Do you think more single?

[Doctor Strangelove]

I used to be more concern about sin, besides the few sins I knew about that there were many many sins of omission. But its the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin and the Holy Spirit wasn't telling me I was sinning and directing me what to so so that I wouldn't be sinning.

Then I started to notice verse like the one where Jesus says love does no harm to our neighbor. We I don't see that I'm doing any harm to anyone, except for rare occasions. I know about them and repent of those. Then there is the verse that says love fulfills the law. As I meditated on that verse, I couldn't think of an other way that the Bible says we can fulfill the law. I know that I do OK at loving people. So I don't spend much time worrying about these vague undefined sins I'm supposedly committing.[...]

Jesus said you are to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself and that fulfills the law. I think that should disturb one and not give one security. If Jesus said, give all your money to the poor and you have fulfilled the law, it would be difficult but at least possible. If Jesus said, climb a mountain, it would be possible for some people. Instead, Jesus asks the one thing of us that we do not do and indeed cannot do. Do you see the problem here? We might not be as bad as some criminal or hateful person but we still do not love as we ought so we will always fall shot of fulfilling the law. We still stumble in darkness even if we have more light than our neighbor. Only Jesus fulfilled the law and only He has the perfect love that fulfills the law.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, I'll freely admit that I've not love as I've should.
But where does the Bible say only Jesus' perfect love has fulfilled the law? Jesus had to fulfill the law of Moses, we don't have to also do that. So Jesus had to do more than we have to do. We have to love God and our neighbor which I find much easier than fulfilling any law of commands.

 

[MorkandMindy]

OK:


1. Do you think the best way to do the right thing is to:
a. Follow the rules
b. Have the right motives
c. Think it through and aim for the best results

 

[MorkandMindy]

.


Do you think you can perceive reality directly or do you think there always has to be an abstraction layer? How is the abstraction layer created?

 

[MorkandMindy]

.

Do you think the battle between science and many religions is just a continuation of the battle between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle? If not why not?

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

OK:


1. Do you think the best way to do the right thing is to:
a. Follow the rules
b. Have the right motives
c. Think it through and aim for the best results

I say B and C

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

.


Do you think you can perceive reality directly or do you think there always has to be an abstraction layer? How is the abstraction layer created?

IMO, perception is only the reality for the person perceiving it, so I think there would always be an abstraction layer and it is created by differing opinions from different people

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

.

Do you think the battle between science and many religions is just a continuation of the battle between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle? If not why not?

Though many may disagree with me, I do not think there should be a battle between science and "religion". I think science compliments religion rather than opposing it. And as far as battles go, as long as there are people, there will continue to be battles JMHO

You ask VERY hard questions professor

 

[MorkandMindy]

OK:


1. Do you think the best way to do the right thing is to:
a. Follow the rules
b. Have the right motives
c. Think it through and aim for the best results

I say B and C

That is partly a cultural thing; both the US and over here in the United Kingdom are under Common Law which is based on the laws of the Romans, whereas Europe is under Napoleonic Law.

So in both countries the assumption is all things are allowed which are not forbidden whereas there the assumption is only things emphatically permitted are permitted. The laws over in Europe are so complicated you wouldn't want to have to find out what isn't allowed anyway.

But ignoring the local customs, from a philosophical perspective a is Deontology and c is Consequentialism and you will end up having to choose which is the ultimate route to good behaviour and I'd suggest that is impossible to do.

I'm no philosopher or legal expert so I'll just comment that statute law is a) and civil law includes a lot of c). There is also a subjective part in that people believe themselves able to decide what is best but often want others to follow the rules.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Though many may disagree with me, I do not think there should be a battle between science and "religion". I think science compliments religion rather than opposing it. And as far as battles go, as long as there are people, there will continue to be battles JMHO

You ask VERY hard questions professor

Well the argument has been going on for 2,300 years at least, and most likely before then too.

Consider Venus by Botticelli. Wisdom arrived in it's perfection from across the seas. This represents revelation.

The Mona Lisa by Leonard D Vinci has wisdom in an imperfect form coming from the surrounding landscape of a path, a bridge and so on.

If revelation is the reliable source of knowledge then it takes priority at the very least over discovery, whereas if discovery is the primary source it takes priority.

Getting into the details, there are a multitude of supposed revelations right through the ages so reliance on revelation I would suggest is going to be very unreliable. There are thousands of creation stories for example so the obvious question would be which one is true?

Discovery is science and the Church has long stood against it under the claim that the human mind is corrupt and fallen and incapable as well as unwilling to produce real truth.

 

[dayhiker]

I'll go with b ... Jesus talked about living out of our heart. When the motive is right we will generally do the right thing and if we don't forgiveness is much easier for all evolved when the motives were right.

OK:


1. Do you think the best way to do the right thing is to:
a. Follow the rules
b. Have the right motives
c. Think it through and aim for the best results

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Well the argument has been going on for 2,300 years at least, and most likely before then too.

