Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

Bernie,

First, "inanity" isn't a term of abuse: it means "empty" or "without substance" - and as long as you fail to come to terms with the SUBSTANCE of people's positions then that "inanity" is exactly what you're dealing in.

Second, you're shooting the messenger - it's not MY fault what other people think or do and I use the term "inane" precisely because I know from both on-list and off-list correspondence the attitude that a great many people have of your engagement with their positions.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Murray said:
> "Guess why half the list don't want to waste their time on responding to your inanities?"
>
> If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion I wish you would just keep your thoughts to yourself. I don't need to hear your abuse.
>
> You said:
> " Fact is, Bernie, that the Christian life is a life of discipleship - and that entails a PROCESS of putting off the old man and putting on Christ, a PROCESS of renewing the mind, a PROCESS of growth and discovery, a PROCESS of learning about God and his ways."
>
> I did that for 25 years.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Hogg [mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:20 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>
> Whether God exists or not, people still have different levels of maturity, emotional intelligence, and intellect - so I don't see how that point has any bearing on the question: except to undermine your own argument. If personal factors impact our moral judgement, then they do so regardless of one's basis for morality.
>
> Incidentally, I notice you direct your remarks to the "true believers" amongst us: which kinda illustrates a point, namely that YOU are the only one around here committing the "true Scotsman fallacy." I wouldn't raise the point except for your habit of refusing to acknowledge that most, if not all, of the people on this list don't share your concept of what Christianity is.
>
> I certainly haven't seen any claim - except from yourself - that formulating a Christian ethic entails simply lining up a few Bible verses and 'voilà' - a statement of absolute moral truth on ANY issue you care to imagine! Yet you STILL insist on asking us to defend that thesis (and silly Schwarzwald thinks you don't know what a straw-man is!). Well, guess what's not going to happen? Guess why half the list don't want to waste their time on responding to your inanities?
>
> Fact is, Bernie, that the Christian life is a life of discipleship - and that entails a PROCESS of putting off the old man and putting on Christ, a PROCESS of renewing the mind, a PROCESS of growth and discovery, a PROCESS of learning about God and his ways. And that PROCESS involves being led by the Spirit - not law, not moral rules, not rational deduction from first principles - but of STRUGGLING with the tensions of life. With good and evil, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and doubt.
>
> It's discovering that the thinks we held with utter certainty are often least true, and learning that OUR version of the truth often stands in stark contrast with the one who is truth himself: that's truth HIMself, not ITself, because for Christians truth is a person not a set of abstract propositional statements. It's not something we possess, but something to which we stand in relationship. And we can only apprehend this truth, to the extent that we are open to his voice.
>
> To know the truth is not to have a correct proposition - moral, theological, or otherwise - that one can defend, it's to know the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
>
> And what follows from that is that absolute truth CAN be known, but only if one is prepared to acknowledge that the discovery of truth is a process which never comes to completion - not even remotely: "now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (1 Cor 13:12).
>
> So pick any example you want, Bernie, you'll never know the proper Christian response until you're willing to surrender yourself to the Shepherd and follow his voice. THAT is the way God provides for us to discover his morals and I'm sorry that, by the very nature of the process, I can't reduce it to an abstract moral argument that you can analyse.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> There are two positions I'm hearing:
>>
>> 1. Morals come from God.
>>
>> 2. Morals can be deduced without the need for God.
>>
>> If #1 is true, it would seem reasonable to me that God would also provide a way to discover these morals. But on tricky issues (euthanasia and suicide on the battle field (King Saul's case), for example), there seems to be no absolute answer. Born-again Christians have different opinions. So it is apparent that if God does give morals, he gave no sure means for his followers to discover them... and I'm talking about the 'true believers' and not those 'Christian' in name only.
>>
>> If #2 is true, then you'd expect different answers because people have different levels of maturity, emotional intelligence, and intellect.
>>
>> If someone things that God's morals could be discovered clearly, it would be good to pick an example (like euthanasia or battle suicide), and work from the bottom-up to follow the train of thought. But I haven't seen anyone with the willingness to try that. And I think that George agrees that the moral answers can't be clearly discovered, based on his paper covering the euthanasia example, after all is considered, concluding that the final outcome is ultimately a personal decision.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:47 AM
>> To: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>>
>> And people read the Bible differently, so why should agreement amongst Christians be expected?
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> "It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in reason, then when atheists get together they can't agree on what the correct moral position is."
>>>
>>> That is because people reason differently, so why shouldn't it be expected???
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:21 AM
>>> To: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>>>
>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>> It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in God, then when Godly people get together they can't agree on what the correct moral position is. Euthanasia was the last specific issue I talked to George about.
>>>>
>>>> ,,,Bernie
>>> To which the obvious response...
>>>
>>> It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in reason, then when atheists get together they can't agree on what the correct moral position is.
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 28 18:02:07 2009