves after various leaders, or even "of Christ" and how this caused divisions in the body of Christ. "of Christ", of course, means Christian, and although the disciples were called christians, they mostly referred to themselves as the church in such or so a place of Iasous.
He went on to say that being a member of such a gathering usually was a sin unto death. The purpose of such congregations is to get the liars born of or working with Satan in one place, so they can be identified, avoided, and ultimately destroyed more easily, and do not interfere with the harvest of the wheat.
In trying to get to the truth of any matter at all, therefore, His admonition to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees." meant to expect dis- or mis-information from Christian Sects. They claim to know the Lord, but they do not keep His commandments. As churches, they are the gates of Hell, and the church of Yeshua is responsible for keeping the Christian Sect's lies away from the His born-again children. In the creation debate, the role of "Christian" creationists (sons of Satan, remember) is to confuse discussion of the truth of the Bible, basically to make it look ridiculous to unbelievers. Unbelievers recognize that creationists usually are saying foolish stuff, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that it is the creationist, not the Bible, that is wrong.
In practical terms, Sects with names that go beyond our Lord's name, that teach curricula other than the commanded "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" or that "think beyond what is written" are bundles of tares, herds of goats, chaff blowing in the wind. Members of the body of Iasous (Yeshua) live as disciples, learn commandments, know the Lord's voice, worship in homes, call themselves by the name of Yeshua or Iasous, or perhaps, Jesus. Their love for one another is to form joints, member with member, through which blood flows and neural input, the voice of the Lord.
Anyone hoping to learn from others what the Bible actually says has to get help from such persons. The Bible is clear that the Sects will only deceive.
At least, that's how Jehovah has been leading me so far. What are you hearing?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 12:34 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by grace2u, posted 01-08-2004 11:00 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 131 (77027)
01-07-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
01-06-2004 1:54 AM


We are not discussing mathematics, especially theoretical mathematics which can allow for a concept like infinity to be grouped in a set of abstract numbers.
Ok. This is fair enough. A misunderstanding.
We are discussing morality. Inherent to the concept of moral laws are "allowed actions", and "proscribed actions"... moral laws separate one group from the other. By necessity, infinity cannot be a part of either set of actions or no laws exist. Or if there is moral law the only law is that set out in the Satanic Bible "Do what thou will, shall be the whole of the law."
I think this certainly depends upon what exactly you suppose these sets are and what infinity means in the context of these defined sets. My position is simply that these laws exist, but that their scope is infinite. Just as it is possible for a sequence of numbers to continue onward towards infinity, I would suggest it is possible for a set of moral absolutes to continue on towards infinity. Infinity is not a "*" or "?" (wildcard). It is a way of expressing something that has no bounds. For example. If we assign an absolute moral truth a number, no killing for pleasure=1, no rape for pleasure=2, no rape out of bordem=3, etc, then the set of absolute moral truths could resemble {1,2,3,..., infinity}. As God is infinite, so are these moral absolutes. They reflect His nature(which is infinite in scope and perfection). While I perceive them to be infinite, I ultimately have little passion for this in particular. In fact, for the sake of discussion, I could grant you this point and we could continue. Perhaps I could say, that the set of absolute moral truths exist and are only fully known by God and therefore they could go on for infinity. The point behind this is not whether or not ethics are infinite or not, rather what A SINGLE absolute ethic would suggest about the universe in which we live.
I do see however in your later responses that I need to be more exhaustive in demonstrating that a single absolute moral truth more than likely exists.
then you certainly cannot say that everything may end up being allowed according to the infinite being that is God
By infinite, I simply mean the moral laws could continue on forever, not that everything is possible.
On a side note, I do find it interesting that a relativist would make claims on what can or can not be done. Is this allowed within your philosophical system? If so, please explain the justification. Are you not assuming some universal standard of truth exists and that by me suggesting these things it is violating that truth?
Relativism lets everyone point directly at the ethicist and ask "what the hell are YOU talking about?"
