My silence about 2 Peter was only because it was late at night in the =
living room and that is usually not the place for discussion. However, =
since you are so interested in it, we can make that our next point of =
discussion, okay?
Secondly, you have this notion that just because the Bible does not =
address every conceivable moral dilemma, then moral absolutes must not =
exist. The use of this type of logic escapes me dad. How does that =
make sense? Are you honestly suggesting that the only way that moral =
absolutes can exist would be for every conceivable dilemma to be =
addressed by the Bible? =20
Thirdly, you again have backtracked on the foundation for moral =
absolutes. You "borrow" from the Judeo/christian system, yet you reject =
the foundation of those systems which make those virtues absolute. Once =
again, you fall into logical contradictions.
Finally, as for the foundation for the invariance of the laws of logic, =
you and I had a long conversation to which you agreed that only a =
theistic world view best explained the invariant nature of these laws. =
Maybe you forgot, if you did, then it doesn't really matter. =20
Anyways, no hard feelings about anything...I just hope that you don't =
start playing that little game that everyone else plays on this list =
(you know, if I don't hear a response, then that means my claim was =
superior). I hope you do a little reading on the issue of 2 Peter, that =
way we can have a fruitful discussion about it.
By the way, would you go ahead and put your cards on the table for this =
list and let us know where you stand at the present moment? Do you =
believe in God? If so, then what do you conceive this being to be like? =
=20
See you soon!
Walt Jr.
----------
From: Walter Nusbaum[SMTP:nusbaum@iglobal.net]
Sent: 14 April 1997 23:12
To: Walter Nusbaum
Cc: errancy@infidels.org
Subject: RE: Some other ramblings of Walt Jr. on First Cause
(Walt Sr. 4/14)
Hi son,
At 01:35 AM 4/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey Dad,
>
>As for you point about 2 Peter being a forgery, I didn't realize you =
wanted
to talk about it. Of course if you want to (which I know you don't) I =
will
be more than happy to, however, you really need to do more outsiding =
reading
before just accepting such assertions.=20
Date: Sunday, APR 6
Place: Home; living room
People present: Your mother, you, and I
You: "Why did you tell mother that 2 Peter was a forgery"?
Me: "I was passing along new information".
You: Silence
Me: "Why didn't *you* tell *me* 2 Peter was a forgery"?
You: (Inaudible response), but absolutely no challenge to the 2 Peter
statement, not even "Let's talk about this later". You left me with the
absolute impression that you were in agreement as to the forgery.=20
=20
>Secondly, on the objective morality issue...it was you who ADMITTED =
that
you had to borrow from the Judeo/christian world view in order to =
logically
maintain absolute values. =20
You are correct. I have no problem with the Judeo/xtian system since the
laws of the land are based upon the same(though there is no mention of =
god
in our Constitution), but you also agreed that *your* absolute morality
failed to meet absolute inclusiveness.(As did your brother).
>Dad, I never thought I would see you do this, but you are claiming
victories for things that never happened.
"Victory" was never mentioned, but it was clear to me that you had no
inclination to question 2 Peter and that the bible is silent on specific
modern day questions of morality.
=20
>In fact, clear instances where you have made concessions, you ignore =
and
try to present yourself to the List as some kind of debate hero.
I took no "credit" for debating skills(of which I have a deficiency), =
only
mentioning that *you* seemed to be having second thoughts on your own.
>Why don't you tell the list that you have admitted that God exists on
numbers of occasions, or are you too embarrassed to actually have your =
own
thoughts on this list? =20
Okay. "Hey list, god has existed on a number of occasions".
=20
>No, the fact is that you have conceded to the fact that your belief in
absolute morality comes from your borrowing from the Judeo/Christian =
worldview,
You are repeating yourself and you are putting words in my mouth. You, =
I,
and everyone else employs subjective morality by necessity.=20
>you have conceded that the invariance of the laws of logic are only
explainable through a theistic framework,=20
I did? Well, explain it to me again.=20
>and you have conceded that miracles are logically possible since you
maintain that a Creator exists.
Miracles exist in fairy tales, myths, and legend and are in no way =
logically
possible(where's the EVIDENCE), and I emphatically deny that yahweh EVER
existed.
> How about we try revealing the real facts dad? It seems like both =
sides
of your mouth are getting wider and wider...
You're right, 'cause I'm a two-fisted drinker.
(Snip)
>Your Son,
>
>Walt Jr.
Love ya!
Dad
>(Snip)
>>DAR
>> I am so glad Micheal Fisher is on this list.
>
>(Walt Sr.4/11)
>MichAEl's postings are indeed splendid!
>
>>MWF
>> Theists keep drawing these lines in the sand=20
>>representing "you can't explain past _here_". And science,=20
>>"blundering" along just keeps rolling over those lines.
>>
>> Walt, you and I may be just young enough to live to see=20
>>conscious computers, laboratory a-biogenesis and the 'super=20
>>grand unification theory' which would explain the universe right=20
>>back to T(0).
>>
>> Where are you going to draw your line in the sand=20
>>then?
>>
>>DAR
>> Excellent.
>>
>> Walt Sr. has shown me a picture of Walt Jr. by the way. He is=20
>>in his early twenties. Lot's of time for improvement.
>>
>>(Not that we don't love him just the way he is Walt Sr. : ))
>
>A couple of Sundays ago, he admitted that his "objective morality" was =
not
>all-encompassing in light of the emergence of some modern-day =
questions,
>especially those fourteen points enumerated by Mr. Till and I got no
>argument that 2 Peter was a forgery. I'll tell you Darrell, he's coming
>around! I detect a veritable sea change in his thinking.(Well, maybe =
ripples
>on a pond). ^5 , :-)
>Best wishes,
>Walt Sr.
>=20
>>cheers,
>>
>>Darrel
>>
----
>>"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof=20
>>of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of=20
>>future life for individuals, or of a personal God."=20
>>- Thomas Edison (1847-1931)=20
>> U.S. inventor