kalm wrote:
Unless he plows his fields in the wrong direction. Then it's smite him I say.
Leviticus is an interesting read, but you cannot take it out of its historical context or, as a Catholic would observe, outside of the text of the entire OT and NT. From the first century forward, many "directives" of the Torah have been deemed inapplicable to the Christian community. To understand why and have a honest exchange over it, it would require far more discussion than can occur here (where one poster at least takes every statement out of context because a fair discussion is something he can't win). Suffice to say there are numerous Gospel passages where Jesus
faults his listeners for their inability to distinguish the civil law of Moses from the Commandments of God.
Well I would hope that's the case, but someone should have told God that he's severely limiting his readership by not making things more easily approachable and user friendly. I would recommend a new publisher if he's going to reach his fullest potential.
Rationality<- the result of evolution in human intellect<- evolution<- natural occurrence
Seeing as rationality is thus a national occurrence and dictates that moral behavior, in treating others as you would like to be treated, is more beneficial to an individual and an individual's species for the sake of personal growth, evolution, survival, and social thriving, one can conclude that morality is thus a natural occurrence.
In other words Morality<-Rationality<-Evolution<-Natural
So, as far I'm concerned, rationality and the instinct to improve one's self is a natural occurrence. When using them together, one can find moral truth. The "gray areas" in today's society (gay marriage, abortion, right to death, even some economic policies, etc), are the result of conflicts in rationality. All sides are aiming to implement a policy that's best for society (because reason dictates that's what's best for society is best for an individual), however they conflict because some believe one viewpoint or philosophy will in turn be better for society (and in turn oneself) than another.
For a government to truly prosper, one must allow the dialogue and discussion of those values and philosophy to take place as well as protect the values and interests that are held common among all of the citizen. If that dialogue and discussion doesn't take place, society and hitherto the species as well as the individual will have limited improvement and evolution, and eventually stop evolving. To stop evolving is to defy the nature of every living creature The reason why it's illegal to murder, slander, steal, and rape is because no one wants to be murdered, slandered, stolen from, and raped. Those values are common and thus they are protected. There's a reason those values are common, because it requires two parties, and we sympathize with the viewpoint of not wanting to be on the side of the victim, and thus we try to prevent that action from happening so it doesn't happen to ourselves as well as it also attributes to the progress and evolution of society in a positive manner if there aren't as many victims.
To the point of Communism and Atheism:
The Communists were not the society they claimed to be, Stalinism is the prime example. Stalin killed political dissenters. He kill them because they threatened his power, or he felt that they would. It was an immoral action because, among many other reasons, he sought to preserve his power and his own interests over the interests and welfare of the people. Communism is atheist, the atheism part wasn't responsible for the murders. The murders were the result of a philosophy that values collectivism, continuity, and unity doing all it can to preserve those values. Religion contradicted those values, as well as the value that the government, was perfect and the key to economic and social prosperity. Religion is a force of division in itself. Because of this, those who were religious were persecuted because they contradicted the values of COMMUNISM, being that of collectivism and the government being almighty, not because of atheism, the lack of belief in a higher power.
In summary:
The social contract is the aspect of modern governments that maintains morality, not the concept of natural law. Sure, there's an expression that states "you can't legislate morality" however I believe that to be false, I believe one cannot legislate personal morality from their own personal life philosophy. The concept of the social contract pretty much embodies that the values that ALL humans hold true are preserved. That's not to say that the government is perfect, for instance some laws are based on that of the majority and not that of the whole and thus they are disputed. In short, our laws come from our rationality, following the laws is moral, disputing the laws are moral as well. I'd love to elaborate on controversial laws like drugs or whatever, but I'd rather use that as a rebuttal or otherwise
That's some impressive reasoning YT, but my guess is ultimately you will find some balance when you get through your college philosophy, morality, and ethics classes.
Saying that man is, one, a highly evolved moral creature and, two, acts "morally" because it is pragmatic to do so, is inconsistent.
kalm wrote:
Unless he plows his fields in the wrong direction. Then it's smite him I say.
