Turns out Phil Robertson is a nutball after all

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 15:44:18 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 26, 2015 11:11:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's contingent on the nuances of "morality".

The argument enters in via the fact that humanist postulates are unprovable. One simply has to assert that ideals such as love, kindness, happiness, doing good to one's fellow man, etc. are desirable and good, but there's no fundamental natural law proving this. If one rejects these ideals, one inherently rejects any ethical constructs (such as Kant's imperative) built on them.

For example, if an individual's view is biocentric rather than humanist, destroying all human life on Earth to preserve the rest of the biosphere is an ethically sound proposition. Moreover, the rationalist cannot prove that a humanist view is "right" and an a biocentric view is not, since no natural laws exist to make this determination. Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

Would that mean in theism there is no reasoning behind the idea of "right" and "wrong"?   If there is a reason then "right" and "wrong" could possibly exist without theism.  If there is no reasoning behind the ideas, then it is just  a rule for the sake of having a rule.

I can't speak for all theism, but using my theism in particular: "right" is what is what permitted by God's spiritual Law and is consistent with perfection. Sin is the transgression of the Law, and constitutes a departure from perfection. Man is mentally and spiritually unequipped to understand the full nature of perfection, hence from a practical standpoint we learn about sin from scripture, also called the Word. We study and feed off the Word, put it increasingly into practice in our lives, and deeper understanding is unveiled over time. A Christian should always be growing in grace and knowledge until the day (s)he dies. As soon as a man says "I've learned enough" or "I'm good enough", he's giving up the race so to speak.

Secular humanism--and specifically rationalist humanism--may or may not start with the notion of ethics as the pursuit of perfection, but like religion it rests on a set of fundamental truths that cannot be asserted in terms of anything more fundamental. For humanist philosophies, one of these fundamentals is that we ought to love and value our fellow man, and to do so is "right". To bring harm upon others is to do "wrong". I've never heard a humanist reasonably explain this in terms of anything more fundamental (e.g. mathematics, the physical laws of the universe) and it's almost certainly impossible to do so, hence the rationalist may not always accept it as a fundamental truth.

Most of the discussion in this thread either implicitly or explicitly asserts the fundamental tenets of humanism. In that framework, ethics is a philosophical exercise in determining "rules" (for lack of a better word) conducive to peaceful human coexistence. These rules may be heuristic in nature, such as in DJ's viewpoint. A critic of his view would attack it on two fulcra: the first being the criticism that his heuristics are insufficient, excessive, or wrong in realizing humanist ideals; the second (which would be the "morality cannot exist outside of ..." argument) being that the tenets of humanism are unproven.  A humanist cannot prove to a rationalist that nihilism, hedonism, biocentrism, etc. are not superior doctrines to humanism.

Religious thought based on scripture does away with this uncertainty. There are laws indicating what actions towards our fellow man are right, what actions are wrong. These are asserted to be perfect laws and to be exclusive perfect laws. The rationalist sees religious man's abuse of fundamentalist attitudes over the millennia, rejects the existence of God, and elects to define "right" and "wrong" per the previous framework if (s)he wishes to entertain notions of "right" and "wrong".

If you reread my previous post with the above in mind, you'll probably get a better idea of what I was driving at.

[mmhmm]

Chiver agrees this thread needs to go to the Religious Discussions forum but can't move it from her mobile, so I'm going to move it now. Feel free to continue there but keep in mind there are specific rules that apply to that forum. Keep it civil.

mmhmm, Administrator

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 20:04:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 15:44:18 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Would that mean in theism there is no reasoning behind the idea of "right" and "wrong"?   If there is a reason then "right" and "wrong" could possibly exist without theism.  If there is no reasoning behind the ideas, then it is just  a rule for the sake of having a rule.

I can't speak for all theism, but using my theism in particular: "right" is what is what permitted by God's spiritual Law and is consistent with perfection. Sin is the transgression of the Law, and constitutes a departure from perfection. Man is mentally and spiritually unequipped to understand the full nature of perfection, hence from a practical standpoint we learn about sin from scripture, also called the Word. We study and feed off the Word, put it increasingly into practice in our lives, and deeper understanding is unveiled over time. A Christian should always be growing in grace and knowledge until the day (s)he dies. As soon as a man says "I've learned enough" or "I'm good enough", he's giving up the race so to speak.