I am pretty confident I understand where you are coming from here. I think that it is slightly clouded however and I do not agree with your conclusion. For one, within absolutism, one does have ultimate authority to make claims of right and wrong because they acknowledge that these things exist and that there is a standard that can be worked towards. Within relativism, it does not follow that anyone should make any statements of right and wrong because who is to say such a thing exists? If you say that the only absolute moral truth is To each his own then isn’t this an absolute moral truth in itself? In fact, within relativism wouldn't it be safe to conclude that everyone should do as they wish? Even harm others at times? While I understand that relativism is more complicated than this(and would not agree with such actions), I am simply looking at the final conclusion that relativism offers, namely no judgement claims can be made about anything with any authority. Furthermore, for the more complex issues such as murder out of pleasure, why is it that this is wrong (as far as we can tell) in every civilized culture? If a culture does agree it is ok, do you not agree that it still is wrong? If you do, then what is the justification within the proper confines of relativism? I would maintain that in order to be consistent with relativism, one must concede that if a society kills out of pleasure, than it is ok for that society. In doing this, I simply think that the relativist is making an irrational choice, simply to maintain there relativistic position. Why deny self evident realities in order to fit the world into your system of belief? It simply is irrational in my opinion. Is it not far more likely that there is some absolute standard and that this culture is violating it? Christian theism can give an account for absolute morality., very few others( including relativism), can do the same. The relativist is left with having to deny that these actions are wrong for that society. How does this compare to the alledged contradictions you find within Christianity? An Omni,omni,omin, God who commands violent acts when a greater good comes out of said acts Vs. a society being correct if the consensus agrees to throw the virgin into the volcano or whatever. How is the later example more rational than the former?
I have already conceded that there are problems still within absolutism that require human created(and therefore error prone) solutions. In other words, since the truth (in its fullness ) is ultimately unknowable to man, he still needs to make rational decisions in determining laws for societies. Within absolutism, one could still point the finger to the imperfect human and say "what were you thinking?". That person would then have to give a rational account for that which was claimed. The claim "God told me to do it" would not be rational in my opinion. This can be seen because ultimately we are commanded in scripture to submit to the authority that God has allowed to be placed over us- even a corrupt Roman empire as it was in context.
I will add though, that the fact that an no absolute ethic has ever worked for everyone (leading at best to oppression), tends to suggest that perhaps none exists
OK, I grant this as evidence.
It does still seem as though we are working towards seperate points. I am not an ethicist and am not interested in the application of ethics. As you know, my interest is in the meta. The philosophy of ethics and what these imply about our universe. Within this context, I understand your point and this is a logical conclusion one could make. However, in the broader picture, it is not conclusive by any means. You were careful(I commend) and did note that you do not view it as conclusive only that it suggests that none exist. I agree with your claim that this is evidence against the idea. However, I would not assign it a very large rank since there are many things that we simply have not discovered yet. And perhaps there are ethics in existence that do reflect portions of absolute truth. In fact perhaps some exist now and we simply do not know if it absolute or not. One example would be murder -for errant or NO reason. Is this not an absolute moral law in your opinion? Has this law worked? Certainly the world is better off because of this law do you not agree? Looking at a supposed society where this was ok - say the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. This was allowed by the ultimate authority in that country do you think then that this is an ok thing to do EVER? This is the ultimate philosophical problem for relativism and to this problem I would assign a large number in deciding whether an absolute moral law exists, and therefore implying that an absolute moral authority exists.
So, while you have some evidence against the idea, surely you would concede I have evidence for the prospect of absolute moral truth. IMHO, the evidence for absolute moral truth, far outweighs the evidence against.
Again the focus was supposed to be on creation of an ethic, not just on how to apply it. I am sorry that my wording was not clear on this point
You have a good point here. While perhaps I have jumped to soon to what the implications of absolute moral truth implies. I grant you have some evidence to suggest it does not, however I still maintain that the evidence for absolute moral truth far outweighs that against. Namely, impossibility(or at least unlikelihood) of the contrary.
I posit to you that if an absolute ethic cannot be constructed, or must be constructed on an ad hoc basis do to the nature of the deity, this renders moot any question of whether an absolute moral authority exists and what its laws are.
I disagree with your conclusion. The simple fact that it is difficult to construct the absolute ethic, does not imply that one does not exist. If there were no other evidence to suggest this, then I would agree. However there are other data points that suggest absolute moral truth exists.
What other evidence do you have that suggests NO absolute moral law exists (besides mans inability to agree on what one might be)? There are many things that we readily agree exist, even though man can not fully agree on the meta of said entity. For example Logic.
grace2u writes:
Does it not follow that if an absolute moral truth exists, then there is something which governs what this truth is?... Rather it is evidence that God does in fact exist and that He is the standard of moral absolute truth
Holmes writes:
No. You cannot make this argument as it is circular. A metaethic comes before an ethic and so the absolute authority must exist before the ethic
I have made an a posteriori conclusion that absolute moral truth exist. Namely from the impossibility of the contrary and from the experiences of life, a more detailed example will follow. Since this is justified in a conversational manner from evidence provided, it should follow a priori that an absolute standard exists and is that which we compare the absolute truth to. The implications of an evidenced absolute moral truth are self evident(a standard exists by which to judge this truth by- it is essentially tautologous), the existence of the absolute truth is evidenced from experience. Now, if this is true then I do maintain that this is evidence that an absolutely moral God exists and He is that standard which we see. By no means is this an exhaustive proof, however it is reasonable and is at least strong evidence for the claims Christianity makes.
