Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   King David found guilty on all counts.
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 106 of 174 (377915)
01-18-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
01-18-2007 10:56 AM


Re: model of morality?
That's the problem. You're assuming that if God did it, "He must have had a good reason", even if we don't understand the reason. You're assuming that God made a "good" decision in choosing David, even if we can't see the good in it.
I am not assuming it, I am hoping for it. I really don't know God's intentions, and how He defines good and bad. I have mentioned I am in the middle about this, only because I just don't know what God deems good or bad. I do know that it is bad, as far as we see it.
What I'm saying is that it was a bad choice and therefore God probably didn't make it.
This is the problem. Your basing "bad" on your narrow minded view of bad. Many years ago it was bad to be a heritic, and you could get hanged for it. Our view of what is good and bad constantly changes. If we knew heaven existed, and what God's reasons might have been, then maybe you wouldn't call it a bad choice.
If you elect somebody you know is going to repress blacks, homosexuals, etc., then that repression is your responsibility. If he does what you don't expect, then you certainly have a reponsibility to not elect him to a second term.
Just because God allows things to happen doesn't make Him responsible. This is not a new arguement. It's the whole free will thing.
Like I said, since God created everything, then everything is His fault, right? And if He created everything, then He did choose David.
If God knew he would break the law, He shouldn't have chosen him.
That's an opinion, based on what little we know about David, the other choices that could have been made, and the universe in general.
If He didn't know, He wouldn't be God.
If He didn't let man have free will, then we wouldn't be humans.
The sensible conclusion is that God didn't choose David.
Does this assume God exists, and knows all that can happen?
No. I am trying to say that God would have made the best passible choice from a pool of imperfect humans.
Maybe He did.
Do you seriously believe that David was the best possible choice?
How can I possibly know the answer to that question?
Do you seriously believe there was nobody in Israel who would not commit adultery and murder?
Judging from the stories in the OT, and studying the way things were back then, I kind of doubt it. It seems throughout the OT, man in general was not satisfied with just one woman, and it got to the point the God had to step in and say, now you only should be with just one. Kings with 500 wives, would still go and steal their brothers wives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 01-18-2007 10:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 12:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 107 of 174 (377916)
01-18-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taz
01-18-2007 12:38 PM


Re: model of morality?
God is responsible for everything, since He created everything.
He put David in charge. David knows the law, and knows what God would do to Him, if he broke it, yet David did it anyway, so God punished him.
Here is what the commentary says about that verse, so you can better understand, and represents that verse more accurately than you have throughout this thread:
quote:
12:1-14 God will not suffer his people to lie still in sin. By this parable Nathan drew from David a sentence against himself. Great need there is of prudence in giving reproofs. In his application, he was faithful. He says in plain terms, Thou art the man. God shows how much he hates sin, even in his own people; and wherever he finds it, he will not let it go unpunished. David says not a word to excuse himself or make light of his sin, but freely owns it. When David said, I have sinned, and Nathan perceived that he was a true penitent, he assured him his sin was forgiven. Thou shalt not die: that is, not die eternally, nor be for ever put away from God, as thou wouldest have been, if thou hadst not put away the sin. Though thou shalt all thy days be chastened of the Lord, yet thou shalt not be condemned with the world. There is this great evil in the sins of those who profess religion and relation to God, that they furnish the enemies of God and religion with matter for reproach and blasphemy. And it appears from David's case, that even where pardon is obtained, the Lord will visit the transgression of his people with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. For one momentary gratification of a vile lust, David had to endure many days and years of extreme distress.
We constantly pay for the sins of others in this life, you should have realized that by now. God allows it to happen. Or, in your case, there is no God. There is no battle between good and bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 01-18-2007 12:38 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 01-19-2007 12:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 108 of 174 (377921)
01-19-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by riVeRraT
01-18-2007 11:36 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
Our view of what is good and bad constantly changes.
Well, yes and no. Mostly no.
We're talking about David comitting adultery and David committing murder. There is nothing "iffy" about those crimes. They were specifically forbidden by the Ten Commandments. David knew that.
There is no question in this case that what he did was "bad".
Just because God allows things to happen doesn't make Him responsible.
We're not talking about God "allowing something to happen". We're talking about God actively choosing an a**hole to be king of Israel. Yes, that does make Him responsible. David's free will doesn't enter into it at all.
I'm trying to "make God look good" here by suggesting that the story just claims that God chose David. If you're not a literalist, why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the Bible might not be literally true?
And if He created everything, then He did choose David.
That doesn't follow at all. If God created everything, does that mean that He chose what you had for supper tonight?
We all exercise our free will. If God chose to put an a**hole like David in a position where David would freely choose adultery and murder, then God would be an a**hole too.
If God knew he would break the law, He shouldn't have chosen him.
That's an opinion, based on what little we know about David, the other choices that could have been made, and the universe in general.
It's an opinion that puts God in a better light than your opinion does.
Why not give God the benefit of the doubt?
Do you seriously believe that David was the best possible choice?
How can I possibly know the answer to that question?
Read the question. I didn't ask if David "was" the best choice. I asked if you "believe" David was the best choice.
You can believe he was the best choice, you can believe he was not the best choice or you can be unsure what you believe. It's not an impossible question.
Once more, I'm saying that maybe God didn't choose David. Maybe David chose David. In that case, God would not be responsible for what David did.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 11:36 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 12:19 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 109 of 174 (377923)
01-19-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brian
01-18-2007 1:12 PM