Secular humanism--and specifically rationalist humanism--may or may not start with the notion of ethics as the pursuit of perfection, but like religion it rests on a set of fundamental truths that cannot be asserted in terms of anything more fundamental. For humanist philosophies, one of these fundamentals is that we ought to love and value our fellow man, and to do so is "right". To bring harm upon others is to do "wrong". I've never heard a humanist reasonably explain this in terms of anything more fundamental (e.g. mathematics, the physical laws of the universe) and it's almost certainly impossible to do so, hence the rationalist may not always accept it as a fundamental truth.

Most of the discussion in this thread either implicitly or explicitly asserts the fundamental tenets of humanism. In that framework, ethics is a philosophical exercise in determining "rules" (for lack of a better word) conducive to peaceful human coexistence. These rules may be heuristic in nature, such as in DJ's viewpoint. A critic of his view would attack it on two fulcra: the first being the criticism that his heuristics are insufficient, excessive, or wrong in realizing humanist ideals; the second (which would be the "morality cannot exist outside of ..." argument) being that the tenets of humanism are unproven.  A humanist cannot prove to a rationalist that nihilism, hedonism, biocentrism, etc. are not superior doctrines to humanism.

Religious thought based on scripture does away with this uncertainty. There are laws indicating what actions towards our fellow man are right, what actions are wrong. These are asserted to be perfect laws and to be exclusive perfect laws. The rationalist sees religious man's abuse of fundamentalist attitudes over the millennia, rejects the existence of God, and elects to define "right" and "wrong" per the previous framework if (s)he wishes to entertain notions of "right" and "wrong".

If you reread my previous post with the above in mind, you'll probably get a better idea of what I was driving at.

To be blunt, I am not smart enough to understand all that .

"right" is what is what permitted by God's spiritual Law and is consistent with perfection.

Is God's spiritual law based on what God created?  If following the laws makes one's life better and they are not arbitrary rules then it seems to me that those practices could be figured out even without a god.  The world is what it is,whether God made it or the big bang started it.  Living your (Virgil's)  life by your (Virgil's) beliefs is the best way to live if there is a God, I am guessing you believe, not just because they are the rules but because God made rules that better your life.  So without a God those rules would still make for a better life.  Therefore there is a "right" absent spiritual law or else spiritual law is just arbitrary rules.

Not sure I am making any sense outside of my head.  Don't feel obligated to answer if you don't want to.  I can have conversations like this in my head all alone .

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 20:37:21 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

A humanist cannot prove to a rationalist that nihilism, hedonism, biocentrism, etc. are not superior doctrines to humanism.

A religious person can't either. Their "proof" is because god says so, or because the bible says so. Neither of those things constitute proof.

That is correct.

And in fact, the only mechanism by which one can come to personally prove the existence of God is to first be called by Him, to respond to the call by stepping out in faith, to diligently seek Him through a lifetime of study, prayer, meditation, fasting, good works, and spiritual growth, and ultimate develop a relationship with Him as with a loving father.

There are no shortcuts.

Since (I believe) we can quote scripture on this board:

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (AKJV, Hebrews 6:11)

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 20:26:15 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Mar 26, 2015 20:04:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I can't speak for all theism, but using my theism in particular: "right" is what is what permitted by God's spiritual Law and is consistent with perfection. Sin is the transgression of the Law, and constitutes a departure from perfection. Man is mentally and spiritually unequipped to understand the full nature of perfection, hence from a practical standpoint we learn about sin from scripture, also called the Word. We study and feed off the Word, put it increasingly into practice in our lives, and deeper understanding is unveiled over time. A Christian should always be growing in grace and knowledge until the day (s)he dies. As soon as a man says "I've learned enough" or "I'm good enough", he's giving up the race so to speak.

