11 Aug 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThat's just not true. Neither of your statements.
You know perfectly well that is not the interpretation of sin that the church peddles. If it were, the whole heaven hell concept would be nonsense, the punishments even more overkill and hypocritical than they are.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by josephwDefinition 2 is misleading, it comes from a biotechnology corporation, it is distinguishing empirical observation from those based on previous scientific methodologies models and theories.
em·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provabl ...[text shortened]... e make choices. Man is a sinner. It's obvious.
That's how I see it.
How do you explain it?
Now design me an experiment to prove sin exists.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThat they don't understand the implications does not mean that they do not do it. A child's lie may be innocent, but it is a lie nonetheless.
That's an adult's interpretation, using words like conceal and forbidden just doesn't fit with the infant mind. They're not yet aware of either of these concepts, they're going through the motions of a game they don't yet understand the implications of. You just can't suggest that they are concealing forbidden activities until you have proof that they un ...[text shortened]... doing anything wrong, it can't be a lie, certainly not in the way ephineas is using it.
How do you reconcile your view that they do not lie with the lack of ability to distinguish right and wrong? Why would they NOT lie then?
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's exactly why they do not lie. It cannot be a lie if the act of deception is not taking place and it can't until right and wrong can be distinguished. You perceive it as a lie from a position of having a moral framework which distinguishes the two.
How do you reconcile your view that they do not lie with the lack of ability to distinguish right and wrong? Why would they NOT lie then?
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by StarrmanOf course the act of deception is taking place. It is just the moral significance of that deception that is absent. The right and wrong of it.
That's exactly why they do not lie. It cannot be a lie if the act of deception is not taking place and it can't until right and wrong can be distinguished. You perceive it as a lie from a position of having a moral framework which distinguishes the two.
These are two different things.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasHow do you account for the spontaneous emergence of empathy in toddlers? Is this consistent with toddlers being depraved?
Not in the sense that they are 'wicked' or 'perverted' right from the get go, but 'morally indifferent', yes.
A child is born with an innate self-centeredness, which in itself is the root of all depravity. So babies are depraved in the sense that their utter selfishness inherently nixes the possibility of a moral center.
A better term would probab ...[text shortened]... t throughout life our original nature is the root cause of our propensity towards sin.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't see how deception can exist without moral significance.
Of course the act of deception is taking place. It is just the moral significance of that deception that is absent. The right and wrong of it.
These are two different things.