When two worldviews collide.

[Larniavc]

What gives you the moral authority to decide for them?

But I don’t decide for them. That what the government does.

How do you not know this?

 

[Larniavc]

Yes the gift of salvation is free to those who accept it. It costs belief/faith. And that is a very hard thing for most to pay.

You’ve totally contradicted your self. How can something be a free gift that is too hard to pay for?

 

[o_mlly]

I guess I'll just repost the entire explanation:

According to Joe Goebbels, you only have to repost that 998 more times.

If there is something there with which you disagree then let me know. I'll be happy to discuss it.

Same two old questions to which you have not replied:
1) In your "No Harm, No Foul" moral system, just how is it that the lying husband does the morally good thing?
2) If not evolution theory then from where does the impulse to the heroic self-sacrifice act emanate? Please no more orangutan, polar bear, etc. deflections. (Hint: God is the source of all goodness, even for atheists.)

 

[Aaron112]

You’ve totally contradicted your self. How can something be a free gift that is too hard to pay for?

Suppose someone took you up five miles high in an aeroplane.
Then, they told you "Trust me, jump out".
Would you find that too difficult to do ? (even though you did not pay to be there)

 

[o_mlly]

Who is Joe ?

Chief brainwasher for Adolph.

 

[o_mlly]

The tv commercials for meat tenderizer ?


hahaha , sorry.... now back to 'reality' --- was Joe's quote put somewhere in this thread or forum, or linked ? (to see his view about repost 998 more times .... ? )

"A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"

 

[o_mlly]

The surest way to avoid dumb questions is to avoid posting dumb ideas.

 

[stevevw]

One Truth. There is a war going on for Truth, Justice, and Heaven's Way... ... ...

There is not the one truth we all know is real. Darkness is in the world to stay until Jesus Returns to save His People. Jesus' Word Declares that He Came to save the UNrighteous, not the righteous -- i.e. those in darkness, not those in the light.

When I say a truth that we all know I mean that as the Bible says we know God by what has been made. We know Gods law as its written in our hearts in that those who do not have the law are testamony of this in that their conscience bears witness. But some if not many deny this truth by replacing it with human made truths such as morality is subjective and there is no moral truths yet they act like there is a moral truth and they appeal to naturalistic beliefs to explain things.

That is why secular ideas and Christianity are in conflict because they are conflicting beliefs at the end of the day. Otherwise people would not be so reactionary to Christianity instead of it being just another point of view. If people were so confident of their secular beliefs and ideas like they were the truth they would not be so reactionary. But because they are it points to them knowing Gods truth. Just as Satan knows Gods truth but rejects it and is hostile towards it.

Yes. The 'State' so-called here has said since wwi or wwii that Christianity (Truth) is the enemy of the 'State', and has treated it as such more and more.

Was there some declaration made against Christianity. This seems strange in that I think most Western Nations were still very much Christian around mid century and it wasn't until post 1960s especially through the Institutions that the State began to take a more secular position activity seperating itself from Christian values and beliefs. Though you could say the ground work for this was laid earlier through industrialisation and war.

Or out all together ?

I don't think Christainity will be eradicated altogether from society. Maybe the public square but like in the early days Christianity will be more hidden. In some ways this may create a revival or spiritual awakening because people will be tested and strengthened by their faith.

 

[Larniavc]

Suppose someone took you up five miles high in an aeroplane.
Then, they told you "Trust me, jump out".
Would you find that too difficult to do ? (even though you did not pay to be there)

That situation is not analogous to the situation you described previously.

 

[Bradskii]

Same two old questions to which you have not replied:
1) In your "No Harm, No Foul" moral system, just how is it that the lying husband does the morally good thing?

What did he do that was moral? He cheated on his wife and lied about it. What was the morally good thing?

2) If not evolution theory then from where does the impulse to the heroic self-sacrifice act emanate? Please no more orangutan, polar bear, etc. deflections. (Hint: God is the source of all goodness, even for atheists.)

I'm not going to cut and paste the post yet again. There is a difference between 'you didn't answer the question' and 'I don't like the answer'.

 

[Bradskii]

Just out of the ordinary, recently in the news, a man in a building shot to death someone else who had stood up with a rifle and was opening fire at some of the people present.
Thus one man, the man with a rifle who stood up and was shooting people,
died so that the others could be saved.

Was that murder? Was it harmful to kill that man who was shooting others ?

Was there harm (if there wasn't then there's nothing to discuss)? Yes, there was. A guy was killed. So we move to...
Was it justified?

I think you already intimated that it was. I agree. Therefore, we don't think that it was an immoral act.

That was easy. Got any more?

 

[o_mlly]

What did he do that was moral? He cheated on his wife and lied about it. What was the morally good thing?

