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.
More correctly stated as "by their fruit" which means by their teaching, not interpretation which is not given to men to exercise.Some people claim to be able to identify them by the interpretation of scripture they adhere to.
That made no sense to me. I just would like to know your best alternative to determining objective facts.See the results of those you can find, if you can find any these days, who have
cured countless cases of health problems in spite of the druglords opposition to it always.
If it becomes known you agree and advocate curing health problems, and preventing them, naturally, instead of under the druglords outrageously expensive rip-offs,
you will be becoming a target(one of many) of them, and might disappear soon.
If necessary, be quiet , be still, and know that God is God. He might be of some help - His Choice.
If you trust sources that are unreliable, that won't work. Like building a house on quicksand.Please, stop telling me what you think won't work. And tell me what you think will work.
To get objective facts about the worldHowever, let's simplify if possible to get a positive result.......
1)What is your goal ?
None. So we can discount this forum as a means. So...again...what would you suggest?2)Has posting ad infinity on this forum garnered any good solid positive provable results ?
And I would refer you to the same Omniscient authority.But I can ask you. In fact, I have to ask you because you say...
Possibly and preferably, but He doesn't need a special request to help you. Isn't He awesome?So atheists can ask for help from something in which they do not believe?
So, now you claim to be omniscient? Your record in these boards just does not support that claim.You are either right all the time. Or sometimes you'll have it wrong. I'm in the former category.
Good. But replace the word "promoting" with "proposing" and you'd even be better.I suspect you would say that it is God's moral authority you are promoting, not your own.
There are no moral laws but there are civilized laws. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is. ("god" is defined as the source of moral laws).In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.
Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.
And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.
If one doesn’t believe in God, then one can argue that there are only civil laws, but there seems to be innate human laws. I do find it interesting that God’s laws are rather simple, not counting the laws related to the Temple. Man-made laws are incredibly complex and fill many volumes of books.There are no moral laws but there are civilized laws. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is. ("god" is defined as the source of moral laws).
("god" is defined as the source of moral laws).
You are not likely to ask Shiva for advice. I won't be asking him either. And for the same reason I won't be asking God. But you said that He gives you the answer to moral problems. So I can ask you.And I would refer you to the same Omniscient authority.
So the solutions I have to those problems are from God? Unbidden? Yeah, awesome. But how come some their different to yours? Hang on, I know. Your answers are always right and sometimes mine are wrong. So I'll still have to ask you.Possibly and preferably, but He doesn't need a special request to help you. Isn't He awesome?
Oops. That should have been latter. See? I get it wrong sometimes. But that does raise the question: Do you get it wrong sometimes? That's surely not possible if God is your guide. So are you therefore omniscient? That can't be possible either. So you must be wrong on times. Anyway, I'm sure you'll let us know.So, now you claim to be omniscient? Your record in these boards just does not support that claim.
I wouldn't be so sure.It's obviously not in this case.
If you want to get into it, we can get into it.We are trying to see if a command is inviolate or whether there is some 'small print' one can refer to.
Are you being serious? You don't think human beings have a natural understanding that the horrible scenario that you concocted is a violation?So at what point does the girl determine that her father is disobeying God's rules? Who decides this?
Love is a state of being that we should all live by.You think the girl would love her father simply because he is her father? Is this another rule she must obey? I can't see someone consciously deciding to love someone. That makes no sense.
How do you apply your solipsist perspective to issues like morality?There's my short answer, and there's my really, really long answer. I don't think that anybody wants to hear my really, really long answer.
Unfortunately, if you haven't spent fifty years thinking like a solipsist this explanation may be very difficult to follow. But I'll give it a shot.
So here we go:
From my perspective as a solipsist, objective truths are those things which are true by necessity.
For example, cause precedes effect. Since I exist, this rule must be objectively true because it would be impossible to create a coherent reality without it. And without a coherent reality the thoughts which are the hallmark of my existence, wouldn't be possible. Therefore, since 'cogito ergo sum' is self evidently true... cause must precede effect.
From there it's just a matter of taking that which is demonstrably true, and deducing from it that which must necessarily be true.
Like I said, this is the short answer. Does it mean that Christ must've risen from the dead... nope. Does it mean that He didn't... nope. It simply means that there must be a logical reason for why people believe that Christ rose from the dead.
How do you apply the scientific method to issues of morality?The scientific method.
No. I'll accept that God is good. What I'm trying to work out is how people know what He wants. Because different people have different views on that.I wouldn't be so sure.
I see you trying to find "wiggle room" so you can claim that either there is no God or that He is not Good.
Yes, we do. And I used an extreme example so that it was obvious. So the command to honour your parents does come with small print. Which says that if your father beats and rapes you then he is not fulfilling his half of the bargain so you don't have to.Are you being serious? You don't think human beings have a natural understanding that the horrible scenario that you concocted is a violation?
Unfortunately we live in the real world where it's not always possible. The father didn't love his daughter. It seems naive to think that she should love him.Love is a state of being that we should all live by.
I think one has to start with a few building block principles/ Hans Blaster came up with a few such asHow do you apply the scientific method to issues of morality?
You don't. You determine the objective facts of the situation (using the scientific method). And then use them to determine how you should act.How do you apply the scientific method to issues of morality?
I don't understand how the scientific method applies to any of these things.I think one has to start with a few building block principles/ Hans Blaster came up with a few such as
"informed consent" - Don't do something someone without their knowledge, understanding and approval
"minimization of harm" - In medicine it is “Primum non nocere” is a Latin phrase that means "first do no harm". Sometimes it is impossible to do good without first doing harm so minimize it.
"personal autonomy" - Let each person decide for themselves what is in their own best interest.
perhaps we can add:
Justice: Treating all people equally and fairly
Beneficence: The duty to act in the patient's best interest
Truth telling
Confidentiality
But then let's take something like the hot issue of abortion. I think we have a conflict between the consent of the mother and the consent of the fetus. It is just for the fetus? And now also the issue of confidentiality it is the governments business what woman does in the clinic?
I think there can certainly be moral principles without God. But when it come to the question of when personal rights begin it seems to require a faith based understanding of what it means to be a human being.
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?