Oakspear

Here's another point about metaphors: they mostly just illustrate a point that is already established, they in no way prove the point. For johniam, who as far as I know believes in the inerrancy of the bible, the driver's license analogy makes sense. For him, the bible is the standard against which everything else is measured. For others, who don't hold such a belief, the analogy is flawed. The bible as driver's license only works if one already accepts the premise that the bible is "right". One of the things that I saw recur in TWI was the use of illustrations to prove the point. An example is the teaching on epiluo, which Bullinger taught was "to let loose", and illustrated the letting loose, by comparing it to dogs being unleashed to run down the game. The definition, filtered through Wierwille and later Martindale, focussed on the dogs and not the letting loose itself, establishing in TWI minds that interpretation was bad. Another poster and I questioned the TWI definition on biblical grounds, as well as showing how Bullinger was misunderstood by Wierwille (I understand that other posters may disagree with me on this...my main problem was how TWI leaders handled the question...). Rather than "going to the Word", or going to a lexicon other some other source that would better explain the TWI position, both sets of leaders proceeded to explain the analogy, lecturing on dogs and hunting and training, etc. The example became equal to the bible!

"Be Strong in The Lord" was the yearly theme at ROA 1991.

That's it! Your turn

It doesn't matter what I say As long as sing with inflection That makes you feel that I'll convey Some inner truth of vast reflection But I've said nothing so far And I can keep it up as long as it takes And it don't matter who you are If I'm doing my job its your resolve that breaks Think harmonica

Donna's M's alleged lesbianism is discussed mainly because it stands in stark contrast to TWI's public stance against homosexuality. Kinda like finding out that a KKK leader had an affair with a black woman. It's the irony, doncha know? And what are you suggesting for "making him pay"? A lynching? :blink:

....and yet...we drew you in....

It doesn't matter what I say As long as sing with inflection That makes you feel that I'll convey Some inner truth of vast reflection

If by "as a whole" you mean that pure altruism is the general rule of behavior across the board, then, no. Do some individuals practice it, at least occassionally? Yes, I believe so. They do a lot of good in our community, and I had $50 that I wouldn't miss at the time.

shoot me for knowing that

Yeah, Lupine one, you're right no smacking needed, it's indeed The Spirit of Radio by those skinny Canadians, Rush. My favorite line from that song is: But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity (You guys should really check out Morphine though. Some really cool jazz-like stuff. "Cure For Pain" is a good place to start.) Are those lyrics to: "Dance Hall Days" by Wang Chung?

Templelady: How about for the purposes of this discussion we define more than one type of "altruism"? 1. Actions taken with no expectation of reward, including "warm feelings", let's call that "pure altruism" 2. Actions taken with no expectation of material reward, but can include "warm feelings", pats on the back, etc., let's call that simply "altruism" What do ya say?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Can you expand upon why you believe this to be true?It looks like we agree that there can be morality with or without God, but disagree on the depth of that morality, namely that altruism can only come from God. We also agree that the existance of a moral standard is no guarantee that anyone follow it. If you include "a warm feeling that I've done something good", then maybe that's right. But I dispute whether that kind of "reward" would fall outside the definition of altruism, or could even honestly be called a reward. (I know you didn't say "everything we do has it's reward" first, but you're using it as a point of discussion) Again, why do you say that? When I put a $50 bill in the Salvation Army kettle, I get nothing in return, not even recognition from the bell ringer if I palm the bill before putting it in. Agreed, there is that concept among religious people....just as there is among non-religious people.

Okay, it was "Have a Lucky Day" from Morphine try this one: Begin the day with a friendly voice a companion unobtrusive play that song that's so elusive and the magic music makes your morning mood not so obscure

That's what I mean (and I beleive that I was quite accurate The point hasn't been to deny that there is a god, or get you to do so, but to demonstrate that morality and ethics are not the unique province of those who believe in God.

I five of their CD's at Best Buy...I didn't think it was that obscure! Another hint: no guitars, no keyboards..just drums, sax (usually baritone) and a bass-like-intrstrument

I don't know about that WW. The band is from the Boston area, is now defunct, since the lead singer died of a heart attack on stage in Italy in the late 90's.

*sigh* As Lindy pointed out, I am not saying that God betrayed me. I was taking your remark: "TO be alone in this world dependent on the whim of your fellow man with no comfort when he betrays you I find very sad", and turning it around with: "To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad." A figure of speech, if you will (or even if you won't) Your initial remark makes some unwarranted (IMHO) assumptions: 1. Without (your) god, we are alone 2. We are dependent upon the whim of man (at least more so than a God-believer) 3. We are without comfort if we don't believe in your god Your conclusion, that the state of those who are without your god is "sad", is based on premises that I believe are false. My remark was ironic, or maybe just sarcastic , in that I feel that some are as dependent upon on god's whim, as you accuse others of being dependent on man's whim. The betrayal is generic, not specific. Since I don't believe in or worship your god, how can I believe that he has personally betrayed me? Throughout this thread, Templelady, you have attempted to define the boundaries of how others should view the world and divinity. Naturally, you are free to continue to do so, but I for one, won't be playing along. Ah, you know that. :wacko: Choosing to believe in something other than the biblical god, or to believe in no god at all is not dissillusionment. It is a choice. Lindy: good post (the long one)

Did I kill this thread? Anybody need a hint?

Token pagan here! While I don't beieve in "The Trinity", I am on the fence about whether it can be justified biblically. Smart folks can be found on both sides of the issue.

If the purpose is to bring everyone to your own point of view (or to do the same to you), then, of course, its always been futile. If the purpose of the discussion is to imagine other possibilities, to see the other point of view, then no, it's not. Strawman alert! No one has started with that premise. However, the god described in the bible could certainly be described that way, if the records are true. Well...the thread is called "assume for a moment that there is no God". In a discussion where both sides do not agree on either the existamce of this god, or in the writings that supposedly reveal him, you can't use those writings as the basis of settling an argument. If one side is using the bible as a source of truth, then its fair game for the other side to use that same bible to point out inconsistancies. There can be a perception of the divine that differs from what the bible says. To be dependent on the whim of a god with only self-deception when he betrays you is also very sad.

Not exactly druidism, but you're close. I'm not an atheist, but I am arguing that atheists can act just as morally and athically as theists.

No, but you have indicated that moral behavior cannot exist outside of worship of God No, but you have said that ethical or moral behavior among atheists only exists because they live in a theistic society, or have "heard of" God Right, and we've given exampples of individuals and societies that do very nicely without a god. Is that the only way one can be moral or ethical? Perhaps you don't see it because it falls outside what you have decided you want to believe. So, in general, what's the difference in actions between theists and atheists?

...kind of obscure, I know...but this crowd knows its music

Strawman alert! Strawman alert! I'm not saying that the morality that you describe doesn't exist, nor am I trying to "prove it". What is being said is that the belief in a god doesn't guarantee "moral" behavior, nor does atheism preclude it.

You assume that it was passed down faithfully from Noah's time to Joshua's. An unwarranted assumption at best.