Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[ding]

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life by eating something made by human hands that has no life?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

It is right if it is correct. But since you have misstated so much you can't even begin to get to the truth.

 

[hobelim]

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life by eating something made by human hands that has no life?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

It is right if it is correct. But since you have misstated so much you can't even begin to get to the truth.

If its right? lol..

Do you think that that it is even a possibility that a person can receive spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that can neither see, hear, speak, or walk, has no life and is not God?

 

[ding]

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life by eating something made by human hands that has no life?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

It is right if it is correct. But since you have misstated so much you can't even begin to get to the truth.

If its right? lol..

Do you think that that it is even a possibility that a person can receive spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Again, you misstate the belief. That isn't what Catholics believe. You ask the question in a way that there is no correct answer because the question itself is flawed.

 

[hobelim]

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life by eating something made by human hands that has no life?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

It is right if it is correct. But since you have misstated so much you can't even begin to get to the truth.

If its right? lol..

Do you think that that it is even a possibility that a person can receive spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Again, you misstate the belief. That isn't what Catholics believe. You ask the question in a way that there is no correct answer because the question itself is flawed.

Wow.

To receive spiritual life from God Catholics worship and eat the eucharist which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.


How can you say "that is not what Catholics believe" when that belief is central to Catholicism?

If you don't go for the cookie ritual maybe you should consider becoming Protestant? You can still worship a triune mangod.. Your life won't change a bit.

 

[ding]

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life by eating something made by human hands that has no life?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

It is right if it is correct. But since you have misstated so much you can't even begin to get to the truth.

If its right? lol..

Do you think that that it is even a possibility that a person can receive spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Again, you misstate the belief. That isn't what Catholics believe. You ask the question in a way that there is no correct answer because the question itself is flawed.

Wow.

To receive spiritual life from God Catholics worship and eat the eucharist which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.


How can you say "that is not what Catholics believe" when that belief is central to Catholicism?

If you don't go for the cookie ritual maybe you should consider becoming Protestant? You can still worship a triune mangod.. Your life won't change a bit.

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

You don't believe that it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

So since you don't believe it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth, you don't believe it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host.

And since you don't believe that it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host, God will never manifest himself into the Host for you, and you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself.

And since you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself, you will never be able to prove to yourself that it is true.

But you will continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those that have.

 

[ding]

This may be a good spot for this discussion now.

"...to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force philosophy,
or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of
it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those
of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small variations by which
life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to
chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force. When people
say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a
mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading
it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious.
If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without
a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One
reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives
one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less
pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and
you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance
of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on
through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you
want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force,
with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome
God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort
of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.
All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest
achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?" C.S. Lewis

If one believes in a "Life Force" then they must believe there is something beyond it. Something which binds but is not a part of. There are no known physical phenomenon that can satisfy this requirement. There is however a known phenomenon which can satisfy this requirement, and that is thought. Thought or an idea or a potentiality have no energy requirement to exist. With thought anything is possible. Even God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth and manifesting Himself into the Host when one believes it is possible for God to be born into this world and manifest Himself into the Host.

And lastly, if one believes there is something which binds but is not a part of and they believed it was thought that was behind it, then they would pretty much have to believe that our thoughts on good and evil would reflect the thoughts of the binding force that is not a part of and there would be some preference for our actions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One person does not have to be a magical thinker to notice that another person who maintains irrational beliefs in their head is living within parameters and according to perceptions that create a false reality.

Correct. For instance, I am not a magical thinker, but I see delusions of spirituality.
I did leave out this type of case, thank you for the correction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

 

[ding]

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

 

[ding]

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

It wasn't an accurate representation of what you meant but it is an accurate representation of what empirical evidence is and what I meant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

It wasn't an accurate representation of what you meant but it is an accurate representation of what empirical evidence is and what I meant.

It is absolutely the opposite of what emprical evidence is and what the concept of empirical evidence means. Like, if you sat around your entire life trying to puzzle out precisely the opposite concept of empirical evidence, your comments would be the result.

This is not surprising...you have not a shred of empirical evidence for your magical beliefs, so you try to position your personal anecdotes as evidence.

 

[hobelim]

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

You don't believe that it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

That is correct. God never became a human being. God chose Jesus to bear witness to the truth exactly as he learned it from God. Thats how truth came into the world through Jesus. Its not and never was about Jesus being God.

