Topic awaiting preservation: Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth ... (Page 4 of 5)

where to start...well, as far as saying positive things about the catholic church, i have to be totally honest and say that my experiences as a whole in the church did little for me. and this isn't a "i went to church for two months and didn't like it", i grew up in the catholic church for over 20 years, got baptized, had first communion, got confirmed, etc., and while there was certainly a sense of community there that was about it. all i ever got from all the sermons, classes, and everything else i attended was "follow the rules and you'll go to heaven". i never understood why i did all the things i did, and no one ever bothered to really explain why. i never saw God really move and change people, anyone i met or that came to the church was already catholic. that personal relationship aspect of christianity was barely even touched on. at a point later on, outside the catholic church, God really worked in me and changed some things, and i've seen Him radically change other people firsthand. i wish i could say that my experience was isolated but i've heard very similar stories from a lot of other people.

the idea of "in persona christi" makes no sense to me according to other scripture. why do i need someone else acting in place of christ? the bible clearly states that we're to have no one between us and God except christ. also, i'm curious how baptism is a parental choice when all throughout the bible we see believers being baptized after they profess their faith.

on the list of changes in catholic tradition, there's a few i found really odd. one actually isnt on there, and that's the idea that peter wasn't recoginized as the pope until the 3rd century and that at that time there was a lot of controversy over it. the original greek in the text where christ is talking to peter is interesting too, the word used in calling peter "rock" and christ's reference to the "rock" on which he builds the church are actually two different words.

the thing that interested me the most off that list was the date the doctrine of purgatory was introduced, seems like it came a lot later that it should have if it was among the original beliefs of the early church.

and jade, like some others here i do find a lot of value in these discussions and from your opinions, i learn a lot just from reading and researching this and from hearing other's thoughts. hopefully others who are lurking are finding some value here too.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

DL needles me alot and is very anti-papacy

---

No, I certainly don't. I ask very valid questions - questions I wish you would actually answer once in a while. Questions you seem to wish to brush off as 'snipes'.

yes, I am very anti-papacy.

Have you ever considered that maybe people don't say the things they say just because they are 'anti-catholic'?

Maybe, just *maybe*, people become anti-catholic because of the facts such as those I have stated many times over?

As for which questions I have asked, that I would like to hear your thoughts on -

quote:

---

Now, as to Fig's posted article - what specifically do you disagree with? I can't vouch for many of those things, but some of them are most certainly true.

Are you actually trying to say that everything the catholic church beleives today, has been doctrine right from the start?

Are you trying to say that the church has not borrowed many aspects of its observances from pagan origins?

Please clarify what specifically you have an issue with in regard to that list.

---

quote:

---

Was the holy spirit with the pope when he decided to start selling 'indulgences' to finance the new church he wanted? Was the holy spirit with the catholic church when they decided to have Joan of Arc burnt at the stake? Was it with them when they asked the secular leaders of Europe to attack the muslims and kill the jews?

---

quote:

---

So you beleive that the very spotty history of the catholic church, with its many political leaders, and its many mistakes (things like condemning some to death for heresy...only to saint them later....) deserve the same level of faith in their decisions as does Jesus himself?

---

These are not sarcastic retorts. These are very important issues, and I simply cannot fathom how someone can just ignore them.

Faith is faith....but corruption is corruption, and historic fact is historic fact.

quote:

---

Faith is faith....but corruption is corruption, and historic fact is historic fact.

---

I will address some issues but not all, because its a rehash and no doubt you are posting to give lurkers and forum devotees anti-catholic view tme. But nothing I post will satisfy you. I state this from experience, but it will have to be when I get home, my lunch hour is over.

But I might add. There has been corruption in the USA system of government since its inception, but don't we still believe in the system and take pride in our country for what it represents? And we usually say if you don't like it then just move to another country. There are corrupt government humans, but that doesn't mean the system of USA government is corrupt. There are men fighting right now for the very ideals that this corrput goverment human push. So as long as systems are run by imperfect humans, it will have faults, but that doesn't mean the system is not working. Same analogy with the system of hierarchy of the Roman Church, they are all inperfect humans trying to run a perfect system. And when they fall, its percieved that the whole church falls.

