The Moral Law. Ratonality of Faith (3 Viewers)

[rounder]

People who take drugs usually don't complain about the drugs while they're taking them, do they? Quite the opposite, they say what a fantastic ride it is.

I never said anything about complaining. I said do they live bad lives? No they don't, Christianity does not make these people unhappy.

I would submit, however, that none of those people really took it seriously in the sense that I described. A little christianity isn't particularly harmful, otherwise the effects upon society would be very noticeable. But that is just the corollary, people don't really believe all that stuff, because it's irrational.

Look at Legro.

Joking aside here, you must understand that Christianity has transformed sad depressed and lost people into happy, content, and loving human beings. Surely, you cannot deny all the good Christianity has caused.

And irrational beliefs are harmful. So if you believe the good ones (Jesus loves me) and ignore the harmful ones (I'm under constant surveillance, not even my thoughts are free), then it's a bit like kids who have an imaginary friend. It's a fantasy, but it's a positive one.

You can't really believe what you want in Christianity. It doesn't work that way. You will have to acknowledge that if you live immoral lives then you will go to hell, no matter how casual a Christian you are, you are going to have to accept some harsh realities.

Yes, using the threat of force. Or more importantly, guilt. Do this or else. This is the essence of Christianity.

Yes, but the things Christianity wants you to do are good. If a father tells his son, go to school or you will receive a punishment and no allowance for a month, is this wrong?

My biggest criticism isn't the threat of force, it's the deception, and the absurd logic that is supposed to justify it. Be good, or else you're going to hell. But god loves you, he would never do anything to hurt you. But he will definitely send you to hell.

Again, I will post the father argument. If a father tells his son, go to school or you will receive a punishment and no allowance for a month, oh, and son I love you. Can you not accuse the father of the same things you have Christianity? You can, but you won't because you know this type of behaviour is justified.

And do you know how I know men invented this? Because when guys like Stalin ruled they were saying the exactly same things. Stalin is the father of our nation, he is a comrade, he loves you. But he will definitely send you to Siberia if someone overhears you criticizing the government.

Why use Stalin as an example, why not an ordinary father?

If so, let's just tell it like it is. You're a slave to god, and he wants absolute obedience. Why do you think that message wouldn't sell? Why, because telling the truth is less useful for a dictator than deception.

God knows we will sin, he knows we are not sheep, He knows that we will not obey his every command, He knows this because we are humans. He only expects us to do more good than bad at the end of the day.

When a father tells his sons, don't do this or that, do you really think that the father actually expects them to act as he ordered. He knows otherwise, however, he simply wants his children to act as morally as they can.



Are you kidding? Have you seen that graph that says "number of people killed in the bible, god vs the devil"? Do you have any idea of the blind carnage that happens in the bible? Only a psychopath could find those tales heartwarming. And this is supposed to be the book to set the moral standard? [/QUOTE]

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

I don't think you're getting it, but anyway it's been a long day.

 

[rounder]

You must admit that there is a connection in behaviour exhibited by God in the Bible, and the average father trying to discipline his children. In any case, let's leave it for another day.

I'm horny and sleepy. Good night.

 

[Hist]

You must admit that there is a connection in behaviour exhibited by God in the Bible, and the average father trying to discipline his children. In any case, let's leave it for another day.

I'm horny and sleepy. Good night.

with the exception of humiliating himself to come down as a human and get crucified, beaten down and insulted..lol

There is no denying that scripture like that of the bible or the Quran etc. are good sources for morality and ethics and they represented a huge moral boost to the nations that adopted them respectively however, that doesn't justify them as divine and some stories' ethic are debatable in our time. But generally these are great books

 

[rounder]

with the exception of humiliating himself to come down as a human and get crucified, beaten down and insulted..lol

There is no denying that scripture like that of the bible or the Quran etc. are good sources for morality and ethics and they represented a huge moral boost to the nations that adopted them respectively however, that doesn't justify them as divine and some stories' ethic are debatable in our time. But generally these are great books

It's been a while since I've discussed this subject but I suppose I never really got the chance to explain why I opened this thread in the first place.

The theory of the Moral Law is simple, I was not arguing that morality was this magical and inexplicable action sent from above, on the contrary, in fact morality can be studied, analysed, and even explained. There's nothing mysterious about it.

The point I was trying to make was that the existence of an objective Moral Turth implies the existence of a personal creator. I am not arguing that humans act morally because of God, I am arguing that an objective morality exists. Meaning there exists a moral truth regardless of what people think.

To put it into perspective, if every single person on earth was a Nazi, would this make the holocaust Moral? Clearly, it does not. Thus Morality is not subjective, it does not depend on cultures, sub-cultures, regions, or different times in history, it is objective meaning that there exists "rights" and wrongs" in this world, and since this is true, the existence of God is evident.