Secular humanism--and specifically rationalist humanism--may or may not start with the notion of ethics as the pursuit of perfection, but like religion it rests on a set of fundamental truths that cannot be asserted in terms of anything more fundamental. For humanist philosophies, one of these fundamentals is that we ought to love and value our fellow man, and to do so is "right". To bring harm upon others is to do "wrong". I've never heard a humanist reasonably explain this in terms of anything more fundamental (e.g. mathematics, the physical laws of the universe) and it's almost certainly impossible to do so, hence the rationalist may not always accept it as a fundamental truth.

Most of the discussion in this thread either implicitly or explicitly asserts the fundamental tenets of humanism. In that framework, ethics is a philosophical exercise in determining "rules" (for lack of a better word) conducive to peaceful human coexistence. These rules may be heuristic in nature, such as in DJ's viewpoint. A critic of his view would attack it on two fulcra: the first being the criticism that his heuristics are insufficient, excessive, or wrong in realizing humanist ideals; the second (which would be the "morality cannot exist outside of ..." argument) being that the tenets of humanism are unproven.  A humanist cannot prove to a rationalist that nihilism, hedonism, biocentrism, etc. are not superior doctrines to humanism.

Religious thought based on scripture does away with this uncertainty. There are laws indicating what actions towards our fellow man are right, what actions are wrong. These are asserted to be perfect laws and to be exclusive perfect laws. The rationalist sees religious man's abuse of fundamentalist attitudes over the millennia, rejects the existence of God, and elects to define "right" and "wrong" per the previous framework if (s)he wishes to entertain notions of "right" and "wrong".

If you reread my previous post with the above in mind, you'll probably get a better idea of what I was driving at.

To be blunt, I am not smart enough to understand all that .

"right" is what is what permitted by God's spiritual Law and is consistent with perfection.

Is God's spiritual law based on what God created?  If following the laws makes one's life better and they are not arbitrary rules then it seems to me that those practices could be figured out even without a god.  The world is what it is,whether God made it or the big bang started it.  Living your (Virgil's)  life by your (Virgil's) beliefs is the best way to live if there is a God, I am guessing you believe, not just because they are the rules but because God made rules that better your life.  So without a God those rules would still make for a better life.  Therefore there is a "right" absent spiritual law or else spiritual law is just arbitrary rules.

Not sure I am making any sense outside of my head.  Don't feel obligated to answer if you don't want to.  I can have conversations like this in my head all alone .

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

You let go of an egg, it falls. You murder a man you don't like, you've sinned against him and your society, violating the bond of perfection.

As for why sin entered into the world, why man has free moral agency, why certain actions seem right but are not, why God permits sin--these are all vast scriptural topics. My doctrines are largely compatible with those of the church I attend, the Living Church of God. They offer hundreds of hours of free sermons, booklets and Bible study courses for anyone interested. If your interest is mainly academic, you'll probably be bored to tears and won't get much out of them, but I'll vouch for the organization.

Pursuit of God must be a self-directed exercise. Moreover, no man can come to the Son (Christ) unless first being called by the Father. In other words, all the philosophizing and advocacy in the world on my part couldn't compel you.

[Deleted]

Is God's spiritual law based on what God created? If following the laws makes one's life better and they are not arbitrary rules then it seems to me that those practices could be figured out even without a god. The world is what it is,whether God made it or the big bang started it. Living your (Virgil's) life by your (Virgil's) beliefs is the best way to live if there is a God, I am guessing you believe, not just because they are the rules but because God made rules that better your life. So without a God those rules would still make for a better life. Therefore there is a "right" absent spiritual law or else spiritual law is just arbitrary rules.

That is part of what I believe. Then you have to add in the concept of free will and what each individual considers the best life. That is why some people will not go to heaven, they don't consider it heaven. People aren't kidding when they say they would rather go to hell. It's not for me but I have come to accept that it really is what some people prefer.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 26, 2015 21:00:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 20:26:15 GMT -5 @hickle said:

To be blunt, I am not smart enough to understand all that .