Let's get this straight. You claim that your moral system's only principle is that to do harm is wrong unless that harm is justified. If the husband told his wife the truth then she (and he!) would be harmed so he lies. OK by your principle?

I'm not going to cut and paste the post yet again.

The reason you cannot is that there is nothing you can cut and paste from as you never answered the question.

Spare us the "polar bears, snow leopards" deflection and tell us, as a materialist, how we evolved the ability to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of an "acquaintance". (Hint: See the biography of Maximilian Maria Kolbe.)

 

[Bradskii]

Let's get this straight. You claim that your moral system's only principle is that to do harm is wrong unless that harm is justified. If the husband told his wife the truth then she (and he!) would be harmed so he lies. OK by your principle?

The harm was already done when he cheated on her. But then I explained that before. Sorry that you don't like the answer. If you ask someone else maybe they'll give you an answer that you prefer.

The reason you cannot is that there is nothing you can cut and paste from as you never answered the question.

Spare us the "polar bears, snow leopards" deflection and tell us, as a materialist, how we evolved the ability to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of an "acquaintance". (Hint: See the biography of Maximilian Maria Kolbe.)

Maybe rather than me repeating the same answer and you refusing to accept it, maybe you can address it directly and tell us what you specifically disagree with. Otherwise...please don't bother asking again.

 

[o_mlly]

The harm was already done when he cheated on her.

The infidelity act is not the one under examination.

The morality of the act we'd like to know your opinion on is the husband's lie.

Say, he's a disciple of the Bradski moral system. He comes to you and says, "Well, I know you told me I should do no harm but if I do then I must justify that harm. I knew that telling her the truth would harm her deeply. Then, I realized that if I lie to my wife then she (and me!) would not be harmed at all. And, as you say, 'no harm, no foul' so no need to justify my good lie. Right, Brad?" And you say ....

... maybe you can address it ...

If only your pronoun "it" had an antecedent, then I'd be glad to do so.. But It doesn't.

 

[rjs330]

They have to give up everything they were ever taught since birth, by their family, and everyone they knew most likely. Giving up everything
may be impossible, or seem impossible, for most people - or they simply do not want to.

Absolutely and as Jesus said anyone who is not willing to is not worthy of Him.

 

[Kylie]

Do you know the truth? To Christians the Lord Jesus's Christ is the truth, because He is the only one who said 'I am the truth'. He went on to prove it because every word He spoke is true and every prophecy he prophesied has c9me to pass and some are yet to come.

So it's evident we have different views on what the truth actually is, to begin with so we're not going to agree on anything

You'll find I won't be convinced by your admission that you've decided on the result ahead of time. You have dismissed anything that disagrees with your preconceived conclusion before you even know what it is! That's no way to find any real truth.

Real truth comes from looking at reality, seeing what can be tested and verified independently by different people.

 

[Kylie]

One and done? No, that's not how selfish genes work. The genes know that the probability of spreading themselves subsequent to suicide is 0%.

If a "sacrificial-suicide gene" evolved in humans then we would unequivocally see it in our nearest animal ancestors. But we don't.

Why would you see it in other species if it didn't develop until Humans had already evolved?

 

[rjs330]

What did he do that was moral? He cheated on his wife and lied about it. What was the morally good thing?

What did he do that was immoral?

 

[Bradskii]

The infidelity act is not the one under examination.

The morality of the act we'd like to know your opinion on is the husband's lie.


Say, he's a disciple of the Bradski moral system. He comes to you and says, "Well, I know you told me I should do no harm but if I do then I must justify that harm. I knew that telling her the truth would harm her deeply. Then, I realized that if I lie to my wife then she (and me!) would not be harmed at all. And, as you say, 'no harm, no foul' so no need to justify my good lie. Right, Brad?" And you say ....

He has harmed the relationship between them by cheating on her - effectively lying to her. So now he is going to further harm that relationship by lying again. We know the first one wasn't justified (I'm assuming you'd agree). Now we are to decide if that second lie is justified or not. Some might say that he needs to tell the truth to try to mend the relationship. It might, but it might end it and break up their family. Or she may forgive (if not forget) and they live happily ever after. Some might say that if it was a drunken one off and he's ashamed of what he did and repentant then it might be better if she didn't know.

If I knew the couple personally I might take a position. As It's a hypothetical then I can't say which is the better option. It's your couple so maybe you have a hypothetical outcome in mind. Do you think he should tell her the truth?

If only your pronoun "it" had an antecedent, then I'd be glad to do so.. But It doesn't.

If you like, we can do it step by step. Maybe it'll be easier for you to follow. But that's up to you.

Firstly, do you agree that we are social animals?

 

[Bradskii]

What did he do that was immoral?

If you're going to ask trite questions then I'm not going to play.