Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
So by this universal understanding of Gods basics of moral law, Is it morally just to murder children and infants?
No argument from you and no amount of studying will ever make me see the light that you see that tells you that murdering children and infants is justified if God says so.
I suggest you stop wasting people's time. Not to mention you didn't study anything. Frankly your rant has become tiring now.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
So suppose I am wrong and morality is not merely subjective.
Lets try you, explain how does having your view morality in a subjective world view makes you think that your subjective view should be applied everywhere, even 3000 years ago. Take all the time you need, all day if you must. But lets see what you got.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
MAGSolo wrote:To some extent, morals are a simple product of humans being a social species. Us being social dictates that we will automatically be "good" to some people and as a social species we are inherently "good" to those closest to us and most like us. To what extent this goodness maintains or drops off as people become less like us varies from person to person. Morals are dictated by our environment, Ill use slavery to show this. If you are born and raised in a society that practices slavery and finds it morally acceptable, you will be very likely to find it morally acceptable and if you are born and raised in a society where it is not practiced and is found to be morally reprehensible then you are likely to find it morally reprehensible. Morals are dictated by time; so in a certain time period slavery might be widely viewed as morally acceptable while at another period in time it might widely be seen as morally unacceptable. Morals are dictated by the country you live in and its practices, so slavery might be seen as morally acceptable in one country and at the same time seen as morally unacceptable in another country and obviously we know that even in the same country, one region may find a thing to be morally right while another region may find it morally wrong. So the principles of right and wrong that we live by are determined by a lot of things. Some of it is the natural product of being social creatures and much of it is determined by the environment we are born and raised in.
Thanks for an honest answer.
But then, what's the point of you creating this thread? You seem to be complaining about God being immoral and letting innocent people suffer, yet you claim that morality is relative and dependent on the environment. So what gives you the objectivity necessary to condemn someone or something? You write all the time about justice, fairness, and how the world is full of evil - yet you have no basis to justify it. It's all your personal opinion. Moral relativism is dangerous - if something can be morally right for you and not for me and vice versa, then a murderer or any other criminal could claim that what (s)he did wasn't immoral in his/her opinion. You claim that morality is a product of the environment we're born and raised in, so does it mean that if someone was raised in a family where his father beat his mother, he could start beating his wife and blame his environment? Makes no sense. Plus, if morality is just a behaviour programmed in our genes, then why attach any significance to it? That's a big danger - a loss of values because relativism leads to chaos, and chaos leads to destruction.
Why attach significance to it? I dont understand that question. And let me ask you this, should a human being prevent the suffering of another human being if it is within their power to do so?
Last edited by MAGSolo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
So by this universal understanding of Gods basics of moral law, Is it morally just to murder children and infants?
No argument from you and no amount of studying will ever make me see the light that you see that tells you that murdering children and infants is justified if God says so.
I suggest you stop wasting people's time. Not to mention you didn't study anything. Frankly your rant has become tiring now.
Why exactly do you keep entering and commenting on these threads then? Do you think you are speaking for everyone when you say this? If it is so tiring why are you back here yet again? And let me say this; The bible is the book that God allegedly gave us. If you need to do additional study from other man made sources to either interpret the bible or find out what God really wants, then the bible is useless. If God wanted additional information for us to study and consider then he should have made sure extra books were added or he should have made sure another volume was added. Thats like having a text book for a class in school and needing to read other books to interpret or understand the textbook. If the purpose of the textbook is to teach and you need to read other stuff to understand the textbook, then that means the textbook is not very good in the first place. So are you saying the bible is so poorly written that it cannot be properly understood without "studying" from additional sources in order to understand or interpret it?
Last edited by MAGSolo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
So suppose I am wrong and morality is not merely subjective.
Lets try you, explain how does having your view morality in a subjective world view makes you think that your subjective view should be applied everywhere, even 3000 years ago. Take all the time you need, all day if you must. But lets see what you got.
Why are you still asking me questions when you just said my rant has become tiring? You want me to stop wasting peoples time? Stop wasting mine.
Why exactly do you keep entering and commenting on these threads then? Do you think you are speaking for everyone when you say this? If it is so tiring why are you back here yet again? And let me say this; The bible is the book that God allegedly gave us. If you need to do additional study from other man made sources to either interpret the bible or find out what God really wants, then the bible is useless. If God wanted additional information for us to study and consider then he should have made sure extra books were added or he should have made sure another volume was added. Thats like having a text book for a class in school and needing to read other books to interpret or understand the textbook. If the purpose of the textbook is to teach and you need to read other stuff to understand the textbook, then that means the textbook is not very good in the first place. So are you saying the bible is so poorly written that it cannot be properly understood without "studying" from additional sources in order to understand or interpret it?