Is God's spiritual law based on what God created?  If following the laws makes one's life better and they are not arbitrary rules then it seems to me that those practices could be figured out even without a god.  The world is what it is,whether God made it or the big bang started it.  Living your (Virgil's)  life by your (Virgil's) beliefs is the best way to live if there is a God, I am guessing you believe, not just because they are the rules but because God made rules that better your life.  So without a God those rules would still make for a better life.  Therefore there is a "right" absent spiritual law or else spiritual law is just arbitrary rules.

Not sure I am making any sense outside of my head.  Don't feel obligated to answer if you don't want to.  I can have conversations like this in my head all alone .

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

You let go of an egg, it falls. You murder a man you don't like, you've sinned against him and your society, violating the bond of perfection.

As for why sin entered into the world, why man has free moral agency, why certain actions seem right but are not, why God permits sin--these are all vast scriptural topics. My doctrines are largely compatible with those of the church I attend, the Living Church of God. They offer hundreds of hours of free sermons, booklets and Bible study courses for anyone interested. If your interest is mainly academic, you'll probably be bored to tears and won't get much out of them, but I'll vouch for the organization.

Pursuit of God must be a self-directed exercise. Moreover, no man can come to the Son (Christ) unless first being called by the Father. In other words, all the philosophizing and advocacy in the world on my part couldn't compel you.

Can you prove any of this using mathematics or the physical laws of the universe? Or are those demands just applicable to humanists?

Secular humanism--and specifically rationalist humanism--may or may not start with the notion of ethics as the pursuit of perfection, but like religion it rests on a set of fundamental truths that cannot be asserted in terms of anything more fundamental. For humanist philosophies, one of these fundamentals is that we ought to love and value our fellow man, and to do so is "right". To bring harm upon others is to do "wrong". I've never heard a humanist reasonably explain this in terms of anything more fundamental (e.g. mathematics, the physical laws of the universe) and it's almost certainly impossible to do so, hence the rationalist may not always accept it as a fundamental truth.

[steff]

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

YOUR religious beliefs apply to YOU, not to everyone just because you believe.

[EVT1]

Mar 26, 2015 21:00:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 20:26:15 GMT -5 @hickle said:

So does your church teach that unless people accept their version of God then they are doomed?

This is why my version of God/Nature/Creator/etc. is not based on any man-made religion- because I think none of them have a freaking clue.  You take that with the idea of hell and it just seems incredibly silly- and extremely scary if you believe it- that there is some supreme being that created you just so they could test you, and if you fail eternal damnation- quite a stiff penalty- eternal torture- we would lock someone up for that kind of shit on Earth. 

And where I really lose it is that all of these major religions claim to have the keys to the kingdom, and the others are false.  They make laws and fight wars over it.  And worse-  a particular brand of them want to be in charge of my country.

It has a real familiar feeling to it- Heaven is an exclusive club and the rest of you don't belong- or simply- as we see everyday in the world- to hell with you if you don't think what I think.

I am not an atheist- more like an agnostic that believes in something greater than us- just not calling it by name or claim to know anything at all about it.  I just see it everywhere.

What was that quote- you have created God in your image when it turns out he hates all of the same people you do.....

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 22:25:10 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And in fact, the only mechanism by which one can come to personally prove the existence of God is to first be called by Him, to respond to the call by stepping out in faith, to diligently seek Him through a lifetime of study, prayer, meditation, fasting, good works, and spiritual growth, and ultimate develop a relationship with Him as with a loving father.

Which still doesn't prove that god exists, just that the person in question thinks he does.

This is the greatest extent to which an individual can prove anything. For instance, my having observed the effects of gravity during my lifetime doesn't prove the existence of gravity.

Mar 26, 2015 22:30:41 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Can you prove any of this using mathematics or the physical laws of the universe? Or are those demands just applicable to humanists?

These aren't demands. They're simply statements of fact.

I cannot explain spiritual/moral laws in terms of mathematical ones. Notice where I suppose this is impossible for a creature of man's limited faculties. I was, the last time I checked, a human being.

Mar 26, 2015 23:03:51 GMT -5 steff said:

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

YOUR religious beliefs apply to YOU, not to everyone just because you believe.