So since you don't believe it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth, you don't believe it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host.

I don't believe that God can manifest himself in the host because the host was made by human hands is not God and has no spirit or life which can only be given or received through words that are both spirit and life.

And since you don't believe that it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host, God will never manifest himself into the Host for you, and you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself.

You are right. I will never seek spiritual life from that which has no life and so I will never know what it is to die by setting aside the law of God and seeking spiritual life from that which is not God.

And since you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself, you will never be able to prove to yourself that it is true.

But you will continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those that have.

Wrong. I always do exactly as God commands exactly as Jesus commanded. You are the one who will never experience God or taste of his life unless you repent because you are dedicated to doing that which scripture clearly teaches results in condemnation and death.

This is an objective fact.

Believe whatever you want but unless you conform to the instructions given in the law it is not possible that you have any life in you at all.

 

[ding]

One person does not have to be a magical thinker to notice that another person who maintains irrational beliefs in their head is living within parameters and according to perceptions that create a false reality.

Correct. For instance, I am not a magical thinker, but I see delusions of spirituality.
I did leave out this type of case, thank you for the correction.

So is hobelim being delusional when he says he believes in God? Just not how Christians believe in God.

Is belief in God in general delusional?

 

[ding]

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

You don't believe that it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

That is correct. God never became a human being. God chose Jesus to bear witness to the truth exactly as he learned it from God. Thats how truth came into the world through Jesus. Its not and never was about Jesus being God.

So since you don't believe it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth, you don't believe it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host.

I don't believe that God can manifest himself in the host because the host was made by human hands and has no spirit or life which can only be given or received through words.

And since you don't believe that it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host, God will never manifest himself into the Host for you, and you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself.

You are right. I will never seek spiritual life from that which has no life and so I will never know what it is to die by setting aside the law of God and seeking spiritual life from that which is not God.

And since you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself, you will never be able to prove to yourself that it is true.

But you will continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those that have.

Wrong. I always do exactly as God commands exactly as Jesus commanded. You are the one who will never experience God or taste of his life unless you repent because you are dedicated to doing that which scripture clearly teaches results in condemnation and death.

This is an objective fact.

Believe whatever you want but unless you conform to the instructions given in the law it is not possible that you have any life in you at all.

Did I strike a nerve?

Basically you are saying everything I wrote was correct. You even agreed that you would continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true.

All you are really saying that is different is that you are justified in insulting, criticizing and questioning the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true. I never even commented on that, but since you brought it up, no, you aren't justified in doing that. You don't speak for God.

 

[ding]

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

It wasn't an accurate representation of what you meant but it is an accurate representation of what empirical evidence is and what I meant.

It is absolutely the opposite of what emprical evidence is and what the concept of empirical evidence means. Like, if you sat around your entire life trying to puzzle out precisely the opposite concept of empirical evidence, your comments would be the result.

This is not surprising...you have not a shred of empirical evidence for your magical beliefs, so you try to position your personal anecdotes as evidence.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. There is no better way to test the power of faith than by having faith and observing what happens.

How is this not empirical evidence?

 

[Taz]

Interestingly enough, the correct answers to all of those questions are decided by empirical evidence and reason, not by magical incantations.

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

It wasn't an accurate representation of what you meant but it is an accurate representation of what empirical evidence is and what I meant.

It is absolutely the opposite of what emprical evidence is and what the concept of empirical evidence means. Like, if you sat around your entire life trying to puzzle out precisely the opposite concept of empirical evidence, your comments would be the result.

This is not surprising...you have not a shred of empirical evidence for your magical beliefs, so you try to position your personal anecdotes as evidence.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. There is no better way to test the power of faith than by having faith and observing what happens.

How is this not empirical evidence?

Buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[hobelim]

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

You don't believe that it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

That is correct. God never became a human being. God chose Jesus to bear witness to the truth exactly as he learned it from God. Thats how truth came into the world through Jesus. Its not and never was about Jesus being God.

So since you don't believe it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth, you don't believe it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host.

I don't believe that God can manifest himself in the host because the host was made by human hands and has no spirit or life which can only be given or received through words.

And since you don't believe that it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host, God will never manifest himself into the Host for you, and you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself.

You are right. I will never seek spiritual life from that which has no life and so I will never know what it is to die by setting aside the law of God and seeking spiritual life from that which is not God.

