Astralinre

Because the best the reason to join a religion is to piss people off.

I like English despite, or perhaps because of, it's lack of a formal structure like Latin has. English has such a rich history - starting out as the Germanic Anglo-Saxon, being influenced by Nordic languages and Norman French (as well as Latin and Greek), then you have the Great Vowel Shift. Plus there's such a great variety of accents and dialects which have been influenced by even more languages, such as Spanish and African tongues. It's no wonder English is a mess! I <3 the English language.

omg, my watch broke, it was always fun to watch a teachers face when you stood up to walk to the door, but the bell didnt ring untill you touched the handle :D I did that every day for the entire second semester of Spanish I. Haha, good memories. :P

Keep an eye open - that guy is sure to post the pictures on the net sometimes soon. :P Then the police will probably catch him. :lol:

I'll be having a party with my Spanish class tomorrow. Though it's been a while since I heard the reason for Cinco de Mayo. I want to say it's a sort of independence day, but I need to go look that up.

Worthing is at the top of my list too. The Circle Trilogy (Black, Red, and White) by Ted Dekker is also a great, challenging set of books.

I'm not sure who you're talking about, because I rarely see this is in most of the people who've been around here a while. Most of the regular debaters have grown in their knowledge, understanding, and respect of their beliefs and others' beliefs. I know this is true of myself, and I've seen changes and growth in plenty of others as well. We've all become more mature, more aware, more respectful through the time we've spent debating. Truth is always worth pursuing, even when it's uncomfortable, even when it's painful. The struggle for truth makes you stronger; the acquiring of truth makes you wiser. Seek it out, leave no stone unturned, no room undisturbed. The truth is out there somewhere - it may be a life's journey away, but it's there. Don't give up on finding it.

No, that's slight of hand. That's magic.

The Worthing Saga by Orson Scott Card is one of the best stories I've read in a while. It's got a good mix of sci-fi and a more midieval townish setting, and unforgettable characters.

I flee clicḫ̩̉̉s like the plague.

101 Strings Orchestra has some great stuff, as does Ottmar Liebert if you like Latin instrumentals. The soundtracks to Hero and Lord of the Rings are also some of my favorites.

Ever notice that when you tell someone, "You can't tell me what I can and can't do!" you're telling them what they can't do. Rather hypocritical.

You forget that after saving the woman's life, Jesus told her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." Am I a sinner? Heck yes. But there is nothing biblically wrong with me warning another person of his sin, so long as I remember that the warning applies to me as well.

Though really, I'd settle for being able to sing with an average voice.

Is someone also well within his reason to judge people based on laws set down at the personal whim of a despot, based on what he thinks is right and wrong? If there is no absolute morality, can you say that this is wrong, or that it is worse than your democratic/utilitarian system? You are certainly well within your reason to judge people on those democratic principles so long as they agree with those principles, but if they disagree, who are you to tell them that their system is wrong? There are no real morals to compare the two systems to, so both are equally man-made. How can you judge between the two? We don't follow every letter of the law because we are no longer require to follow every letter of it, since Christ has freed us. I've explained the paradigm shift in the Bible before, so allow me to quote myself. (Granted, this is from a different discussion, so the focus is on a different aspect.) The purpose of the law had been to show man his inability to keep it, to show him his sinfulness and need for redemption. When that redemption came, we were freed from the letter of the law, and now out of love for God we follow the spirit of the law - the overriding moral principles which are affirmed throughout the Scriptures. Does it usually work? Yes. But what if you can avoid the consequences of your action? What if you want to leave society, and you don't care what they think of you? What if you can hide when they try to take revenge? With this consequentialism, there is still no real good or bad, only social acceptance. If you can avoid the consequences of doing taboo things, what motivation is there to be good (which in this case only means socially acceptable)? I don't see why there needs to be a specific commandment governing every action. If there are absolute moral principles for some areas, why can there not be other areas left up to personal conviction based on the principles which are absolute? I believe that we ought to use the morals that have been revealed to us to figure out the ones that have not. And where is the contradiction? If there is even one absolute moral principle, then morality is not relative. There need not be a law for every conceivable action to have absolute morals. It suffices to have some absolute morals which are applicable across the board.

Once again, why must truth be cold and hard? Why can it not be warm and welcoming? Truth need not be like your home burning down. Why couldn't truth be like finding your home again, when you thought you had lost it forever?

Name - Nathan Age - 17 Country - USA City/Town - Memphis Sports played/followed - Cross country and track until I injured my back. Music Taste - Country, Classical, Vocal, Classic Rock, Hymns. Those comprise most of my playlist, but I like plenty of other music, and will listen to almost anything at least once. Some favourite bands/singers - Alan Jackson, Garth Brooks, Josh Groban, Tony Bennett, Alabama, Collin Raye, Chris Rice, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Chicago, Il Divo, George Strait, Johnny Cash, Little Texas, Lonestar, MercyMe, Rascal Flats, Randy Travis, Phil Collins. Instruments played - None. I love music, but have no talent for producing it. Belief Inclination - Christian Theism. Hobbies/Other Interests - Writing, Reading, Story Telling, Language, Spanish, History, Photography, Exercising, Friends, School Newspaper, School Plays, Philosophy, Church. Ideal Travel Location - Nearby: the Smokey Mountains. Anywhere: ancient South American ruins, such as Tiahuanaca. There's few places in the world I wouldn't want to travel to. There's so much beauty out there in so many different forms, from mountains, to beaches, to cities, to ancient ruins. I wish I could see it all. Future Aspirations/Career Aspirations - Husband and Father, Writer, Publisher, Translator, Lawyer, Civil Service, Minister. I know I want a family, and that is my priority no matter what my vocation will be. And right now, I have several great vocational options ahead of me, and it's going to be hard to choose between several good things.

