When two worldviews collide.

[dwb001]

Except the major difference: purchase price for things that are physical/temporary/won't last
VS
eternal life

Definitely... and that is matched by the price of the ticket.

 

[Aaron112]

Definitely... and that is matched by the price of the ticket.

I think and hope you mean the price of Jesus' Blood that Ransomed us according to God's Will and Plan and Purpose....

 

[dwb001]

I think and hope you mean the price of Jesus' Blood that Ransomed us according to God's Will and Plan and Purpose....

Nope. But there is that as well.

Our discussion is about what it costs you.

 

[dwb001]

Well, I rejoice to give up all this world had to offer once, or even offers today,
even my own life as fragile and temporary as it is here on earth, and ending so soon;
to give up everything
to follow Jesus.

And so you know the cost of the free ticket. So why were you arguing?

 

[dwb001]

If you were offered a flight to Jerusalem all expenses paid with a millions dollars daily per diem to give away ,
and it cost $1.00 usd , you would certainly agree it is free travel , right ?

No. It cost a dollar. Cheap... sure. Best deal around... sure. Free... no.

Why you so argumentative?

 

[dwb001]

hahaha , WIth all the money in the world, salvation could not be bought.
Truth is priceless, but cannot be purchased.

So free, freely receive, without argument ... eternal life a sheer extravagant gift to a few,
that many strive to earn all their life and never get.

Right... but you were talking about a 1 dollar flight. If I never pay the 1 dollar can I get on the flight? Nope.

So there is, as you have said, a free gift that will cost you everything.

 

[Larniavc]

What gives you the authority to tell others in your own country how they should operate?

As I've said, I don't claim any moral authority. It's a red herring. It does not exist. If people disagree with my ethical framework there's not much I can do about it. Luckily my moral framework works in my culture: so I'm golden.

 

[Larniavc]

and do you know what act absolutely and forever excludes one from the group?

It depends on the group. Like all moral frameworks do.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, and do you know what act absolutely and forever excludes one from the group? That's the act that we're looking for you to explain from a materialist point of view.

I just did...

Evolution does not explain why one would lay down his life for a friend (outside of those "concentric circles").

I keep telling you that we are not hostage to our evolutionary past.

The "selfish gene" theory suggests that the individual supports the group iff the group's existence enhances the continuation of his own existence, ie., the group exists for the sake of the individual. Assuming that you do not believe in the afterlife, what the group thinks of you after you're gone doesn't matter to you a twit.

But it does matter in the here and now.

 

[Bradskii]

Even in your own country there are ethical framework and morality conflicts. What gives you the authority to tell others in your own country how they should operate?

The very second post in this thread explained that. We have no authority over how other people view morality. That said, if there is general agreement on preventing harm then we pass laws to ensure that harm is minimised.

 

[o_mlly]

I just did...

Nope. Still waiting for the materialist's explanation for the heroic virtuous act; you know the act that ends one's life for the sake of the group. I recall someone offering us an example of just that kind of act:

... why people throw themselves on grenades and sacrifice themselves ...

This is the direction that evolution took us ... I keep telling you that we are not hostage to our evolutionary past. ...

So, now you're telling us we have free will? Something other than our genes or something other than materials determines us?

But it does matter in the here and now.

And doesn't matter a twit in the "not here and not now"?

Your evasion of the question is tiring. So, let's sum up.​

​

The "no harm, no foul" morality proposal is now in the dustbin.​

​

If no material explanation exists for the heroic virtuous act, then the explanation is from the spiritual realm.​

​

Thanks for the exchange.​

 

[rjs330]

And I suppose the longer one holds a view the harder it is to change. And I notice here that people tend to double down no matter what. Can't be made to appear wrong or weak or ..gracious or humble.

I think that's true. I know I've changed my mind in many things through the years. Other things not. I will say that even now I'm pretty set on some things. Other things not so much.

It's interesting but some of the things I'm really serious on are things that have happened over the last ten years.

 

[rjs330]

The very second post in this thread explained that. We have no authority over how other people view morality. That said, if there is general agreement on preventing harm then we pass laws to ensure that harm is minimised.

So apparently harm is determined by the masses? How exactly do they do that?

 

[rjs330]

Well, I rejoice to give up all this world had to offer once, or even offers today,
even my own life as fragile and temporary as it is here on earth, and ending so soon;
to give up everything
to follow Jesus.

My friend, what a wonderful thought. God bless you. As I get older this is more precious every day. I am happy to give up anything to follow Jesus. The greatest blessing is to belong to him.

 

[rjs330]

As I've said, I don't claim any moral authority. It's a red herring. It does not exist. If people disagree with my ethical framework there's not much I can do about it. Luckily my moral framework works in my culture: so I'm golden.

No it doesn't. Because in your culture there are those that disagree with your moral and ethical framework. What gives you the moral authority to decide for them?

 

[rjs330]

Right... but you were talking about a 1 dollar flight. If I never pay the 1 dollar can I get on the flight? Nope.

So there is, as you have said, a free gift that will cost you everything.

Yes the gift of salvation is free to those who accept it. It costs belief/faith. And that is a very hard thing for most to pay.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. Still waiting for the materialist's explanation for the heroic virtuous act; you know the act that ends one's life for the sake of the group. I recall someone offering us an example of just that kind of act:

I guess I'll just repost the entire explanation:

"We don't like to be considered cowards. We denigrate cowards. We belittle them. We shame them. Nobody wants to be denigrated or belittled or shamed. Out position within society is affected by it. And we want to feel as if we belong. That we can be trusted. That people think well of us. And all this is because we are social animals.

If we lived entirely indendently as do some animals (polar bears, snow leopards amongs others: 8 of the World's Most Solitary Animals) then shame wouldn't exist. But we aren't. So it does. This is the direction that evolution took us. It could have been a lot different - orang utangs are what are termed semi-solitary.

So solitary confinement is quite a cruel punishment. We crave company. And we enjoy being in groups. Being excluded hurts. So we tend not to do things that will exclude us. And do that which will enhance our position in a group. Acting heroically will do that.

And love will prompt it as well. I love my wife and my kids so I would sacrifice myself for them. But that concentric circle extends pretty rapidly. So what I would do for my wife I wouldn't necessarily do for a friend. And I'd do a lot less for a casual aquaintence."

If there is something there with which you disagree then let me know. I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[Bradskii]

So apparently harm is determined by the masses? How exactly do they do that?

Well, let me see. That's a tricky one. But let's that we all agree that murder is harmful and that it might be a good idea to prevent people doing it then we formulate a law that says in effect 'Thou shalt not...' Murder in this case.

If you are going to keep asking fatuous questions then you'll not get much from this thread.

 

[rjs330]

Well, let me see. That's a tricky one. But let's that we all agree that murder is harmful and that it might be a good idea to prevent people doing it then we formulate a law that says in effect 'Thou shalt not...' Murder in this case.

If you are going to keep asking fatuous questions then you'll not get much from this thread.

Oh no you don't. What if some don't believe something is murder and others do. What right does one side get to decide for the other? What makes one side more moral than the other? By majority rules?

 

[Bradskii]

Oh no you don't. What if some don't believe something is murder and others do. What right does one side get to decide for the other?

Do you know how laws are made? You know, the legal rules under which we are all required to live? Do you know how it's done? Do you know who who legislates the laws. Well, the clue is in the name. It's the legislature. For me it's the Australian Parliament. For you, Congress.

Do you know how you get into Parliament or Congress? You do? Great. Then now you know who has the 'right...to decide for the other'.

Lots of people ask me dumb things here. But that's the most nonsensical question I've had this week. And you should know that there's been some strong opposition.