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.
38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[o] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[p] carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.So a guy insulted you in a bar and God told you...what?
So then no morality is valid?
It's true in the sense that it results in a stable society and a life well lived. It says nothing about individual circumstances in random bars. You have to interpret it as you see fit.Sure, but if the Golden Rule is a real moral truth we have to explain how and why it is such a truth.
How you respond wasn't the question. How do you determine that slapping someone is unacceptable? And then answer the matter of the girl being sent to her room. And there'll be as many examples of moral questions that only you can decide as you like.38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[o] 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[p] carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.
Oh? That hardly seems to be the case, since most societies seem to operate on some lesser rule like the Silver or Bronze rule. The Golden Rule is needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion, especially since us and them dynamics tend to be much more capable of strengthening social bonds en masse.It's true in the sense that it results in a stable society and a life well lived.
The issue with reasoning morality isn't about interpreting it, it's deriving it.It says nothing about individual circumstances in random bars. You have to interpret it as you see fit.
You asked what God said, I provided what God said. Sure, it needs to be sorted out and interpreted but my denial of reason in morality isn't about being able to move from a moral foundation to a workable frame. It's getting that moral foundation at all through our reasoning faculties.How you respond wasn't the question. How do you determine that slapping someone is unacceptable? And then answer the matter of the girl being sent to her room. And there'll be as many examples of moral questions that only you can decide as you like.
Well...me? I take the best argument. I don't take anybody's say so unless they can show me why it's a good idea.I'll take His word over yours...
Having seen what you think passes for a good argument, that's quite amusing.Well...me? I take the best argument. I don't take anybody's say so unless they can show me why it's a good idea.
Case in point.'That young girl should honour her father'.
'Yeah? The one that's been beating her and sexually assaulting her since she was a baby? Why?'
Maybe you wouldn't argue. Hard to tell.
It's a communal effort.And who does that?
'And I say to you, Do unto others as you would have them do to you'.Oh? That hardly seems to be the case, since most societies seem to operate on some lesser rule like the Silver or Bronze rule. The Golden Rule is needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion...
What can I say, I suspect the omniscient knows a thing or two that we don't. Maybe He has an answer to the is-ought problem that would satisfy,I would expect nothing less.
It wasn't an argument. It was a question. It's the word of God. Are you going to suggest that He must allow for special circumstances? And the girl in the room?Case in point.
Yeah, let's not forget where such radical statements got Jesus. It's not about social order, because there's no need for such a lofty ideal to establish social order and there are arguably more effective "rules" for social cohesion.'And I say to you, Do unto others as you would have them do to you'.
'Hey, no way mate. You're being needlessly idealistic to contribute to social cohesion!'
Really?
No "special" circumstances, just a correct understanding that Christian ethics are virtue ethics not deontological ethics. How many times must I repeat that before you stop presenting your straw dilemmas?It wasn't an argument. It was a question. It's the word of God. Are you going to suggest that He must allow for special circumstances? And the girl in the room?
I'm not interested in anyone else. I just wanted to know your position. And you've just agreed that you contribute your interpretation. I agree. It's what we all do.It's a communal effort.
So you ignore the golden rule? No, of course you don't. You interpret it as regards the pertinent circumstances. Oh, sorry. It's a communal effort in doing that. But as you're included then we'll go with that.Yeah, let's not forget where such radical statements got Jesus. It's not about social order, because there's no need for such a lofty ideal to establish social order and there are arguably more effective "rules" for social cohesion.
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?