(Edited by jade on 10-19-2004 21:37)

quote:

---

But I might add. There has been corruption in the USA system of government since its inception, but don't we still believe in the system and take pride in our country for what it represents? And we usually say if you don't like it then just move to another country.

---

You always bring this correlation up, but it simply does not apply.

The people in government are elected by the populace. They are there for a limited amount of time. They (are supposed to) vote for issues based on the views of the people they represnt. They are accountable for their actions (at least to an extent). They are people, and they are flawed, and we all know it.

The church heirarchy, on the other hand, is supposedly there by some divine mandate, with the 'holy spirit working through them' and other such nonsense. They are looked at as infallible, as better than the rest of us, etc.

And, most importantly, you are trusing them with your 'immortal soul'.

We don't put that kind of trust in our political leaders. The comparison simply does not hold up.

That said, I will certainly agree that there are people who do have that same blindness in regard to patriotism as they have about religion, and the 'love it or leave it' jackasses who can't tolerate any sort of criticism of the system. That still doesn't make it a positive comparison

quote:

---

no doubt you are posting to give lurkers and forum devotees anti-catholic view tme.

---

Anti-catholic view time???

It may surprise you, but I have better things to do than crusade against the catholic church. My views are very clear: I think it is a very bad organization. But I am not out to topple it! I enjoy education, especially in matters of history. You cannot understand the history of Europe without learning a good deal about the history of the church and its role in society.

If only you could stop seeing questions about the issues being discussed here as 'attacks' or 'snipes' or an effort to overthrow the catholic empire, I think you'd get a great deal more from these discussions.

Most importantly, you must understand that I am not here as a 'prtestant'. I am not christian whatsoever (nor do I practice any other religion), and so I have no agenda in hand when asking such questions.

There are undoubtedly very good things that have been done both in the name of and at the hand of christianity. IMO, most of that good was really a side effect - primarily the renewed interest in education, in literature, in reading/writing/reproducing books; in developments in art and architecture. There are a lot of great individuals in christian history, both catholic and otherwise.

But that does not negate any of the other things that I have said.

Now, how on earth asking you questions, to get your point of view as a catholic, can be seen as giving the 'lurkers' some anti-catholic view time © is quite beyond me.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-19-2004 23:34)

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

(sorry, Jestah if I stepped on your toes...)

---

Jestah wears steel-toe boots. No need to apologize! ;p

EDIT: Talk about a late reply. I must have been on another page... *sigh* What a downer...
_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-19-2004 23:04)

quote:

---

Most importantly, you must understand that I am not here as a 'prtestant'. I am not christian whatsoever (nor do I practice any other religion), and so I have no agenda in hand when asking such questions.

---

Somehow, I am not convinced. I think you are keenly interested in Christianity for a reason. For a athiest, you sure are immersed in religious topic threads as other athiest or agnostics, etc. just comment here and there. So, I wonder about you. I think you have a certain mysterious agenda about this bad wayward instutition that you so evidently despise. What did they do to you in the past? How have they affected your life that you are so verbal against it? Why not against Hinduism or Islam?

Don't get me wrong, I like you where I am at.
Just that I feel there is more to your personal story.
You seem very much like your a cover for a baptist fundamentalist poster person in you anti-papacy stand. Are you? Come on just get out of that closet and come clean. I will not hold it against you.

(Edited by jade on 10-20-2004 15:37)

jade,

I am familiar with many of the "anti-catholic" arguments and positions. There is a great deal of anti-catholicism that is hateful and off base in the Proetestant world. Much of it is even based on lies and half truths about the RC church. Speaking as a Xian, I do not support that and I point it out if it came up. Trust me, you have not run into that here.

As for me, you accused me of prejudice earlier. Do you consider all non-catholic christians to be prejudiced? I am simply explaining to you why I think your church has strayed from the original teachings of the apostles. Does that makes me prejudiced in your view?