You cannot work backward and say there is an absolute ethic, which proves that there is a God, when what you are trying to prove in the first place is that there is an absolute ethic set by God.
Ok, this is fine if I simply presupposed an absolute ethic. Perhaps in this conversation this is how it appears. Lets examine the evidence suggesting there are absolute moral truths and then we can continue.
grace2u writes:
You do have a sense of right and wrong as do I. This is evidence that there exists something called morality. The absolute nature of morality follows because it is reasonable to assume that there is a standard by which we measure our moral judgments by.
Holmes writes:
You make too large a leap in this paragraph. While this does show there is something called morality, the fact that all of us differ on what right and wrong is argues that it is relative and NOT absolute
Now I think we are at step one and probably where this discussion should dwell for a while. I also would agree that this is a large step, although I would also say that this entire conversation has been largely conversational and as such many statements made are large leaps and somewhat random at times.
Consider the possibility of an absolute moral truth. It is wrong to inflict pain on another person against their own will for no other reason than to watch them scream in pain.
One could argue a priori , that it is self evidently wrong and leave it at that.
OR..
One could lend experiential evidence suggesting one exists such as
I know that my life is enjoyable. I know that pain is uncomfortable. While there may be times in which I will go through pain in order that a greater good might come of it, simply allowing someone to be entertained is not desirable. If there was a time I could perceive, then the torture would NOT be against my will, but be in accordance with my will. I can not perceive a situation in which others would have differing opinions regardless of time and cultural differences. It is not a rational concept to me or to any other rational person that this would be allowed. Perhaps a situation could be produced, however I could then make my proposed absolute ethic slightly different and then it would be sufficient. This could continue until a completely ridiculous counter claim could simply be dismissed as highly unlikely or simply irrational, meanwhile the absolute moral truth claim, would most likely still be rational. That is compare:
It is wrong to infilict pain on another person .
What if its in accordance with their will?
OK,
It is wrong to inflict pain on another person even if its against their will.
What if its saving millions.
OK,
It is wrong to inflict pain on another person even if its against their will and the only reason is for their pleasure.
OK, you fill in the blank now.
Eventually the scenario: It is wrong to inflict pain on another person even if its against their will and the only reason is for their pleasure.
Makese sense, but
Someone trying to inflict pain against their will or they will kill millions or even two other people is an irrational concept. The fact that it is irrational to us, provides further evidence that there is some standard absolute behavior by which we can both judge this action by. Surely this standard is not us, we could be wrong as Hitler was.
While this is not formal in any way, certainly one could produce a formal and academic argument along these lines. It is simply more rational to concede that an absolute moral truth exists. And if one does exist, what does this imply?
A singular absolute moral code, would not tend to generate so many moral positions if we are all striving to match that one.
Suppose however that man is imperfect and has a nature to resist these codes. Would we then expect man to reach different conclusions on what these truths are? I would say your conclusion is dependent upon man being perfect as the laws are supposedly perfect.
There is no good in the world, once humans abandon peace and health in the name of following extremist demands of a deity
There could be problems with this yes, however examine the teachings of Christ and do you still come to the same conclusion? In our limited understanding, yes we can see times when we question what God has done or the decision He has made. But everyone of these cases, we can see a greater good occurring can we not? If you look at these actions within the context of the God really existing and His teachings being true, then the few actions which at times are hard to understand become quite understandable. For every one of these actions are there not 100 other perceivable good actions or lessons being revealed? If we are truly fallen would we not perceive some of His actions to be bad? Who are we to judge what an all knowing all good God might or might not do, especially when we are limited in our understanding. This is more evidence that He is who He says He is and that we are who He says we are(limited and fallen disobedient vessels).
Zeus's jealousy is not like mans jealosy in that man is tainted by wickedness. Zeus's vengefullness in a similar way. Not a man made vengence that is irrational and unjust, littered with emotion, rather it is a holy and perfect vengence based soley on truth. It is pure and good because Zeus is pure and good and is the standard by which we measure such things by
Tell me how to differentiate between all of these statements without being completely abritrary or self-serving?