Leviticus is an interesting read, but you cannot take it out of its historical context or, as a Catholic would observe, outside of the text of the entire OT and NT. From the first century forward, many "directives" of the Torah have been deemed inapplicable to the Christian community. To understand why and have a honest exchange over it, it would require far more discussion than can occur here (where one poster at least takes every statement out of context because a fair discussion is something he can't win). Suffice to say there are numerous Gospel passages where Jesus faults his listeners for their inability to distinguish the civil law of Moses from the Commandments of God.
Classic christian apologist bullshit - trying to slough off the vengeful, psychotic, genocidal, rapist, slave mongering asshole of a god in the Old Testament. You'd think god would have it right from the beginning.
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17)
Joltin Joe
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
JoltinJoe wrote:
All morality results from what Paul Kurtz writes on his website, so long as enough people sign his petition.
All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.
What else does Leviticus say?
Seriously, God has some explaining to do.
"Well, things got a bit busy and our (Pluralis Majestatis...big-time) Human Resources and Legal Departments were short handed the day some of that stuff was published."
"Well, things got a bit busy and our (Pluralis Majestatis...big-time) Human Resources and Legal Departments were short handed the day some of that stuff was published."
JoltinJoe wrote:
You think Stalinists were Christians?
You gave your opinion as to the lineage of the moral values of some folks that "licensed" them to kill.
I'm asking you to follow the same reasoning and tell me why so many Christians decide to kill, rape, or torture others.
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
Cluck U wrote:
You gave your opinion as to the lineage of the moral values of some folks that "licensed" them to kill.
I'm asking you to follow the same reasoning and tell me why so many Christians decide to kill, rape, or torture others.
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
You just condemned every soldier that killed someone in the line of duty to hell. Curiously enough the leader that ordered them to do it gets a pass in this regard.
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
You just condemned every soldier that killed someone in the line of duty to hell. Curiously enough the leader that ordered them to do it gets a pass in this regard.
kalm wrote:
You just condemned every soldier that killed someone in the line of duty to hell. Curiously enough the leader that ordered them to do it gets a pass in this regard.
Ok, if that's what you got out of what I said ...
Perhaps you should have used the word "murder" instead of "kill". Regardless, who gets to define either?
youngterrier wrote:List examples of people who dilute the gene pool and maybe I can give that comment the attention it deserves
I can't tell if you're serious.
what's relevant or worthy is relative. What you value is different from what others value. There are very few people, if any, that exist, don't get a job and don't interact socially in the world. List someone who does. Your definition of productive and worthy is based on monetary value, and personally I think that's kind of sick.
JoltinJoe wrote:That's some impressive reasoning YT, but my guess is ultimately you will find some balance when you get through your college philosophy, morality, and ethics classes.
Saying that man is, one, a highly evolved moral creature and, two, acts "morally" because it is pragmatic to do so, is inconsistent.
I didn't say that they were a moral creature, I said that we were a rational creature. Some possess a higher ability to use rationality than others, but I think consistently we're more rational on average than we were 500 or 1000, or 10,000 years ago. I believe moral behavior can easily be rationalized while immoral behavior cannot, the reason so much immoral behavior takes place is because of a lack of reason.
So essentially, I'm saying that man is, one, a highly evolved creature that possesses rationality (but is not 100% rational), and, two, acts "morally" because it is to rational to do so (I have no clue what pragmatic means )
Cluck U wrote:
You gave your opinion as to the lineage of the moral values of some folks that "licensed" them to kill.
I'm asking you to follow the same reasoning and tell me why so many Christians decide to kill, rape, or torture others.