DL-44,

I have been through this with three Cathloic friends of mine about 10 years ago. We argued through much of what has been discussed here and I learned a great deal about the RC church as a result. In fact, I have found that I am more familiar with much of the teachings of the RC church than several catholics I've encountered since then.

You asked:

quote:

---

The church heirarchy, on the other hand, is supposedly there by some divine mandate, with the 'holy spirit working through them' and other such nonsense. They are looked at as infallible, as better than the rest of us, etc.

---

The answer I always got back on this one was that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals only. So when I pointed out murderous Popes in the past, it meant that they were still there by God's will and being led by the Holy Spirit when they spoke for the church on theological pronouncements but they were still human and could do all those terrible things.

That's the answer. I don't like it, and I never did like it. jade has asked me repeatedly in this thread how a church like mine remains guided by God yet it seems to me that the leadership of the RC church is every bit as vulnerable to sin as the rest of us.


jade, I'm going to point out once again why I see the evidence the way I do. If you pick up your New Testament, you will not find infant baptism, sprinkling or pouring, the priesthood, a Pope, confessionals, Mary's assumption, her assumption into heaven, her perpetual virginity, etc. When do we see these doctrines in history? Much later than the first century, some of them MUCH later. I think the burden of proof falls far more to you to justify why the church was meant to become all that as opposed to the view that we were to stick closely to the teaching of the apostles and Christ Himself through them. That is what this discussion should be focused upon, IMNTBHO.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-20-2004 17:21)

Jade - all I can say is......


wow.

You really are something.

I am actually somewhat speechless that you can be so paranoid, and so deliberately ignorant of many facts regarding the history of the catholic church as to have the *need* to view someone like me as a 'protestant in disguise' out to badmouth the catholic church.

As I said, many many times, it comes down to very simple observation of both past and present actions of the organization.

Something you should try....

Now, if we could actually get to some of these questions -

You spoke in very broad and strong terms about how the list Fig posted was 'anti-catholic propaganda'.

Could you please explain, and adress the items on the list with which you disagree, so we can see where you're coming form?

Or are you going to simply ignore the issues again so that you don't have to deal with what might be true/false?




(Edited by DL-44 on 10-20-2004 17:44)

Who are you really? Fig's sidekick?

No. I am not going through each one just because you want me to. Thats alot of work. Just propose which one?

It IS a lot of work, but YOU brought it up. You made the accusation that the site is "anti-catholic propaganda used to misguide people". If you make accusations, you must be able to *do the work* to back up the accusations. Without the work, your accusations (or anybody's accusations) are a pile of worthless gibberish.

Paranoid thoughts of "anti-catholic propoganda" and closet protestants on a witch hunt will get you nowhere.

You'll see the people with whom you are disagreeing (DL, Fig, Bugs, etc) are providing some reason behind their arguements. They are reasonably well researched, well though out, well communicated statements.

When you enter into a civil debate, there is an implicit agreement by both parties to conduct themselves appropriately -- discuss with reason the topic at hand. You are not living up to your side of this agreement.

I can't believe, that this is continuing. In any regards, I'm out.

jade, i did mention a few items earlier when you asked. while you want to paint me as broadly anti-catholic i'm really not, tho i'm not going to hide my negative experiences either. i'll openly admit that my church, as well as the one bugs attends and any others out there, isn't perfect, and i'd wager that we're all pretty far off what the original church was like despite our best intentions.

who knows, maybe i've missed the boat and didn't "get" something when i was in church, but it doesn't seem that way to me. and in retrospect, understanding the bible and theology a lot more know than i did when i was younger, a lot of things don't seem to line up. i'd like to understand the reasoning behind some of those things, whether i'll agree or not is an entirely different matter but i think we all learn something from these discussions.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Paranoid thoughts of "anti-catholic propoganda" and closet protestants on a witch hunt will get you nowhere.

---

Morbul,
Have you joined the bandwagon too?

Please. Please. Tell me it isn't true.

quote:

---

You'll see the people with whom you are disagreeing (DL, Fig, Bugs, etc) are providing some reason behind their arguements. They are reasonably well researched, well though out, well communicated statements.