Re: model of morality?
According to Bush, God told him to invade Iraq!
I have not heard that one before, and I would like you to back that up with documentation. If Bush did declare that, then that is another strike against Bush in my eyes.
So, where do the people that preach on the street about homosexuality, single parents etc. get their ideas from?
From there own warped minds. If they didn't believe in God, then they would just find something else to be annoying about.
Not every Christian condemns homosexuality you know.
Where do Christians get the idea from that homosexuality is wrong?
From the same book that tells you that all sin is wrong, and that we are sinners, and all sin is equal. So they are just hypocrites.
Also, what crime would a baby that is a few minutes old have committed?
Nothing, but it wasn't the babies that were being punished. You do not know where these babies are now.
Really, I find it quite easy, maybe you should read a bit more about it.
I do read a lot about it, but I really wish I could experience it. But then again, I am glad I don't have too. I think you can't really understand it fully unless you were there. Our understanding of it, is only as good as the next discovery.
It is a shame you have no pity for the parents whose children were taken from them by a petty barbarian.
Of course I have pity for them. I have pity for everyone, including myself. You cannot call God a petty barbarian if you don't understand Him. As a matter of fact, you can't call God anything, you don't believe in Him, so the only thing you are trying to do, is to stir up emotion, instead of using logic. A poor debating tactic, and it does not lead to intelligent conversation. It is one of the reasons why I find you so full of shit. But that doesn't mean I do not like you.
Why do I have to believe in the afterlife?
You don't have to, but if your scientifical at all, you should be open to the possibility, and not be claiming that it doesn't exist at all.
Now if the only way God can get the Hebrews out of Egypt is to kill little babies then that God is not only sick, but is also a complete moron.
LoL, it worked...
Any god worth his salt could just have blinked the Egyptians out of existence, or transported all the Hebrews out of there with a wave of his ”hand’. But to go through the histrionics of sending plagues then eventually killing countless children is ludicrous.
Maybe God should have just taken away their video games...
A wee bit of a slap from a couple of Romans, then a few lashes is hardly immense suffering to an immortal being.
Good then, you agree with me. Since we are all immortal, relatively speaking those babies did not experience any suffering. Get your thoughts straight.
Indeed. It is to do with the resilience of the human race, we know we have to get on with things so we do.
Yes, I feel that way also, but some people just commit suicide.
But by ignoring why he did things you are justifying horrendous behaviour.
I am not ignoring it.
Why would you want to worship a God that slaughters innocent babies? Why would anybody?
So He doesn't slaughter mine? (if I lived in the OT)
The God I worship, does not currently slaughter babies, and forgives people, past, present, and future. That is the God I worship.
but are you so desperate for God to be good that you are willing to ignore the texts and make up any excuse to keep that fantasy intact?
So it is an exuse when I say, I do not understand God?
It's not like I don't ask the same questions you do, and I do seek those answers. But I can see that it is entirely possible for me to not understand God, after all He is the creator of the Universe, and we are all just his babies.
You desire to be on the same level as God. The bible says you must humble yourself. That is not an easy thing for you, or I to do. But I have experienced in my life that humbling yourself, does indeed get you closer to God. I have experiences small doses of His goodness, and the experiences were so eye opening, and full of revelation, that I now can't even imagine the fullness of His goodness, and I can start to understand why people dropped dead in His presence.
You do not get a "get out of bad things in life on earth card" if you start believing in God.
But he intervenes in peoples lives! He brings bad things into your life, if we are to believe the Bible at least.
Isn't that what I just said?
As I said, a couple of hours on a cross is hardly a great sacrifice for an immortal being. Jesus sacrifice is way overestimated.
He also took on the weight of everyones sin, a thing that you or I could not even begin to imagine.
Everything will bring you back to God, you are so determined to keep this fantasy alive that you will delude yourself at every opportunity.
Just so you know, I am 41 years old, and I only really belleived in God the last 3 years. I am not so hell bent on mantaining a fantasy. Save your preaching for the fundies out there who do not get it.
No, we free thinkers do not learn anything from God
There is no such thing as a free thinker.
and the only thing we learn from the Bible is that it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.
Bored now.
Of course you are, you finished convincing yourself there is no God, no matter what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 01-18-2007 1:12 PM Brian has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 110 of 174 (377925)
01-19-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
01-19-2007 12:00 AM


