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 could find debates about this question by many philosophers.The point in question isn't debated any longer though. Morals are tied to social life.
I don't believe that humans have the right to take a life other than to save yourself or others from harm.Why not?
You claimed earlier that was not the case.Me ether. It would seem we have a starting point for our social group, then.
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 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?
You didn't say that the group of murderers presented earlier were not a social group?You're mistaken.
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 didn't say that the group of murderers presented earlier were not a social group?
You didn't say a society, you said social group: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.
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
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.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?
Are you trying to make me believe that social group is the same as society?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.
Yes, definitely to a fault.....I'm optimistic to a fault, it would seem.
What do you appeal to in order to adjudicate between two opposing social group's views?Of course.
You stated "social group" not society.....be truthful here....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.
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?