toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?

[Silent Hunter]

_
You made an assertion, not an argument.

. . . no less so than the person who says the invisible sky spirit exists.

Prove that the person identified as "Silent Hunter" wrote the above post. And send me "the original" post, i.e., the one on the screen you typed, before you pressed the "submit reply" button. Do be a dear, and provide these originals. Until you can prove you are this "Silent Hunter" who wrote this post, by producing "the originals,"then anything you write we may dismiss.

This is not the same thing as proving "god" exists.

 

[Silent Hunter]

_

Your "argument": We must "prove" that the LORD God is the author of scriptures, using "science"-that which can be analyzed empirically by one of the 5 senses "science"uses to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically-touch, sight, smell, taste and sound ,correct?

Fine-Prove love exists, using the same standard.

Your proposal is a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Love is a construct of human intellect and does not exist independent of our "imagination;" which, oddly seems to be where "god" exists.

 

[john w]

. . . no less so than the person who says the invisible sky spirit exists.

This is not the same thing as proving "god" exists.

_
Translation: Punt. Lovely. Prove "you" wrote that post.

 

[john w]

Your proposal is a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Love is a construct of human intellect and does not exist independent of our "imagination;" which, oddly seems to be where "god" exists.

__

"a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man...." and all that jazz....

Translation: Throw out the old reliable, "this scholastic jargon works in responding to any post I cannot answer" technique, also known as the "Babbling Technique, "i.e., remember when you were a kid. If you closed your eyes, danger would go away.
This technique is a variation on that theme. When backed into a corner, begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place. With all the other fine Apologetic techniques available, this one is usually not advised. So just Babble on and on and on and on.


Impressive.

"Love is a construct of human intellect and does not exist independent of our "imagination;" which, oddly seems to be where "god" exists."-Silent Hunter

You are watching too much Oprah. Pay attention. Prove love exists, using "science."


We will wait.

 

[Silent Hunter]

_
Translation: Punt. Lovely. Prove "you" wrote that post.

That's what YOU did by inserting the red herring and shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove "love" exists. You, on the other hand, need to prove the invisible sky spirit you worship exists in order to validate your premise.

__

"a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man...." and all that jazz....

Translation: Throw out the old reliable, "this scholastic jargon works in responding to any post I cannot answer" technique, also known as the "Babbling Technique, "i.e., remember when you were a kid. If you closed your eyes, danger would go away.
This technique is a variation on that theme. When backed into a corner, begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place. With all the other fine Apologetic techniques available, this one is usually not advised. So just Babble on and on and on and on.

I'm not the one saying the invisible sky spirit exists . . . that would be YOU.

Impressive.

You like pulling your own chain . . . sadly it's connected to a waste disposal devise.

"Love is a construct of human intellect and does not exist independent of our "imagination;" which, oddly seems to be where "god" exists."-Silent Hunter

You are watching too much Oprah. Pay attention. Prove love exists, using "science."

This still remains a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Veiled ad hominems and shifting the burden of proof doesn't validate your position.

We will wait.

So will we.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Originally Posted by aSeattleConserv
If the civil magistrate, one of three institutions ordained by God for the governance of men (the other two being the family and the Church) can't "legislate" morality,

Yikes! That's not the purpose of the church. The purpose of the church is to be a minister (collectively) of the New Covenant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/govern
govern:
8. to have predominating influence.

As in "The Church, through the spreading of the gospel, has a dominating influence over it's congregation."

"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm

 

[Krsto]

Originally Posted by aSeattleConserv
If the civil magistrate, one of three institutions ordained by God for the governance of men (the other two being the family and the Church) can't "legislate" morality,



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/govern
govern:
8. to have predominating influence.

As in "The Church, through the spreading of the gospel, has a dominating influence over it's congregation."

"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm

OK, much better. Whew, I can sleep better now. Thanks.

 

[john w]

That's what YOU did by inserting the red herring and shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove "love" exists. You, on the other hand, need to prove the invisible sky spirit you worship exists in order to validate your premise.

I'm not the one saying the invisible sky spirit exists . . . that would be YOU.

You like pulling your own chain . . . sadly it's connected to a waste disposal devise.

This still remains a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Veiled ad hominems and shifting the burden of proof doesn't validate your position.

So will we.

_
"This still remains a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Veiled ad hominems and shifting the burden of proof doesn't validate your position."

Got me again with that zinger. Intimidating.

"That's what YOU did by inserting the red herring and shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove "love" exists. You, on the other hand, need to prove the invisible sky spirit you worship exists in order to validate your premise."

Prove you wrote that post. Prove love exists,to validate your premise We will wait for an eternity.

 

[Silent Hunter]

_
"This still remains a red herring, a non sequitur, and a straw man. Veiled ad hominems and shifting the burden of proof doesn't validate your position."

Got me again with that zinger. Intimidating.

"That's what YOU did by inserting the red herring and shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove "love" exists. You, on the other hand, need to prove the invisible sky spirit you worship exists in order to validate your premise."

Prove you wrote that post. Prove love exists,to validate your premise We will wait for an eternity.

NOT going to play your game. :wave:

 

[john w]

NOT going to play your game. :wave:

_
Prove you wrote that post. Prove love, pain, hate.....exist, utilizing "science."

