Kirk Cameron says fornication and adultery are bigger problems than gay marriage (God, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For you. The bible is your guide to everything in your life. Not so for others.
The bible has nothing to do with the fact my children are good, kind, human beings. How did that happen? They have not availed themselves of the bible. They have no knowledge of the commandments either. They are the finest human beings I know.
If we are innately hard wired for goodness, then nature and nurture come into play. Chemicals effect our behavior. Why not morals?
If we're all just a chemical reaction, and it's just natural....then how is it wrong to kill someone, in your worldview?
Viz, you've said that you are innately hard-wired with a sense of right and wrong, and that everyone is. Okay. Perhaps that is true. And I believe that as we experience giving and receiving love - as love is "practiced" in our lives - we understand that love and a concern for others is the standard of "right and wrong". You seem to agree; everyone here seems to pretty much agree on that standard.
So ... what are you trying to get at here? What differentiation are you trying to make between what you are saying and what I or others are saying?
Look at the conversation I'm having with RonkonkomaNative. Is morality simply a chemical reaction that is present in the brain? Or is it hard-wired by God? If morality is simply a chemical process, then it's just a process of random chance evolution (assuming you believe in evolution) and no one has a right to declare anyone or anything "immoral".
Look at the conversation I'm having with RonkonkomaNative. Is morality simply a chemical reaction that is present in the brain? Or is it hard-wired by God? If morality is simply a chemical process, then it's just a process of random chance evolution (assuming you believe in evolution) and no one has a right to declare anyone or anything "immoral".
But your question was how anyone decided what was right or wrong. If we all agree that LOVE is the standard of morality, then why does it matter how we each come to that conclusion?
Look at the conversation I'm having with RonkonkomaNative. Is morality simply a chemical reaction that is present in the brain? Or is it hard-wired by God? If morality is simply a chemical process, then it's just a process of random chance evolution (assuming you believe in evolution) and no one has a right to declare anyone or anything "immoral".
If we're all just a chemical reaction, and it's just natural....then how is it wrong to kill someone, in your worldview?
I could no more kill another human being than I could spank a child. I am fully capable of both, but the thought of it is nauseating.
However, if the circumstances were such that my child was in mortal danger, the hormones in my body would turn me into a superhuman Mom, and protector. Once the Adrenalin subsides, I would go back to easy going Mom.
Look at the conversation I'm having with RonkonkomaNative. Is morality simply a chemical reaction that is present in the brain? Or is it hard-wired by God? If morality is simply a chemical process, then it's just a process of random chance evolution (assuming you believe in evolution) and no one has a right to declare anyone or anything "immoral".
This just stood out to me. No one has a "right" to do that in what sense? As a dictator? No, I agree. But we most certainly have the right to determine whether someTHING is immoral based on our common standard of love/keeping the best interest of everyone in mind. People who agree on that standard but find themselves in disagreement on whether or not something in particular is immoral can discuss how it does or does not meet the standard. That's our common ground. What more do you need?
I could no more kill another human being than I could spank a child. I am fully capable of both, but the thought of it is nauseating.
However, if the circumstances were such that my child was in mortal danger, the hormones in my body would turn me into a superhuman Mom, and protector. Once the Adrenalin subsides, I would go back to easy going Mom.
I am innately someone who protects and nurtures.
Good for you. But would it be immoral to do so? If your standard of morality is simply a chemical reaction, how can you suggest that anyone else is immoral to do it?
This just stood out to me. No one has a "right" to do that in what sense? As a dictator? No, I agree. But we most certainly have the right to determine whether someTHING is immoral based on our common standard of love/keeping the best interest of everyone in mind. People who agree on that standard but find themselves in disagreement on whether or not something in particular is immoral can discuss how it does or does not meet the standard. That's our common ground. What more do you need?
What is this "common standard of love/keeping the best interest"? How did we get it? Where did it come from? Was it some cosmic rule book that fell out of the sky one day?
profound. Once again you duck and dodge. No answer? No problem!
Says the Master of all questions and no answers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