Within the context of Christianity, these problems of vengeance and a jealous God do make sense. Within the context of other religions perhaps they do not. They are not contradictory for Christianity which is what you originally intended to demonstrate. For Zeus or any other diety, given this deities nature (limited and not omni,omni,omni), maybe it is a contradiction. They would have to deal with this alleged problem using their own theology.
I am running out of time and will simply have to leave my statements as they are. If I have misunderstood you at any time, as I have in the past, please clarify. Furthermore, if there are other specific points you wanted addressed, please ask and point me to the question.
Thanks for the thought provoking comments and take care,
Grace2u

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2004 1:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 5:27 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 100 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 5:44 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 01-07-2004 11:56 PM grace2u has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 99 of 131 (77041)
01-07-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by grace2u
01-07-2004 4:48 PM


Nitpick...
grace2u writes:
Infinity is...a way of expressing something that has no bounds.
Not really. There are such things as bounded infinities, ex: a line segment. A line segment is a set of infinitely many points yet it forms a definite interval with a beginning and an ending.
...and now back to our regularly scheduled argument...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 4:48 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 6:44 PM :æ: has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 100 of 131 (77046)
01-07-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by grace2u
01-07-2004 4:48 PM


grace2u writes:
In other words, since the truth (in its fullness ) is ultimately unknowable to man...
You've said this before, and I believe it to be your Achilles' heel in this line of argument.
Here on this forum we've seen you repeatedly assert the existence of this absolute truth and that its existence is the "most rational" interpretation of the evidence, yet a few times we've also seen you concede that it is ultimately unknowable. By conceding this, you are admitting that no amount of evidence will ever lead to the undeniable conclusion that this absolute truth is real, and therefore your claim that concluding its existence is the "most rational" interpretation is in fact false. Your belief that it exists is not based on facts, but instead based on arbitrary presuppositions that are not shared by your opponent(s).
If we cannot know what it is, we cannot be certain that it exists. In other words, if we cannot absolutely know it, we cannot know it to be absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 4:48 PM grace2u has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 131 (77053)
01-07-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by :æ:
01-07-2004 5:27 PM


It is not normaly necessary to reply to a nitpick however...
Not really. There are such things as bounded infinities, ex: a line segment. A line segment is a set of infinitely many points yet it forms a definite interval with a beginning and an ending.
I disagree. Surely you've heard of (or done) a line integral? How do you suppose a line integral can return a finite value for a line segment if there are infinite infentesimal dx's? Wouldn't all the dx's simply add up to infinity if this were true? Btw, aren't bounded infinities mere specualtion on the part of philosophers who know little of applied mathematics(reality)? How have I misunderstood you?
OR..
If you are speaking of the physical world, a line drawn out still eventually has a finite number of particles making up this line.
Sorry :ae:, either you've stepped out of your arena of knowledge on this or I have grossly misunderstood you. If so, my apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 5:27 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 7:34 PM grace2u has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 102 of 131 (77058)
01-07-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by grace2u
01-07-2004 6:44 PM


Sorry :ae:, either you've stepped out of your arena of knowledge on this or I have grossly misunderstood you. If so, my apologies.
I think you've misunderstood. The closed continuous interval (0,1) contains an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 despite the fact that it is bounded at 0 and 1. For every two non-identical numbers you give me on that interval, I can find one between them ad infinitum. This is a fact, and its provable.
Line segments are continuous, and points on a line segment correspond to numbers on the continuous interval above. For every two non-congruent points on a line segment, I can name a point between them ad infinitum. Thus, both cases represent infinities that exist between upper and lower bounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 6:44 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 9:17 PM :æ: has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 131 (77074)
01-07-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by :æ:
01-07-2004 7:34 PM


At any rate, since you mention a provable fact, what do you mean by this, in context with your post-modernalist view of the world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by :æ:, posted 01-07-2004 7:34 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by :æ:, posted 01-08-2004 12:02 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 131 (77087)
01-07-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by grace2u
01-07-2004 4:48 PM


ae in post 100, imo, placed the most powerful arrow into the achille's heel of your argument.
You do alternate between stating there is an absolute code, and stating that it may be unknowable. If it is possibly unknowable, this implies we do not have solid evidence now for its existence. That has the result of undercutting an idea you have evidence for an absolute ethic.
