What strategy is this? Where is this modeled...based on scipture or a concept you may have observed from scipture, either or - I'd be interested to read your answer.
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.
There are different strategy to win souls. To show force is one of them.
Religious believers need not justify their assertions?True morality is NOT up to any justification (no need).
Most atheists do not know that. That is why they are atheists. They need to justify everything they do. (but they can NEVER be consistent in doing that)
Religious believers need not justify their assertions?
Morality is a virtue, and is it's own reward (is self-rewarding). No justification needed.
What strategy is this? Where is this modeled...based on scipture or a concept you may have observed from scipture, either or - I'd be interested to read your answer.
Absolutely no such deal. If you're allowed to do it (get personal), I am allowed to do it.
I didn't answer the question either way. I was saying that the term murder itself implies a moral judgment. No need to ask if you already have the answer in the wording of the question.
After thinking about it a little more I take that back though. It actually only implies the unlawful killing of a person and not necessarily the wrongful or immoral killing of a person. So it might be a legitimate question. My view on that issue is still irrelevant to the question of if that post represented a shallow understanding of Daoism or not though.
Personally I've been trying harder not to view the world through a moral lens all the time and to be less judgmental. I'm not going to indulge here.
RE: Hans he is the guy I quoted in the post you said represented a shallow understanding of Taoism.
Religious believers need not justify their assertions?
Don´t know if that demonstrates a shallow understanding of Daoism - but it demonstrates a shallow understanding of evolution theory, for sure.In fact, the theory of evolution is the one western philosophy (no science argument) mostly related to the philosophy of Daoism. For example, it is moral to a Daoist that a strong guy kills a weak guy regardless of reason. In Daoism, this is so-called 天命 (or sort of "fate")
It is certainly convenient to your argument to disagree. Not only do you not have the statistics, you weren't there and didn't see what happened.Syd the Human said:I doubt that having children out of wedlock was "unthinkable" or uncommon. But I don't have the statistics so I can't really challenge that statement.
Oh? Can you cite a source for that partial definition? Then, of course, the term 'hurt' must be defined.Syd the Human said:But I think I can see how morals have changed. Morality is about not hurting other people, if it doesn't hurt someone else then it's not immoral.
Syd, I - and every other payer of income tax - are 'hurt' by the imposition of taxes for the purpose of paying for those dependent children. Part of what I earned is removed from my account to pay for 'dependent' children. This is not 'charity' on my part, but a forceful appropriation of my work to feed, clothe and house others. But you say that doesn't 'hurt' me. If the people my tax monies feed came and took it by force, under threat of armed violence - as any government does in reality - that act would be considered armed robbery.Syd the Human said:That's why (why I think why) people don't consider having a child out of wedlock a bad thing, is having a child really that harmful to society or to other people?
Perhaps we should regulate the number of children born to anyone who cannot support them appropriately. Please note court case in Ohio regarding this concept: Ohio dad can't have more kids until he pays off child support, court says | Fox NewsSyd the Human said:And if it is, should we then regulate the number of children? I'm not saying you're saying that, just so you know.
Correct but incomplete; there is not such thing as a fixed, absolute moral code apart from a fixed, absolute moral code Giver.KCfromNC said:Yep, all good evidence that there's no such thing as a fixed absolute moral code.
As of when, KC? At one point in the past, the U.S. was predominantly populated by people who were Christian or subscribed to Christian values. That has changed radically in the past thirty years. Anyone who cares to look can find mainstream Christianity still does not endorse extra or non marital sexual relations or procreation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that conduct violates the moral standards and teaching. If you don't understand that, any further discussion is going to be pointless.KCfromNC said:Weird. The US is like 80% Christian. How can this change be significant and and simultaneously be limited to non-Christians?
Which means those who possess a 'higher' level of moral development simply make up their own decisions as they proceed? I do believe that is the basic argument of Charles Manson. It was certainly the functional belief of people like Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin and others of that ilk.KCfromNC said:Some people rely on authority to dictate moral decisions, but that's a pretty low level of moral development.
That's a cute trick question. Can you demonstrate an "...objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of ..." much anything in the history of atheism? (Other than the general consensus of 'we don't want no god person'.)KCfromNC said:Are you implying that Christianity has an objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of slavery that has never changed in the history of the religion?
But it doesn't work that way.Huntun said:Acting compassionately doesn't necessarily require a thought out intellectual justification or a theory of morality. Humans generally don't like suffering and they are able to feel empathy. Add those two and compassionate actions are likely to take place with or without a theory of morality.
How successful the compassionate action turns out to be in terms of helping the person in question may very well be dependent on knowledge of cause and effect both long and short term. I wouldn't argue against that. Knowing something about proper nutrition or probable outcomes of certain actions and developing a well thought out theory of morality are two different things though. Many people behave in ways that could be considered kind, altruistic, self sacrificing etc... on a regular basis without knowing the first thing about theories of ethics - virtue ethics, divine command ethics, deontological ethics, etc.. Even monkeys have been known to evidence such behavior. I think we have certain natural predispositions that don't necessarily require theorizing for their existence.One's child is crying because the child wants a candy bar. 'Acting compassionately' directs the parent to accede to the child's wishes and give a candy bar? Perhaps the parent should act compassionately by observing the principles of proper diet?
You must have me confused with someone else.Gads. I am overwhelmed with a faction who claims to be superior in intellect and rational thought and simultaneously refuses to consider the ramifications of actions. A faction who points to 'laws' of nature and then assiduously ignores the laws of nature.
That's a cute trick question. Can you demonstrate an "...objectively correct universally agreed-upon answer to the question of ..." much anything in the history of atheism? (Other than the general consensus of 'we don't want no god person'.)
I find atheists very quick to tell me that all atheists are 'different' and therefore no generalities can be made.
Of course, at the same time, you - as an atheist - refuse to understand that all people who claim the title of Christian are different.
The fact remains, it was mainstream Christianity that started the abolition movement
Don´t know if that demonstrates a shallow understanding of Daoism - but it demonstrates a shallow understanding of evolution theory, for sure.
Any morals which a (true) atheist has, are derived from nature.
They are of natural law, which is of God
Like it or not all morals then derive from God.
They are instilled from birth within conscience.
The atheist won't believe this.
They'll go to great lengths to explain why this is so much hooey, but the explanations are lacking. At least to my ears.
I suppose that could be just as much a fault of my ignorance of atheist natural law, and where the genesis of it comes from in their reasoned opinions.
No. If God says so, do it.
Very simple.
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?