- May 17, 2014
- 5,638
- 1,547
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
quatona said:Now, the question remains: What do we use to decide whether your above presupposition ("God is central...") is a fact? (Without getting circular, that is).
I guess that´s why the existence of a God has been conclusively and demonstrablby established, in the meantime, and you guys are getting this year´s NobelPrice.As I said; we use reason, evidence, and deduction.
quatona said:I guess that´s why the existence of a God has been conclusively and demonstrablby established, in the meantime, and you guys are getting this year´s NobelPrice.
Morality could refer to an opinion. In that case, all your questions about truth go out the window. We can just say it's an opinion like any other without much fuss at all...no tricky follow up questions to resolve.
So we would be back at square one in our question: those terrible "maybe´s".Thirdly, on the subject of your post....maybe such has been shown, but you just did not understand it.
PS: when I get my Nobel prize for showing the argument that proves God exists....you can kiss my axiom
The word "opinion" is frequently just used as a dismissal, "oh that's just your opinion", as if it just happens to be that you believe something but without real substance behind it.
Subjective, essentially. Like "you say pizza is better than curry but that's just your opinion".
Reduce morality to that and one opinion carries no more weight than any other. Leaving you in a sort of ethical lagrange point.
The Christian God is identified in Jesus Christ. So we have a clear meaning as to who God is. He is identified in the life and teachings of Jesus. This can be seen in the new testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law of the old testament. There is no other way to God except through Jesus. In Jesus there is no sin so He is moral and worthy.
Christianity and the Anglican ereligion are two different items. It is because of Christianity that we came to America, to seperate ourselves from the King and Queens Anglican power hold. But they got back ahold of the power, and starting teaching it in the first colleges and universities. The results were the famous witch burnings. That is when we came up with seperation of church and state, so that the Anglican government could not force their one religion down our throats. Man has the right now to choose which way to follow. That is the original meaning of seperation from church and state.
Christianity and the Anglican ereligion are two different items. It is because of Christianity that we came to America, to seperate ourselves from the King and Queens Anglican power hold. But they got back ahold of the power, and starting teaching it in the first colleges and universities. The results were the famous witch burnings. That is when we came up with seperation of church and state, so that the Anglican government could not force their one religion down our throats. Man has the right now to choose which way to follow. That is the original meaning of seperation from church and state.
If there is no such thing as the way things ought to be--if there is only the way that people think things ought to be--then "morality" is people's opinions about something that does not exist.
[FONT="]The benefits is only one aspect of why Christians follow God. But I was replying to when you said that I blindly follow God. I was saying there were reasons and one of them is the benefits. But that is mixed with other things. Sometimes you dont see any benefits straight away.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Religion can be one of the biggest deceivers for using God to do evil. Its easier to fool others and especially yourself that way. But that doesn't mean that there can be a truth to a faith in God.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thats silly, now your just disagreeing to make a point. Anyone would think that honoring your parents was good. There are many ways in which we can see that following Gods ways bring benefits and make peoples lives for the better. It just makes sense.
But even if you look at it from a scientific point of view it makes sense. Studies have shown people who are religious have better results in life. It makes sense that these people are interested in helping others more often, help the vulnerable and isolated in society, have communion with others which gives benefits of not being lonely. Helping society generally as helping others is a important part of belief. Secular society can also do these things but it is hit and miss. There are no common beliefs and in fact some laws in society promote the opposite with things such as easy divorces and sex outside marriage.
Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/[/FONT][FONT="]PMC[/FONT][FONT="]2614329/
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yes but that is not deciding between many different subjective views which come from humans. As I said the justification for killing in self defense is a very rare allowance because it involves a greater moral in the protection and preservation of life. This is also a moral of God. A person doesn't just stand there and get killed when they are being attacked or let that killer kill their family. Then that turns the situation into you allowing someone to be killed. You are then in some ways responsible for your family being killed because you didn't protect them or youre self. So thats the only exception. As you can see Two of Gods morals have crossed paths.
But w
[/FONT]
Morals can be assessed and if we are honest we can discover if they are truly right or wrong. Its just people justify their actions with reasons that are not always justified if we are truthful. The world view is to claim there is no truth and muddy the waters so that it allows them to make their actions acceptable. Normally there is a selfish reason or motive behind most unjustified reasons for doing something that is wrong. We all know that killing is wrong. The taking of another life at anytime is not good. It can be justified for some reasons and I have touched on that.