Furthermore if an absolute moral code is unknowable, or even partially eclipsed to humans, then you have argued for "soft" relativism.
I think you may be misunderstanding exactly how relativism works. In answering your post I will try to make this more clear.
For convenience, we will drop the infinity issue, unless it becomes paramount to a point you may be making.
quote:
On a side note, I do find it interesting that a relativist would make claims on what can or can not be done. Is this allowed within your philosophical system? If so, please explain the justification. Are you not assuming some universal standard of truth exists and that by me suggesting these things it is violating that truth?
My comment had nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with logical structure of an argument.
It simply wasn't logical to argue for existence of an absolute code (as a metaethic), and then say the ethic could appear as a set encompassing infinite possibilities. This is essentially undercutting any practical difference between ab-e and rel-e, yet retains the backing of a deity and assertion of absolutism.
I suppose one CAN argue what you did, but one would be making a very poor case. If you want to be convincing then you cannot argue as you had.
quote:
For one, within absolutism, one does have ultimate authority to make claims of right and wrong because they acknowledge that these things exist and that there is a standard that can be worked towards.
How is this possible, when a deity may change the rules as we understand them at any point in the future? MMmmm, let me be clear about this... that a deity may reveal later on that what we thought of as absolutes were really something else all along?
quote:
Within relativism, it does not follow that anyone should make any statements of right and wrong because who is to say such a thing exists? If you say that the only absolute moral truth is To each his own then isn’t this an absolute moral truth in itself? In fact, within relativism wouldn't it be safe to conclude that everyone should do as they wish? Even harm others at times?
This is a common misperception regarding relativism. Relativism does not tell people that they ought to do as they will, it simply states that people WILL do as they will. The onus is on the individual to construct an ethic, and anyone observed working with an ethic is understood to have constucted it from a variety of life experiences.
Absolutism, whether with a deity or not, removes the individual from the construction of the ethical system. While it may be revealed by humans, the ethical system stands separate from them. There is no variance and no appeals that it can be changed. With a diety, the set of absolutes is given by the deity. However a deity is not necessary. One can conceive of a disembodied (or uncommanded) set of absolutes of what is best in man or promotes health or creates happiness etc etc... which is good.
Thus your argument that a set of absolutes does not necessarily indicate a God at all, much less one in particular. It may arise simply from our state in Nature. You can argue this state was made by God, but that is a separate argument which is unconnected to the existence of an absolute code.
quote:
I am simply looking at the final conclusion that relativism offers, namely no judgement claims can be made about anything with any authority
This seems more an argument from fear than of anything else. What logical reason would a judgement need a stamp of higher authority for it to be valid? What will an authority lend to a judgement that it will be followed any more or less than an individually or culturally derived judgement?
It is my argument that those who follow authority have abandoned morality as a concept, beyond "thou shalt obey." Morality is the rule of laws over actions, Obedience is the rule of Authority over the dominated. One has no connection to the other.
One should hope that if God created absolute moral laws, humans would follow them out of their perfect fit for human life, rather than because God demands it.
quote:
Furthermore, for the more complex issues such as murder out of pleasure, why is it that this is wrong (as far as we can tell) in every civilized culture? If a culture does agree it is ok, do you not agree that it still is wrong? If you do, then what is the justification within the proper confines of relativism? I would maintain that in order to be consistent with relativism, one must concede that if a society kills out of pleasure, than it is ok for that society.
I think it is self-evident (ie reality) that whether I agree with a society's moral codes or not, if they believe something is right, for them it is right.
What difference would it make if I told them God said they were wrong, or I said they were wrong. At least if I said I thought they were wrong I could point out how they are being illogical or inconsistent. Or maybe I could bribe the guards to let me escape (preying on the weakness of personal integrity toward that society's rules).
Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I decided to have an incestuous orgy with all my male relatives. I feel safe in assuming you'd think that is wrong. What would it mean to you if I said my Gods say that was a perfectly good thing? How did that Authority help my case to you, or in general?
Can other communities judge the actions of a Xian community as right/wrong with additional Authority? Religious persecution as seen during the inquisition had the highest of Authorities on its side. But I would say that was wrong and many others would. Whose "authority" was correct?
quote:
Looking at a supposed society where this was ok - say the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. This was allowed by the ultimate authority in that country do you think then that this is an ok thing to do EVER? This is the ultimate philosophical problem for relativism
Read what you said very carefully. This is NOT the problem of relativism. The killing of Jews was okayed by the highest Authorities... that is your line, not the relativists.
