»True morality doesn't change. The bible is divine!«
|
|||
 Fatpie42: Muslims take the laws of the Old Testament far more seriously than Christians do Probably because they still believe that we are under the old law. Fatpie42: Morality is more popular than ever. Hence the growing interest to deny religion-fuelled bigotry against people of minority races and sexualities. First off, bigotry against minority races was fueled to a greater degree due to secularism (Hitler's social Darwinism) than it ever has by religion. Secondly, as usual, you confuse actual morality with your half-breed morality which you label "tolerance." Homosexuality is immoral based on any form of traditional morality. Only when one takes the secular view that "tolerance" is the only moral, can you confuse abstainance from sexual perversions with a bigoted act. Tolerance can be a virtue. However, it is hardly ever purely motivated in today's society. Most of the time, it is the immoral groups which push for "tolerance" so they may continue in their immorality. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsTrue morality doesn't change. The bible is divine! |
|
|||
 stinkz: Fatpie42: Muslims take the laws of the Old Testament far more seriously than Christians do Probably because they still believe that we are under the old law. I agree with you there. Unsurprisingly I do not agree with you on any other point. At least there is some small degree of common ground here. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is most certainly not surprising that you agree with no other point. I doubt anyone here will, though it is obviously true. Everyone here blindly believes the secularist ethic which is being pushed on people from a very young age by government-run secular schools. However, there is no backing for this ethic, and no reason to believe it other than "it's what I've been taught." I'm surprised that so many people are comfortable with believing it this way. If there is no basis on the supernatural, or on ancient writings, or on at least the belief in one over-arching moral law which governs all humanity, then any morality is just the creation of the rulers and conditioners of the society... and by following you are merely a slave. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: If there is no basis on the supernatural, or on ancient writings, or on at least the belief in one over-arching moral law which governs all humanity, then any morality is just the creation of the rulers and conditioners of the society... and by following you are merely a slave. Or it is a morality of one's own choosing. I don't see how using a morality from an ancient text is any better than following the trends of modern times. Isn't following the old law of the old testament simply following ancient texts? And didn't Jesus ask his followers to look to their own conscience instead? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fatpie42: Or it is a morality of one's own choosing. Well, you tell me. Does the fact that everyone spews the same thing sound like volition, or conditioning? Fatpie42: I don't see how using a morality from an ancient text is any better than following the trends of modern times. I can see one reason why following ancient texts would be much better. It suggests that there is one moral law which is unchangable. It seems to me that we have a different understanding of what morality is. Morality is rational. It is like mathematics. It is not something which differs signifigantly from one person to another, except in degree of understanding. This is why one can always look to their conscience, for it always has a glimpse of the truth. It may not have the full picture. In fact, some people have become so corrupt, that they don't even see evil deeds such as murder to be wrong. The conscience is not merely what one "feels" at a particular moment. If it were, it would not be rational. I might "feel" like doing evil as often as good. However, the conscience is what lets us know we're wrong. The feeling that "I'm a good person" is, at all times, only a prideful, self-imposed delusion. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Morality is unchanging eh? IMO → What if scripture were followed without question? Secular morality is motivated for a care for human beings. Care for human beings naturally causes certain responses, but there are still the same issues (abortion, euthanasia etc.). These issues are just as much a problem for religious people as they are for secular people. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Morality is unchanging eh? Yes. fatpie42: Secular morality is motivated for a care for human beings. And, care for human beings is the small portion of real morality that the secularist morality was based on. However, this leaves out things like personal purity, as we can definitely see. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Morality is more popular than ever. Proof? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
How come my points about whether it is the conscience as opposed to the the old testament laws which defines morality is offtopic, when your talk of cannabalism is perfectly acceptable, knn? Stinkz and I have agreed that the old testament laws are what makes Islam seperate from Christianity. I can't help it that Stinkz is changing the topic to secular morality. I was about the ask Stinkz why, if morality is about old scriptural laws which never change, what does he say to questions like: A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14) Blatantly the old testament laws are no use in modern society and even Stinkz accepts that they are not important for Christians (and yet ARE important for muslims). And even so he says morality is unchanging? What is the meaning of this ridiculous contradiction. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: And even so he says morality is unchanging? What is the meaning of this ridiculous contradiction. Fatpie. Some of the laws in the old testament, be they ceremonial or civil, do not necessarily apply today. However, these outworkings are not the main thrust of the moral law. The ten commandments are as valid today as they have ever been. And, one will find, when looking at many different civilizations, fewer differences in the underlying morality than he might expect. One of my science professors here at the university admitted that we MUST fall back on ancient moral writings. And he even admitted that it was a strong evidence for their supernatural origin. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: One of my science professors here at the university admitted that we MUST fall back on ancient moral writings. And he even admitted that it was a strong evidence for their supernatural origin. What so you think I'm going to accept his opinion because he's a scientist? YOU could be a scientist and I STILL would not agree. The fact that you find it so amazing that a scientist would agree with you shows how outdated your position must be. So when is my execution to be scheduled for breaking commandment number one? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: The fact that you find it so amazing that a scientist would agree with you shows how outdated your position must be. No, silly. I am amazed because he is a college professor. Most of the professors happen to be liberal-minded fools who couldn't make it in the real world. This guy, who was merely standing in as an honors speech teacher, seemed to have some credentials. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You seem to have missed the point. Your so-called "unchanging morality" makes me worthy of the death-penalty merely for my 'childish scepticism'. Do you really think that is something that should be enforced? If not, then how do we decide between what is still a valid unchanging moral law and what needs some clarification for modern times? (I expect an answer. I am not just mocking you!) I am quite unsurprised that a scientist should have Christian views. I am also unsurprised that a man with the professor title should be a Christian. It is far from unheard of. As I have mentioned before (to Knn - he wasn't convinced) often the study of science and the first-hand obsevation of the complexity of nature which it involves will make a scientist religious. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: how do we decide between what is still a valid unchanging moral law and what needs some clarification for modern times? I hear these same arguments over and over. Many times people will quote the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" argument, and say that plucking a guy's eye out would be "cruel or unusual punishment." However, the moral principle is Justice, which has always been, and will always be a part of humanity. fatpie42: I am quite unsurprised that a scientist should have Christian views. He is by no means a Christian. And those are, by no means, strictly Christian views. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am sure that you do not wish to openly say "kill him! kill him!", but I should still like to know whether you think, in a perfect society, I should be put to death for my denial of God's existence and sovereignty. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 22:03 php B.B. |