Re: model of morality?
There is no question in this case that what he did was "bad".
I have never questioned that, throughout this entire thread.
I'm trying to "make God look good" here by suggesting that the story just claims that God chose David. If you're not a literalist, why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the Bible might not be literally true?
Ok, I agree to that. It's possible.
You can believe he was the best choice, you can believe he was not the best choice or you can be unsure what you believe. It's not an impossible question.
I have said that I am unsure a few times now. Because I just can't answer some of the questions posed in this thread.
Once more, I'm saying that maybe God didn't choose David. Maybe David chose David. In that case, God would not be responsible for what David did.
I understand what your saying, but it is hard for me to accept that more, than, God just choosing David. God choose me to be a worship leader in my church. I would have choose somebody else over me, and I feel underqualified, yet I am there. I hurt peoples feelings to much with the way I am, and that is no way to be, when your a worship leader. Like I said, no where in the bible does it say that God makes perfect choices (in our eyes) and many of God's choices turn out in similiar fashion. So if I discount David's story, then I must discount all the stories.
Plus for me, I think its the moral of the story that is more important. I think everyone here agrees on the moral of the story, and that is, if God gives you a lot, you should be respectful of that, otherwise you stand to loose a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 12:00 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 12:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 174 (377926)
01-19-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by riVeRraT
01-18-2007 11:42 PM


Re: model of morality?
More lies from you. That's not what you said before. You said god allowed 20 thousand people to die. The passage clearly stated that god MADE 20 thousand people to die.
I don't get this. You think you can go to heaven by lying for jesus?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 11:42 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 4:14 PM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 112 of 174 (377931)
01-19-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by riVeRraT
01-19-2007 12:19 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
God choose me to be a worship leader in my church. I would have choose somebody else over me, and I feel underqualified, yet I am there.
That's one way of telling it is God's choice - if it disagrees with yours.
Read the history. David wasn't exactly a shrinking violet about accepting the crown. He wanted it. Don't be too sure that God wanted him to have it.
So if I discount David's story, then I must discount all the stories.
Not at all. If you recognize the possibility that David's story isn't literally true then you must also recognize the possibility that the other stories are not literally true. That's what it means to not be a literalist.
But that isn't "discounting" the stories at all. It's recognizing that the stories have more value than just old news. Yesterday's news is only good for wrapping fish and lining birdcages.
Have some respect for the real value of the stories.
I think everyone here agrees on the moral of the story, and that is, if God gives you a lot, you should be respectful of that, otherwise you stand to loose a lot.
That's "a" moral of the story - I'm not sure it's "the" moral.
Another way of looking at is that people who have a lot didn't necessarily get it from God. They may have taken it in spite of God.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 12:19 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 4:22 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 113 of 174 (378121)
01-19-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Taz
01-19-2007 12:20 AM