You say abortion is ok for some. But I think we can discover if it is truly right or wrong by investigating it. The fact is anyone who has an abortion whether they claim that its ok or not is affected by it. The main reason it sits well with some is that they tell themselves a fetus is not a life. But if it was a life it wouldn't sit well. So that is something that is up for debate. But another fact is that any woman who has a miscarriage no matter when it happens grieves like they have lost of child. This is natural and that is part of the process. So this gives some insight into the real issues around abortion. Its not so easy to do.
There is nearly 2,550 abortion everyday in the US. There are nearly 8 million a year. There are over 1.3 billion abortions a year world wide. No matter which way you look at this it is bad. It cant be good for the psyche of a nation of people. If we stop and consider the truth I think you can see that there are many unjustified reasons people do things. But subjectivity has to allow the many excuses that allow these things to be done because that is the nature a secular society. Its one thing to allow people the right to decide for themselves. Its another thing to actually allow them to do it. Because you dont believe in God and objective morality you therefore dont allow people to be told what to do. Thats when you are asking for trouble. Once you open the can of worms its hard to put the lid back on.
Here is a moral I once found as an example that takes away some of the options to show you that morality can be objective.
The Moral Argument: Objective Moral Values
Objective moral values would be values that are the same for everyone, everywhere, whenever they lived in history. For example, look at the following statement:
If you believe that statement is true, then you believe in objective morality.
- Torturing little babies for fun is just plain wrong for everyone, everywhere; it always has been and always will be.
[FONT="]Like you said to me about how do I know for sure that I am right or God is right about Morals. How do you know that the majority is right? If one persons view on morals isn't correct and is just an opinion, isn't many individuals view still just an opinion that isn't correct? They are legalizing pot according to the majority in those states. They legalized alcohol according to the majority. But both affect people and cause many deaths. How do you know in 20 years or so we dont end up with a big problem of mental illness from pot. This happens all the time. The majority think they know but they still get it wrong.
[/FONT]
Because its taking a life and life is precious. God said thou shall not kill.
[FONT="]Notice what you do when you assert that morality is subjective. With this assertion you affirm that there are no objective moral principles that are binding on anyone else. Now here's the problem. It is immensely difficult to deny the existence of all objective moral principles without at the same time affirming at least one. Which is because there are no objective moral principles, you ought not to evaluate my actions by any such principles. The problem with that statement is that it refutes itself. [/FONT]
. As I mentioned before some people can be hypocrites and say they are religious but they dont practice what they preach.
Heres the problem with subjective morality.
But heres the problem with the argument for subjective morality.
The claim that morality is subjective presupposes that there are facts about right and wrong, and that these facts are agent-specific. In other words, there are different moral facts for different people. Killing animals is morally acceptable for Bob and Killing animals is morally unacceptable for Susie can coexist as moral facts under subjective morality. But this is clearly absurd. How can it make sense to apply different moral standards to different people?
If there is a rational argument for the moral wrongness of killing animals, surely that argument must apply generally rather than to some people and not to others? Obviously there are many different contexts in which an act such as the killing of an animal can occur, but differences of context are not the issue at hand. If Bob and Susie commit the same act, in the same context, with same intentions, surely the act must have the same moral status regardless of whether it was committed by Susie or Bob.
http://armchairphilosophyblog.tumblr.com/post/27545173416/the-impossibility-of-subjective-morality
Ana the Ist said:Why does god not want you to kill?
And neither have you.No. They have no standard to base their decision about right and wrong on other than their self.
God doesn't want us to murder, steal, rape, cheat, lie, disturb and debauch because he wants us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, aware manner rather than in a state of nature (Hobbes' "war of each against all"). And, self-evidently, murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness - plunging us into bestial ignorance and "no arts or letters....solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
Why does he want us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware manner?
He wants us to live in that manner because it is his own nature and he wishes to bring us closer to it.
God throws a ball at the floor. The floor is hard matter; rock, sand, water, air, etc. Life is the bounce back upwards. Single-celled life is the lowest point on the bounce. Insects are above them. Birds are above them. Mammals above them. Primates above other mammals. And humans above primates. A pyramid of life, with the lower being the foundation for the higher to rise upon.
I hope it's obvious that this isn't meant to be a complete (or literal!) picture of all lifeforms, obviously, but a metaphorical overview that carries the general point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?