- laminustacitus
criticizing others cause you have no conclusions, what else is new…
I do have conclusions, but I need not reveal them for they have absolutely no relevance to the conversation. In fact, all of my criticisms come from my own conclusions. Once again, its Wilderness with his fetish for set-in-stone conclusions.
…If you believe that not all 4 are derived from the natural law. I hold that all knowledge is derived from the natural law, therefore man’s task in any intellectual work is to learn and explain that which is true, not to make it up from lack of a better answer.
Angels are messangers and servants of God. [ Which begs the question, if God is all powerful then why does he/she/it need angels? ] However, your quotation states that angels have will. No doubt anything that commits action has will. The debate is on whither or not the will of the angels is their own will or the will of their creator.
God is truly love. Italics added for sarcastic effect.
God shackles angels but not man.
What is the point then in creating angels who will choose evil? God knows they will choose to not serve him..yet he creates them and then casts them away. Is this the morality of a supreme being that ‘takes no prisoners.’ He/she/it creates that which it does not want while knowing what that creation will become. Think of how many souls have been possessed by the fallen, the God you speak of knows all the possessions past, present and future. He/she/it can create more by knowningly creating more angels who will reject him/her/it.
According to Christian doctrine God created everything in the world. Are you stating he/she/it did not create evil? Is God truly all powerful if he/she/it cannot create evil? If evil sprung from itself, out of nothingness, then you have to concede that it is just as powerful as the God you spoke of and we would therefore have two Gods.
How was she tempted in God’s paradise in the first place. You must either concede God put the snake there or the snake put itself there and the premise that a snake can inflitrate the domain of God shows that evil is just as powerful as good in which again, you have to concede there are two gods. One evil and one good.
A law is necessarily enforced. That is the nature of a law. It cannot be broken.
To be in the nature of man, it has to be universal. If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
Thomas Aquinas, if we’re going to pull out Catholic passages, agrees with you Anarchist Cain. AC you are seeing the finer definition of “will” and being superb about it.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
‘If statism were the root cause of all social evil, what on earth could be the cause of statism?’ -Edwin Walker
Since this topic is about Rights, Property, and State, this is worth considering. Statism isn’t the root of all evil (though it is the source of much evil), but rather a very powerful expression of evil.
Walker isn’t saying ALL evil but all social evil
i missed that…uh…moving on
How about those Dodgers?! [:P]
lol
I suggest that one knows a subject before one pontificates upon it, wilderness. Thomas Aquinas bluntly stated that angels have free will in his Summa Theologica, a will that is similar, yet more perfect, than man’s.
You are not being strawmanned. Your comments on gravity are nonsense and imply a rejection of natural philosophy. Your skepticism is unwarranted - it’s an article of faith.
You deny any moral system except the one in line with your wholly arbitrary ‘religious’ dogma.
The only thing you don’t doubt is religious dogma.
Maybe you could explain how such an skeptical mind as yours doesn’t doubt religious dogma as well ? Special pleading ? Gravity may stop working tomorrow, but your fantasies are eternal ?
It is not worth considering at all because the question is wholly ridiculous.
Statism is simply human action which we libertarians qualify – i.e., assume – to be evil.
Why not believe in magic?
I mean, you are alive, are you not?
You failed.
You failed to offer an objective reason why rights SHOULD be respected. No surprse there, though, because there is no objective reason.
You throw out that irrelevent Euthyphro Dilemma like as if it proves anything. Yet you have no reason why a cannibal SHOULD not eat you.
You fail. You have no objective defense of your morality. Have no fear though, because nobody else does. Meditate upon that.
Ok… who has argued such a thing? Not I.
Sounds right.
No. the question was aimed directly at this argument “a natural law ethic for humans is “murder is bad.” It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.” Your defending a different argument, a moral laden argument.
Because hes not “the same Tom as before”
Its completely in line if we are going to say that murder is unnatural and continue using the term “natural” wherever we feel it fits, and rejecting it when we don’t.
No, you’ve gone far outside the argument I commented on.
And once again, you are completely ignoring the original argument I questioned, the “murder is bad” because… and are now inserting this new law, “all humans choose,” Which is fine, but it is nothing more than you defending a different idea that I didn’t question in the first place.
And? That means that some this laws - “murder is bad” - isn’t really a law in the sense of any actual natural law, if so then I agree.
sigh… this unrelated talk of boulders and whatnot is getting quite boring and why you keep bringing them up I haven’t a clue, I think you are still mixing up arguments. No matter you’ve gotten far off of the original question I had in the first place.
I believe in magic. When reading fiction.
Yes. So ?
Your right. After I posted that comment, I meant to emphasize that’s the “debate” that AC wrote. For as I’ve stated to Angurse in this thread once we move beyond humans that’s a different category and nature and once we begin to discuss what a human is after a human dies is when the discussion turns to religion and not within the scope of the science of human nature. So, I was vague, and I even looked up Angel’s will in Thomas’ book and couldn’t find it. Thanks for the correction. I’m all for what’s right![Y]
But of course, you’re not for anything, and somehow make these arguments due to a position you hold. I think back to that link I posted at the top of this page.