 

[Hist]

Morality is created, edited and updated throughout history. Some morals differ from culture to culture and time to time but others things are always thought of as right or as wrong. (eg: murder,theft etc.)
Why so?
Thats an anthropological question but from my readings i'll try to give you my opinion.
To me it is all a question of tolerance and acceptance. Think about the early human (not in the form of adam and eve in the garden of eden speaking to god and satan etc..) but more in an irreligious context.

Humans all over the continents.. naked.. looking animal like.. dumb.. empty minded..
The first form of human interaction would be when a human realizes that there are stronger animals than him..
obviously many human get killed in the process until they understand that they do not need physical strength.. that they have something extra to use (their minds) that animals do not. They also realize that they need each other's help for protection, for food, for sex.. for a lot of shit..
then comes language with interaction..
this is an awful story telling and i am too lazy to be precise.. the point is that moral law can be seen as devloped through out time.. Tarazan like men and women didnt know its wrong to kill..
The survival of the fittest (law of the Jungle) dominated in the past and no one used to think of it as wrong or a sin etc..
The point is since People have to live together and need each other.. moral law is the way bywhich everyone is protected the most.
Its the means by which we regulate the lives of thousands of people living in the same place.
Obviously when they found that moral law wasnt enough then came the real LAW system which too always changes.
Slavery used to be okay... men's superiority to women used to be ok...
its time

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I supposed this is an appropriate thread for this story-

Man who fled chemo therapy may be with missing teen
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/?GT1=43001

What do you think of this? If the child (16 years old) and his parents refuse chemo therapy for the boy's tumor for religious reasons and believe they have access to natural cures, should they be forced by law to receive it?

IMO,
Whether you are religious are not, if you do not want medical treatment, the law should not force it on you. For example, there are times I might refuse a vaccine shot because I am suspicious of them and their sources. But if there is a pandemic now, and it is in your and the public's best interest (they say) for everyone to receive these vaccines, do you have the right to refuse?

 

[Seven]

I supposed this is an appropriate thread for this story-

Man who fled chemo therapy may be with missing teen
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/?GT1=43001

What do you think of this? If the child (16 years old) and his parents refuse chemo therapy for the boy's tumor for religious reasons and believe they have access to natural cures, should they be forced by law to receive it?

IMO,
Whether you are religious are not, if you do not want medical treatment, the law should not force it on you. For example, there are times I might refuse a vaccine shot because I am suspicious of them and their sources. But if there is a pandemic now, and it is in your and the public's best interest (they say) for everyone to receive these vaccines, do you have the right to refuse?

This is a very, very tricky situation. The parents are deciding for the child. I suppose that Child Care would take the child away from them and get him the necessary medical care. Which, in this case, is very justified.

In the case of a serious pandemic they may oblige you to take a shot and you'll probably risk jail time if you refuse.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

But the kid is 16, old enough imo, and is refusing on his own.

Yeah, I know they would try to force you by law, which is dangerous because at any moment they can say they have a reason to force the vaccines and they can put anything they want in your body with that.

 

[Seven]

But the kid is 16, old enough imo, and is refusing on his own.

Yeah, I know they would try to force you by law, which is dangerous because at any moment they can say they have a reason to force the vaccines and they can put anything they want in your body with that.

Not really. There's a whole number of conditions and stuff and in democratic countries it would not be easily accepted anyway. Trust me, a democratic government won't do this very fast.

 

[Hist]

i think a democratic country follows as strict Kantian ethics approach. i think they cant force it on anyone but they can be like "you have to be vaccined to got o the supermarket, you ahve to be vaccined to go to the airport etc.. "

 

[Bjerknes]

IMO,
Whether you are religious are not, if you do not want medical treatment, the law should not force it on you.

I agree with that.

But if people refuse medical treatment for religious reasons, that's just plain stupid as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Hist]

ya lets chant some verses and everything will be alright..

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

You must admit that there is a connection in behaviour exhibited by God in the Bible, and the average father trying to discipline his children. In any case, let's leave it for another day.

I'm horny and sleepy. Good night.

yeah, because it was the average father trying to discipline his children who wrote it

 

[rounder]

I supposed this is an appropriate thread for this story-

Man who fled chemo therapy may be with missing teen
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/?GT1=43001

What do you think of this? If the child (16 years old) and his parents refuse chemo therapy for the boy's tumor for religious reasons and believe they have access to natural cures, should they be forced by law to receive it?

IMO,
Whether you are religious are not, if you do not want medical treatment, the law should not force it on you. For example, there are times I might refuse a vaccine shot because I am suspicious of them and their sources. But if there is a pandemic now, and it is in your and the public's best interest (they say) for everyone to receive these vaccines, do you have the right to refuse?

Definitely.
If the family is not hurting anyone in the process, then they do have the right to do what they want. But if the public is at any risk, then the family must have no choice.