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
I disagree. Christianity is a religion of those who follow Christ. Using the bible, the commonly accepted word of God among Christians, those who believe that Christ was the son of God form their own philosophy and "sect" using that scripture. There are multiple sects, with many different beliefs, and the most hard-line for their particular belief can conclude that others are not in that belief are not apart of their religion. For instance, I know of Baptists who don't believe Presbyterians or Methodists or Lutherans are Christians because, according their interpretation of the bible, they don't follow the word of God. Basically, to discard those whose actions and interpretations of scripture are different from your own as "not Christian" would be essentially saying that only those who share your beliefs are in fact Christian. Simultaneously, they can justify their actions with scripture just as well as you can. So how do you justify what is and what is not a Christian? Is it someone who claims to follow Christ and uses scripture to shape their philosophy and actions or is it simply just a matter or perspective in that there is just one righteous path while the others are wrong? Culturally, non-Christians view anyone who claims they follow Christ as Christian. Are they right or are the particular sects whom have their own standards right? Objectively, I believe that one can only conclude that the former is true.
To put it this way, Religion Pigeon says:
Man interprets scripture as he personally believes is righteous and he can justify it to be that way if he is rational. People have different beliefs of righteousness from their personal experiences and thus they will interpret and rationalize scripture accordingly. If Christianity is the righteous path, which sect is righteous afterall? If you're not interpreting scripture the right way, you're not interpreting God's word right and thus you are in the wrong and your actions will be sinful in nature. The mainstream Christian doesn't believe that, instead he decides to play it towards the middle and decide that anyone who believes in Christ and has actions coinciding with the teachings of Christ, he is a Christian. That is, of course, unless the mainstream Christian views another sects beliefs as morally wrong and thus they condemn their actions and beliefs as such. Then the discussion comes down to a discussion about scripture, and I personally believe both sides have a rational interpretation that isn't more "right" than the other. I personally feel like the misogynistics and homophobes have a one up though. But they're all Christian to me.
To the point on Stalin, I can condemn his actions as morally wrong and objectively morally wrong for our species because his actions did not benefit the species, as well as the fact that it made it in the best interest of the soviet people to homogeneous in their political beliefs for the sake of survival, this suppression of thought defies nature and ultimately cannot aid in the evolution of man, but rather devolution instead...... and I personally don't like the concept of someone being able to kill me and thus I condemn the actions of doing said action to others as wrong and strive to prevent such action from happening as a precautionary way to prevent it from happening to me.
JoltinJoe wrote:
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
So let me get this straight...any priest who molests little boys is not a Christian? If so, then why didn't the Church immediately and consistently defrock each and every one of them instead of just shuffle them around allowing them to continue to peddle their “influence” on the flock? And why have so many Christians killed others in wars in the last two thousand years? There may be no atheists in foxholes, but I'm quite sure there were some Christians in Vietnam, Ireland...Christ, they've been just about everywhere.
Wait, I get it...being Christian is sort of like being Superman. Anytime a Christian wants to commit a sin they can conveniently jump into a phone booth, shed their halo, and whomp on the town like a good atheist. After the carnage and mayhem, they slip into a confessional, say a few Hail Mary's, and change back into a mild mannered, church going good guy infused with a sense of moral righteousness from above.
Cripes Joe, you talk about a license to kill. One can easily interpret Catholicism as an enabler of wrong doing. Murder all you want…just be sure to ask for forgiveness and accept Christ and you’ll be rewarded with a seat at the big table - right next to God…unlike that infant that you murdered (poor thing didn’t really have a chance to accept Jesus into his life, but them’s the breaks).
And Joe, you can’t be serious that morality comes from a unified, all-powerful outside source. You know that “outside” moral compass has been spinning wildly for thousands of years…a compass of “greater” good that has only been rooted in the situational ethics of any particular time.
JoltinJoe wrote:
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
So let me get this straight...any priest who molests little boys is not a Christian? If so, then why didn't the Church immediately and consistently defrock each and every one of them instead of just shuffle them around allowing them to continue to peddle their “influence” on the flock? And why have so many Christians killed others in wars in the last two thousand years? There may be no atheists in foxholes, but I'm quite sure there were some Christians in Vietnam, Ireland...Christ, they've been just about everywhere.