I guess we shall find out.

Mar 26, 2015 23:08:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Mar 26, 2015 21:00:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So does your church teach that unless people accept their version of God then they are doomed?

This is why my version of God/Nature/Creator/etc. is not based on any man-made religion- because I think none of them have a freaking clue.  You take that with the idea of hell and it just seems incredibly silly- and extremely scary if you believe it- that there is some supreme being that created you just so they could test you, and if you fail eternal damnation- quite a stiff penalty- eternal torture- we would lock someone up for that kind of shit on Earth. 

And where I really lose it is that all of these major religions claim to have the keys to the kingdom, and the others are false.  They make laws and fight wars over it.  And worse-  a particular brand of them want to be in charge of my country.

It has a real familiar feeling to it- Heaven is an exclusive club and the rest of you don't belong- or simply- as we see everyday in the world- to hell with you if you don't think what I think.

I am not an atheist- more like an agnostic that believes in something greater than us- just not calling it by name or claim to know anything at all about it.  I just see it everywhere.

What was that quote- you have created God in your image when it turns out he hates all of the same people you do.....

You raise about four separate issues here, hence very briefly:

• the Faustian concept of hell you present isn't scriptural; see my comments here and here
  
• the fact many competing theories exist by no means precludes the correctness of one of them
  
• the concept of Heaven as an "exclusive club" for men called by God in this lifetime isn't scriptural, although I admit many mainstream Christian churches present it as such.  The reality of God's plan for man is represented in His Sabbaths and Holy Days. A very brief overview is found here.
• it really is important to distinguish between hatred of our fellow man and hatred of (or equivalently, complete revulsion to) certain doctrines, beliefs, and practices observed by man
  

[Deleted]

'Gravity' is theory. That said, if you want to explore it, you could start here...

[Deleted]

"Religious thought based on scripture does away with this uncertainty. There are laws indicating what actions towards our fellow man are right, what actions are wrong. These are asserted to be perfect laws and to be exclusive perfect laws. The rationalist sees religious man's abuse of fundamentalist attitudes over the millennia, rejects the existence of God, and elects to define "right" and "wrong" per the previous framework if (s)he wishes to entertain notions of "right" and "wrong"."

1) Given that you dispute the many opposing thoughts people profess to be based on a different interpretation of scripture, I don't see how it does away with uncertainty, except as certainty of beliefs accepted by the single individual.

2) As I asked the lady who told me the other day that spanking is ok because the bible says so... so you follow all laws indicating actions in there do you?

3) Who asserts them to be perfect laws?  (And again, all of them?)

4) I don't see religious man's abuse of fundamentalism as a reason to reject God... just religion.

[Virgil Showlion]

1. That is the correct interpretation of my statement.

2. Yes.

3. A believer in scripture. And yes, all of them.

4. Fair enough.

[swamp]

Mar 26, 2015 22:25:10 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And in fact, the only mechanism by which one can come to personally prove the existence of God is to first be called by Him, to respond to the call by stepping out in faith, to diligently seek Him through a lifetime of study, prayer, meditation, fasting, good works, and spiritual growth, and ultimate develop a relationship with Him as with a loving father.

Which still doesn't prove that god exists, just that the person in question thinks he does.

If there is a God, he wouldn't want me to go hungry.  I hate everyone and everything when I'm hungry.

[Deleted]

I wonder how much of what he says is to drum up interest for their show/business. This is drawing a ton of publicity.

I mean it seems like he believes it but if it was hitting the bottom line most families would be all over him to stop.

[Tennesseer]

Personal opinion:  if there is a God, I do not believe he cares one iota what earth humans do or what any other living thing does on any of the other  1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe.

[kittensaver]

Mar 26, 2015 23:03:51 GMT -5 steff said:

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.

YOUR religious beliefs apply to YOU, not to everyone just because you believe.

 *POTD*

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 21:00:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 20:26:15 GMT -5 @hickle said:

To be blunt, I am not smart enough to understand all that .