Consider Venus by Botticelli. Wisdom arrived in it's perfection from across the seas. This represents revelation.

The Mona Lisa by Leonard D Vinci has wisdom in an imperfect form coming from the surrounding landscape of a path, a bridge and so on.

If revelation is the reliable source of knowledge then it takes priority at the very least over discovery, whereas if discovery is the primary source it takes priority.

Getting into the details, there are a multitude of supposed revelations right through the ages so reliance on revelation I would suggest is going to be very unreliable. There are thousands of creation stories for example so the obvious question would be which one is true?

Discovery is science and the Church has long stood against it under the claim that the human mind is corrupt and fallen and incapable as well as unwilling to produce real truth.

You're not a philosopher? . Well the Bible says in Proverbs 9:10 " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wistom and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
And Proverbs 8 is all about wisdom and says that "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From everlasting I was established. From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth."
So IMO, God is the one that grants wisdom and understanding, not humans or scientists. Which creation story is the correct one? The one that states that God created everything.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You're not a philosopher? .

If I was a philosopher then I would have said 'ultimate authority' or something more specific instead of 'take priority' which I now realise was not very focused.

I am qualified in computer science, physics and materials science and electrical and electronic engineering and to teach physics, and that's the lot. Not in philosophy, sociology, psychology or pretty well any of the things I find myself involved with on Forums.

What I would really like to do is to talk about diesel engines or aircraft. Maybe I'll start a thread on that soon.

Well the Bible says in Proverbs 9:10 " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wistom and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
And Proverbs 8 is all about wisdom and says that "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From everlasting I was established. From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth."
So IMO, God is the one that grants wisdom and understanding, not humans or scientists. Which creation story is the correct one? The one that states that God created everything.

This raises a heap of questions but I won't post them unless you specifically want them.


Hopefully you might find diesel engines or aircraft are a lot more fun because I certainly would. I put a bit in a thread down in regions>uk but maybe will get a bit more response here. Got work in a few hours...

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

sounds like you could start a couple of new threads. My comment regarding being a philosopher was in jest because your questions are so "deep". Boy, some of my friends have said that I was deep, and I'm now thinking that's funny because I have trouble even understanding your level of deepness, although I do like your posts.

 

[blackribbon]

Can I vote for "a"?...but God's rules, not man's rules.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Does everything need a cause? Can information content never go up but only ever degrade?

Take a simple situation. Earth is a new planet. A pretty good description of it would take a few pages, how much of what elements and compounds are in it and where. It is hot and the planet contains various layers, and that's about it.

Now every time a new house is added to the planet far more complexity is added than was required to describe the entire Earth at the start.

A few pages wouldn't even list the names of all the cities and towns on Earth let alone what is in them and where it is. It would take millions of times more information to describe just one town than it would have to describe the whole planet at the start. The total information 'content' has grown a lot.

Anti evolutionists claim that the information content can only ever decrease and use that to 'prove' that there can be no animal or plant here that wasn't put here in the beginning.

A person can think themselves to have proven anything, but only as long as they are willing to make believe absolutely anything.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Now take a simpler example:

A mass of moist air is cooling, and snowflakes form.

Everything must have a cause.

So there are all these dendrites growing out of the nucleus of each snowflake. Five or six dendrites, and each then spouts many more that grow as side branches.

Does each of these many million branches have a cause?


What would happen to all these causes if the mass of air did not get cold enough to form snowflakes?

Could more causes come in from somewhere if more snowflakes formed?

Do all causes ultimately chain back to the uncaused cause - the 'first cause', and therefore prove such existed, or can causes multiply by themselves or do a lot of things simply happen and not need causes?

 

[dayhiker]

I believe in a 1st cause ... I think free will in us now means there are many causes.

 

[MorkandMindy]

.

Do you think the battle between science and many religions is just a continuation of the battle between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle? If not why not?

Though many may disagree with me, I do not think there should be a battle between science and "religion"...

The definition of 'religion' is 'continual binding' (of behaviour).

What that means in terms of the will is something I need a bit of enlightening on. Thomas Aquinas seemed to think the person would obey for good compelling reasons and that Christian behaviour was of that sort.

'Religion' is a collection of or code of behaviour based on a view of reality, often including supernatural entities.

It is about behaviour.


The basis of that behaviour would be ultimately either discovery or revelation.

Consider the following:

A blinding light and a voice along the road (revelation?)

Daniel and his companions ate just vegetables and they were found to be fitter and healthier than those who ate the King's delicate food. [I'm remembering that scripture from decades ago so it might be a bit out.] (discovery?)


I don't think the basis for a belief can ever be both, (although other possibilities do exist).

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

IMHO, "religion" is man's way of trying to reach God. Every religion has it's own set of rules and regs that one must abide by. That's why I'm not religious, I just believe the Bible and that Jesus died on the cross for me and is my Savior. I could do nothing to save myself.