E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
You say sin is a dirty concept and then promptly identify three of them.We all know the maxim of love that if you love something you let it free.The parable of the Prodigal son I believe is a scriptural equivalent.God wants us to come back to him that is the point of God's enduring of self alienation of the crucifixion.
You are confusing design with how you are operating which it seems is not on all cylinders. I think the problem is with your definition of omnipotence which weirdly forbids god from creating that with any responsibility.
Sin is that strange thing that hurts God, apparently. So much so he can't even gaze on it.
No, sin is a concept that belongs to your religion. Hurting people is doing something wrong. Learn the difference.
A wonderful metaphor for alienation. But who is doing the alienation? and what is the solution? How does God 'sort it'?
It seems to me you are just using different words for it.
Vlad,Probably in the same way leprechauns teach the harp to the tone deaf. It's a thorny one alright, the problems you give yourself if you close your mind just long enough to get past the reification fallacy slap bang in the middle of your thinking.
No, your god is ok with slavery but objects to same bottom sex.
Probably in the same way leprechauns teach the harp to the tone deaf.
It remains for antichristians though, like same bottom sex something to hit the church with when one is strawclutching......and that's about the limit of concern.
Dear Vlad,Straw clutching, I think not, it is a big problem, people are dying because of this, the Church needs to address this hideousness, but can we stop saying "same bottom sex" from the sadly missed Leonard James to old Trentvoyager, it does them an injustice.Gonnagle.
Dear Rhiannon,The old arguments are the best, oh sorry that's jokes, quick Vlad get on stage.Gonnagle.
Dear Rhiannon,Sorry, sometime I can sound like a girls blouse, but somethings are important, us Christians need to look deeply into what Our Lord really wants, homosexuality, for me, is not even on the agenda.It is a non issue.Gonnagle.
Funnily enough, when you get down to it "hard to compute" is all AB has for his idiosyncratic take on consciousness. Never mind all that evidence from neuroscience, from emergence, from... etc: "That consciousness stuff looks really, really complicated to me so I refuse to accept that even a brain with trillion functional components could do it on its own.
Conscious awareness can't be defined by material reactions alone, no matter how complex the neural network is.
Not just hard to compute, but impossible to define in material terms. Conscious awareness can't be defined by material reactions alone, no matter how complex the neural network is.
I'm afraid the free will thing has been relegated by posters like yourself to talking yourselves up your own fundements and creating a homunculus.
Maybe that is why talk of 'matter' is rather old hat. Maybe to understand consciousness we need to think past mere matter and learn to think in information terms. The leading theory in consciousness research after all is 'integrated information theory'.
I mention it because that's the term Rhiannon used.Churches that are causing the death of people over this have lost there way.On the other hand there is a habit among antichristians of appealing to some alleged flaw in a persons morality as a reason to negate any of the arguments made by them and i'm afraid it is often the homosexuality question. I feel Rhiannon turned to it here, I feel the writer of a review of Feser tries it, I feel that many pull the same stunt over Lane Craig over his comments on the slaughter of the Canaanites.There are many people who remain Christian in spite of the issues, because at the end of the day, to make it a dealbreaker is to fail to get Christ in perspective.