Is God's spiritual law based on what God created?  If following the laws makes one's life better and they are not arbitrary rules then it seems to me that those practices could be figured out even without a god.  The world is what it is,whether God made it or the big bang started it.  Living your (Virgil's)  life by your (Virgil's) beliefs is the best way to live if there is a God, I am guessing you believe, not just because they are the rules but because God made rules that better your life.  So without a God those rules would still make for a better life.  Therefore there is a "right" absent spiritual law or else spiritual law is just arbitrary rules.

Not sure I am making any sense outside of my head.  Don't feel obligated to answer if you don't want to.  I can have conversations like this in my head all alone .

The Spiritual Law is the same as physical law (e.g. gravity) in that it is a living law. It applies to everyone regardless of whether they believe it or not, just like gravity.(1)

You let go of an egg, it falls. You murder a man you don't like, you've sinned against him and your society, violating the bond of perfection.(2)

As for why sin entered into the world, why man has free moral agency, why certain actions seem right but are not, why God permits sin--these are all vast scriptural topics. My doctrines are largely compatible with those of the church I attend, the Living Church of God. They offer hundreds of hours of free sermons, booklets and Bible study courses for anyone interested. If your interest is mainly academic, you'll probably be bored to tears and won't get much out of them, but I'll vouch for the organization.

Pursuit of God must be a self-directed exercise. Moreover, no man can come to the Son (Christ) unless first being called by the Father. In other words, all the philosophizing and advocacy in the world on my part couldn't compel you.

(1)
There's a flaw in your comparison:

"Spiritual Laws" are based on unprovable (or, at the very least, unproven) belief.
"Physical Laws" (gravity, for example) are based on observable and mathematically provable empirical facts.


(2)
If you murder a man you damage the man and deny his rights to his life. Whether that's a "sin" or not depends on if there is a God or not... and if that God believes it to be. Something that no one KNOWS, for a fact.

Many believe... some even exceedingly fervently. But no one KNOWS by empirical, repeatable, displayable proof.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2015 12:52:20 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Mar 26, 2015 23:03:51 GMT -5 steff said:

YOUR religious beliefs apply to YOU, not to everyone just because you believe.

 *POTD*

No. You can argue there is no such thing as a spiritual law, or that a particular thing is not a spiritual law. But if there are spiritual laws of the nature Virgil is talking about they apply to everyone, in the same way that gravity applies to everyone whether you believe in it or not.

[cael]

That's a two-way street. No one view will ever be "right" - if there is no god and nothing after death, everyone who believes in god will be subject to that reality, just like if I'm wrong about god not existing, when I die I will be subject to ending up.... somewhere, and thinking "well, shit." as I'm set on fire for eternity. That's a risk I'm 100% willing to take in holding the views that I hold. No one ever will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which view on this is right or wrong, it's always going to be a personal view that applies to you and only you - but people won't ever stop projecting those personal views onto others.

(I didn't back-read this whole thread, I just think the philosophical conversation about it is interesting. i'm sure this has been said already.)

::slinks back to homework::

[tallguy]

Mar 27, 2015 8:44:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

Mar 26, 2015 22:25:10 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Which still doesn't prove that god exists, just that the person in question thinks he does.

If there is a God, he wouldn't want me to go hungry.  I hate everyone and everything when I'm hungry.

Eat a Snickers. You're not you when you're hungry.

(Or maybe you are, I don't know.) 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

No. You can argue there is no such thing as a spiritual law, or that a particular thing is not a spiritual law. But if there are spiritual laws of the nature Virgil is talking about they apply to everyone, in the same way that gravity applies to everyone whether you believe in it or not.

"Law"?? Or belief/guidelines based on your religion?

Virgil only speaks of Christian beliefs/"rules"/values to live by so they don't apply to everyone..

What of those who are Buddhist, or Hindi, Jewish, or Swahili etc - or Native American faith or Wiccan -both of which focus on the elements (Nature and all things related - earth, wind fire, the animal spirit, etc)?

You can't "pigeon-hole" everyone's faith or beliefs into the same pigeon hole - they don't all have the same beliefs or moral compass guiding them.