Bold: That's exactly in line with what we've been saying: If there is absolute morality, and God has instilled it in humans, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, you will still know right and wrong. All your saying is, "I don't believe in God, but I still know right and wrong." How is that different from what we're saying? Italics: You've already made this accusation, and we've already answered it. Stop attacking statements we never made, and even explicitely denied making. To everyone else who responded to me, I'll respond after lunch. :)

"Who was the first man on the moon?" "I can tell you, some people don't believe that happened. They believe that it was reincarnated in Arizona somewhere." And a person has only one kidney. I feel sick after watching that. Ugh.

And I'm merely saying that the idea of our insignificance, in the way that you view it, is the distraction - what keeps us from being happy. Granted, I also have a different theology than you, so I have a different take on insignificance. As a Christian, I do believe that man is small and insignificant compared to God's glory, or even compared to the rest of creation. However, in spite of our smallness, we do have a purpose, we do have meaning, and in the end the love of God is the only reality that truly matters. Our smallness is only there to remind us of how great God's love is - He does not love us because we are great, but because He is great. That awe at His unmerited love is part of our purpose, as is echoing that love in our relationships with other people. Love gives life meaning. That's what I believe.

Ok, you've brought up the distraction thing a million times. From what is it a distraction? "Reason"? Depression? Emptiness? Loneliness? Suicide? How in the world do you know that those things are the real focus? What if those things are merely distractions from the reality of love, joy, and hope?

Sorry, but we weren't talking about questioning others. I said, "I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?" I said nothing of questioning someone's views, but of stopping them from acting on those views. What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species. I asked why we should be moral without a transcendent standard, you said evolution and survival of the species. If I'm an evolutionary fluke and don't believe that survival of the species is good, who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

^Don't listen to this guy. Why does it matter whether your life affects the stars and planets? Your life affects other people. Your actions impact their lives. You have a family who loves you, and who are worth sticking around for. If you want them to care about your problems, you have to care about theirs. If you want them to make you happy, you have to care about making them happy. You never know what tomorrow may bring. If you take your life, you never will. But if you live, there's always a chance that tomorrow, you may find joy. Isn't that chance worth sticking around for?

That is absolutely key. Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable. I find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it. If there is no absolute good and evil, then you do not have any right to tell another person that he is doing something evil. He's no more correct or incorrect than you are, so you're just trying to force your own subjective beliefs on him. No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code. No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species. What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing? Sociological factors. (1)If I kill someone, their friends and family aren't going to take it too kindly. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing a person, however that doesn't mean that other people will find it acceptable. If you are actually upset over a murder regardless of your social standing towards the victim, then you couldn't get anywhere in life; you would be permanently upset. People get killed all the time, it only matters to you when it is socially relevant. Some people find it wrong to eat animals, while others see it as a right of living; who's to say what's right? What do your real morals say on the eating of meat, the falling of trees for permanent residence, the removal of minerals from the ground, the dyeing of clothing or posting on the internet? (2)To suggest that there is a real set of morals which govern the goodness of every action is absurd. 1. Now you're back to morality based solely on fear of punishment, on which the general consensus here is that it is not a good enough reason to be good. 2. An absolute moral system does not require a law governing every action. It requires, at least, only one absolute moral law. I believe there are far more than one moral laws, but I certainly don't believe that there is a moral law for every single action. Even in the Bible, some decisions are left up to personal conviction, such as eating meat. 1. Where have I said that? I've said that in order for there to be any absolute morals, there must be something transcendent, and I believe that thing to be God. My God adequately explains morality, and absolute morality cannot be explained apart from a transcendent source of morals. Morals are not my proof for God, nor is God my proof for absolute morals. 2. What if someone knows a different set of what's right and wrong than the rest of people do? The majority of people know that killing is wrong. A minority know that it is right. If morality is subjective, what justification does the majority have for telling the minority that it is wrong? The majority is forcing its views on the minority, even though its views are no more right or wrong than the minority's. Of course, if there is no absolute morality, who's to say that it's wrong to oppress a minority?

Once again, you're supporting my point. I'm saying that God has instilled morals into all humans. You're saying that all humans find certain things right, and certain things wrong. I've never said that humans have to know the Bible or have "God in their life" to be moral. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite - that atheists can be, and usually are, moral people, and that even those who have never heard of the Judeo-Christian God share a common morality. (Though, as I said earlier, I do believe that this morality can be eroded or forgotten, if there is no real source for that morality. You cannot keep the fruit of absolute morality forever if you cut off the root of that morality.) Your way of arguing baffles me. You say exactly the same things I do, then disagree with me. Please actually read my posts, instead of making baseless assumptions about what I'm saying.