To the relativist, while many germans felt jews should be killed, many did not. Relativists were able to flout appeals to authority and point to the actions themselves and try to convince others that the rules and the Authorities were wrong.
It is true that I could not say the killers were wrong in the universal sense, like they offended the laws of the universe. But I can say in a very real sense that their arguments made little sense, and the actions of extermination would never produce the results they were hoping for. It was logically against concepts of freedom and justice, and so anyone for those should be offended by Nazis.
What difference would it have made if I said, God said this was bad? There are plenty of Xians then and now that believe Jews are evil. Which Xian God is right? Which has authority?
quote:
So, while you have some evidence against the idea, surely you would concede I have evidence for the prospect of absolute moral truth. IMHO, the evidence for absolute moral truth, far outweighs the evidence against.
Evidence for the prospect of... That is so weak a claim I would have to say yes. Any slight commonality could count as evidence for the prospect of an absolute morality.
But it is not convincing and I must disagree with that second sentence. Perhaps you have more to share?
quote:
however I still maintain that the evidence for absolute moral truth far outweighs that against. Namely, impossibility(or at least unlikelihood) of the contrary.
Mmmmm... still want to see some evidence. I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest absolutes are unlikely, though I will agree that there is no evidence they are impossible. If we add to the idea of an absolute morality, that it may never be completely known, then I think impossibility is written out of the picture anyway.
quote:
What other evidence do you have that suggests NO absolute moral law exists (besides mans inability to agree on what one might be)?
Actually that is a pretty good chunk of evidence. I am uncertain if there really needs to be more. It is that vast inconsistency with an absolute code common to man, which absolutists must overcome.
I guess i can show how I come up with my own concepts of morality and not judge them according to some universal code, nor do I need to.
quote:
While this is not formal in any way, certainly one could produce a formal and academic argument along these lines. It is simply more rational to concede that an absolute moral truth exists.
I am being totally honest when I say, that in the argument preceeding this summation, I saw no statement I could agree with.
While many may agree that the beliefs you stated are irrational, not everyone would. And I am wholly unconvinced that people could not come to such beliefs through self-reflection. What makes it more rationale to concede that such beliefs come from a singular absolute code?
quote:
Suppose however that man is imperfect and has a nature to resist these codes. Would we then expect man to reach different conclusions on what these truths are? I would say your conclusion is dependent upon man being perfect as the laws are supposedly perfect.
This appears to be inconsistent with your earlier stated theory. How can you claim that people are aspiring to the absolute code, and then say the reason they don't end up at the same result is that they have a nature to resist the code? If anything if it is man's nature to resist this universal code, you are making the argument that for men there is no absolute morality... just a list of moral laws which humans try to avoid in many different ways.
quote:
examine the teachings of Christ and do you still come to the same conclusion? In our limited understanding, yes we can see times when we question what God has done or the decision He has made. But everyone of these cases, we can see a greater good occurring can we not? If you look at these actions within the context of the God really existing and His teachings being true, then the few actions which at times are hard to understand become quite understandable. For every one of these actions are there not 100 other perceivable good actions or lessons being revealed?
Yes and no... by which I mean I have examined the teachings of Christ and come to the same conclusion, and no I do not see a greater good in all of these cases.
The genocide ordered by God and commited by Moses, the jealous action of God to compel armies to rape and kill two sisters, the ordering of a man to kill his son, not to mention God's own action of allowing people to murder Job's family and slaves as part of a wager with the devil...
I find much more compelling moral instruction from Buddhist and Taoist texts. And with them I do not have to feel fallen and terrible just for being alive.
quote:
Within the context of Christianity, these problems of vengeance and a jealous God do make sense. Within the context of other religions perhaps they do not. They are not contradictory for Christianity which is what you originally intended to demonstrate.
This is straight assertion. I was raised and educated in Xianity so I am pretty confident in saying it does not fit within the context of Xian morals, other than Xians ignoring whatever God does or says as something beyond human judgement.
You will need to provide a much more concrete argument that God's anger and jealousy is different and better than human anger/jealousy, not to mention not a sign of imperfection for a deity.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by grace2u, posted 01-07-2004 4:48 PM grace2u has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 131 (77139)
01-08-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-07-2004 4:13 PM


Re: Begging the question?
Stephen,
While we may disagree on some theological issues or interpretations, I am united with you in love.
Take care and God bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-07-2004 4:13 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 01-08-2004 3:41 PM grace2u has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024