This means nothing and irrelevant to the question asked here. You want everyone to answer, but you won't answer about your view. Its not me alone, almost everyone has asked you to justify your view. Go on, explain then if you can?
You are the only one here who won't read, is closed to all manner of logic, and has blatantly struck to crappy hide and shoot argumentation, has avoided to answer questions related to your view and wasted time, which you are so doing now. Forgot your quote I re-quoted above. If no manner of reasoning is gonna change your mind, why do you keep asking the same thing? Go enjoy your vanilla. Just do not waste others time, you have wasted mine enough and I do not want others to be the subject of the same crap you pulled off in the other thread. Anyone who disagrees with you has his morality compass severely broken, right? well explain your compass, as Jilay also asked you before too.
here the question again Lets try you, explain how does having your view morality in a subjective world view makes you think that your subjective view should be applied everywhere, even 3000 years ago. Take all the time you need, all day if you must. But lets see what you got.
And your rant has become tiring that is why I am asking you about your view.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
Reactionary wrote:Plus, if morality is just a behaviour programmed in our genes, then why attach any significance to it? That's a big danger - a loss of values because relativism leads to chaos, and chaos leads to destruction.
Why attach significance to it? I dont understand that question. And let me ask you this, should a human being prevent the suffering of another human being if it is within their power to do so?
I believe yes, (s)he should, for two reasons. First, refusing to help someone in grave danger is punishable by law. Second, more importantly, my Christian morality would urge me to do so if I came into such a situation. So if both the law and my worldview order me to do something, I will definitely do so.
On the other hand, if there were no law that obliges me to help a person in grave danger, and if I were an atheist, then it would be irrelevant. I could help, or not, it would make no difference because there would be no authority apart from myself that would suggest me to help that person. So there would be no "should" whatsoever. It would be a matter of choice, or "good" will.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
By Christian morality do you mean specifically? Do you mean that the bible specifically says that you should help those in need or do you mean something else?
MAGSolo wrote:By Christian morality do you mean specifically? Do you mean that the bible specifically says that you should help those in need or do you mean something else?
Matthew 19:17,18,19
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Why exactly do you keep entering and commenting on these threads then? Do you think you are speaking for everyone when you say this? If it is so tiring why are you back here yet again? And let me say this; The bible is the book that God allegedly gave us. If you need to do additional study from other man made sources to either interpret the bible or find out what God really wants, then the bible is useless. If God wanted additional information for us to study and consider then he should have made sure extra books were added or he should have made sure another volume was added. Thats like having a text book for a class in school and needing to read other books to interpret or understand the textbook. If the purpose of the textbook is to teach and you need to read other stuff to understand the textbook, then that means the textbook is not very good in the first place. So are you saying the bible is so poorly written that it cannot be properly understood without "studying" from additional sources in order to understand or interpret it?
This means nothing and irrelevant to the question asked here. You want everyone to answer, but you won't answer about your view. Its not me alone, almost everyone has asked you to justify your view. Go on, explain then if you can?
You are the only one here who won't read, is closed to all manner of logic, and has blatantly struck to crappy hide and shoot argumentation, has avoided to answer questions related to your view and wasted time, which you are so doing now. Forgot your quote I re-quoted above. If no manner of reasoning is gonna change your mind, why do you keep asking the same thing? Go enjoy your vanilla. Just do not waste others time, you have wasted mine enough and I do not want others to be the subject of the same crap you pulled off in the other thread. Anyone who disagrees with you has his morality compass severely broken, right? well explain your compass, as Jilay also asked you before too.
here the question again Lets try you, explain how does having your view morality in a subjective world view makes you think that your subjective view should be applied everywhere, even 3000 years ago. Take all the time you need, all day if you must. But lets see what you got.
And your rant has become tiring that is why I am asking you about your view.