Re: model of morality?
I guess the bible says He did both, made them die, although you still haven't provided the verse cantaining the word 20,000. And He allowed it to happen.
This is all according to the bible. I still won't pretend to know why it happened, only that it is possible that it was for the good, even though it appears bad to us.
You can stop the accussations now, please....I have never lied in this forum, not in over 4000 posts, so don't call me one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 01-19-2007 12:20 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 01-19-2007 5:42 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 114 of 174 (378123)
01-19-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ringo
01-19-2007 12:35 AM


Re: model of morality?
That's one way of telling it is God's choice - if it disagrees with yours.
Read the history. David wasn't exactly a shrinking violet about accepting the crown. He wanted it. Don't be too sure that God wanted him to have it.
So them you understand what I am saying, when I say that God does indeed choose people who are "not perfect" for the job?
Not at all. If you recognize the possibility that David's story isn't literally true then you must also recognize the possibility that the other stories are not literally true. That's what it means to not be a literalist.
Of course I recognize that. But when I say I am not a literalists, it's not because I think those stories did not happen, it is because I realize that those stories which took years to take place, and are summed up in a few paragraphs, do not contain all the details, and since the bible has been translated so many times, that all the "facts" or the way it was written, may have contradictions with in it, that lead people to miss the actual point of the story.
Have some respect for the real value of the stories.
Of course. I am also starting to think that God intended the bible to be entirely subjective. I think that is the power of the living word.
People read the bible every year, and every year they find something new about it, or interpret it differently than previous years. I think God intended it that way, so we could use it to grow in Him. Sooner or later, we may find out that there are actual absolute morals within the words of the bible. But we all have to grow first, and that may include mis-interpreting the bible at times.
Another way of looking at is that people who have a lot didn't necessarily get it from God. They may have taken it in spite of God.
Are you talking about David taking the woman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 12:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 5:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 115 of 174 (378129)
01-19-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by riVeRraT
01-19-2007 4:22 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
So them you understand what I am saying, when I say that God does indeed choose people who are "not perfect" for the job?
God has only "not perfect" people to choose from - but He has a responsibility to choose the best of the "not perfect".
That's why I keep saying: If the person is clearly not the best person for the job - e.g. David - then there's a very good chance that he was not God's choice.
But when I say I am not a literalists, it's not because I think those stories did not happen....
If you believe the stories did happen and only a few details are missing, you are a literalist.
A non-literalist believes that it doesn't matter if the stories happened or not - the "actual point of the story" has nothing to do with whether or not it literally happened.
Another way of looking at is that people who have a lot didn't necessarily get it from God. They may have taken it in spite of God.
Are you talking about David taking the woman?
No. I'm talking about David taking the crown.
I don't believe for a split second that God chose David.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 4:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 5:42 AM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 116 of 174 (378136)
01-19-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
01-19-2007 4:14 PM


Re: model of morality?
riverrat writes:
guess the bible says He did both, made them die, although you still haven't provided the verse cantaining the word 20,000. And He allowed it to happen.
I don't think there is any doubt today that Hitler was responsible for the holocaust. Yet, you won't find a single document that said hitler killed those people.
I am accusing you of lying because you are being intellectually dishonest by playing dumb and being dense. Again, here is the passage I have been trying to get through your thick skull.
2 Samuel 12:11
quote:
"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "
Hitler called it the Final Solution. We call it the Holocaust.
God said he was going to cause great "calamity". The civil war, which god admitted to have caused, killed 20 thousand people.
But wait, there's more. Your playing dumb won't at all admit that god himself admit to making David's son rape David's wives.
You are lying because you are playing dumb and being dense. Essentially, this is like trying to argue hitler didn't kill 6 million jews because hitler never said "I will kill 6 million jews." All hitler said was referring it as the final solution.
You are either intellectually incapable of thinking beyond the 4th grade level or you are just playing dumb hoping to get a ticket into heaven.
But for the benefit of the doubt, please use the passage I am referring to and tell us how you interpret that. Tell us how that is not god's confession that he caused the death of 20 thousand people and the rape of david's wives? Please, tell us how god had nothing to do with it.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : Blew up and underlined "I am" just in case it's too small for riverrat to see.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 4:14 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 5:46 AM Taz has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 174 (378379)
01-20-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
01-17-2007 11:25 PM