---

Well researched??? Where is it? Since you ask, where is your research?

Whatever, jade.

That's about the limit of my patience vs. interest.

Not unusual - you usually put up that brick wall when we get to any subject in which you might have to actually provide back-up for your accusations.

Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance...

=)

OK. Call me ignorant then. If it makes you feel better.

That list has tons of dogma and doctrine associated. Even if I were to just comment on each one without research of which I can do, I would be posting to the wind.

Come on kissing of the Pope's foot. Give me a break?

jade, I'm very sorry to say this but you are becoming very insulting. I am very disappointed to see you take this path.

Asking you questions and challenging your views does not mean that people here don't like you. If you can't discuss differing opinions on these topics without taking it personally then this really isn't a good idea to continue. I'm very sorry it has come to this point.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ok, Bugs. Since you set the rules for this asylum. I will graciously leave.

If you were actually to leave at this point, it could not be characterized as gracious.

...and since I do set all the rules and everyone here must obey my every command... hmm... I'll have to get back to you on that one.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

No, jade you wouldn't be "posting to the wind". I know that I for one was very interested in what you had to bring to the table. I don't think anyone was proposing that you write a novel on each point on that list. Both Fig and Bugimus brought up very valid questions as non-catholic Christians that were completely separate from the list that Fig posted.

A discussion is the exchange of ideas - of information. We're not asking you to spend hours of your time researching things you may not have answers for. If you don't have the answer, just say so. The important thing is that we are looking for your perspective as a Roman Catholic. We are not looking for the perspective of the Pope or the Catholic website.

Are these questions easy? Absolutely not. No one is telling you to leave. There is no anti-jade, anti-catholic "bandwagon" here.

I'm only making this attempt jade, to keep this conversation going because I am interested in everybody's views on this topic, including yours. As I said, if you don't know the answer to a direct question, then just say so - no one will fault you for that. If it is a matter of the Church telling you this is the way things are and you accept that without question, then I guess there is no further point of discussion as these are issues that can only be pondered if you question the RC organization.

quote:

---

If it makes you feel better.

---

No, it doesn't. But when you behave the way you are, it's the only conclusion I'm left with.

I do not insult anyone on purpose and shouldn't be accused of doing so. If anyone has been insulted more on this asylum it has been me. Do I ever complain? No.
Has anyone come to my defense? No. Has anyone who has insulted me been accused of insulting me? No. Lets not blind ourselves to the real issue here. Iam not going away mad, just going away. If I seem insulting then I not doing the will of God. Maybe I am tired.

I never waiver from a question or a battle of words in faith. But to be asked to explain a list for me to defend on terms that say if you don't want to debate or explain or argue it your evading or hiding or don't know the answers to me is unfair.

Yes, I do speak for the Roman Church in matters of faith and doctrine. So what else is new? I have been doing that since day one. What I speak is what it speaks. Not any made up facts and views I cater to believe.

So if I come across robotted for Rome, I must be boring most. I see myself as a submissive slave trying to do the will of Jesus Christ.

But, I leave you to learn Christianity from my brothers in Christ, Bugs, Gideon, Fig etc. May you learn much from them to do the will of God.

Me, I am going on vacation.

May the love of Christ be in and with all of u.

(Edited by jade on 10-20-2004 23:11)

Conflicting Perceptual Orientations by yours truly.

Many people, like jade, never completely comprehend that belief in gods and faith in a religion are learned behaviors. All humans are born as atheists and I prefer to stay that way. So please, don't wish the "love of Christ" upon everyone and strike such broad strokes with your ridiculously egocentric belief that "everyone wants to come to God." No, not everyone wants to be you.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-20-2004 23:13)

quote:

---

All humans are born as atheists...

---

I couldn't disagree more. What are you basing that on, meta? I was under the impression that anthropological studies show humanity has overwhelmingly gravitated toward a belief in God/god/gods.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

This is the first time, I have ever held the same point of view as metahuman. I'm not really sure, of what to make of that. Although I don't coin the beliefs of others as

quote:

---

ridiculously egocentric

---

Bugs, anthropological studies do show that humanity has overwhelmingly gravitated toward a belief in a higher power. However, meta makes the point of saying

quote:

---

All humans are born as atheists

---

, and this is a true statement. Babies are not born with any belief at all, and studies done on humans that have grown up in total isolation from others and their belief systems have no concept of a higher power whatsoever.