My morals were shaped by my childhood environment. They are most likely an extension of the morals of my parents. My notions of right and wrong, good and evil, and what is just and unjust, were shaped by what they told me and what they themselves did. The next biggest factor in shaping my morals was religion. I was born into and raised in a fairly religious environment. I went to church on a weekly (and often biweekly) basis for all of my childhood well into probably my mid teens until my mom just stopped going. My father was not overly religious at all, he didnt go to church because he said he found church goers to be hypocritical. He did believe in God though and was/is a good man by my personal standard of what is good. So religion reinforced what I was told and exposed to at home. So my morals were shaped by my environment, the words and actions of my parents and grandparents and Christianity represented a fairly good sized portion of my environment.
MAGSolo wrote:By Christian morality do you mean specifically? Do you mean that the bible specifically says that you should help those in need or do you mean something else?
Matthew 19:17,18,19
So yes or no, are you saying that the bible specifically says we should help those in need if it is within our power to do so, or do you at least believe, for whatever reason, that this is what God wants us to do?
MAGSolo wrote:By Christian morality do you mean specifically? Do you mean that the bible specifically says that you should help those in need or do you mean something else?
Matthew 19:17,18,19
So yes or no, are you saying that the bible specifically says we should help those in need if it is within our power to do so, or do you at least believe, for whatever reason, that this is what God wants us to do?
"Love your neighbor as yourself", said Jesus. I guess it's fairly obvious that loving your neighbors means helping them when it's necessary. Note that "neighbors" doesn't refer only to people who live in your apartment building or street. It's about people in general.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
My morals were shaped by my childhood environment. They are most likely an extension of the morals of my parents. My notions of right and wrong, good and evil, and what is just and unjust, were shaped by what they told me and what they themselves did. The next biggest factor in shaping my morals was religion. I was born into and raised in a fairly religious environment. I went to church on a weekly (and often biweekly) basis for all of my childhood well into probably my mid teens until my mom just stopped going. My father was not overly religious at all, he didnt go to church because he said he found church goers to be hypocritical. He did believe in God though and was/is a good man by my personal standard of what is good. So religion reinforced what I was told and exposed to at home. So my morals were shaped by my environment, the words and actions of my parents and grandparents and Christianity represented a fairly good sized portion of my environment.
MAGSolo
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:26 am
Appreciate your story but I didn't ask for your history, I asked how a subjective world view of yours which puts its right and wrong on various factors, environment etc should be applied to 3000 years ago OBJECTIVELY, why? You keep avoiding the question, please explain.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
PaulSacramento wrote:My point is that whether Job was a real person or not was irrelevant to why the writer of Job wrote the book.
If Job was not a real person, then Eze 14:14, 20. must be fake because God claims to be the speaker. If that part of Ezekiel is fake, the rest of it is in question. Ditto for the Book of James. If Ezekiel & James are questionable, what of the rest of the Bible?
PaulSacramento wrote:point is that whether Job was a real person or not was irrelevant to why the writer of Job wrote the book.
Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man was a parable too and he used names.
Lazarus and the rich man isn't a parable either but this isn't the place to show this.
Please stop dumbing the Bible down to make it more palatable to the lost.
FL
I really don't get why you tend to ignore ALL I say and focus on distorting it to your view, truly.
I can't make what I say any clearer.
Truly
It is very frustrating dealing with a person that seems to go out of his way to distort what I say.
I repeat, there is no way to PROVE that these individuals are real or that these accounts are about factual people, which they MAY well BE.
My point is that it is irrelevant to the message in them.
My morals were shaped by my childhood environment. They are most likely an extension of the morals of my parents. My notions of right and wrong, good and evil, and what is just and unjust, were shaped by what they told me and what they themselves did. The next biggest factor in shaping my morals was religion. I was born into and raised in a fairly religious environment. I went to church on a weekly (and often biweekly) basis for all of my childhood well into probably my mid teens until my mom just stopped going. My father was not overly religious at all, he didnt go to church because he said he found church goers to be hypocritical. He did believe in God though and was/is a good man by my personal standard of what is good. So religion reinforced what I was told and exposed to at home. So my morals were shaped by my environment, the words and actions of my parents and grandparents and Christianity represented a fairly good sized portion of my environment.
MAGSolo
Established Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:26 am
Appreciate your story but I didn't ask for your history, I asked how a subjective world view of yours which puts its right and wrong on various factors, environment etc should be applied to 3000 years ago OBJECTIVELY, why? You keep avoiding the question, please explain.
Oh okay. My subjective world view is largely shaped by the bible so Im judging things in the bible by my world view that was largely shaped by the bible.