Wait, I get it...being Christian is sort of like being Superman. Anytime a Christian wants to commit a sin they can conveniently jump into a phone booth, shed their halo, and whomp on the town like a good atheist. After the carnage and mayhem, they slip into a confessional, say a few Hail Mary's, and change back into a mild mannered, church going good guy infused with a sense of moral righteousness from above.
Cripes Joe, you talk about a license to kill. One can easily interpret Catholicism as an enabler of wrong doing. Murder all you want…just be sure to ask for forgiveness and accept Christ and you’ll be rewarded with a seat at the big table - right next to God…unlike that infant that you murdered (poor thing didn’t really have a chance to accept Jesus into his life, but them’s the breaks).
And Joe, you can’t be serious that morality comes from a unified, all-powerful outside source. You know that “outside” moral compass has been spinning wildly for thousands of years…a compass of “greater” good that has only been rooted in the situational ethics of any particular time.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
Cluck U wrote:
You gave your opinion as to the lineage of the moral values of some folks that "licensed" them to kill.
I'm asking you to follow the same reasoning and tell me why so many Christians decide to kill, rape, or torture others.
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
Uhh, again Simple Joe. Atheism is not a belief, ethical or moral system. Now, there are several humanist standards that could condemn the actions of the communist states. MOF, they were all contained in that document you refused to read or sign.
Victims of tyrants die because they're powerless. Stalin's in particular died primarily due to the extreme ruthlessness coupled with a poor peasant/serf population beaten into submission for centuries by czars and tyrants, many of whom derived their power from the orthodox church. If these people lived by humanist principals, none of that shit would have happened.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
JoltinJoe wrote:
All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.
The Golden Rule is present in the epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest known religions in Mesopotamia, and Zoroastrianism... all predating Leviticus.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
JoltinJoe wrote:
All kidding aside, the oldest known articulation of the "Golden Rule" is the Book of Leviticus, attributed to Moses, who attributed it to God.
The Golden Rule is present in the epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest known religions in Mesopotamia, and Zoroastrianism... all predating Leviticus.
No, wrong. The Epic of Gilgamesh warned only that if one wrongs another, you can expect that they will wrong you back. Unlike Judaism, Zoroastrianism's version of the "Golden Rule," if you want to call it that, only provided that one should not harm others. It did not include any of the concept found in Leviticus that one should perform good deeds toward others.
Be more specific on what religions of Mesopotamia you are speaking about so I can show that you are wrong again.
JoltinJoe wrote:
In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.
On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.
So let me get this straight...any priest who molests little boys is not a Christian? If so, then why didn't the Church immediately and consistently defrock each and every one of them instead of just shuffle them around allowing them to continue to peddle their “influence” on the flock? And why have so many Christians killed others in wars in the last two thousand years? There may be no atheists in foxholes, but I'm quite sure there were some Christians in Vietnam, Ireland...Christ, they've been just about everywhere.
Wait, I get it...being Christian is sort of like being Superman. Anytime a Christian wants to commit a sin they can conveniently jump into a phone booth, shed their halo, and whomp on the town like a good atheist. After the carnage and mayhem, they slip into a confessional, say a few Hail Mary's, and change back into a mild mannered, church going good guy infused with a sense of moral righteousness from above.
Cripes Joe, you talk about a license to kill. One can easily interpret Catholicism as an enabler of wrong doing. Murder all you want…just be sure to ask for forgiveness and accept Christ and you’ll be rewarded with a seat at the big table - right next to God…unlike that infant that you murdered (poor thing didn’t really have a chance to accept Jesus into his life, but them’s the breaks).
And Joe, you can’t be serious that morality comes from a unified, all-powerful outside source. You know that “outside” moral compass has been spinning wildly for thousands of years…a compass of “greater” good that has only been rooted in the situational ethics of any particular time.
You're like that kid in the class didn't do any of the readings and then tries to monopolize the conversation in class. You really don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Worse for you, D1B, the board patsy, agreed with you. By that alone, you're done.