In fact, I believe that your religion, if I am not in error, makes an exception for infants, right?

I at this point it is critical we agree on the definition of atheism being used by metahuman. What definition are you using, meta?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^ Hmmm...good point. I see it here as not having a belief in a higher power.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-21-2004 02:01)

And I was assuming he meant the belief that there is no higher power. We must wait for clarification.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ah, I see the difference. My view of it, includes unawareness of the concept of a higher being. Your view of it, is a belief that a higher being doesn't exist, or at least awareness of the concept of a higher being.

How would you then classify my view of it? If someone is unaware of the concept of a higher being, what is that classified as? Ignorant? Innocent?

Bugimus: Atheism is the lack of theism. That's the only valid definition of atheism. There's nothing more to it than that. Sure, there are categories like "weak atheism/agnostic atheism" and "strong atheism" but atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason. Some Buddhists, for instance, are atheists. The subject you brought up, Bugimus, is called the God Module. Research it. The subject is interesting but it does not indicate that we are born Christian, Catholic, etc. We are born without belief in gods--without theism. Theistic behavior is completely learned.

Also, read On Beliefs and Belief Systems by the late Bob Eddy of the Institute of General Semantics.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Even with a complete absence of specific knowledge of God's word, your conscience would inform you of right and wrong. For example, centuries ago Gentiles that were completely isolated from the religion of the Jews still had systems of ethics, and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

So if I am understanding your question properly, there is no way that you, WS, could fall into the category of "innocent" like an infant would. And there is no way you could be classified as "ignorant", because through God's creation his Law has been written on your heart.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

My view of it, includes unawareness of the concept of a higher being. Your view of it, is a belief that a higher being doesn't exist, or at least awareness of the concept of a higher being.

---

There are two types of atheism which are often confused by atheists and religionists.

• Atheism, sometimes called 'weak atheism' or 'agnostic atheism', is the lack of belief in gods for whatever reason.
  
  
• Positive atheism, also called 'strong atheism', is the belief in the lack of gods.

See the difference? Lack of belief in gods is not equivalent to belief in the non-existence of gods. Compare these statements:

• Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe in gods nor do I believe they do not exist; however, I am open to the possibility of both the existence and nonexistence of gods."
  
  
• Strong atheist: "Gods do not exist! I have proof."

The weak atheist reserves judgment while the strong atheist declares war on theism.

Keep in mind that the adjective does not redefine the noun. It creates a new instance of the noun and adds to the new instance's definition. The definition of "atheism" remains static, generally applicable, and plain.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-21-2004 03:08)

The fact that you even have to explain it at all demonstrates why it was so important that we agree on the definition we're using for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of how much one would like our language to remain static, it is far from it. I stopped insisting that words retain their definitions over time, and now I just make sure definitions are stipulated for individual discussions.

Anyways, I have not gotten a chance to look into the "God Module" you referenced yet. I will get back to this once I have done so.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

...and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

---

Bugs, now that was pretty naive...

Thanks man

But seriously, what exactly is naive about it?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

aww cmon do I really have to point you out hehehe

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

. . . . and that is because all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong.

But seriously, what exactly is naive about it?

---

First you assume your god exists. Then you assume that everyone knows your definition of "god." Then you assume humans were created. Then you assume humans were created by your god. Then you assume your concepts of "right" and "wrong" are correct. Then you assume knowledge of right and wrong is derived from your god's knowledge. Then you assume... "and so on." If any of that were true, 9/11 would not have occurred. That's why your statement is naive. Your statement ignores sociological and psychological issues and assumes a black-and-whiteness to the world. By the way, the claim that "Man was created in God's image" contradicts the supposed existence of your god.

quote:

---

The fact that you even have to explain it at all demonstrates why it was so important that we agree on the definition we're using for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of how much one would like our language to remain static, it is far from it. I stopped insisting that words retain their definitions over time, and now I just make sure definitions are stipulated for individual discussions.

