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.
I'm not saying this because of my own position/views on it, etc. But because I did look it up, and that seems to be the general consensus, etc. But you will find some hotly debating it saying they know for sure either way, etc.
Yep, a lot of people do do that.Which brings us to the point of the recent discussion. Trying to claim the bible as the ultimate authority on God's intentions, runs smack up against man's intention to make it say whatever they want it to say. And then to claim that interpretation as indisputable.
I will add that WitchCraft in the Mediterranean cultures was abortion.Which is why I would say that the people you mentioned would look for guidance, rather than doing what was convenient.
What would help would be to grant more women the option to have an abortion. The majority of the electorate want that. But in Biden's case that would be against his faith. So he struggled with it. It's well documented. So it seems obvious to me that he would pray for guidance.I doubt the politicians I mentioned would look for guidance beyond how to win the next election.
This is why morals that are based on reasons, justifications, excuses and the easy way are not morals at all.So it seems obvious to me that he would pray for guidance.
Still trying to be obtuse in your reply?The object is the relationship with my partner. The intent is to have her be subject to me. Or not. Depending on the advice. The circumstances are that of a married couple. I gave you this before. Now what is tbe moral position to take take?
Thats where I disagree that we can't know that slavery is immoral. Though there are some parlelles between math and moral, both are abstract and yet real phenomena I don't think we have empathy with math. We can intuit it when we divide 4 apples between people or in the patterns of nature such as the Golden ratio.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.
I think the main basis for morality is our ability as moral beings to sense the suffering of others because we are capable as conscious beings to do that. We are made in Gods images and above the animals.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.
"And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.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.
Why was it obvious? Could it be because morality is objective?Yes, we do. And I used an extreme example so that it was obvious.
No commandment of God exists in a vacuum.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.
God does not want us to be automatons - but what is Good and Evil is not decided by Man - but by God's Law.Now, in this case it is plainly obvious. But say he slaps her. Is that enough to disobey God's command? If he beats her just the once? If it's a regular thing? The point that I am making, which should be blazingly obvious, is that we have to decide what is right. We have to decide if someone is wrong. Even if the command from God is specific and there seems no room for doubt we still have to consider it within context.
The Lord Jesus Christ lived in the real world - the world that He created - and He always loved us.Unfortunately we live in the real world where it's not always possible.
And unrepentant sinners don't love Christ - but He still loves themThe father didn't love his daughter.
Then you believe that God's Law is naive - for to love our neighbor's as ourselves is the second of the two commandments that the whole Law hinges upon.It seems naive to think that she should love him.
So, if Germany had won WW2 - and conquered the world as they planned - then genocide would be a moral good?I think pretty much.
I am thinking that scientific method could give us a best consensus.
I don't know that there is an objective moral truth.
That sounds like a religious belief.
You were the one that claimed that what people do with the facts will vary from person to person.No. Good grief, why are you making this so hard...
Our decisions are obviously our personal beliefs about what is the best course of action. Based on the facts of the matter. If I give you no facts then you cannot make a decision.
But I think the main evidence that we know morality is true is because of empathy.
I made this comment in a discussion I was having with another forum member.No, that claim has never been made. Please stop misrepresenting what has been explained to you. If you are in any doubt, then please use the quote facility and it will be cleared up.
Can you share some facts about morality?We base our decisions on moral acts on the facts of the matter.
Not true. People make uninformed decisions all the time.You need facts presented before you can make a decision.
Yet you try and present each commandment of God as if they are.You cannot make a decision in a vacuum.
That would be ideal.You need some information on which to base it.
This point about the scientific method and facts is just as irrelevant now as it ever was in a discussion about objective morality.Now I cannot for the life of me put that any clearer.
I would argue that a properly treated slave was better off 2000 years ago than some workers are now. It is the treatment rather than the title.
Decisions are circumstantial. Morality is objective.The decisions are circumstantial.
The fact is a person cannot commit theft if everything in his immediate vicinity belongs to him.
If there aren't any other warm bodies around, any sexual sins with same are purely theoretical.
Providence is a major player in "sin." Providence is the Will of God.
So as @Bradskii has stated several times, "It was You who decided or chose the action"(subjective)
That is not entirely correct, even in small regard, due to the limitations of Providence.
Providence is objective.
I think the main basis for morality is our ability as moral beings to sense the suffering of others because we are capable as conscious beings to do that.
That doesn't make sense. Objective morality is based on Law and Justice - not Mercy.And yet our ability to sense the suffering of others is limited and biased. We sense the obvious suffering, while overlooking the hidden suffering... the suffering that we've grown indifferent to.
If you can learn to recognize it all, then your sense of morality will be far less black and white.
Objective morality is based on Law and Justice - not Mercy.
Mercy is not simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours. Mercy accepts a sense of justice and doesn’t reject the crime, but it does offer a chance for repentance and change. If we all got what we deserve, we would never survive past childhood.It's not about law or mercy. It's about our limited ability to know what's just. Law is simply a poor attempt to define what's just... and mercy is simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours.
This thread is about objective morality - not Man-made laws or Man's sense of Justice and Mercy.It's not about law or mercy. It's about our limited ability to know what's just. Law is simply a poor attempt to define what's just... and mercy is simply based on a self-righteous and sanctimonious belief that my sense of justice is better than yours.
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?