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.
It's called a dilemma because people think it's a dilemma; and as long as people think it's a dilemma, it'll stay a dilemma; and as long as it stays a dilemma, people with think it's a dilemma.Sure, why not? It's all good! I guess that's why it's called a "dilemma".
And I suppose you think atheists can also be righteous, justified, sanctified, and consecrated as well --- is that correct?No, there's the "Religious" definition in which the religious claim all good only to themselves.
And with your Bible as "God's word", I could quite easily argue that genocide, rape, and slavery are good (or at least acceptable). I don't quite see how you've got the advantage there.The logic conclusion of good or bad is based on the assumption. For example, without God's word, anything could be argued as good.
It's called a dilemma because people think it's a dilemma; and as long as people think it's a dilemma, it'll stay a dilemma; and as long as it stays a dilemma, people with think it's a dilemma.
And I suppose you think atheists can also be righteous, justified, sanctified, and consecrated as well --- is that correct?
I heard about Bentham, and Maslow, and a couple of others.Well, done and done! Just ignore the dilemma aspect and it all goes away! Yay!
(Did you ever even meander by a philosophy class when you were in college?)
I heard about Bentham, and Maslow, and a couple of others.
The one I can't for the life of me remember, is what they called that study in [I believe it was] Waltham, Mass. where they studied factory workers on their job [or something], and noticed that the factory workers were more productive when watched, than when they weren't --- or something like that.
So, of course, like good little philosophers, they put a name to it.
There's also a term for catch a fish, and over time, one goes from saying he caught a small fish, to he having caught a very large one.
Retroactive Falsification --- I think it's called.
Help me out here, please.
Are you kidding me?Right now you need to:
1. Explain how the Euthyphro Dilemma is not a dilemma
2. Support your claims around morality as somehow requiring God.
Are you kidding me?
Let's go over this again:
- Both --- meaning God ordained it because it is good, and it is good because God ordained it.
- I did already --- by showing [true] morality as coming from a vertical direction --- up.
There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".
Theoretically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.
Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.
Are all athiests immoral? Can we have morality without the "Word of God"?
I don't see how. We seem to be one heck of a lot more moral, on average, than the god of the Old Testament.Of course not. There are many many many moral abiding atheists (it does not mean they are not sinners).
They are so, because they are offsprings of Adam, who is made by God.
You're right --- my apologies --- I used the wrong word here:I think you missed something here:
...
2. You have shown no such definition that morality by necessity includes reference to God. Just saying it is a "vertical" relationship has as much meaning as if I were to say "morality tastes like caramel."
Let me fix it --- and again --- this was my fault ---There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".
Theoretically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.
Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.
There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".
Theologically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.
Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.
You're right --- my apologies --- I used the wrong word here:Let me fix it --- and again --- this was my fault ---
Sure --- I'll get right on it.Let me clarify it: you made a necessary link between morality and God. Support that link with evidence.
You know better than that, Thaumaturgy --- (I hope, anyway).Do you fancy yourself somehow better than everyone else? Why would you tell atheists they can't be moral and then proclaim it is because "morality" is a "theological" issue, and then not back it up.
So you don't actually care why you say things, you just say them, right?
Does it matter to you that others might take umbrage at your "unilateral decrees"? Do you think so little of other people that you don't feel the need to justify your comments about what they can or can't do?
Just curious.
--- and it would help to know the difference.Luke 10:27 said:And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
You know better than that, Thaumaturgy --- (I hope, anyway).
I'm just putting MORAL and ETHICAL in perspective from a theological standpoint.
Jesus called us to be both ------ and it would help to know the difference.
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?