---

I agree that key terms must be defined prior to discussion in order for discussion to be meaningful. The problem with the idea that the definition of "atheism" isn't static is that it is static. The alternate and invalid definitions of "atheism" (and of all terms) are either ignorantly developed and/or developed with intent to misguide.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-21-2004 06:42)

Every thinking human being must base their view of life on something. You are correct about me basing mine, and therefore assuming, on the existence of God. Descartes famously began with "I think therefore I am". I suspect you begin yours with a scientific convention having to do with memetics (which I really haven't read up on so please forgive my lack of understaning of it).

About me assuming everyone knows about my God... umm... don't you think after 4 years of expressing who my God is in this very forum that I might just possibly think some people would know what I was referring to? Have you been gone so long that you have forgotten where I stand? Cut me a little slack here!

All of the other assumptions you list stem from my basic world view which answers many of the difficult questions relating to sociological and psychological issues and I assure you that you are incorrect in saying I have ignored them. The fact that you probably disagree with the answers does not mean they're naive at all. In fact, the charge of naivete bothers me a great deal specifically because the answers Christianity provides match extremely well with observed realities in human behavior and psychology. By all means, express disagreement and provide alternative answers but naive? I don't think it's an accurate charge.

Your reference to 9/11 is intriguing beyond words and I would love to explore that more with you. I think you are assuming a great deal about my views from what you said. This may leave you with incorrect conclusions, which are never a good thing.

And for someone who just criticized black-and-whiteness, I find it amusing that you are so inflexible about definitions of words in the English language. The point is that there is nothing you can do about the evolution of language. It has and it will continue. But it's your prerogative to fight that fight. I hope you're not one of those people who insist that being gay can only mean one is happy! That one always kills me.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: Read carefully.

• 1. I never stated you ignored sociological and psychological issues.
  
  
• 2. Religiosity is a byproduct of naivete. Religiosity often provides delusions. which create problems, instead of solutions.
  
  
• 3. The literal definition of "atheism" has remained the same since the term was coined. The Greek prefix a- means without and the Greek-derived theism means belief in gods. While languages as systems of communication do evolve, basic words in every language do not. Maintaining a system of standardized language for the production of efficient communication is not a matter of black-and-whiteness or inflexibility. Naive misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. Godlessness is not equivalent to immorality for an atheist lacks theism and therefore lacks your belief in what your god (or gods) represents.
  
  
• 4. Assuming you think 9/11 shouldn't have happened, if all humans were created in your god's image and if all humans were of your morality, 9/11 would not have occurred because the terrorists, who are also humans created in your god's image, would have knowledge of your morality. I haven't stated any conclusions regarding your naive statement except that your statement "all humans are created in God's image and therefore possess knowledge of right and wrong" is naive. You're a bit too quick in removing content from context and in pointing fingers for assumption where none exists. I suggest you learn and practice General Semantics. (I've still a lot of practicing to do before I can even think of myself as a General Semanticist.) Try the tutorials and exercises.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Bugs

quote:

---

Even with a complete absence of specific knowledge of God's word, your conscience would inform you of right and wrong.

---

This is definitely not true. I'm somewhat taken aback, that you ignore direct evidence that disputes this.

Take for instance, the two children that were raised, totally isolated from all others, by their parents (the children didn't have contact with their parents, either. If you remember correctly, these parents were charged with crimes and convicted of neglect ). However immoral and cruel, these tests conducted by these two misfit parents, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement is false. The two children had no knowledge whatsoever of "right" and "wrong". There was only "I want", and can "I take".

Also, "right" and "wrong" are largely socially and culturally defined. Meaning that these values change accordingly. I personally do not believe in these values, as you well know, being of natural origin. Such experiments, as the above example, does provide support for what I believe.

Developmental Psychology: Moral Development

Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology: Moral Development

*sigh* I should have majored in psychology, not marketing... This too is a fascinating subject.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!