And since you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself, you will never be able to prove to yourself that it is true.

But you will continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those that have.

Wrong. I always do exactly as God commands exactly as Jesus commanded. You are the one who will never experience God or taste of his life unless you repent because you are dedicated to doing that which scripture clearly teaches results in condemnation and death.

This is an objective fact.

Believe whatever you want but unless you conform to the instructions given in the law it is not possible that you have any life in you at all.

Did I strike a nerve?

Basically you are saying everything I wrote was correct. You even agreed that you would continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true.

All you are really saying that is different is that you are justified in insulting, criticizing and questioning the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true. I never even commented on that, but since you brought it up, no, you aren't justified in doing that. You don't speak for God.

lol strike a nerve? you think way too much of yourself.

The fact remains, whether God exists or not, according to scriptures that anyone can read for themselves death and exclusion from the presence of God is the promise for setting aside the instruction in the law and worshipping that which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.

Anyone can peek into a church on any given Sunday and see for themselves people on their knees worshiping that which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.

If you can't admit your error, your confused perception of life will never change.


You are dedicated to doing that which scripture teaches results in death without an inkling of how absurd that is.

Obviously, you have your reward already.

 

[ding]

I couldn't agree more. Better to experience it firsthand.

Hmm, no, not accurate representation of what I said. In no way does empirical evidence have to be experienced first hand. In fact, that's the point.

It wasn't an accurate representation of what you meant but it is an accurate representation of what empirical evidence is and what I meant.

It is absolutely the opposite of what emprical evidence is and what the concept of empirical evidence means. Like, if you sat around your entire life trying to puzzle out precisely the opposite concept of empirical evidence, your comments would be the result.

This is not surprising...you have not a shred of empirical evidence for your magical beliefs, so you try to position your personal anecdotes as evidence.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. There is no better way to test the power of faith than by having faith and observing what happens.

How is this not empirical evidence?

Buy yourself a dictionary.

Definition: Empirical evidence is defined as the data and information obtained by creating assumptions over a specific topic, observing the collected data and experimenting to prove or disprove a theory.

 

[ding]

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

You don't believe that it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

That is correct. God never became a human being. God chose Jesus to bear witness to the truth exactly as he learned it from God. Thats how truth came into the world through Jesus. Its not and never was about Jesus being God.

So since you don't believe it is possible that God chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth, you don't believe it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host.

I don't believe that God can manifest himself in the host because the host was made by human hands and has no spirit or life which can only be given or received through words.

And since you don't believe that it is possible for God to manifest himself into the Host, God will never manifest himself into the Host for you, and you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself.

You are right. I will never seek spiritual life from that which has no life and so I will never know what it is to die by setting aside the law of God and seeking spiritual life from that which is not God.

And since you will never be able to experience Him firsthand for yourself, you will never be able to prove to yourself that it is true.

But you will continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those that have.

Wrong. I always do exactly as God commands exactly as Jesus commanded. You are the one who will never experience God or taste of his life unless you repent because you are dedicated to doing that which scripture clearly teaches results in condemnation and death.

This is an objective fact.

Believe whatever you want but unless you conform to the instructions given in the law it is not possible that you have any life in you at all.

Did I strike a nerve?

Basically you are saying everything I wrote was correct. You even agreed that you would continue to insult, criticize and question the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true.

All you are really saying that is different is that you are justified in insulting, criticizing and questioning the veracity of those who have tested it for themselves and found it to be true. I never even commented on that, but since you brought it up, no, you aren't justified in doing that. You don't speak for God.

lol strike a nerve? you think way too much of yourself.

The fact remains, whether God exists or not, according to scriptures that anyone can read for themselves death and exclusion from the presence of God is the promise for setting aside the instruction in the law and worshipping that which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.

Anyone can peek into a church on any given Sunday and see for themselves people on their knees worshiping that which is made by human hands has no life and is not God.

If you can't admit your error, your confused perception of life will never change.


You are dedicated to doing that which scripture teaches results in death without an inkling of how absurd that is.

Obviously, you have your reward already.

You are arguing theology like a crazy person. I don't give a shit about your theology. You shouldn't care about mine. Are you threatened by my theology or something?

Because you will never know what I know because you have never believed what I have believed, tested what I have believed or experienced what I have believed.