1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Progressives’ Moral Equivalence

Bob502 Wrote: Sep 28, 2014 12:25 AM
Why should anybody apologize for the crusades? Muslims have never apologized for conquering those lands. Why should Christians apologize for trying to take them back?
In response to:

Progressives’ Moral Equivalence

Bob502 Wrote: Sep 28, 2014 12:23 AM
Why should anybody apologize for the crusades? Muslims have never apologized for conquering those lands. Why should Christians apologize for trying to take them back?
That is because sheep do not have a general tendency toward rebellion. Children do. In the parable of the lost sheep only one went astray, ninety-nine did not. Children are not sheep.
You are assuming that children have a natural ability to reason. You are wrong. Discipline is the way tha parents teach their children to reason about their behavior. You can certainly distract a toddler, but you certainly cannot reason with her.
It is generally the case that the point of discipline is precisely so that the child will not have to face the direct consequences of his actions or behavior. I slapped my children's hands when they tried to play with electrical cords. I did it because I did not want them to face the direct consequence of an electrical shock. In many cases, the direct consequence will not manifest itself until years later. What is the direct consequence of bullying other children at the park? It is having no friends years later. The wise parent will discipline so that doesn’t happen. Sometimes the nature of the offense dictates the nature of the punishment, but not always. Grounding a child for a few days or a week may be appropriate for some offenses, but a spanking may be more merciful because when it’s over, it’s over. Parents are the ones best equipped to know what is appropriate for their child and moralizing busybodies should butt out.
Modernity does, in fact, posit an irrational universe. You are confusing cause and effect with rationality. Modernity assumes a universe and all its contents that are the result of random processes. That is the opposite of rationality. Modern science persists in this assumption in the face of evidence that in any other context would immediately be recognized as utterly compelling. This is irrationality taken to the ultimate measure.
My point isn't that they were never of any value, only that by citing them favorably he gives them credibility. The good work might have been done forty years ago, but the credibility is current. That's not a good thing.
It's regretable that Mr. Jacoby would cite the Southern Poverty Law Center in any positive context. The SPLC routinely accuses any group with which they disagree of being a hate group. They have been so abusive that SPLC has become a hate group. Mr. Jacoby citing SPLC gives it an aura of respectability that it manifestly does not deserve.
You apparently don't actually understand the argument. Implicit is an uncaused first cause. That's why it's called the argument from first cause. There are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe, either it had a beginning or it didn't. The steady state theory has swallowed the last bullet. Nobody can believe it anymore. If the universe existed from eternity past there would never have been a time when the universe hadn't already suffered extinction at the hands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So that's off the table. What is needed is an uncaused first cause, a creator not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That uncaused first cause is God, the creator of all things including the 2nd law. The argument from first cause tells us very little about the nature of the creator, but it does insist there must be one. Of late some have asserted that the universe created itself. Cosmologists are having a very hard time making that fit. I am content to sit by and smirk while they tear each others' theories apart. As hard as this may be to swallow, God is easily the most probable explanation proposed to date.
Not at all. If it isn't based on fact it isn't faith, it's superstition. When a child jumps to daddy from the couch he has faith in the fact that daddy is there and will catch him. It is a misconception, popular since the 19th century, that Christianity is a leap of faith. (Indiana Jones reading in a medieval document about a leap of faith in "The Last Crusade" is an anachronism. Christianity calls us to a step of faith. When you drive your car up a hill do you prepare to stop as you reach the crest, wondering if the road you cannot see will be there when you reach the top? No, you have faith because of the road behind you that the road ahead of you will be there. Based on all that God has done for me that I can see, I take the reasonable step of trusting Him for what I do not yet see.
1 - 10 Next