Even people of NO religious faith can (and DO) possess a moral compass that they follow. It's not based on any religion - it's based on their respect for humanity and doing no harm.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 28, 2015 21:02:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Mar 27, 2015 12:52:20 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

 *POTD*

No. You can argue there is no such thing as a spiritual law, or that a particular thing is not a spiritual law. But if there are spiritual laws of the nature Virgil is talking about they apply to everyone, in the same way that gravity applies to everyone whether you believe in it or not.

SLis right. Natural laws, like gravity and thermodynamics apply across the board. Spiritual laws...not so much. Do the spiritual laws of Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc., apply to you?

Or do you think YOUR spiritual laws override everyone else's?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 1:11:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 28, 2015 21:02:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No. You can argue there is no such thing as a spiritual law, or that a particular thing is not a spiritual law. But if there are spiritual laws of the nature Virgil is talking about they apply to everyone, in the same way that gravity applies to everyone whether you believe in it or not.

SLis right. Natural laws, like gravity and thermodynamics apply across the board. Spiritual laws...not so much. Do the spiritual laws of Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc., apply to you?

Or do you think YOUR spiritual laws override everyone else's?

What laterbloomer is correctly pointing out about my argument is that, supposing it is correct, the spiritual laws in question are God's Laws--immutable properties of our universe--not "mine". Analogously, James Maxwell posited a set of mathematical laws governing the behaviour of electromagnetic fields that, supposing they were correct, were immutable properties of our universe applicable to everyone regardless of belief.

You needn't point out that you reject the correctness of my argument. I'm perfectly aware of this. The observation here is the absoluteness of spiritual law. Other religions and kinds of secular spiritualism may (and often do) assert that individuals are bounded by different sets of laws based on their beliefs and circumstances, which is a relativistic doctrine. The two types--absolute and relativistic--are incompatible, and posters should understand that I'm an absolutist to properly discern my other arguments in this thread.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 1:11:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 28, 2015 21:02:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

No. You can argue there is no such thing as a spiritual law, or that a particular thing is not a spiritual law. But if there are spiritual laws of the nature Virgil is talking about they apply to everyone, in the same way that gravity applies to everyone whether you believe in it or not.

Natural laws, like gravity and thermodynamics apply across the board. Spiritual laws...not so much. Do the spiritual laws of Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, etc., apply to you?

Or do you think YOUR spiritual laws override everyone else's?

Let's take the Law of Attraction as an example. The Law of Attraction claim that you attract what you expect (really simplified for the sake of the example). If the Law of Attraction is accurate, it happens to everyone whether they believe in it or not. You can argue that it isn't actually a spiritual law, so it applies to no one. But it can't apply to some people and not others.

[Deleted]

Whatever makes you think the laws of science are not God's laws? 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Mar 29, 2015 10:11:20 GMT -5 oped said:

Whatever makes you think the laws of science are not God's laws? 

Because science has has provided us with factual proof (think of the science of paleontology).

Through fossils and bones, studying the earth's layers, and studying the finds, they've given us REAL evidence of life (as far down the chain as microscopic sea creatures,to plant life, and up to gigantic dinosaurs weighing tons, etc - that existed on this plant many, many eons before humans made an appearance (through evolution) and before said humans created their own religion(s) or beliefs.

There's an enormous museum of Paleontology not far from me, located where one of the world's most extensive dinosaur finds are located. The landscape itself looks like another planet.

Look up the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology - and read about the finds - and view some of the exhibits online. Here's just a couple of links to get you started:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tyrrell_Museum_of_Palaeontology


www.tyrrellmuseum.com/

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2015 10:11:20 GMT -5 oped said:

Whatever makes you think the laws of science are not God's laws? 

They are. They're just insufficient to describe spiritual matters.

[Deleted]

Math is the pure language. If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics... Not documents written by human beings hostage to hubris, social interactions, literary liscence and interpretation. 

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 10:53:19 GMT -5 oped said:

Math is the pure language. If there is a language of a God, it will be in mathematics... Not documents written by human beings hostage to hubris, social interactions, literary liscence and interpretation. 

Now it's just an argument about what the Spiritual Laws are.