Can you? I thought so.

translated:I don't think there can be a God," who holds me accoutable to His standards, not my own. It does not seem to me that a God, "if this entity existed", would (fill in the blank) Therefore, there isn't a God="my mind is my god"(Judges 21:25). What I cannot conceive of, I will not believe. What I cannot understand, I will not accept. So I will reduce objective truth down to fit what I believe. I just cannot believe there is a God, so there is no God, Sam I am.......and even though there is no God (and hell, and......) I will spend hours and hours logging on to the computer, losing my mind, warning people of believing in something that does not exist....

Got it. Straight jackets around?

 

[Silent Hunter]

_
Prove you wrote that post. Prove love, pain, hate.....exist, utilizing "science."

Can you? I thought so.

translated:I don't think there can be a God," who holds me accoutable to His standards, not my own. It does not seem to me that a God, "if this entity existed", would (fill in the blank) Therefore, there isn't a God="my mind is my god"(Judges 21:25). What I cannot conceive of, I will not believe. What I cannot understand, I will not accept. So I will reduce objective truth down to fit what I believe. I just cannot believe there is a God, so there is no God, Sam I am.......and even though there is no God (and hell, and......) I will spend hours and hours logging on to the computer, losing my mind, warning people of believing in something that does not exist....

:think: :kookoo:
:rotfl:

Got it. Straight jackets around?

You certainly need one. :wave:

 

[john w]

:think: :kookoo:
:rotfl:

You certainly need one. :wave:

_
Got me again with that standard shut down close.

 

[Nydhogg]

What I cannot conceive of, I will not believe. What I cannot understand, I will not accept.

The alternative is taking as true what your mind perceives as gibberish, BS or straight nonsense.

Not every mind can pull that off. I doubt it's even healthy to try.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The alternative is taking as true what your mind perceives as gibberish, BS or straight nonsense.

Not every mind can pull that off. I doubt it's even healthy to try.

Only the religious mind has that ability . . . especially the Christian "mind" . . .

 

[Nydhogg]

Only the religious mind has that ability . . . especially the Christian "mind" . . .

This is erroneous and uncalled for.

There are many believers, some of them Christian, who have found the philosophical arguments for the existence of God valid, or who accept the validity of a holy book for some reason.

Those folks are not forcing themselves to accept junk or nonsense on faith. They don't perceive the teachings of their faith to be absurd.

In fact I contend that forcing your own mind to accept nonsense as true is a losing battle. Once your mind "flags" something as nonsense, your odds of successfully believing it are nil.

So most believers are not struggling with that all the time. Those who DO struggle with that usually turn up losing faith.

 

[john w]

Only the religious mind has that ability . . . especially the Christian "mind" . . .

". . no less so than the person who says the invisible sky spirit exists."-Silent Hunter

Prove these invisible things of love, pain, hate, greed..... exist, using "science."

We will wait-for an eternity.

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is erroneous and uncalled for.

There are many believers, some of them Christian, who have found the philosophical arguments for the existence of God valid, or who accept the validity of a holy book for some reason.

Those folks are not forcing themselves to accept junk or nonsense on faith. They don't perceive the teachings of their faith to be absurd.

In fact I contend that forcing your own mind to accept nonsense as true is a losing battle. Once your mind "flags" something as nonsense, your odds of successfully believing it are nil.

So most believers are not struggling with that all the time. Those who DO struggle with that usually turn up losing faith.

As well they should . . . and as well YOU should (if you are a Christian and have ever read the Bible) . . .

 

[Silent Hunter]

Prove these invisible things of love, pain, hate, greed..... exist, using "science."

We will wait-for an eternity.

Actually, these things DON'T exist in reality . . . they are constructs of the human mind . . . so your challenge is (as usual) a red herring, an non sequitur, and (gasp) a straw man . . .

The invisible and the nonexistent are often very much alike. . .

 

[Town Heretic]

This is erroneous and uncalled for.

Which, interestingly enough, was his second choice as a username, if I recall correctly. :think: SH is a decent enough sort and bright as well. He's also young and brash and laboring under the wants that attend his years, both in perspective and biology.

You know, we aren't required to treat nonsense or declaration with respect as argument. It's sufficient from time to time to say, "That's lovely. Now be a good fellow and go sharpen your ax."

There are many believers, some of them Christian, who have found the philosophical arguments for the existence of God valid, or who accept the validity of a holy book for some reason.

This is an example of that sort of error. Either he's aware of Aquinas, and Augustine, and Merton, and Lewis, and Newton, and on and on down the line of brilliant minds who have and continue to embrace the Christian faith or he isn't. If he is then he understands that the posture he's adopting is just that and its only real point is to prick your ears. If he isn't then he isn't worth talking to on the subject at this point anyway.

Either way you're wasting energy on countering as though it will or could have effect. That's not why he's here. Just have a little sport with him if it interests you or shake your head at him if it doesn't.

 

[Nydhogg]

As well they should . . . and as well YOU should (if you are a Christian and have ever read the Bible) . . .

I'm not a Christian. I follow other faith (Asatrú).

Whether they should or should not struggle with their faith and ultimately give it up is their call. I will not presume to know the right decisions for others in their spiritual life.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Freedom of conscience is certainly good for both goose and gander.

I've read the Bible. It don't want to offend anybody, but it didn't make sense at all and I feel the God it depicts is frankly evil. I would not worship it.

But it's not my faith, and I'm sure they have their reasons to believe as they do. I probably don't agree with those but it's not my call to make.