Origin of God's Morality.

[HitchSlap]

Their social group believes it is ok to take another's life for some purpose they feel is right.

Do you feel this way, too?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The point in question isn't debated any longer though. Morals are tied to social life.

I could find debates about this question by many philosophers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you feel this way, too?

I don't, no.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't, no.

Why not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

I don't believe that humans have the right to take a life other than to save yourself or others from harm.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't believe that humans have the right to take a life other than to save yourself or others from harm.

Me either. It would seem we have a starting point for our social group, then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Me ether. It would seem we have a starting point for our social group, then.

You claimed earlier that was not the case.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't have time dispute every stupid comment posted. If you tend to see things in black and white, and use a broad brush to color your perceptions of reality, then there's not much use in correcting you any way, is there?

Then why are you responding to this "stupid comment"? It seems you have more time on your hands than you are willing to admit to wouldn't you say.......

 

[HitchSlap]

Then why are you responding to this "stupid comment"? It seems you have more time on your hands than you are willing to admit to wouldn't you say.......

I'm optimistic to a fault, it would seem.

 

[HitchSlap]

You claimed earlier that was not the case.

You're mistaken.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're mistaken.

You didn't say that the group of murderers presented earlier were not a social group?

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't say that the group of murderers presented earlier were not a social group?

A social group, from your example, does not a society make. You're attempting to inject your straw man into the conversation based on another false equivalency. This comes across as dishonest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A social group, form your example, does not a society make. You're attempting to inject your straw man into the conversation based on another false equivalency. This comes across as dishonest.

You didn't say a society, you said social group:
HitchSlap: Morals are derived from social groups. There is no reason to believe otherwise, and all available evidence suggests this so.
Rather than assume as you do continually that this might be dishonesty in action, I would rather think you might have forgotten what you said?

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the topic of evil, the ancient fathers of the Christian Church quite emphatically objected to cosmic dualism. Good and evil were not seen as equal but opposite cosmic powers in the cosmos (as Zoroastrians and later Manichaeans did); instead evil lacked any objective existence. Therefore evil is not good's opposite, but rather the deprivation of good. In the way that light is actually real, and darkness is the absence or deprivation of light.

Evil, therefore, doesn't have an origin. Satan isn't the source of evil, because the devil is a mere creature. The devil is evil in the same way that Pol Pot was evil. Evil happens when good is rejected, twisted, or otherwise found lacking or distorted. Evil is a malformation. Evil, in a Christian context, is generally seen to arise from the misuse and abuse of the natural passions; and from this bent disposition wherein the passions are misaligned and generally broken comes sin.

It wouldn't thus be, necessarily, accurate to say that "evil ... is directly opposite to His nature"; rather evil is where creatures function out of the good order which God purposed for creation. Since evil has no intrinsic objective existence, it can only exist within the created order, and then only as a malformation, a brokenness, an injury.

There also seems to be a bit of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Chiefly in whether God is beholden to a good outside of God's Self (wherein there must be a power greater than God) or if good is merely the subjective whim of the Deity. A somewhat classical Christian response is that it's neither. Rather God is all sufficiently self contained, and is neither beholden to a power outside of God's Self nor capricious; what is good is good because it is innate to the Divine Essence, but what is good could never be otherwise than what it is. This is important because it means God could never say murder was good, it would be seen as impossible--but what constrains God from saying that murder is good isn't an external power, but God.

-CryptoLutheran

The whole "evil is the lack of good" thing is rather nonsensical when you think about it. There are plenty of situations...plenty of instances that lack any "goodness" and you wouldn't call anyone evil for it. Likewise, there are plenty of things done which people would describe as evil that either also include some good or have nothing to do with good altogether....and cannot lack it in some way.

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't say a society, you said social group:
HitchSlap: Morals are derived from social groups. There is no reason to believe otherwise, and all available evidence suggests this so.
Rather than assume as you do continually that this might be dishonesty in action, I would rather think you might have forgotten what you said?

At what point did you become confused that I as speaking about anything other than society? You knew damn well I wasn't talking about a tea and crumpets group.

 

[Winken]

Evil (the snake) entered the Garden of Eden (the place of perfection), said to Eve, "Is this all there is?" and Eve said "Well........" turned to Adam, who said "Wow......." , which is when (in spite of God's warning) they began to question their existence.

From whence cometh the snake? What was its origin?

 

[Oncedeceived]

At what point did you become confused that I as speaking about anything other than society? You knew damn well I wasn't talking about a tea and crumpets group.

Are you trying to make me believe that social group is the same as society?

Society is a system of usages and procedures of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and divisions, of controls of human behavior and liberties.
Same link as before.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm optimistic to a fault, it would seem.

Yes, definitely to a fault.....

 

[anonymous person]

Of course.

What do you appeal to in order to adjudicate between two opposing social group's views?

 

[civilwarbuff]

A social group, from your example, does not a society make. You're attempting to inject your straw man into the conversation based on another false equivalency. This comes across as dishonest.

You stated "social group" not society.....be truthful here....