Re: more nonsense
Again just plain silly. Of course morality has changed. Stop posting just plain nonsense.
Every example of morality changing has been refuted by me, care to add another piece to be dealt with?
They say that humans are more moral in issues such as slavery and genocide but this argument is based in ignorance because these things still exist freely in the societies which they say are morally superior.
And there is the basic fallacy of your argument. There is no such thing as humankind morality. Humankind is a collection of individuals, cultures, societies and communities. Morality is something involving an individual.
I would argue that all cultures and societies stand by the same moral principles which all humans have and share and that disruptions in this standard are abnormalities dealing with those who live for themselves and begin to do things in their societies at the expense of their fellow humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 01-17-2007 11:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ringo, posted 01-20-2007 2:07 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 119 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 2:14 PM joshua221 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 118 of 174 (378383)
01-20-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by joshua221
01-20-2007 2:02 PM


Re: more nonsense
prophex writes:
They say that humans are more moral in issues such as slavery and genocide but this argument is based in ignorance because these things still exist freely in the societies which they say are morally superior.
You're just mangling the definition of slavery for your own purposes. That doesn't constitute a refutation by any stretch.
And you still haven't explained what any of that has to do with the story of David.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 2:02 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 174 (378384)
01-20-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by joshua221
01-20-2007 2:02 PM


Re: more nonsense
Every example of morality changing has been refuted by me, care to add another piece to be dealt with?
They say that humans are more moral in issues such as slavery and genocide but this argument is based in ignorance because these things still exist freely in the societies which they say are morally superior.
What?
Morally superior? Please point out where I made any such rediculous claim?
Please point out where I consider slavery moral?
I would argue that all cultures and societies stand by the same moral principles which all humans have and share and that disruptions in this standard are abnormalities dealing with those who live for themselves and begin to do things in their societies at the expense of their fellow humans.
I don't doubt that you would make such a fool argument. Does it have any meaning? If so, yuo have hidden it well.
What does that have to do with my comment?
jar writes:
And there is the basic fallacy of your argument. There is no such thing as humankind morality. Humankind is a collection of individuals, cultures, societies and communities. Morality is something involving an individual.
Morality is nothing more than an agreed social behavior standard. Morality changes with culture, era and society. It is dynamic and like all other knowledge, learned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 2:02 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 2:54 PM jar has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 174 (378396)
01-20-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
01-20-2007 2:14 PM


Re: more nonsense
jar writes:
What?
Morally superior? Please point out where I made any such rediculous claim?
Please point out where I consider slavery moral?
This argument has been given by those who think morality to be on the rise. Nations who purportedly would never be involved with genocide and slavery. Usually referring to the United States and other industrialized and "more advanced" nations.
To deny slavery's existence is ignorance to the sweatshops which manufacture all of your clothing.
And no this does not do a disservice to "real" slavery as they are both atrocious and both should not exist but human morality has NOT changed and still allows such behavior. Self-service.
jar writes:
I don't doubt that you would make such a fool argument. Does it have any meaning? If so, yuo have hidden it well.
What does that have to do with my comment?
jar writes:
Morality is nothing more than an agreed social behavior standard. Morality changes with culture, era and society. It is dynamic and like all other knowledge, learned.
You said morality is learned and I argue that it is an attribute which all humans are born with in their nature, the ability to discern right from wrong; the nature of humans becomes something which is morally unjust when individuals decide to act wrongly for their own benefit. This ability of morality is something which all humans have. It is taught within a culture or society to prevent individuals from deciding to act unjustly for themselves when in reality they are not living a good life but one filled with false happiness and glory.
It has everything to do with your post because you are arguing that humans are bland and blank creatures without a morally sensitive conscience. Humans are born with conscience. Conscience at least is the word which I have attempted to describe; this is the difference between your view and mine.
Therefore a mankind standard for morality must exist for we each have the ability to discern what is right and what is wrong.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 2:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 3:00 PM joshua221 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024