Morality is created, edited and updated throughout history. Some morals differ from culture to culture and time to time but others things are always thought of as right or as wrong. (eg: murder,theft etc.)
Why so?
Thats an anthropological question but from my readings i'll try to give you my opinion.
To me it is all a question of tolerance and acceptance. Think about the early human (not in the form of adam and eve in the garden of eden speaking to god and satan etc..) but more in an irreligious context.

Humans all over the continents.. naked.. looking animal like.. dumb.. empty minded..
The first form of human interaction would be when a human realizes that there are stronger animals than him..
obviously many human get killed in the process until they understand that they do not need physical strength.. that they have something extra to use (their minds) that animals do not. They also realize that they need each other's help for protection, for food, for sex.. for a lot of shit..
then comes language with interaction..
this is an awful story telling and i am too lazy to be precise.. the point is that moral law can be seen as devloped through out time.. Tarazan like men and women didnt know its wrong to kill..
The survival of the fittest (law of the Jungle) dominated in the past and no one used to think of it as wrong or a sin etc..
The point is since People have to live together and need each other.. moral law is the way bywhich everyone is protected the most.
Its the means by which we regulate the lives of thousands of people living in the same place.
Obviously when they found that moral law wasnt enough then came the real LAW system which too always changes.
Slavery used to be okay... men's superiority to women used to be ok...
its time

As I said before, I agree morality developed through time, this goes without saying. This was not what I was arguing however.

Consider my anology, we live in a world society where woman rights do not exist. Raping woman is a perfectly justifiable act and was accepted throughout all world cultures. Does this make rape a moral act?

If you believed morality was subjective, meaning that it is merely relative to different periods in history, and regions in the world, then you would believe that rape is moral.

This is what I am trying to say, since rape is not moral regardless of whether we all thought it or not, this implies morality is objective. And since morality is objective, this also imperatively follows that a divine being was invloved in setting this standard of morality.

 

[Seven]

Definitely.
If the family is not hurting anyone in the process, then they do have the right to do what they want. But if the public is at any risk, then the family must have no choice.

The kid's 16 and has been indoctrinated for years. He'll most likely want to live, but they have poisoned his mind. Take him away ASAP, that's what I say.

 

[rounder]

That's probably true.

 

[Hist]

Definitely.


Consider my anology, we live in a world society where woman rights do not exist. Raping woman is a perfectly justifiable act and was accepted throughout all world cultures. Does this make rape a moral act?



This is what I am trying to say, since rape is not moral regardless of whether we all thought it or not, this implies morality is objective. And since morality is objective, this also imperatively follows that a divine being was invloved in setting this standard of morality.

What i am arguing is that rape at some point was moral.. but obviously we are past this point in time.
Homosexuality has been regarded as Immoral throughout time in most places (hell people are still getting executed ofr it in my country).... people now tend to think its okay..
Homosexuality is not objectively moral or immoral...nothing is... its all all in accordance to the time.
once the debate over it is over and some consensus is made .. you would then think of it as objectively moral or immoral.. which is not the case for the reason i just mentioned.
You cannot judge the early human being calling them immoral people because they didnt respect women... they didnt know any better.. at their time it would have probably been immoral for a woman to be treated equally to a man..(just an assumption)

I am sorry mate but i think this argument hits a dead end lol

 

[Fred]

The kid's 16 and has been indoctrinated for years. He'll most likely want to live, but they have poisoned his mind. Take him away ASAP, that's what I say.

Actually i agree with you here. He is not mature enough to take his own decisions, and his parents are endangering his life this way. They should not be allowed to risk his life like that.

 

[rounder]

What i am arguing is that rape at some point was moral.. but obviously we are past this point in time.
Homosexuality has been regarded as Immoral throughout time in most places (hell people are still getting executed ofr it in my country).... people now tend to think its okay..
Homosexuality is not objectively moral or immoral...nothing is... its all all in accordance to the time.
once the debate over it is over and some consensus is made .. you would then think of it as objectively moral or immoral.. which is not the case for the reason i just mentioned.
You cannot judge the early human being calling them immoral people because they didnt respect women... they didnt know any better.. at their time it would have probably been immoral for a woman to be treated equally to a man..(just an assumption)

I am sorry mate but i think this argument hits a dead end lol

Again, I don't think you understood my argument at all. I will try again.

Assume we are living on earth thousands of years ago. Assume the population of earth is approximately 1 million people. Raping women is considered a perfectly normal thing to do, and is undisputedly accepted by the one million people on earth. Thus, no one thinks rape is 'bad' or 'wrong' but simply accept that it is a way of life.

This is my question, and again, assume we are living in that time period with absolutely no knowledge of modern ethics, is raping a woman a moral thing to do?

This is my argument. Regardless of what we think, assume, believe, or accept, rape will always be immoral. In my argument, time periods and cultures are irrelevant and have no part in determining the Moral Law, the Moral Law is fixed and predetermined. I do not blame the early man for raping, he did not know any better, but what he was doing was immoral whether we like it or not.